Cambridge – The Washington Free Beacon weighs in on the latest developments in the case of Czerwienski v. Harvard.
Tag: John Comaroff
-
Free Beacon reports on petition
Reporter Aaron Sibarium covers higher education issues for The Washington Free Beacon. He reports on the petition being promoted by the Harvard Graduate Students Union to pressure the University.
-
Comaroff Attorneys Object to Union Petition
Cambridge – John Comaroff’s attorneys object to a Harvard Graduate Student Union petition now circulating that demands sanctions and shunning, and threatens tenure revocation, on the basis of mere allegations. Attorney Ruth O’Meara-Costello expresses shock that HLS law students and a HLS law professor have joined in the witch-hunt tactics.
See letter here:
Statement from Ruth O’Meara-Costello protesting union petition
-
Harvard Files Response to Amended Complaint
Cambridge – On July 19, 2022, Harvard University filed an amended motion to dismiss Counts 1 through 9 of the complaint in Czerwienski v. Harvard University, with supporting documents, including an amended Memorandum of Law stating its legal arguments in support of the motion. It also submitted an amended motion for partial summary judgment on Count 10 of the complaint, supported by a new Statement of Material Facts, a new Memorandum of Law, and Exhibits, including several that are now unsealed.
See the documents here:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Nine of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
Harvard’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Counts Ten
Harvard’s Amended Statement of Material Facts
Affidavit of Ilissa Povich Dated 7-19-22
Amended Index of Exhibits to Affidavit of Illisa Povich Dated 7-19-22
Povich Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37.
-
Harvard objects to motion to unseal Title IX documents
Cambridge – Harvard lawyers asked a federal court judge on Tuesday not to unseal, with redactions, certain documents related to a Title IX complaint, arguing that to do so would reveal sensitive information about third parties, identify individuals and subject them to possible retaliation, discourage parties and witnesses from cooperating with Harvard’s Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), and waste court resources. Harvard called the plaintiffs’ proposed redactions “one-sided” and added: “For example, the redactions plaintiffs propose to ODR’s notes of its interview with Kilburn’s therapist include information containing information that is clearly not confidential, but which might undermine Kilburn’s credibility.”
For more information, read the motions here:
-
World Socialist Web Site coverage
Reporter David Walsh continues his coverage of developments in Czerwienski v. Harvard University.
To read the story, click on the link: