OHIO UN college of Ans and Sciences Depanmenl English Ell's 350 Amerls. omo 457017379 Tel 7405932535 Fax' 74055372632 05 February 2017 Dear English Department Colleagues: You are tasked with making recommendations to the dean about whatdisciplinary measures against me are appropriate following me December 15 Memorandum of Findings from the ECRC. ln mis document I will make me case to you that the ECRC reached its categorical findings against me only through a lopsided and incomplete treatment of me evidence. Given this, I'll argue, me disciplinary measures taken against me should fall short of termination. in doing this, I am not trying to deny that I do bear culpability for my actions on the evening of 3 December 2015. I had no business socializing so late with mose graduate students, and I should nothave drunk as much as I did while outwith them. 1 have no one to blame for this besides myself. One ofthe witnesses_ claims that by we end ofthe evening I had trouble standing and that stumbled into him while leaving. lmiis is true, 1 was far more intoxicated man I believed myself to be. And ifl were that intoxicated, I cannot draw on my memory to offer a certain account of what happened that evening. Parfly in response to the witness testimony, sought professional help regarding alcohol. in late September a diagnosed me wim alcohol dependence, and since that date I have stopped drinking and have attended regular meetings ofa twelve-step program. 1 plan to continue this treatrnentin an effort to ensure nothing like this occurs again. Nonetheless, whatever my state of mind, I bear serious responsibility for what happened on December 3, and I certainly deserve disciplinary action. 1 am ready to accept such action. Yet 1 did notdo everything the allegations charge, and the ECRC Memorandum ofFindings ignores or sidelines crucial pieces of counter-evidence in reaching is conclusions, even under a "preponderance of evidence" standard. These materials, once factored back into me case, make it doubtful mat events transpired me way that Christine Adams and the other complainants (and the ECRC) say mey did. In considering appropriate sanctions, 1 ask you to take seriously me contradictory nature ofthe evidence. THE FINDINGS The ECRC Memorandum is 78 pages long, and I will not bring up every detail in it matl find debatable. But the Memorandum is highly partial in three main areas: 1] its account omie complainants' behavior on me night of 3 December 2015, 2) its treatment of my wimesses, and 3] the credibility of the witnesses against me. 1. Complainants' behavior and Quid Pro Qua charges The Memorandum nut only cuncludes thatl touched the complainants, but goes further to assert that this tuuchmg was nunconsensual and amuunted tu Quid Pm aim harassmentiie, that I explicitly or implicitly threatened them Wiui retalianon ifthey did nut accept my unwanted advances. It describes this in highly intentionalist terms: "he was not afraid to exploit this power differential to pursue sexual contact with Complainant :21" (33) "Respondent exploited his authority over Cumplamant #5 to engage in this harassing behavior" I assume that it is partly on this basis mat the Memurandum insists mat my actions were "egregious" and "an abuse of [my] authority" Butthis part of the findings is false: 1 did not intennonallycuerce anyune or abuse my The cumplainants' behavior at the scene strongly suggests that they remained at die bar without coerciun or, in ouier cases, that did not Wlmess what diey claim: . The complainants remained wiui me and die group atTtiny's Tavern for quite a whilei Susannah Hempstead for over an hour and Chiistine Adams for over two huurs. According to their own testimuny, bath they and I were away from die table numeruus times duiing the evening. They could easily have left earlier if they wanted. . Susannah Hempstead claims that I touched her throughout the time we were at lackle-O's, yet then she voluntarily chose to jom me at Tony/s. . Chiisnne Adams claims to have seen me harassing Ms. Hempstead at Iackie-O's (she is the sole Witness], yet then she voluntarily chose to join me at Tuny'silndeed, she invited me to jam her and the other students. . claims to have seen me harassin-in the Fall of 2003, yet in the Fall of 2004 she voluntarily enrolled in a second graduate course rne.I And after my alleged harassment of Ms.-n the summer of 2005, she sought my help for an essay she was writing for anouier class. lfevents transpired exactly as the complainants claim, men the behavior described above is puzzling. The Memorandum tries to account for uiis puzzling behavior in several unpersuasive ways. it implies [10, 39] that die complainants came to the second bar because they assumed that i would nut be there. But die Memorandum concedes that at the table at Jackie-0's Ms. Adams suggested that I "walk down to Casa wiui the students" (10] rauier than fetching my car first So she and whoever was at the table knew mat was cumingtu the second bar. The Memorandum alsu repeatedly insists that die complainants endured such a period of abuse because they feared dieir grades in my class would be lowered if they did not accept my advances. It even distorts the fact that, by that point in the term--had sole control over the remainder of Christine Adams's grade; the memurandum misleadingly says that 1 alone wuuld determine the grade and would merely have "input from [my] co-instructors" (7). But even a concern about grades cities not explain why the complainants would come to the second bar at all: must of file omer students In file class chose not to Come tn the second bar. Furdlermure, bath 1 and the complainants were away from the table multiple times, and they could have easily slipped out without causing any kind of scene. The worry about their grade doesn't explain why they didn't quletly leave. The Memorandum never addresses file fact that such behavior Casts doubt an the charges of coercion and Quid Pm Qua. The ECRC Memorandum mmakenly claims (60) mm it wa-. mlher who wok an elective course with me in Fall of 2004 2 Am I saylng that Adams consented? No, slnce my recollecoon ot that evenlng ls lmpalred by lntoxlcatlon ls my tault]. I am saylng that her me ata second bar and so lungidues notat all match her clalms that she was coerced. Am I that, even lt she consent, my her would vlolate pollcy? No, as file Memorandum ltselrstates: "Consensual romantlc or sexual ln one party retalns a dlrect. . . evaluatrve role over the other party are unedllcal, create a for real or percelved coerclon, and are expressly a vlolatlon of pollcy" Yet the ECRC ls rlot maklng ludgmentbased on pollcy, but rather based on IE clalm dlat lntentlonally and coerced the complalnants ln a am PM Qua manner: 1 "was not atrald to explolt power dlfferentlal" It ls turmer, aggravated accusatlon that file complalnants' behavlor throws lnto serlous doubt. At my meetmg wml-- and on January 12.-- asked me about soclal sltuatlons, ln Women's Studles and elsewhere, ln female graduate students and young female protessors feel pressured to go along sexual harassment because dleyre to survlve ln a male-domlnated protesslon. 1 do not deny ln any way that such sltuatlons occur. Young female academlcs are undoubtedly vulnerable to sexual harassment and to coerclon from thelr male colleagues and teachers. All 1 am dolng here ls questlonlng the Memorandums aggravated lnterpretanon ot lntentlonal coerclon and threatened Quld Pm Qua reballatlun. wlthout lgnorlng the evldence the charges agalnst me, I argue that lt ls reasonable conclude that the complalnants' behavlor does lndeed amount to counterevldence agalnst the charges orauld Pro Qua sexual harassmentand nonconsensual The ECRC's effort to deny reveals a partlallty ln IE treatment omle evldence. 2. Witnesses The ECRC's that contradlcted dle complalnants' charges offers an apt example of partlal treatment ot the evldence. -tesufied [regarding-- charges] that she was present at dle graduate student class gatherlng ln November of 2003, that she was seated next to me the enore evenlng, and that she not see me touch any studentlnapproprlately [Witness ll Testrmony). Yet the Memorandum after menoonlng tesomony [55-56], never says agaln about--s testlmony. lnstead, the lnvestlgator finds the complainant's wltness, to be "a credlble wltness who recalled man detalls about her observatlons" What makes her more credlble tha ls herselfa complalnant who happens to be the sole wltness for Ms True ls my slster-ln-law, but presumably lrshe saw me touch someone she would tell her slster about lt lnstead of] mg to protect her brother-ln-law. She ls no more motlvated to prevarlcate man li lt ls blased on the partorthe ECRC to credl_ and dlscoum_. --tesufied [regarding--'5 charges] dlat he was present atthe gathenng ln July 2005, that he rarely saw me at Tony Tavern and so "dlls occaslon soclts out ln mlnd" [Wltness Tesumony), and that at no tlme durlng dle evenlng he see me lnapproprlately touch He also tesofled that file complalnant's called to "remind" at events mat occurred that night. Yet the Memorandum of after menooning this tesomony [66 never sa an in again about--s tesnmony. instead, the Memorandum repeats&s claim that "she directly observed Res ondent touching Complainant" But according to- [Wltness Testimony], was seated rightnext to her: since he is taller why couldn't he directly observe what she claims to have directly observed across the table? tesnfied diat "it was 'hard to tell what was happenlng' but the others who were present knew what was going on" [Memorandum be). But no one else claims to have known that sexual harassment was talong place. it is biased on the partotoie ECRC to credlt--and discoun-- testified (regarding Adams's and Susannah Hempstead's charges) diat he was at Tony's Tavern on Dec 3, that he had finished a dart match and was drinlong at die bar, and that he had a clear view of the table where the students and I were sitting: "Tony'swas not a 'packed house' diatnight, and he could 'deflmrely see' from the dart hoard to the frontdoor With ease" [winiess Testlmonfi. Looking repeatedly atour table until he left at 10:45 pm [an hour after our group arrlved] tesnfied that the group "seemed llke diey were having a good nd that itwas notprobable thattouching had occurred under the mole and he iust didn't see it." Yet the ECRC Memorandum concludes tha--'s testimony is "not determinative" vin several dubious reasons. It asseru that there would have been too many people between- fi and our table for him to see anything clearly. Yethe testified that the bar was notat all full and that he had a clear line ofsight. ls die ECRC saying thathe is lying? Also, the Memorandum asserts mat, according to my descripoon ofthe table that night, there would have been mulnple people hW': view. Yet in my tesomony 1 described a table configuration according to which could clearly have seen Christine Adams in profile, and certainly could have seen under the table, which was quite high. 1 am not denying that there are graduate student wlmessesiwho are not complainants themselvesiwho back up Christine Adams's assertion aying diet it is hard to square her assertions, and those ofSusannah l-lempstead, testlmunyipartlcularly his impression that everyone atdie mole was haying a ood nme. It is biased on the partofthe ECRC to creditthe complainants' Witnesses and dlscounh 3. Pattern of accusanuns and ofwlmesses ln my three written responses to die ECRC I argued for die reasonable possibility diet the witness tesnmony against me is colored by a pattern ofrumor and innuendo extending back more dian ten years. The Memorandum dismisses this possibility, repeatedly caricaturing my introducnon of such facts into the case as a "conspiracy" theory [2 7, 7s, 77]. Butl never claimed that die influence ofrumor amounts to a conspiracy. The Memurandum's categorical dismissal, again, reveals IE biased treatmentofthe facts. According to the Memorandum, for example, die following facts amount to merely a - Two ofthe four complainants have only a single winiess who is herselfa complainant, suggesnng a close-knit circle ofaccusers. . Two ofthe four complainants [In 2005 and 2015] were close to and rented from- who has slandered me and my wife for more than ten years. . testified to the ECRC thatshe had seen me sexual] assaultformer undergraduate in 2004, a charge with no credibility since Mhategorlcally refutes it.2 One doesn't have to treat such facts as a complete refutation of the charges to believe that they raise questions about Wm the testimony against me. lfthere is no animus or innuendo about me, then why di make such a false accusation?A reasonable inteipretation of her action is that she was trying to extend the pattern ofharassment to include undergraduate students. And i_was motivated to make such a charge, why mightnotodier witnesses be similarly motivated? APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES Despite the length of mis document I have not been trying to reargue the entire case for you. instead, I have gone through details ofthe ECRC Memorandum ufFindings to argue matits categorical conclusions about my actions are misplaced given conflicting evidence. I did not intentionally direaten anyone with retaliation in a Quid Pm aim manner, and I did not intentionally inflict nonconsensual touching on anyone. Sanctioning me With teimination, I argue, is not appropriate. On the other hand, 1 certainly am culpability for my actions on December 3.1 should not have become so intoxicated while socializing with graduate students, and I should not have stayed out so late widi them. The degree ofmy intoxication prevenu me from being able to give a clear account ofeverything I did on December 3, and the blame for that is on me. Whatever my mental state at die time, I bear responsibility. 1 realize that die University must take action against me. What disciplinary measures shoit of termination are apprapriate? I ask die department to consider some or all ofdie following suggestions. 1. One year's unpaid suspension from die University. 2. A long-term or peimanent ban on teaching graduate students. 3. Requirement to teach online for as long as Christine Adams and Susannah l-lempstead are students here. ifit is deemed that my presence on campus interferes Widi their Title IX educational access. 4. Agreementfrom me to showcontinued treatment foralcohol dependence. 1 offer diese suggestions in lightof the notion that they are sufficiently severe as punitive and preventative measures. given what 1 have done. while still falling short oftermination, which I argue would be unfair given die conflicting evidence. 1 realize that mis matter is not a task mat anyone in the deparonent relishes, and I mank you for your consideration. - tried |o ceiiceul the name of the smdenl--prevenung any venficnhun--unul she was forced to reveal it by the ECRC, Sincerely, WW Andrew Escobedo Professor