Report of Hearing before the University-wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct
November 3, 201 1

Complainant: Fernanda Lopez Aguilar

Respondent: Thomas Pogge

This hearing before a panel of rhe Committee on Sexual Misconduct 
involved the Complainant, Fernanda Lopez Aguilar. a May 2010 graduate of Yale College and
the Respondent, Thomas Pogge, a professor of Philosophy and lnternarional Affairs. in rhe
academic year 20092010, Mr Pogge served as Ms Lopez's senior thesis advisor. and in the
summer of 2010, Mr. Pogge continued his association with Ms. Lopez through his Global Jusrice
Program, which is housed in rhe Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for lnrernational and Area
Sludles at Yale.

Ms Lopez alleges that Mr Pogge violated the university's policy on sexual harassment She
alleges that sexual harassment occurred both before and after her graduation. She also alleges
retaliation, claiming thar Mr. Pogge wirhdrew an offer of employment as a Global Justice Fellow
after Ms. Lopez refused his alleged sexual advances.

As the Fact Finder's Report describes it, Ms Lopez alleges that Mr Pogge "conducted himself in
ways that created a sexually charged environment [before her graduation], laying the
groundwork for seduction when she returned to New Haven to work as a Global Jusllee fellow
Ms Lopez also charges that Mr Pogge "refused to honor an alleged agreement to have her work
in a paid capacity at his Global Jusrice program when ir became clear rhar she was not inreresred
in a nonprofessional relationship Vulh him

The UWC panel conducted a sixshour hearing wirh statemenrs by and quesrioning ost. Lopez
and Mr. Pogge. The panel also heard from a wimesso -- who was requesred by
Ms. Lopez.

The University": definition of sexual hamssmenl lhal was in place al the Lime of the alleged
hmassmem was:

Sexual harassmenr is anrithetical to academic values and to a work envimnlnenl
free from the fact or appearance of coercion. It is a violation ofUniversily policy
and may resulr in serious disciplinary action. Sexual harassmenr consists of
nonconsensual sexual advances, requests for sexual favors. or other verbal or
physical conducr ofa sexual nature on or oftcampus, when: (l i submission ro
such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a condition ofan individuals
employment or academic standing; or submission to or rejection of such
conduct is used as rhe basis for employment decisions or for academic evaluation,
grades, or advancemem: or (3) such conduct has rhe purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with an individuals work or academic performance or

creating an intimidating or hostile academic or work environment. Sexual
harassment may be found in a single episode, as well as in persistent behavior.
Conduct that occurs in the process of application for admission to a program or
selection for employment is covered by this policy, as well as conduct directed
toward University students, postdoctoral appointees, faculty, or staff members.

Findings of Fact:
On the whole, the panel concurred with the findings in the Fact Finder’s Report and appreciated
the thorough and thoughtful manner in which it was researched and written. Regarding several
disputed facts, the panel found as follows:
•

We reached no conclusion as to who acted first to relax the terms of the relationship
between Ms. Lopez and Mr. Pogge: there is evidence that the relaxation was mutual and
iterative. The panel believed it was Mr. Pogge’s responsibility to maintain a formal,
professional relationship.

•

Ms. Lopez acknowledged that it was she, not Mr. Pogge, who began the cycle of giftgiving when she gave Mr. Pogge a book of her poetry in Fall 2009. We could not determine
whether the further gift-giving between the parties was intentionally generous or simply
reciprocally dutiful.

•

We concluded that both parties understood the written, purported offer of employment to
be false and to be used solely for securing a rental at Taft Apartments. We found that Ms.
Lopez’s email offering to “tear to shreds” the written offer following this use demonstrated
her understanding that the offer was invalid (contrary to her assertion at the hearing that she
believed the offer to be valid but its terms negotiable). By Mr. Pogge’s own admission, he
wrote an offer of employment on Yale letterhead, knowing it to be false. He also stated that
he has done something similar to writing a false offer of employment 3 or 4 times for people
who have earned his trust.

•

Mr. Pogge argued that his professional relationship with Ms. Lopez following her
graduation was one of equal co-workers. However, Mr. Pogge acknowledged that the
relationship involved “practical training” of Ms. Lopez by Mr. Pogge. He also
acknowledged that he intended, during Fall 2010, to periodically exchange with Ms. Lopez
“dollars for work done.”

•

Ms. Lopez alleged at the hearing that her admittedly enthusiastic tone in the emails she
sent Mr. Pogge following the trip to Chile (in which she thanks Mr. Pogge for the trip and
asks to join him on another to Argentina) was intended to convince Mr. Pogge to continue to
employ her. We found her enthusiasm in these emails to be disproportionate to their alleged
purpose and concluded that the tone was at least partially sincere.

2

 •

Mr. Pogge admitted to sleeping on Ms. Lopez’s lap for most of the plane ride back from
Chile to the United States, and he asserted that it was Ms. Lopez’s idea, not his, for him to do
so. When questioned at the hearing, Mr. Pogge explained that it made mechanical sense in a
three-seat row with only two occupants for the parties to take turns stretching out and
sleeping on each other’s lap (although Ms. Lopez never slept on Mr. Pogge’s lap). We did
not have adequate evidence to conclude who first raised the idea but found that Mr. Pogge
was deliberate in advancing the idea even if he did not propose it. We did not find evidence
that Ms. Lopez took measures to exit the situation, although we believed it was
uncomfortable to her.

•

We did not find evidence to support Ms. Lopez’s claim that Mr. Pogge intended to share
champagne with her in his office.

•

There was insufficient evidence presented to conclude whether certain disputed matters
occurred (all of the following Mr. Pogge denies outright). Namely:
o That Mr. Pogge attempted to have Ms. Lopez share a room with only one bed at the
hotel in Chile.
o That Mr. Pogge sat behind Ms. Lopez in a single chair in the hotel room in Chile.
o That Mr. Pogge made joking reference to Monica Lewinsky.

Conclusions:
1. Jurisdiction. Per the UWC’s procedures, the panel’s jurisdiction extends only to alleged
misconduct that occurred “at a time when all parties were Yale faculty members, trainees,
students, or staff members.” The panel determined that it held jurisdiction over all alleged
instances of misconduct that occurred after Ms. Lopez’s graduation as well as before it. In the
months following Ms. Lopez’s graduation, she worked with Mr. Pogge’s Global Justice
Program, and he offered her employment and traineeship under its auspices. In June, she
traveled to Chile with Mr. Pogge as a volunteer translator, and in the summer she conducted
work for the Global Justice Program. Mr. Pogge listed her as a fellow on the Global Justice
Program website and offered in Spring 2010 to provide funds for her fellowship in the 20102011 academic year. E-mails between the parties provide additional evidence that Mr. Pogge
contemplated that Ms. Lopez would be employed or trained as a Global Justice Fellow beginning
in late August or early September 2010. For these reasons, we determined that the panel’s
jurisdiction extended (and the University’s sexual harassment policy applied) beyond Ms.
Lopez’s graduation.
2. Sexual Harassment. The panel voted that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge
of sexual harassment. Although we found evidence of unprofessional conduct (see item 5
below), we did not find a preponderance of evidence that indicated “nonconsensual sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature on or
3

 off campus.” At the end of the hearing, several incidents remained in dispute, and the panel
lacked the evidence to corroborate either Ms. Lopez’s or Mr. Pogge’s differing accounts.
3. Retaliation. The panel voted that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of
retaliation. We did not find a preponderance of evidence that indicated that Mr. Pogge either
terminated Ms. Lopez’s employment/traineeship or withdrew an offer of employment/traineeship
in retaliation for Ms. Lopez’s rejection of his alleged sexual advances.
4. False Offer of Employment. The panel voted that Mr. Pogge violated Yale policy when he
wrote an intentionally phony offer of employment, in which he offered Ms. Lopez remuneration
for her work as a Global Justice Fellow. By his own admission, Mr. Pogge wrote and signed the
document, on Yale letterhead, solely to persuade a prospective landlord that Ms. Lopez could
pay her rent. The panel found that Mr. Pogge’s false employment offer, written on Yale
letterhead, constituted a violation of Yale’s Standards of Business Conduct and a misuse of Yale
stationery (Faculty Handbook, Section XXI.K).
5. Unprofessional Conduct. The panel found substantial evidence that Mr. Pogge engaged in
unprofessional conduct in his mentoring and supervisory roles. We noted numerous incidents
that failed to uphold the standards of ethical behavior between a professor and a student, trainee,
or employee. When he wrote overly personal email messages to Ms. Lopez, when he invited her
to his home for a meal with no one else present, when he exchanged gifts with her, when he
shared a hotel room with her, when he watched a movie with her in bed, and when he put his
head in her lap to sleep during a plane ride, Mr. Pogge created an intimate and unprofessional
atmosphere. We understand why some of this behavior may have made Ms. Lopez confused,
anxious, or uncomfortable, and given the unequal power of the professor and his student, trainee,
or prospective employee, we understand why Ms. Lopez may have had difficulty expressing any
discomfort. In sum, we question Mr. Pogge’s judgment, and we note his failure to exercise his
professional authority responsibly.

Recommended Penalty:
The panel recommends that the Provost write a letter of reprimand concerning Mr. Pogge’s
writing of a false offer of employment. The panel also recommends that such a letter remain
permanently in Mr. Pogge’s employment file.

4