2016-09-15 Dines V Wheelock

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 74
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON DIVISION
GAIL DINES,
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-11876
Plaintiff,
v.
WHEELOCK COLLEGE,
a corporation, JACKIE JENKINS-SCOTT, in
her official and individual capacities,
KATHERINE S. TAYLOR, in her official and
individual capacities; and KINGSTON BAY
GROUP, a limited liability corporation.
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff GAIL DINES (Plaintiff or Dr. Dines), sues Defendants
WHEELOCK COLLEGE (Wheelock, the College or Defendant College), a notfor-profit corporation, JACKIE JENKINS-SCOTT (President Jenkins-Scott) in her
official and individual capacities, KATHERINE S. TAYLOR (Ms. Taylor) in her
official and individual capacities, and KINGSTON BAY GROUP (KBG), a limited
liability company.
Dr. Dines, complaining of the Defendants by her attorney,
respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, the following:

INTRODUCTION
This action arises from the discrimination, harassment, retaliation and defamation
of Dr. Dines by Defendants, based on Dr. Dines Jewish race and religion. Dr. Dines has
Page 1 of 74
been systematically subjected to a continuous series of adverse employment actions by

President Jenkins-Scott, the Wheelock administration, and Wheelocks Board of
Trustees, and KBG; who have humiliated and punished Dr. Dines and diminished her
standing at the College and in the wider community. As a result, Dr. Dines has been and
continues to be subject to significant reputational damage and emotional distress.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000, et seq. (hereinafter, Title VII).

2.
The Court has jurisdiction over Dr. Dines claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 223A, 3, and the common law of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
3.
The Court also has jurisdiction over the related state claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1367 because they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact and therefore
form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
4.
Venue is proper in the Boston Division of the U.S. District Court in the
District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because, inter alia, the Defendant
College is situated in Boston and is subject to this Courts personal jurisdiction; the
unlawful conduct herein occurred within Suffolk County, Massachusetts; President
Jenkins-Scott is a resident of Middlesex County; Ms. Taylor is a resident of Norfolk
County; and KBG is situated in Plymouth County.
PARTIES
5.
Dr. Dines is a resident and citizen of Norfolk County, Massachusetts. She
is employed by Wheelock as a Professor and Chair of the American Studies department.

Page 2 of 74
6.
Wheelock is a private educational institution and non-profit corporation
with its place of business at 200 The Riverway, Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts
02215.
7.
Defendant College is an employer subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, 1 (5).

8.
President Jenkins-Scott is a resident of Middlesex County, and at all
material times, was employed at Wheelock as President of the College.

9.
Ms. Taylor is a resident of Norfolk County, and at all material times, was
serving as Chairperson of the Colleges Board of Trustees.

10.
KBG is a limited liability corporation whose principal place of business is
168 Indian Pond Road, Kingston, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.

11.
Dr. Dines has retained the law firm of McAllister Olivarius, and has
agreed to pay their reasonable attorneys fees to represent her in this action.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
12.
On February 1, 2016, Dr. Dines filed a charge of discrimination with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

13.
On April 4, 2016, Dr. Dines filed supplemental particulars to her EEOC
charge, detailing further retaliation, harassment and discrimination against her since the
filing of her initial charge.
14.
On May 23, 2016, Attorney Jeffrey Hirsch on behalf of Wheelock asked
the EEOC to deny Dr. Dines claims. Instead, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue
on June 17, 2016.
Page 3 of 74
15.
Dr. Dines has suffered a continuous series of discriminatory, harassing and
retaliatory acts against her because of the Defendants conduct. As this conduct is of a
continuing nature, the Court has jurisdiction to consider all claims made by Dr. Dines
under the Continuing Violations doctrine exception.
16.
All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this suit and Dr. Dines
claims have occurred, been performed, or are otherwise waived.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17.
Dr. Dines is of Jewish heritage and practices Judaism.
18.
Dr. Dines is a Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies and Chair of
the Department of American Studies at Wheelock, where she has been employed since
1986.
19.
Dr. Dines is one of the Colleges most renowned and dynamic professors,
having received an unprecedented number of outstanding ratings from students during her
tenure. Her classes are often over-subscribed. During her 31 years at the College, Dr.
Dines has received every award available to the Wheelock faculty and a number of
prestigious awards and honors in her academic field. These include Wheelock's Cynthia
Longfellow Teaching Recognition Award, the Gordon Marshall Fellowship for Research,
the Ted Ladd Award for demonstrating a career-long commitment to academic excellence
and service at Wheelock College, and the Myers Center Award for the Study of Human
Rights in North America.
20.
Dr. Dines is internationally renowned for her work to combat the social
and medical ills caused by hard-core pornography on the Internet, and in 2007, she
founded a nonprofit organization called Stop Porn Culture, recently renamed Culture
Page 4 of 74
Reframed. In 2012, Dr. Dines' book, Pornland, How Porn has Hijacked our Sexuality,
was selected as a featured book by the prestigious Sydney's Writers' Festival (Australia),
and has since been translated into four languages. In 2016, the documentary based on the
book was chosen as a featured documentary to be shown at the National Communication
Association's annual conference in Pennsylvania.
President Jenkins-Scott
21.
President Jenkins-Scott was the President of Wheelock from July 2004 to
June 2016. Having served as CEO of a local Community Health Center for 20 years,
President Jenkins-Scott was new to academia when she joined Wheelock. She was wellconnected in the local community through her previous employers and civic
engagements, and it was envisaged that President Jenkins-Scott would breathe new life
into Wheelock.
22.
Although she had some accomplishments, President Jenkins-Scott had
notable deficiencies. The College came to face serious governance issues, ranging from
mismanaged finances to falling academic standards. Faculty and staff morale decreased
because of President Jenkins-Scotts leadership practices, which included nepotism,
rewarding people who were particularly loyal to her even if their experience or
performance did not measure up, lack of support for the core academic function of the
College, and blaming faculty for campus problems while excluding them from decisionmaking. Further, turnover was unusually high for senior administrators. For example,
during President Jenkins-Scotts twelve-year tenure, there were seven Vice Presidents of
Academic Affairs.
Page 5 of 74
A Diversity Climate Survey is instigated immediately after some faculty raise concerns
about racism
23.
At a Faculty Senate meeting on April 4, 2014, Dr. Adelabu, an African
American faculty member, raised concerns about a letter circulated by 22 faculty

members on December 20, 2013 (the December 20, 2013 letter). This letter had
expressed concerns about President Jenkins-Scotts leadership concerns many faculty
had raised during All-Faculty meetings for a number of years, which had resulted in a
straw vote of no-confidence in President Jenkins-Scott in 2010. The faculty were worried
that under-qualified and under-prepared students were being admitted to the College.
The average SAT score for incoming freshmen had dropped significantly during
President Jenkins-Scotts tenure and the percentage of students being retained after first
year had dropped to 63%, which was detrimental for the students morale and the
Colleges reputation, because the College did not have the resources to give underprepared students the help they needed.
24.
Dr. Adelabu maintained that the December 20, 2013 letter expressed an
unfair bias against African American applicants and students. Several days later, Dr.
Adelabu sent a letter, signed by eight faculty members, repeating these concerns and
requesting that the College appoint an external diversity consultant to address racial bias
issues and what they perceived as racial tension on campus.
25.
On or about April 9, 2014, just five days after Dr. Adelabu raised her
concerns at the Faculty Senate and immediately after receipt of her letter, President
Jenkins-Scott brought the issue of racial bias against African American students to
Faculty Senate, and then several days later to the internal Institutional Diversity and
Inclusion Council (the Diversity Council), which President Jenkins-Scott co-chaired
Page 6 of 74
with Marta Rosa, the Chief Diversity Officer, and instructed them to select an external
diversity consultant. As a result, the College hired KBG, a coaching, consulting and
search firm specializing in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion to prepare a College
diversity climate survey. KBG is headed by President and Managing Director Dr. Kecia
Brown McManus, whose husband, Dr. Joe-Joe McManus, is employed by the company
as a Senior Associate. Dr. McManus was specifically chosen to manage the Wheelock
diversity climate survey. Dr. Dines supported the idea of seeking an external diversity
consultant to assist with campus-wide diversity conversations.
The Jewish Faculty letter receives no response
26.
Several weeks into the 2014 fall semester, Dr. Dines was approached by
her colleague, Dr. Eric Silverman, who was concerned about a recent announcement that
the College had invited an external performance group to campus to give a presentation
entitled The Black-Jew Dialogues. Dr. Silverman was surprised that neither he nor any
of the faculty members who teach and/or conduct scholarly research on and publish about
Judaism had been consulted about this event. As President Jenkins-Scott knew from
reviewing his tenure and promotion cases, Dr. Silverman is the only faculty member with
a record of peer-reviewed, scholarly publications on Judaism, yet he had not been
approached.
27.
As a result, Drs. Silverman and Dines asked other Jewish faculty members
if they felt this approach was unbalanced, and if so, floated the idea of raising the issue
with Wheelocks administration. This discussion led Dr. Dines to reflect that for the
totality of President Jenkins-Scotts 10 years in office, Dr. Dines had never seen any
Page 7 of 74
outreach initiative aimed at Jewish students, any religious or cultural student

programming relevant to Judaism, or any academic event discussing Jewish perspectives.
28.
In light of the Colleges recently renewed emphasis on diversity and
inclusion and the Colleges prompt response to Dr. Adelabus letter raising concerns
about racism, Dr. Dines agreed with Dr. Silverman that it was an appropriate time to
suggest the inclusion of all cultures, including Jewish culture, in the Colleges diversity
and inclusion agenda. As a result, with input from Dr. Dines, Dr. Silverman drafted a
letter on September 22, 2014 to Ms. Rosa, the Diversity Council, the Institutional
Leadership Team (the Colleges senior administrators reporting to President JenkinsScott, hereafter the ILT), and the faculty expressing concern with the lack of Jewish
programming on campus, the under-representation of Jewish students at the College, and
the recent failure to consult with any Jewish faculty members about the Black-Jew
Dialogues or invite them to join the planning for the performances (herein referred to as
the September 22, 2014 letter).
29.
Drs. Dines, Silverman and five of the other eight tenured Jewish faculty
members signed the letter (Drs. Janine Bempechat, Ellie Friedland, Lee Whitfield, Debra
Borkovitz and Sara Levine) (herein collectively referred to as the Jewish Faculty).
30.
Upon receipt, Ms. Rosa responded the same day with an email composed
on her phone, inviting the signatories of the September 22, 2014 letter to attend the
Black-Jew Dialogues performance, but ignoring the substantive issues it raised. Many
non-tenured Jewish faculty members offered support to the signatories and indicated that
they agreed Jewish culture was underrepresented at the College.
Page 8 of 74
31.
On October 22, 2014, Dr. Dines received an email from Dr. Silverman
describing an ILT meeting he had attended that day as a member of Faculty Senate.
During that meeting, President Jenkins-Scott adjusted the agreed agenda to provide time
for Ms. Rosa to discuss the September 22, 2014 letter. Dr. Silverman told Dr. Dines that
he had been openly attacked and demeaned at this meeting by Ms. Rosa on the grounds
that the letter was accusatory, combative, insulting to many students, demeaning to her
team, and generally inappropriate.
32.
Ms. Rosa had also berated Dr. Silverman in the meeting for allegedly
upsetting the few students that sat on the Diversity Council as well as other students who
had seen the September 22, 2014 letter. However, Ms. Rosa did not disclose the names of
the students who had allegedly complained, how students not sitting on the Diversity
Council had seen the September 22, 2014 letter, or exactly what about the letter had upset
them. Nor did Ms. Rosa follow normal College protocol and attempt to arrange a
meeting between Dr. Silverman and the allegedly upset students to discuss the issue.
Instead, she chose to rebuke Dr. Silverman before his Faculty Senate colleagues, as well
as all of his administrative superiors: his dean, the VPAA, and President Jenkins-Scott.
33.
At the same meeting, Dr. Shirley Malone-Fenner, then Dean of Arts &
Sciences and the immediate supervisor of Drs. Dines and Silverman, also claimed that a
group of students had approached her in the hallway to complain about the September 22,
2014 letter.
34.
When asked what they had complained about, or how they had heard
about the September 22, 2014 letter, Dr. Malone-Fenner seemed startled and unsure. She
had no notes of the alleged meeting/interaction with these students (which was highly
Page 9 of 74
unusual for her, as she was well-known for taking extensive notes at meetings whenever
anything significant occurred), nor had she previously mentioned the alleged complaints
to her direct supervisor, the Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA) Dr. Joan
Gallos, who oversaw all faculty matters.
35.
Rather than addressing the concerns raised in the September 22, 2014
letter, President Jenkins-Scott and other Wheelock administrators treated it as a personal

attack on them by Drs. Silverman and Dines in particular, focusing on its allegedly
inappropriate tone rather than its substance.
36.
When President Jenkins-Scott and other senior administrators refused to
give any serious response to the letter, Drs. Dines and Silverman took this as evidence
that the College did not wish to acknowledge or redress the marginalization of Jewish
voices on campus.
37.
Although five other Jewish faculty members had also signed the
September 22, 2014 letter, Drs. Silverman and Dines were singled out as the
troublemakers to be silenced.
38.
On October 26, 2014, Dr. Silverman emailed the ILT and Faculty Senate,
reporting his unfair and unprofessional treatment at the October 22, 2014 ILT meeting.
He requested a meeting between the Jewish faculty members who had signed the
September 22, 2014 letter and the students who had allegedly complained about its
contents. Neither Ms. Rosa, nor President Jenkins-Scott (neither in her capacity as
President of the College nor as the co-chair of the Diversity Council), nor Dr. MaloneFenner, who was Drs. Dines and Silvermans immediate supervisor, responded to this
request.
Page 10 of 74
39.
Despite these obstructions, Drs. Dines and Silverman proposed a meeting
between the Jewish faculty and the College's Diversity Council as an alternative way to
start a productive dialogue. Setting up this meeting turned out to be surprisingly arduous,
showing again the Colleges reluctance to engage seriously.
40.
Although the Jewish faculty asked the Faculty Senate to mediate a
conversation between them and the Diversity Council, Ms. Rosa pressed for Dr.
McManus, newly arrived on campus as a consultant, to take on this role. When reminded
that the Jewish faculty wanted the Faculty Senate to mediate, Ms. Rosa countered by
asking for a list of questions to be addressed at the meeting and if any of the Jewish
faculty had gone to talk with HR around their perceptions of treatment, conversations
which would be confidential and might escalate the complaints to the level of a legal
problem for the College. She did not agree to let the Faculty Senate mediate, despite this
being the well-established way to handle such a matter.
41.
In frustration at the lack of response from the Co-Chairs of the Diversity
Council President Jenkins-Scott and Ms. Rosa Dr. Silverman emailed some faculty
members on the Diversity Council who represented faculty interests Drs. Cheryl
Brown, Grace Kim and William Rodriguez on November 19, 2014, encouraging them
to engage with the Jewish faculty, which so far the Wheelock administration had refused
to do. Drs. Kim and Rodriguez responded dismissively, expressing disappointment that
the September 22, 2014 letter had been made public to the faculty; Dr. Brown never
responded to Dr. Silvermans email.
Page 11 of 74
42.
At this point, on November 20, 2014, Dr. Dines stepped in and sent an
email to these faculty representatives on the Diversity Council to support Dr. Silverman,
saying:
[t]his is about a number of your colleagues who feel that we have been
mistreated based on our religion/ethnicity and express surprise that our colleagues
on the diversity committee have not so much as responded to one of our emails.
These are not individual grievances of a faculty member as [Dr. Rodriguez] puts
it, but rather something more systemic as [Dr. Kim] mentions. To be honest, I
am taken aback by both your responses to us where you seem the aggrieved party
and we are the ones who are somehow misbehaving. This would appear to be
missing the bigger picture of how we need to work together and respect each
other as colleagues.
43.
The hostility that the Colleges leadership trained on the September 22,
2014 letter that sought to promote Jewish inclusion on campus contrasted sharply with its
warm welcome of Dr. Adelabus similar letter of April 9, 2014, which had included the
swift appointment of an external diversity consultant to examine black-white racial
sentiment and potential bias on campus. The College made that letter an institutional
priority.
44.
On December 1, 2014, a meeting between the Colleges administration
and the Jewish faculty members finally took place. Several Jewish faculty attended,
including Drs. Silverman and Dines, as did President Jenkins-Scott, Dr. Gallos, Ms. Rosa,
and Dean Mitchell Sakofs on behalf of the Wheelock administration. The meeting was
mediated by members of the Faculty Senate and observed by Dr. McManus of KBG.
KBGs attendance at this meeting indicated that the scope of the KBG contract arranged
by President Jenkins-Scott was wider than solely preparing a diversity climate change
study; it appeared that KBG was giving real-time advice on interventions as well.
Page 12 of 74
President Jenkins-Scott acknowledged to Dr. Gallos that KBG are doing more than we
contracted them to do.
45.
At the meeting, the Jewish faculty expressed deep pain and concern about
how the Wheelock administration had handled the September 22, 2014 letter and the
personal hostility that had been directed at Dr. Silverman.
President Jenkins-Scott
refused to acknowledge these concerns as legitimate and instead became defensive and
accusatory. She verbally attacked the Jewish faculty attending and interrogated all of
them to find out who among them had sent a letter to the Colleges trustees complaining
about a hostile working environment and other examples of President Jenkins-Scotts
mismanagement of the College. She even declared that I will talk with Kate [Taylor] and
make it my business to find out which of you has done this. But none of those present
had written any such letter, and told President Jenkins-Scott so. When Dr. Silverman
expressed pain and sadness at the aggression, dismissiveness, and hostility being
conveyed by President Jenkins-Scott, Ms. Rosa told him he did not have the right to feel
that way.
46.
At the meeting, Ms. Rosa and President Jenkins-Scott offered a vague
explanation of the student complaints they had allegedly received in response to the
September 22, 2014 letter. Ms. Rosa said some non-Jewish students were uncomfortable
and felt excluded when they were not invited to facultys homes for Jewish holiday
celebrations. However, while Dr. Dines does, on occasion, host Jewish holiday events,
she has always extended an open invitation to all of her students. Dr. Dines has extended
these invitations because the College itself has never tried to arrange any relevant events
Page 13 of 74
for students during Jewish holidays, in marked contrast to most other colleges in the
greater Boston area with a multi-religious student body.
47.
Dr. Silverman asked for Dr. McManus advice about the best way to
resolve such student complaints based on his experience as a diversity consultant.

However, Dr. McManus refused to contribute to the discussion, saying that he was
present only as an observer. He also did not offer to help moderate a meeting with the
students, and, in fact, indicated that the students feared retaliation by the Jewish
faculty. President Jenkins-Scott did not challenge this statement, nor did she try to
suggest or help arrange a conversation between Jewish faculty and students.
48.
At this point, Dr. Battenfeld, attending as a neutral member of the Faculty
Senate, said to Dr. McManus, President Jenkins-Scott, and Ms. Rosa, How can you treat
them like this? Heres a minority group who feel like they have been wronged. How can
you not listen to them?
49.
After the meeting, Dr. McManus told Dr. Gallos, Yeah, you can see why
Jackie [Jenkins-Scott] is upset. Those are the people who spoke to the Board about her.
This indicated that Dr. McManus had been told by President Jenkins-Scott that Jewish
faculty members as a group were responsible for the recent letter to the Board criticizing
her (which was not true), and that he believed this despite the earnest statements of the
Jewish faculty present at the meeting indicating that they had not written the letter.
Although Dr. McManus was meant to be an objective observer - a post which he already
violated by accusing Jewish faculty of being retaliatory - this comment suggests that he
had been briefed on conversations between the Board and President Jenkins-Scott and
Page 14 of 74
believed President Jenkins-Scott's assertion that Drs. Silverman and Dines were trying
secretly to undermine her, and that his role was thus to seek evidence confirming this.
50.
As a result of this meeting, Dr. Dines felt disrespected, silenced,
marginalized, and belittled. She was also deeply upset that President Jenkins-Scott had
allowed the diversity consultant, Dr. McManus, to describe all "Jewish faculty" during
the meeting, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, as potentially retaliatory to
students.
51.
At an ILT meeting two days later, on December 3, 2014, President
Jenkins-Scott stated, with reference to the complaining letter about her to the Board, The
Jewish faculty talked to the Board members probably Jewish Board members.
Wheelock retaliates against Dr. Dines with accusations of racism and sexism
52.
In the spring of 2015, Dr. Dines had started working with Dr. Silverman to
create more programming for Jewish students on campus. One initiative was to help
Jewish students form a Wheelock chapter of the national Jewish student organization,
Hillel.
53.
The Wheelock Hillel chapters first event was to hold a student-organized
open dialogue called Wait, there are Jews at Wheelock? on April 29, 2015, where
students could share their personal experiences of being Jewish at Wheelock.
Dr.
McManus was invited by Drs. Silverman and Dines to attend and did so. They tried to
include him in the groups discussions, including offering him challah bread and rugelach
(a type of Jewish cookie). Dr. McManus repeatedly declined to participate and instead
took notes silently at the back of the room. As the evening progressed, Dr. Dines again
approached Dr. McManus and invited him to sit in the circle so he could become part of
Page 15 of 74
the group, which he refused. Dr. McManus later falsely reported to Dr. Gallos, President
Jenkins-Scott, Ms. Rosa, and Dr. Malone-Fenner that the Jewish faculty present had not
even smiled at him, acknowledged him, or made him feel welcome.
54.
A week before this inaugural Wheelock Hillel event, on April 22, 2015,
Dr. Dines was shocked to be informed by Dr. Malone-Fenner that allegations of racism
and sexism had been made against her by students, but would not give names or numbers.
This was the first time in 30 years of teaching, during which her stellar qualities as a
teacher had been repeatedly recognized by Wheelock students and administrators, that
Dr. Dines had ever received such a complaint.
55.
Given that Dr. Dines is an established and respected feminist author and
activist, Dr. Malone-Fenner agreed with Dr. Dines that the allegation of sexism did not
make sense. However, with respect to the complaint of racism, Dr. Malone-Fenner
confirmed that Dr. Dines had been accused of using the word nigger (hereafter referred
to as the n-word) during her Sociology of Minorities class,1 thereby creating a hostile
learning environment, and that another professor had been accused of the same thing. Dr.
Dines later learned that this professor was Dr. Silverman.
56.
The College did not provide any evidence of the students alleged
complaint against Dr. Dines, or details of its content. Dr. Dines teaches classes about
In the spring of 2015, Dr. Dines taught just one course: Sociology of Minorities, which explores the
creation of minority cultural identity in the context of racial, economic and gender inequalities. During the
course, Dr. Dines discusses the social construction of race. One of the readings is The Ethics of Living
Jim Crow: An Autobiographical Sketch by Richard Wright, which describes his experience growing up in
the Jim Crow South. The reading discusses the social construction of blackness and whiteness and contains
several mentions of the n-word, used by the author to describe his personal experiences. Dr. Dines also
explores the use of language to create and reinforce social inequality, and allows students deconstruct
words they have heard used as slurs, in order to examine the oppressive power of these words. These
discussions may include the n-word, as well as other terms used to demean women and people of various
ethnic backgrounds, depending on student experiences.
Page 16 of 74
racial and gender inequalities; she has never used the n-word, or any other derogatory
word, in any way other than in reference to a class reading or assignment intended to
reveal the destructive power of language to encode and enforce pernicious stereotypes.
She had been teaching about these topics, using similar assignments, materials and
approaches that are consistent with best pedagogical practices, for over two decades, and
had received accolades repeatedly for doing so. Indeed, Dr. Dines has been invited to a
number of colleges and conferences across the country to lecture on the history of racist
images in the media, and received excellent reviews. Thus she was confident that if a
complaint was genuinely made, it was either a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of
the material or approach in her class (which can occur when teaching about such complex
topics), which she nevertheless wanted to address with the students promptly.
57.
Dr. Dines wondered, however, why three faculty members who did not
sign the September 22, 2014 letter, but had stated publicly at faculty and other meetings
that they use the n-word regularly in class discussions or readings (Drs. Jama Lazerow,
Tina Durand, and Mary Battenfeld), were not the targets of alleged student complaints.
In a phone call between Dr. Dines and Dr. Durand on May 11th, 2015, Dr. Durand (who
was serving on Faculty Senate at the time) said she was worried that she too might
become the target of an investigation because she uses the n-word in her Psychology of
Race course. But Dr. Durand was never investigated.
58.
Indeed, Dr. Dines classes consistently attract some of the highest
proportions of students of color on campus, and it is well known on campus that Dr.
Dines is an advocate for cultural minorities. Further, Dr. Dines was the founder of
Wheelocks American Studies major, which involved recruiting faculty with backgrounds
Page 17 of 74
in critical race and gender analysis, many of whom are African American, and working
with them to curate appropriate course materials for the major the same materials
containing intentionally provocative language illustrating how racism still works in
American society for which President Jenkins-Scott and her allies were suddenly
attacking her.
59.
Student evaluations, which are anonymous and handed in after grades are
received and thus considered generally reliable, demonstrate extremely high levels of
student satisfaction with Dr. Dines' courses.2 As one student in the spring of 2015 stated,
I love Gail and content in this course. It taught me to think critically about media and
other problems within our society.
60.
When Dr. Dines asked Dr. Malone-Fenner for further information about
the alleged student complaints, Dr. Malone-Fenner could not provide any. She could not
give the names of any students who had complained or the subject of the complaint, other
than Dr. Dines alleged "use of the n-word." In fact, she admitted that Dr. McManus was
the source of the allegations, and that only he knew where they had come from. When Dr.
Dines stated that she was "baffled" by them, Dr. Malone-Fenner conceded that she was
also surprised, as she had never had a complaint about Dr. Dines, and that Dr. Dines is
"known as an excellent teacher." Dr. Malone-Fenner then stated that she thought the
accusation was more related to the general climate on campus rather than Dr. Dines' own
teaching, and that she would get back to her in a few days in writing. She concluded the
conversation by saying "This is going to go away Gail, don't worry."
2
In Spring 2015, out of the 42 students in Dr. Dines Sociology of Minorities class, 36 strongly agreed that
she communicated effectively with students in the classroom, 37 that she stimulated learning and
intellectual curiosity in the students, and 35 that the content of the course was appropriate with respect to
the course description and syllabus. None of the student evaluations alleged that Dr. Dines had used the nword.
Page 18 of 74
61.
That day, and as a follow-up to their discussion, Dr. Dines wrote to Dr.
Malone-Fenner, requesting that she set up a meeting with any students who may have
misunderstood or felt uncomfortable in her classes. Dr. Dines wrote my goal is to tease
out the issues that the students have, and for us to develop a space where they feel
comfortable in having an open discussion. Dr. Malone-Fenner never responded to this
email or request.
62.
Prompted and promoted by Dr. McManus, Wheelock responded by taking
steps to begin an external investigation into Dr. Dines' conduct based on the
unsubstantiated (possibly manufactured) student allegations and rumors that Dr.
McManus reported he had heard from a few staff while on campus.
Such an
investigation was unprecedented, and a violation of Wheelocks policy; the Faculty

Handbook states when a problem arises regarding conduct of a faculty member, the
faculty member should discuss the problem with the person involved in personal
conference and attempt to resolve the matter by mutual consent. Further, Wheelocks
Equal Employment Opportunity Policy states all personnel decisions are to be made in a
nondiscriminatory manner.
63.
The following day, after the Wheelock Hillel chapter had its inaugural
event, Dr. Dines learned that Dr. Silverman had received a complaint of racism similar to
hers. She concluded that these accusations had been prompted and exaggerated by
President Jenkins-Scott to target her and Dr. Silverman as Jewish faculty as signatories
to the September 22, 2014 letter, attendees of the December 1, 2014 meeting, active and
outspoken in faculty governance affairs, and prominent and self-identified Jewish faculty
members at Wheelock. Although Dr. Dines was a passionate supporter of Wheelock who
Page 19 of 74
had worked diligently for 31 years to build up the College, it was clear that the College
and President Jenkins-Scott were retaliating against her and Dr. Silverman for advocating
Jewish inclusion.
64.
Notes taken by Dr. Gallos from a pre-meeting phone call with Dr.
McManus and then at a meeting on April 30, 2015 of the Colleges senior staff, called by
and including President Jenkins-Scott and attended by Dr. McManus, make clear that Dr.
McManus had already determined that Drs. Silverman and Dines should be punished
without needing any evidence. Dr McManus contended that their teaching about race,
which had received outstanding student evaluations for many years and followed widely
used and up-to-date curricula and best practices for teaching about this complex subject,
was somehow lashing out and getting back at President Jenkins-Scott.
But Dr.
McManus never had a conversation with Drs. Silverman or Dines about their teaching,
syllabi, course assignments or readings. Dr. McManus stated wrongly that students
know [Drs. Silverman and Dines] dont like Jackie and they are trying to stick it to her
through allegedly racist teaching.
65.
To date, neither Dr. Silverman nor Dr. Dines have ever discussed their
personal assessment of President Jenkins-Scott to students inside or outside the

classroom. Dr. McManus pushed repeatedly for an external investigation, and President
Jenkins-Scott agreed. She said at the meeting, Were going to be accused of setting up
Eric [Silverman] and Gail [Dines], and I dont care.
66.
Dr. Gallos, as VPAA, the most senior academic officer, would ordinarily
conduct investigations into any complaint about faculty or faculty teaching. She would
also receive all information known and gathered about any complaint against a faculty
Page 20 of 74
member so as to determine and report to the President whether an external investigation

was warranted.
With respect to the alleged complaint against Dr. Dines, President
Jenkins-Scott, Dr. McManus, Dr. Malone-Fenner, and Ms. Rosa said they had relevant
information but refused to share it with Dr. Gallos, despite her repeated requests for the
same. Nevertheless, President Jenkins-Scott said she had shared this information with
Board Chair Taylor and the Boards Executive Committee. Ms. Taylor backed the idea
of an investigation and Dan Terris of the Board was delegated to oversee it.
67.
Before the April 30, 2015 meeting of senior staff, Dr. Gallos had
examined the syllabi of Drs. Silverman and Dines and saw that they were responsible and
consistent with best pedagogical practices.
68.
Dr. Gallos knew both Drs. Dines and Silverman to be outstanding, popular
and well-respected teachers, with consistently excellent student evaluations and

outstanding reports from their respective tenure and promotion cases. She also noted that
other professors (including Drs. Lazerow, Durand, and Battenfeld) who used the n-word
in their teaching in ways similar to Dr. Dines, but had not signed the September 22, 2014
letter advocating Jewish inclusivity, were not being similarly accused or picked for
investigation by Dr. McManus and President Jenkins Scott.
69.
Dr. Gallos grew increasingly concerned that (a) she could not get access to
any of the information underpinning the purported allegations against Drs. Dines and
Silverman; (b) Dr. McManuss and President Jenkins-Scotts accusations were
inconsistent with Drs. Dines and Silvermans classroom conduct, course materials,
students evaluations, and scholarly reputations and raised serious issues for the College
about selective targeting of faculty and academic freedom; (c) she could find no grounds
Page 21 of 74
for an investigation; and (d) President Jenkins-Scott was paying KBG to give external
validation to improper conduct.
70.
On May 4, 2015, Attorney Hirsch, Dr. Gallos, President Jenkins-Scott, Dr.
Malone-Fenner, Ms. Rosa, and Dr. McManus met again to discuss whether to investigate
Drs. Silverman and Dines based on the flimsy allegations being advanced. Dr. Gallos
took extensive notes. At this meeting, President Jenkins-Scott and Dr. McManus both
continued to push for an external investigation aimed at punishing Drs. Silverman and
Dines and to put them on unpaid leave until it was resolved. The normal standard in
higher education is for faculty members to be put on paid leave while any claims of
irregular classroom behavior are investigated.
But President Jenkins-Scott and Dr.
McManus pushed to effectively fire Drs. Silverman and Dines before any such process
had begun, and before they had an opportunity to learn the allegations against them.
71.
Skepticism was voiced by others, including the Colleges attorney, Jeffrey
Hirsch, about whether an investigation was needed or appropriate. He said that he had
read Dr. Dines syllabus, and that the materials she included were appropriate for the
course she taught. Further, Dr. Malone-Fenner admitted confusion over which courses
the complaints covered.
72.
Astonishingly, Dr. McManus then again claimed that unnamed students
had told him that Drs. Silverman and Dines had said the n-word as a racial slur and in a
way which was "aimed at Jackie [Jenkins-Scott]." Dr. Malone-Fenner pushed back; she
had spoken to Dr. Silverman and he had confirmed that he had never said the n-word in
class that he could remember, and certainly would only ever reference the word in an
Page 22 of 74
academic context, in classes which handle issues like the language of oppression and
racial inequality.
73.
Dr. McManus and President Jenkins-Scott insisted an investigation and
punishment were necessary, partly to teach Drs. Silverman and Dines the humility
piece. Nevertheless, Attorney Hirsch advised President Jenkins-Scott to be a bridgebuilder rather than an enforcer, and suggested a fact-finding rather than a punitive
exercise because it was not clear that Drs. Silverman and Dines had behaved in the racist
manner alleged. But President Jenkins-Scott and Dr. McManus ignored this advice and
said they had decided to order an external investigation anyway.
74.
During the ensuing discussion, President Jenkins-Scott and Dr. McManus
revealed that the College had already contacted several potential investigators, that
President Jenkins-Scott had spoken at length to Ms. Taylor about the need to do so, and
that the topic had been taken up by the Boards Executive Committee (to which Dr.
Gallos, despite being the Colleges chief academic officer, had not been invited or
informed). Their goal was to "send a message to students" that their voices were heard,
and to show Drs. Dines and Silverman that "times were changing" and "they're not the
experts." At one point, President Jenkins-Scott said We are not going to let them get
away with this.
75.
Dr. Gallos was concerned that an external investigation would cost
substantial sums at a time when the College was in financial trouble, and also violate
College policy for handling complaints and for investigations of faculty. According to
the Faculty Handbook, when a problem arises regarding conduct of a faculty member
Page 23 of 74
toward a student, the faculty member should discuss the problem with the person
involved in personal conference and attempt to resolve the matter by mutual consent.
76.
After Attorney Hirsch and Dr. Gallos criticized the plan for a punitive
external investigation, President Jenkins-Scott backed down (temporarily) from the idea.
She suggested Dr. Malone-Fenner should conduct the investigation, and then conceded
that Dr. Gallos as VPAA should run it, and ordered her to do so.
77.
As Dr. Gallos began work on this task, she found that President Jenkins-
Scott and Dr. McManus still refused to let her see any of the claimed evidence allegedly
indicating racism or irresponsible teaching of race by Drs. Silverman and Dines, even in a
redacted form. Nor was she permitted to see any notes or evidence supposedly collected
by Ms. Rosa, Dr. Malone-Fenner, Dr. McManus, and various KBG consultants working
on campus to which Dr. McManus had referred, even though this material had allegedly
already been shared with Ms. Taylor.
78.
Because Dr. Gallos felt that President Jenkins-Scott and Dr. McManus
were designing the investigation to be unfair, that the underlying evidence was flimsy
or potentially concocted, and that no good case had been put forward to conduct it in the
first place, she asked to be relieved of the task of running it.
79.
At this point, neither Dr. Dines nor Dr. Silverman had been shown any
evidence in any form, written or verbal, concerning their alleged racism. Nor had they
been informed of the extent to which their teaching was currently subject to conversations
seeking discipline against them that involved the President, ILT and Board of Trustees,
nor that President Jenkins-Scott was pushing for them to be placed on unpaid leave.
Page 24 of 74
Regardless of Dr. Gallos efforts to keep the College from discriminating
80.
and retaliating against Drs. Dines and Silverman through an unfounded investigation,
President Jenkins-Scott continued with her quest to punish and embarrass them. On May
10, 2015, President Jenkins-Scott wrote to Dr. Villegas-Reimers and Dr. Durand of the
Faculty Senate, stating that she still wanted to conduct a "fact-finding exercise"
concerning Drs. Dines and Silverman. ILT member, Ms. Martorana had solicited
recommendations for investigators from the Colleges insurance carrier, and she and Dr.
Malone-Fenner were calling to check their availability.
81.
The Faculty Senate refused to endorse the plan because President Jenkins-
Scott was violating College rules and due process. It replied to her as follows:
There are long established procedures and protocols that have not, in fact, been
followed They are the following:
The student requests or is directed to the dean, chair or program director

that is relevant to their issue. The dean listens to the student, and the issue
is discussed.
The appropriate dean then works to mediate the situation between both
parties - in this case, the faculty and the student. This might result in a
joint meeting with student and the faculty member, or there may be
separate meetings. But, in any case, the dean attempts to mediate, assist,
and provide clarity and reconciliation of the issue internally.
To our knowledge, both of the above actions have not been taken on this issue; if
they have, please clarify how, and in what way they have been taken. Further, we
do not see this issue as a personnel one; hence, Michelle Crews should not be
involved. Rather, issues around academic freedom are central to this case, and
surely you appreciate this. As well, since senior administrators have discussed this
issue with our external consultants, yet have not brought the individual faculty
members into these conversations with our consultants to obtain their (faculty)
input on the situation (aside from the discussion with the dean of A & S that you
refer to), Senate is concerned with issues of due process and transparency on this
issue.
Page 25 of 74
82.
The College never arranged a meeting with Dr. Dines regarding the
alleged students complaints.

83.
On May 16, 2015, Dr. Dines sent a letter to Ms. Rosa and copied Michele
Crews, Director of Human Resources, detailing her experiences of discrimination by the

Wheelock administration. She noted that at the December 1, 2014 meeting, "the
atmosphere was so hostile towards the Jewish faculty that our non-Jewish faculty
colleagues expressed deep concern in the meeting at the way [she and other Jewish
faculty were being treated," that after the meeting, "there has been a palpable hostility
directed at me by the President and some members of the ILT," and that the accusations
of sexism and racism directed against her by the administration appeared to be "a
systematic attempt to undermine my reputation, my professional standing, and academic
integrity as a senior faculty member."
She also retained legal counsel, Patricia
Washienko, who wrote a cease and desist letter to Wheelock, instructing it to refrain from
engaging in further defamatory conduct toward her. Despite this request, Wheelock,
President Jenkins-Scott, KBG and Ms. Taylor continued to retaliate against Dr. Dines.
84.
On June 8, 2015, Drs. Silverman and Dines sent a joint letter to Ms. Crews
in Human Resources, raising the following concerns:

a.
They had still not been provided with any evidence supporting the
accusations against them;
b.
They had concerns about KBGs ability to operate constructively and

without bias;
c.
The request for an external investigation was in violation of Wheelock

policy on handling complaints about faculty;
Page 26 of 74
d.
Senior administrators continued to manifest anti-Semitic bias towards them;
e.
They felt anxiety about continuing to teach their courses, having been
deprived of academic freedom, placed under undue scrutiny, and mistreated
publicly by President Jenkins-Scott.
85.
Ms. Crews initially agreed to meet about these concerns, but this meeting
never happened.
KBG's Diversity Report
86.
On June 30, 2015, the College held an open meeting for the faculty,
administration, staff, and student body to announce the results of the campus climate
survey that KBG had conducted at President Jenkins-Scotts direction about the status of
diversity on campus. The presentation was open to faculty, administration, staff, student
body, and Board members, and approximately 100 people attended. Dr. McManus was
the key presenter for the College. During his presentation, he made several untrue and
damaging statements about the Jewish faculty, including:
Jewish faculty have a
problem with people of color on campus, and Many faculty use the n-word here at
Wheelock.
87.
By referring to the Jewish faculty, given the publicity storm over the
September 22, 2014 letter and information circulating within Faculty Senate, the
Diversity Council, and across the campus about the proposed investigation of Drs. Dines
and Silverman, it was implicit that Dr. McManus was specifically identifying Drs. Dines
and Silverman as part of this problematic group.
Page 27 of 74
88.
These statements were objectively untrue and highly incendiary, but
presented as fact. They could have no other result than to portray Jewish faculty as guilty
of racism and encourage further prejudice against Drs. Silverman and Dines.
89.
Two months later, KBG produced the written report that reflected Dr.
McManus presentation. The WheeEngage Diversity Report (the Diversity Report)

was published on September 17, 2015 and placed on the Colleges website, where it still
resides as of todays date and is available for download.
90.
The Diversity Report contained several statements that belittled Dr. Dines'
experiences of isolation and victimization as a Jewish person, and reassured students and
staff that she was part of a small minority. These were couched in the passive voice
and in a sometimes convoluted style mirroring that used in serious academic work.
Nevertheless, taken in context, they clearly gave credit to the views of President JenkinsScott and KBG that Drs. Dines and Silverman were racist and that Jewish faculty
generally were problematic, and attacked the views of Drs. Dines, Silverman and other
Jewish and non-Jewish faculty who had expressed concerns about the Colleges
inclusivity:
a.
There is a general awareness of an oppositional relationship between the

President/Administration and relatively small but vocal group of faculty
members.
b.
Contradictory information regarding the state of Jewish life on campus,

particularly with regard to Jewish faculty members, was received during the
engagement. Concerns regarding power, privilege, and positionality were
noted. The information received also suggested issues with intergroup
relations, and with perceptions of exclusion. Issues raised do not appear to
reflect the experiences of, or with, the larger Jewish community at
Wheelock.
c.
KBG recommends an independent task-force charged with determining if

there are diversity and inclusion related issues or concerns with respect to
Jewish life and intergroup relations on campus, or whether the perceived
Page 28 of 74
issues are manifestations of problems with interpersonal relations among a

limited number of community members . . . the recommendation for an
external review is being made primarily due to inconsistent and
contradictory information gathered regarding Jewish life and intergroup
relations on campus, specifically with respect to Jewish faculty.
91.
The Diversity Report also contains the following statements that criticized
Dr. Dines and her colleagues for displaying white fragility rather than a reasonable
degree of self-protection when they expressed concern about the administrations
discrimination and retaliation against them:
a.
Manifestations of what is referred to as White Fragility were recounted and

observed among faculty and staff . . . claims that any concern raised above
the impact of ones behavior having a racial impact was actually another
form of discrimination toward the person in question.
b.
There were multiple examples given of collusion with this type of

behavior, such as perceived attempts to rescue privileged colleagues when
they were being questioned about statements they had made or their
behavior. Some collusion was described specifically as caused by fear of
some sort of retaliation. Other examples of White Fragility described as
passive aggressive, were the over-intellectualizing of diversity issues;
pointing out flaws in diverse leaders while overlooking flaws of others; and
expectations of comfort during difficult dialogues.
92.
The so-called over-intellectualizing of diversity issues refers to Drs.
Silverman and Dines explaining their syllabi on race, including detailed discussion of
their careful use of the n-word, after the false accusations of racism raised by President
Jenkins-Scott and Dr. McManus.
93.
The Diversity Report concludes:
a.
[The College should] address issues related to the use of a racial epithet in
class and/or in curricula by white faculty members.
b.
Bullying behavior was also reported . . . examples included demands to

know names of students who had made complaints, and using power,
privilege, and positionality to appropriate meetings and push agendas that
were counter to D&I [diversity and inclusion] progress.
Page 29 of 74
c.
Requests were made by faculty for the names of students who made
complaints to KBG WheeEngage team directly and through faculty/staff
advocates, through the CDO [Chief Diversity Officer] and Academic Dean;
names were not provided.
d.
Involved faculty responded through legal representation demonstrating a

lack of trust of the process, or of academic and institutional leadership.
e.
As no formal policies were in place, institutional leadership decided not to

investigate the specific incidents further; refocused on preventative policy
and grievance procedure development in order to promote change and
accountability moving forward.
94.
These statements are Orwellian in their chilling conviction that any
criticism of KBG, President Jenkins-Scott or her administration by definition proves the

speaker is hostile to diversity and African Americans, and requires re-education. They
reflected the regrettable strategy that President Jenkins-Scott and KBG had come to
employ; of making claims of racial bias to help insulate President Jenkins-Scott from
criticisms of her leadership, which were intensifying because the Colleges finances,
enrollment and faculty morale were all suffering. Not only were Jewish people put on
President Jenkins-Scotts enemies list and painted as racists, as happened to Drs. Dines
and Silverman, but other faculty members were also treated as untrustworthy.
For
example, Dr. Gallos, was dismissed as VPAA after she did not act as a yes-woman in
the face of decisions by President Jenkins-Scott that were racially motivated and bad for
Wheelock, to be replaced by Dr. Malone-Fenner.
95.
These statements clearly targeted Drs. Dines and Silverman, by spreading
a false rumor to the entire Wheelock community that they both used a racial epithet in
their classes and then tried to evade responsibility for doing so. It also accused them of
bullying students and faculty any time they sought solid information about the false and
Page 30 of 74
unfair allegations against them that President Jenkins-Scott and Dr. McManus trumpeted
to the Board and ILT but refused to detail.
96.
It was widely known that no report or study of the College distributed to
the full campus during President Jenkins-Scotts tenure was issued without her personal
editing and/or full approval of its content. Before its release, Ms. Rosa told the Faculty
Senate that President Jenkins-Scott was editing and had approval of the Diversity Report.
97.
In October 2015, a group of faculty, some of whom had signed the
September 22, 2014 letter, expressed discontent with the language in the Diversity Report
because it singled out only Jewish faculty as having trouble with intergroup relations. Dr.
Silverman wrote an email to a group of faculty on October 30, 2015 reporting that the
Diversity Report had been vetted by President Jenkins-Scott and Ms. Rosa, whose
endorsement was especially upsetting because it suggested that they failed to understand
how devastating and isolating this would feel to Jewish faculty.
98.
A non-Jewish faculty member replied to this email stating that she felt Dr.
Dines and Silvermans treatment over the past year, and the wording of the Diversity
Report, were motivated by anti-Semitism. She wrote that this report seemed to her to be
the latest of numerous incidents of what I feel are anti-Semitic micro aggressions.
99.
Despite the concerns raised, President Jenkins-Scott and the Wheelock
administration did nothing to rectify the Diversity Reports incorrect assertion that Jewish
faculty were the reason for Wheelocks difficulties with diversity, or to notify students
and faculty that the College had decided not to investigate Drs. Silverman and Dines.
Retaliation by Wheelocks faculty and administration
Page 31 of 74
100.
In the fall of 2015, Dr. Malone-Fenner resigned several months after she
was appointed VPAA to replace Dr. Gallos, following reports that she had plagiarized a
significant percentage of her welcome speech to Wheelock students from similar
speeches by the presidents of Harvard, Rutgers, and The University of the Pacific.
101.
Instead of replacing Dr. Malone-Fenner, President Jenkins-Scott promoted
three deans, Drs. Adelabu, Linda Davis and Linda Banks-Santilli, to serve as Co-Deans
of Academic Affairs (hereafter collectively referred to as the Co-Deans) to work under
the supervision of Dr. Stuart Lord, who was now hired as the Chief Deputy to the
President. His appointment was worrisome to Drs. Dines and Silverman. Previously, Dr.
Lord was an employee of KBG and had co-authored the Diversity Report, which
identified the Jewish faculty as having a problem. He was now President JenkinsScotts second in command, leading the ILT in her absence, and overseeing academic
affairs in the face of three inexperienced Co-Deans.
102.
Drs. Silverman and Dines, through legal counsel, had already reported
concerns about KBGs role in making false accusations of racism against them. By
hiring Dr. Lord, President Jenkins-Scott appeared to confirm that she wished to double
down on this approach rather than moderate it, continuing the retaliation against Drs.
Silverman and Dines that employed KBG as one of its vehicles.
103.
The College refused to take Drs. Silverman and Dines concerns seriously.
They hired attorneys and sought mediation, but in November 2015 Attorney Hirsch said
it would only agree to do so only if the meeting followed a "restorative justice" format
and did not include any possibility of a settlement to compensate for past wrongs; it was
to be talk therapy only. Feeling that the College was not taking its own misconduct and
Page 32 of 74
retaliation seriously, Drs. Silverman and Dines sent a letter to the Board of Trustees on
December 4, 2015, requesting that the Board engage with their experiences constructively
in order to resolve the issues.
104.
On December 9, 2015, Ms. Taylor responded:
[I]f you and your counsel insist on the promise of a settlement as a prerequisite
to engaging in a mediation, then the dispute will continue, and the College will
defend against whatever claims that you file with the EEOC or elsewhere. In light
of your recent letter, I encourage you to reconsider the mediation route, which I
believe to be a more constructive approach to resolving the conflict. In closing, I
want to say that am truly saddened by this situation. Clearly it is not a healthy one
for you, the other parties involved or for the college. If anything, all of us at
Wheelock should be leaders in the art of respectful communication, problem
solving and reconciliation, modeling these skills for our students.
105.
Ms. Taylor's letter, while purporting to endorse a mediation, made it clear
that the College dismissed Drs. Silverman's and Dines' complaints of discrimination and
retaliation. Her suggestion that they "reconsider the mediation route" ignored that Drs.
Dines and Silverman had been the ones pressing for mediation from the start and had
identified JAMS-certified mediators for the College to consider. But Wheelock refused
to mediate unless Dr. Dines and Silverman agreed in advance that the College should not
consider any financial remedy for its past misconduct.
106.
Ms. Taylor had told others, however, that she thought President Jenkins-
Scott was abusive. She knew that the faculty had given President Jenkins-Scott a vote of
no confidence in 2010, that President Jenkins-Scott had churned through multiple VPAAs
and had protected mediocre subordinates loyal to her. Ms. Taylors failure to engage
with Drs. Silverman and Dines at this juncture was a powerful indication of how
Page 33 of 74
entrenched President Jenkins-Scotts power had become so much so that even the
Board was unwilling to rein her in.
107.
On May 7, 2016, Dr. Dines met with David Chard, the Colleges incoming
President who was to replace President Jenkins-Scott on July 1. He told Dr. Dines,
confirming some of the criticisms raised by the faculty in the December 20, 2013 letter,
that it did not seem to him that Wheelock under President Jenkins-Scott had really tried to
become more multicultural, because programs, support systems and administrative
offices had not been set up to help under-qualified students. He told her he could not
believe how many vice presidents there were in such a small school which meant he
agreed that the faculty had been right to allege the administration under President
Jenkins-Scott had become bloated. At the same time, he felt many senior administrators
lacked talent, and it did not appear to him that the Board had a lot of knowledge about
higher education. He thought many programs needed energizing. He thought the
Colleges problems were deep and could not be turned around overnight.
108.
President Chard, who had been consulting Board members, told Dr. Dines
that it was his impression that the Board had been listening to the faculty about the
schools many problems, so the question for him was why they did nothing and had let
such mismanagement take root. He said he thought the Board was scared to tackle the
problem because it would become a racial issue if they tried to fire President JenkinsScott.
109.
In this context, where the Board saw many problems with the College but
fundamentally had lost control over President Jenkins-Scott and was scared that firing her
would provoke accusations of racism, it is not surprising that Ms. Taylor and the Board
Page 34 of 74
did not rein her in concerning President Jenkins-Scotts hostile investigations of Drs.
Dines and Silverman and other discriminatory and retaliatory behavior. They concluded
they could not solve this problem without terminating President Jenkins-Scott, and that
was something they were unwilling to tackle.
Student protest disrupts Dr. Dines class
110.
On February 1, 2016, Dr. Dines filed a complaint with the EEOC against
the College. She then sent a copy of her EEOC filing to the faculty and the Board so that
President Jenkins-Scott could not misconstrue it, seeking to keep the process and faculty
dialogue honest and transparent.
111.
On February 15, 2016, the Boston Globe published an article about Drs.
Dines and Silvermans disputes with Wheelock. Dr. Dines did not contact the Globe to
prompt or cause the publication of this article.
112.
On February 18, 2016, a group of 25 to 30 students began to walk into the
classroom and stand silently during Dr. Dines Feminist Theories class.3 Dr. Dines
politely said that she would be happy to speak with them after class and asked the
students to leave so that class could continue for the enrolled students. The protesting
students remained silent and continued to stand around the classroom, ignoring Dr. Dines.
113.
Shortly thereafter, the three Co-Deans, Vice President Roy Schifilliti, and
three security officers arrived. Relieved, Dr. Dines asked Dr. Adelabu to request the
protesters leave the classroom so that class could continue. Instead, Dr. Adelabu turned
This class is an advanced level undergraduate double-period class that meets once a week, with 41
students. At the end of the first class on January 21, 2016, Dr. Dines invited students to email her if they
had criticisms or discomfort with the course that they would prefer to keep private as the course touches on
sensitive topics, such as violence against women and sexual identity. The only emails she received from
students were from survivors of sexual violence, who thanked her for approaching the issues in a way that
validated and supported their experiences.
Page 35 of 74
to the protesters and told them they had a right to remain in Dr. Dines class as long as
they did not disrupt her teaching, which was an impossibility given that the classroom
was not large enough to accommodate the students and the protesters. Drs. Adelabu and
Davis asked Dr. Dines repeatedly, in front of students, why she would not hold a
conversation with the protesting students at that moment, though the students themselves
refused to say anything and showed no interest in having such a conversation. One
protester did shout out and asked why Dr. Dines wouldn't talk to them, and she replied
that she would but after class.
114.
Dr. Dines was shocked that she was not being supported by the Co-Deans
in any way; and that they had undermined her rights as a professor to exercise
stewardship over the content of her course and conduct of her classroom in a manner
suitable to learning. Dr. Dines could also see that many of the enrolled students felt
threatened by the presence of the protesters, and she could not expect them to engage in
thoughtful and open dialogue about complex, sensitive issues in such a tense
environment. The Co-Deans did not indicate any support for the enrolled students and
encouraged the protesters to continue; neither did Vice President Schifilliti, President
Jenkins-Scotts designated campus executive officer at times of her absence, and the
member of the Presidents leadership team who oversees campus security.
115.
The Wheelock Student Handbook states that intentional disruption or
obstruction of teaching, research, administration, disciplinary proceedings, or other

College activities is prohibited, as is disruptive and disorderly conduct. Nonetheless, all
three Co-Deans restated to the protesters that they had the right to assemble in Dr. Dines
class. One protester began to film the event. Dr. Dines requested that the Co-Deans ask
Page 36 of 74
the student to stop filming because it was a violation of the students right to privacy and
would intimidate the students and prevent them from participating in class. The CoDeans refused to ask the student to stop filming. As a result, Dr. Dines was forced to
cancel the class, which was especially embarrasing and frustrating as she had arranged
for a guest speaker anti-racist/pro-feminist activist Kourtney Mitchell, who is African
American to attend and give a lecture.
116.
After the protest, Dr. Dines received many emails of support from students
in her class as well as students who were not in her class but who had heard about the
protest. They were unhappy with how the Co-Deans had handled the situation.
Co-Deans reframe the student protest to target Dr. Dines
117.
On February 18, 2016, the Co-Deans sent an email to all students and
faculty inviting any students wishing to discuss their concerns about race and
marginalization to attend the regularly scheduled open monthly meeting held by the
Diversity Council. The email made reference to the protest in Dr. Dines class, and
suggested students were concerned by an unsafe learning environment. It did not
clarify that the vast majority of students enrolled in Dr. Dines class had expressed
support for her and concern about the way the protest was handled by the Co-Deans.
118.
Later that day, Drs. Adelabu and Davis sent another email to the faculty
which provided a highly biased version of the protest. The email portrayed Dr. Dines as
refusing to cooperate with or listen to the protesters, and failed to acknowledge the
expressed anxiety and discomfort of the enrolled students caused by the protestors, that a
scholalry learning would have been impossible under these circumstances, and that Dr.
Dines had offered to speak to the protesters after class.
Page 37 of 74
119.
On February 21, 2016, Dr. Dines sent an email response to the Faculty
Senate, the Co-Deans, and Vice President Schifilitti. After describing the events of the
protest, Dr. Dines requested that the Co-Deans send an email to the protesters inviting
them to meet with her at a scheduled time to have the conversation that needs to happen
to allow everyone to have a voice and feel heard and validated. The session would be
facilitated by Dr. Dines last invited speaker, Kourtney Mitchell, and Dr. Dines requested
two members of the Faculty Senate be present to act as note-takers.
120.
Dr. Dines also sent emails to the Co-Deans on February 22, 23, and 24,
2016, informing them that she would like to arrange to meet with the student protesters to
discuss their concerns. She suggested a meeting time, facilitated by a neutral third party
who is trained in campus diversity issues, and asked the Co-Deans to pass the message on
to the students.
121.
Nevertheless, the Co-Deans did not forward Dr. Dines email, nor did they
inform the students either about Dr. Dines email or that she proposed a meeting. Dr.
Adelabu told Dr. Dines that she had not informed the students because Dr. Dines did not
ask the students what time worked best for them to meet. Dr. Dines believed this was
pretext. She had previously explained to Dr. Adelabu that her husband had suffered a
medical emergency requiring 24-hour care, and that Dr. Dines needed some advance
warning to schedule a caregiver for him. She had scheduled a caregiver during the
proposed date for the meeting, but was also glad to hold a meeting at any other time if
any students wanted to talk.
Page 38 of 74
122.
Because the Co-Deans refused to inform students of Dr. Dines request for
a meeting, the students continued to tweet that Gail Dines is not interested in having a
meeting with students using the hashtag #WheeStandTogether.
123.
On February 24, 2016, the Co-Deans sent an email to all students enrolled
in Dr. Dines Feminist Theories class, informing them they could drop the class entirely
without penalty if they so desired, deliberately undermining and retaliating against Dr.
Dines. The email said that due to exceptional circumstances, graduating seniors could
complete the course as an independent study with a different faculty member, and all
others could drop the class and take a summer course for free. The Co-Deans did not
consult with Dr. Dines before sending the email, nor did they consult with faculty
beforehand to determine who might appropriately lead such an independent study. This
email undermined Dr. Dines and created an environment of suspicion around her
teaching.
Many of Dr. Dines students were confused about the email, and some
expressed their anger in the next class that they had been invited to drop her class.
Second class protest
124.
On February 25, 2016, Dr. Dines Feminist Theories class met again. As a
way to celebrate and honor Black History Month, Dr. Dines had arranged for another
guest speaker, Dr. Natalie Bullock Brown, a well-known African American scholar on
images of racism in the media, to be a guest lecturer for the class. Protesters marched
into the class, which was being held in a larger room than normal because Dr. Dines had
sent out a college-wide invite and this topic garnered much interest across campus.
125.
Dr. Dines appealed to the Co-Deans to ask the protesters to at least stand
at the back of the room because there were over 100 students and faculty in the room
Page 39 of 74
which was packed beyond capacity. She was told by the co-Deans that the protesters
were allowed to assemble and had the right to protest. Dr. Dines asked Dr. Adelabu to
de-escalate the situation by inviting the students to join the second half of her class in her
usual classroom, in the hope that they would allow the speaker the right to give her talk in
a comfortable atmosphere during the first half. However, because the Co-Deans refused
to ask the protesters to sit or stand a respectful distance from the speaker, the protesting
students stood close to the guest speaker who was unnerved by the events and being
hemmed in by protesters as she gave her talk.
126.
On February 28, 2016, Dr. Dines emailed the faculty after the protest. She
explained what happened during the protest and that her requests to meet with the
students had gone unshared and unanswered, which perpetuated the false belief that she
did not want to meet with them, preventing her from resolving any concerns they might
have had, and setting the stage for further disruptions to her class.
127.
In response, that same day, the Co-Deans sent an email to all Wheelock
faculty, Faculty Senate, the Dean of Students, and the Dean of Student Success that:
notified recipients that Drs. Dines and Silverman had filed complaints with the EEOC
and criticized them for discussing their dispute with The Boston Globe reporters; claimed
without evidence that students felt marginalized, intimidated and unsafe in their classes;
and confirmed that the administration would not intervene if students protested again in
classrooms. The email stated we have had no success in collaborating with Professor
Dines to try to resolve and de-escalate this issue at the College, which was the precise
opposite of the truth; it was the Co-Deans, acting under the direction of President
Jenkins-Scott, who had manipulated the situation to escalate needless confict. This email
Page 40 of 74
was a direct attack on Drs. Silverman and Dines for filing their EEOC charges, despite
the laws prohibition against retaliation.
"Fact-finding" exercise: the Sanghavi Report
128.
On March 1, 2016, President Jenkins-Scott sent Drs. Dines and Silverman
a formal letter delivered to their homes with urgency by express mail, informing them
that she was commissioning a supposedly independent fact-finder to review complaints
alleged to have come from students about their racist teaching.
129.
Once more, the College did not follow its own policy regarding student
complaints. According to the Faculty Handbook, following a student complaint, the

faculty member and student should meet together to resolve the issue. No administrator
ever explained to Dr. Dines the specific accusations or incidents included in the alleged
student complaints, which certainly did not track her enthusiastic student evaluations, nor
did they facilitate any meetings between Dr. Dines and the students.
130.
Moreover, Attorney Hirsch, had expressly communicated to the previous
attorney for Drs. Dines and Silverman on May 20, 2015, that following a further review
of the situation, the College has decided that there will not be any further investigation or
fact-finding related your clients or to the complaints referred to in your letter In sum,
your letter requested that any investigation relating to your clients cease, and for the
purpose of moving forward, the College has agreed.
131.
Drs. Dines and Silverman wrote back on March 2, 2016 to President
Jenkins-Scott and the Wheelock faculty, stating their belief that the process was a pretext
for retaliation and the fanning of further irrational anger and discrimination towards them.
Nevertheless, President Jenkins-Scott chose to hire an outside law firm, the Sanghavi
Page 41 of 74
Law Firm, again at considerable expense to Wheelock despite the Colleges precarious
finances, to examine whether Drs. Dines and Silverman had behaved in a racist way in
their classrooms.
132.
The firms report (the Sanghavi Report), issued March 31, 2016,
contains multiple indicators of unfairness and procedural oddness that belie its retaliatory
purpose.
133.
First, Wheelock community, faculty, and students were misled about what
the report was supposed to accomplish. President Jenkins-Scotts letter of March 10,
2016 to the Wheelock community did not specifically mention any investigation of Drs.
Dines or Silverman, but stated blandly that [w]e hope to collect information that will
help us better understand the issues impacting our community so that we can begin to
move forward as a healthier, more whole community. However, Drs. Dines and
Silverman were individually sent letters on March 1, 2016 by Board of Trustees ViceChair Dan Terris that described them as the sole targets of the exercise.
134.
Second, other Wheelock professors discuss race, gender, ethnicity, and
religion in their classes, and use exercises, books, and films identical or similar to those
used by Drs. Dines and Silverman; some say the full n-word or allow students to in their
written or creative writing assignments. But Drs. Dines and Silverman were the only ones
of this group to have raised concerns and been active about Jewish programming at the
College and to have filed EEOC complaints.
On March 9, 2016, Drs. Dines and
Silverman sent an email letter to Board Vice Chair Dan Terris, now coordinating Board
involvement in their investigation, pointing this out:
We also wish the Board to note that many faculty at Wheelock teach, as do
Gail and I, about race. In faculty meetings this year, moreover, a number of
Page 42 of 74
our colleagues acknowledged publicly that they speak the n-word (in full), in
class, and assign literature, readings, and assignments that include reference to
the n-word in order to probe the destructive power of such language of
oppression in the same way that Gail and I do. If there is to be a fact-finding
investigation about us, in all fairness that investigation should be extended to
all faculty who teach about the topic. If not, it is difficult to see the Presidents
stated intention to initiate a fact-finder process as anything other than another
act of retaliation targeted at us.
Faculty Senate has recently compiled a list of all courses that discuss diversity.
We would be happy to send it to you. Faculty who have already spoken
publicly about pedagogically using the n-word in class themselves, or
allowing students to do so in their creative writing and assignments, include
Dr. Jama Lazerow, Dr. Tina Durand, and Dr. Mary Battenfeld. Since there
may be others, it would make sense to ask all to come forward and self-identify
to the Board.
135.
This request was rejected. On March 9, 2016, Dr. Terris wrote: Because
the student concerns about diversity issues in the classroom have, to our knowledge, been
focused on your courses, we are not opening the inquiry more broadly at this time. But
his knowledge was false, and had been supplied by the Colleges senior employee,
President Jenkins-Scott, as part of her campaign of retaliation.
136.
Third, Drs. Dines and Silverman are senior faculty members with stellar
reputations, but in this investigation they were targets, not participants. They were not
allowed to provide input regarding the choice of fact-finders. The two fact finders
chosen by President Jenkins-Scott in consultation with Dr. McManus and Attorney
Hirsch were not professors or educators; indeed, their report demonstrates little
knowledge or expertise in pedagogy regarding race, gender, or religion or in anticipated
student responses to academic activities in these areas that encourage students to question
their values and embrace, at their own pace, developmental growth. Nor did they say
they consulted any experts in these educational areas. From the outset, the Sanghavi
Report was not only needless but also designed as a weapon against Drs. Dines and
Page 43 of 74
Silverman rather than a fair inquiry. Their legal counsel advised them not to participate,
and they did not.
137.
Fourth, the Sanghavi Report violated Wheelocks own rules for
investigating faculty. The Faculty Handbook states that when a student has a complaint,
the faculty member and the student should meet together to resolve it. But no such
complaints had ever been made to Drs. Dines or Silverman. In fact their (anonymous)
student evaluations for the courses in question were outstanding. The Sanghavi Report
ignored these entirely.
Dr. Dines and Silverman requested that the Wheelock
administration provide any information it had about specific complaints that justified this
investigation. None was ever provided.
138.
In higher education, fact-findings into faculty affairs are always conducted
by a VPAA/Provost who, as an experienced senior academic leader, understands best

pedagogical practices.
Furthermore, nowhere does the Board-approved Faculty
Handbook provide the use of an external fact-finding consultant for adjudicating studentprofessor concerns; all procedures involve or inform Faculty Senate and/or various
faculty standing committees, which were also bypassed in this case.
139.
Fifth, there was also no consultation regarding the form, rules, operating
procedures, or terms of reference of the fact-finders, despite Drs. Dines and Silverman
asking for the following information in their letter of March 2, 2016.
i. An explanation for why existing procedures for dealing with student
complaints about faculty are being bypassed.
ii. The fact-finders background, other clients and a summary of why this person
is appropriate for this assignment.
iii. The cost of the fact-finders work.
Page 44 of 74
iv. The brief being given to the fact-finder.

v. The process by which the investigation will be conducted; how will
information be collected? From whom? What will be the criteria for selecting
whom to interview? How wide will be the investigators remit? Will all
interviews be on the record? Will the fact-finder explain his or her
methodology in his or her report? Will people mentioned in the report get a
chance to comment on draft findings before publication?
vi. If there are concerns about the fairness and independence of this process,
who will arbitrate them?
No one from Wheelock ever provided answers to these questions.
140.
Sixth, the letter from President Jenkins-Scott notifying Drs. Dines and
Silverman of the fact-finding stated that it would focus on the alleged complaints by
students regarding the recent protests in your classrooms.
However, the actual
investigation cast a much wider net and included the views of various unnamed staff as
well as four unnamed alumni, some from ten years ago, as well as a variety of allegations
that had no evident bearing on the recent protests.
141.
No information was provided in the Sanghavi Report on the criteria for
what was deemed relevant or irrelevant for inclusion or on the process or rationale for
alumni involvement. Who made the decision to include alumni in the investigation?
From whom did alumni hear about it? What were they told? How and by whom were
alumni comments solicited? What were the criteria for selection? Were all alumni given
opportunity to comment? Were any alumni or alumni comments screened out? What
then made the comments of these four alumni relevant to questions about a current course
as taught in 2015, especially since one had graduated in 2006? The Sanghavi Report did
not say.
Page 45 of 74
142.
In fact, the use of these very few alumni appeared to be an attempt to
stack the deck after only a few students responded to President Jenkins-Scotts request
to offer their views to the fact-finders. By March 23, 2016, President Jenkins-Scott had
heard from only four students interested in participating, so she arranged a meeting with
all students to solicit more complaints against Drs. Dines and Silverman. That did not
obtain enough complaints either, and the outreach to alumni followed and selective
faculty and staff comments were solicited.
143.
Seventh, there was no opportunity for Drs. Dines or Silverman to review a
draft of the report and make comments, correct errors, or put student concerns in context
before its distribution.
144.
More startling was that the worst substantive complaint the Sanghavi
Report could come up with against Dr. Silverman that he might have offended lesbians
when he encouraged discussion about how modern American families (including lesbians
but also, as Dr. Silverman stated, Orthodox Jews, Latinas, and Native Americans)
might feel about the classic Norman Rockwell all-white, heteronormative Thanksgiving
dinner. Its worst substantive criticism of Dr. Dines was that her recounting of data from
the Centers for Disease Control about high asthma rates among African Americans was
intended somehow to criticize African Americans, rather than criticize enduring
inequalities caused by racism in the quality of housing available to African Americans in
the United States.
145.
Even though it stretched, the Sanghavi Report found nothing because
there was nothing to find.
Page 46 of 74
146.
The Sanghavi Report was intended from the start to reach the hostile
conclusion about Drs. Dines and Silverman that President Jenkins-Scott and KBG
wanted, and was part of their ongoing campaign of retaliation. It continued the campaign
of discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on her race, and religion that began
when Dr. Silverman sent the September 22, 2014 letter.
147.
Drs. Dines and Silverman published an extensive rebuttal of the Sanghavi
Report exposing its weaknesses and fallacies on July 1, 2016. By then President JenkinsScott had left Wheelock and the College has not made any apparent effort to follow
through on the Reports debunked conclusions.
But neither has the College done
anything to repudiate it. Thus the Sanghavi Report stands as an unapologetic (and
expensive) piece of defamation against Drs. Dines and Silverman, and as a continuing
embrassment to Wheelock, one that is contrary to its values of truth-seeking and
scholarly integrity.
Targeting and retaliation through social media
148.
The Wheelock administration has also used social media to target and
retaliate against Dr. Dines.

149.
On February 23, 2016, the official College twitter account retweeted the
following message: #WheelockCollege students use the hashtag #WheeStandTogether

to share your stories and let your voices be heard. That hashtag was used to post
negative, false comments about Drs. Dines and Silverman.
150.
On February 29, 2016, Jacob Wilkenfeld-Mongillo, marketing project
manager for Wheelocks Marketing and Communications Department and designated

head of social media for the College, posted a blog on the widely read site Jewschool.
Page 47 of 74
Mr. Wilkenfeld-Mongillo stated his Wheelock employment in the first paragraph of this
blog. He then stated that Dr. Dines EEOC filing was retaliation against a campus
community that has decided it will no longer tolerate their racism and bullying and that
Dr. Silverman and Dr. Dines are using claims of anti-Semitism as cover for reports of
racism.
The blog ended with the twitter hashtag #WheeStandTogether, which the
Wheelock marketing department was promoting as a place to collect disparaging

comments about Drs. Silverman and Dines on Twitter.
151.
At a Town Hall meeting on March 1, 2016 President Jenkins-Scott stated
to all attendees [t]h narrative has been hijacked and we have an opportunity to take back
the narrative. This statement was posted on a student Twitter account and retweeted.
President Jenkins-Scott here was accusing Drs. Dines and Silverman in a public forum, of
falsely hijacking the reputation of the College.
Demotion from Chair of American Studies
152.
Unlike all the VPAAs they replaced, the Co-Deans refused to work
constructively with Dr. Dines in her role as Chair of the Department of American Studies.
At meetings of all the department chairs, Dr. Adelabu has been hostile toward Dr. Dines
and refused to listen to her suggestions regarding programming.
For example, in
February 2016, Dr. Adelabu dismissed Dr. Dines suggestions on how to increase
representations of diversity in various course curricula, in a way Dr. Dines had never
before encountered in similar meetings.
153.
On March 10, 2016, Dr. Adelabu removed one of Dr. Dines two annual
course releases allocated to compensate her for her duties as a Department Chair. This
was a demotion for all intents and purposes, which made Dr. Dines position functionally
Page 48 of 74
equivalent to that of the two directors who report to her, while sidestepping the title
change and legal procedures required to demote her formally. This type of restructuring
without an open discussion with chairs and faculty is unprecedented at Wheelock and
retaliatory.
Retaliation by Dr. Adelabu and KBG
154.
On March 11, 2016, Dr. Dines attorney received a cease and desist letter
from an attorney representing KBG, instructing Drs. Dines and Silverman to refrain from
engaging in defamatory speech against them.
Dr. Dines has not made any defamatory
statements about the KBG; her statements about KBG have been true and factual. The
letter was intended to intimidate her and was retaliatory.
155.
On March 14, 2016, Dr. Dines attorney received a similar letter from an
attorney representing Dr. Adelabu. The letter falsely claims Dr. Dines made disparaging
statements about Dr. Adelabu. The only statements about Dr. Adelabu made in Dr.
Dines EEOC filing describe her as the author of a letter sent to the administration
requesting more diversity programming. The letter was intended to intimidate Dr. Dines
and was retaliatory.
156.
On June 30, 2016, President Jenkins-Scott left the presidency of
Wheelock. Her exit package, agreed by the Board, provided for a years sabbatical at full
pay, approximately $500,000, with no responsibility to do or produce anything for the
College.
157.
Her successor is Dr. David Chard. Since President Chards arrival, several
administrators close to President Jenkins-Scott have left the college, including Ms. Rosa,
Page 49 of 74
former Co-Chair of the Diversity Council, Co-Dean Davis, and Vice President Schifilliti
three of President Jenkins-Scotts closest inner circle.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
TITLE V11 AND CHAPTER 151 EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMATION
As to Defendant WHEELOCK COLLEGE
158.
Dr. Dines re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 17-156 as though fully set forth herein.

159.
Wheelock discriminated against Dr. Dines, a Jewish employee, on the
basis of her Jewish race and religion. The acts of discrimination suffered include, inter
alia:
a.
On October 22, 2014, Dr. Malone-Fenner alleged that a group of students

had approached her to complain about the contents of the September 22,
2014 letter which expressed concerns about the extent of Jewish
programming at Wheelock.
But when Dr. Silverman asked for more
information about the alleged complaints, she could not provide any
particulars;
b.
At the December 1, 2014 meeting with Wheelocks administration and some

of the Jewish faculty members, President Jenkins-Scott refused to accept the
legitimate concerns raised in the September 22, 2014 letter, verbally
attacked the Jewish faculty in attendance, including Dr. Dines, and falsely
accused them of writing a letter to the Colleges Board of Trustees
complaining about a hostile working environment caused by President
Jenkins-Scotts leadership;
Page 50 of 74
c.
On April 22, 2015, Dr. Malone-Fenner informed Dr. Dines that allegations
of racism and sexism had been made against her by a student, again without
providing any details of the alleged complainant;
d.
Despite no proper evidence being given to Dr. Dines to substantiate these

alleged student complaints, President Jenkins-Scott and Dr. McManus
sought to instigate a punitive external investigation that was intended to
denounce Dr. Dines as a racist. Such an investigation contravened the
Colleges policy for handling complaints and investigations of student
complaints against faculty. Dr. McManus said he wanted Drs. Dines and
Silverman to be put on unpaid leave during the investigation, and President
Jenkins-Scott
and Ms. Rosa immediately concurred.
Following
representations from other faculty members, the College backed down and
ordered Dr. Gallos to conduct the investigation, Dr. Gallos eventually
refused to oversee it because she thought it was unnecessary, predetermined
and an attempt to discredit and discriminate against them. But President
Jenkins-Scott still pursued it, appointing Michelle Crews of HR as the new
investigator.
HR should never have been involved, as this was not a
personnel issue;
e.
On June 30, 2015, Dr. McManus presented the Diversity Report to the
College, in which he made untrue and damaging statements about the
Jewish faculty and which directly implicated Dr. Dines.
President
Jenkins-Scott, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Rosa permitted, provided and/or edited
text, and/or instructed Dr. McManus to include false statements directed at
Page 51 of 74
Dr. Dines in his public presentation about the campus climate survey,
namely that Jewish faculty have a problem with people of color on
campus and many faculty say the n-word here at Wheelock;
f.
On September 17, 2015 the College released the Diversity Report which
implicitly criticized Dr. Dines for raising concerns about Jewish inclusion at
Wheelock and contended that Dr. Dines and her colleagues had displayed
white fragility by supporting each other after being retaliated against by
the College and that their behavior was racially motivated. The Diversity
Report underscored the false rumor that Dr. Dines had used a racial epithet
as a slur in her class, and accused her of bullying;
g.
The College handled student protests on February 18 and February 25, 2016
in Dr. Dines classroom contrary to the procedural requirements of
Wheelocks Student Handbook, in order to pressure and humiliate Dr. Dines
and foment further protest. Instead of trying to contain the disruption the
protests caused, the Co-Deans encouraged them, undermining Dr. Dines
teaching and her rights as a professor to exercise ownership and stewardship
over the content of her course and conduct of the classroom in a manner
suitable to learning;
h.
faculty about the student protest in Dr. Dines class, which suggested
wrongly that students faced an unsafe learning environment caused by Dr.
Dines, and encouraged more disruption in her class;
Page 52 of 74
i.
which provided a false and biased version of the student protest;
j.
On February 24, 2016, the Co-Deans sent an email to all students enrolled in
Dr. Dines Feminist Theories class, informing them they could drop the
class entirely without penalty if they so desired, deliberately undermining
and retaliating against Dr. Dines;
k.
The Co-Deans sent an email to all faculty, Faculty Senate, the Dean of
Students, and the Dean of Student Success on February 28, 2016, notifyng
recipients that Dr. Dines had filed a complaint with the EEOC against the
College, villified them for agreeing to be interviewed for an article in The
Boston Globe about their disputes with Wheelock, falsely claimed that
students in their classes felt marginalized, intimidated, and unsafe, and
fomented further classroom protests by saying they supported the students
rights to protest peacefully and would not punish them if they continued to
do so, despite the disruption the protests had caused to teaching and learning
and contrary to College rules;
l.
The College, with the explicit approval of Ms. Taylor and the Vice Chair,
Daniel Terris, revived President Jenkins-Scotts project of conducting a
punitive inquiry that would prove Dr. Dines alleged racist teaching, by
commissioning the Sanghavi Report. The Report was a skewed and unfair
misrepresentation, using the alleged complaints of a handful of students and
random faculty and staff to support the Colleges contention that Dr. Dines
had used racial epithets as slurs in her class and therefore had demonstrated
Page 53 of 74
racist behavior. Drs. Silverman and Dines were the only faculty members to
be investigated, despite other non-Jewish tteachers using the same materials
and methods in similar ways;
m. College employees targeted Dr. Dines on social media on February 23, 2016
and February 29, 2016;
n.
On March 10, 2016, Dr. Adelabu retaliated against Dr. Dines by removing
one of Dr. Dines two annual course releases allocated to compensate her
for her duties as a Department Chair. By doing so, Dr. Adelabu effectively
demoted Dr. Dines from Chair to Director status.
160.
As a direct and proximate result of the Colleges discrimination against
Dr. Dines, she has suffered adverse employment actions, where the Colleges
discriminatory animus against her was a determinative factor. As a result, Dr. Dines has
suffered loss and damages.
Dr. Dines continues to suffer loss of income, loss of
enjoyment of life, emotional distress, pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, and
physical distress.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Dines respectfully demands judgment against Defendant
College awarding:
a.
Damages in amounts to be established at trial, including without limitation,

damages for past, present, and future emotional pain and suffering, ongoing
and severe mental anguish, compensation for harm to reputation, loss of
past, present and future enjoyment of life, and past and present lost earnings
and earning capacity;
b.
Punitive damages;
Page 54 of 74
c.
Pre- and post-judgment interest;
d.
Costs;
e.
Attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) and Mass. Gen. Laws

Ch. 151B, 9; and
f.
Such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
COUNT II
TITLE VII AND CHAPTER 151B RETALIATION
161.
Dr. Dines re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth above in

162.
Dr. Dines reasonably and in good faith believed the College has engaged
in discriminatory conduct and/or practices, harassment and retaliation; and notified the
College by complaining about the same on the following occasions, inter alia:
a.
Dr. Dines signed the September 22, 2014 letter which expressed frustration
with the lack of Jewish programming on campus, the under-representation
of Jewish students at the College, and the recent failure to consult with Dr.
Silverman or other Jewish faculty members about the Black-Jew
Dialogues;
b.
Dr. Dines sent an email to members of the Faculty Senate on November 21,
2014 stating that she and other members of the Jewish faculty had been
mistreated based on their race/religion/ethnicity;
c.
Dr. Dines attended a meeting of December 1, 2014 with senior

administrators
where
she
complained
Page 55 of 74
about
how
the
Wheelock
administration had dealt with the September 22, 2014 letter, the subsequent
hostility that had been levied at Drs. Dines and Silverman and the lack of
clarity and transparency regarding the alleged student complaints against
them;
d.
On May 14, 2015, Dr. Dines sent a letter to Human Resources and Ms.
Rosa, detailing her experiences of discrimination by the Wheelock
administration;
e.
On February 1, 2016, Dr. Dines filed a complaint with the EEOC against the
College. She then sent a copy of her EEOC filing to the faculty;
f.
On April 4, 2016, Dr. Dines filed supplemental particulars to the EEOC

charge.
163.
Specifically, the following are, inter alia, and/or in the alternative, acts of
retaliation by the College:

a.

2014 letter, which expressed concerns about the extent of Jewish
programming at Wheelock. But when asked for more information by Dr.
Silverman about the alleged complaints, she could not provide any
particulars;
b.
On December 1, 2014, at a meeting with Wheelocks administration and

some of the Jewish faculty members, President Jenkins-Scott refused to
accept the legitimate concerns raised in the September 22, 2014 letter,
verbally attacked the Jewish faculty in attendance, including Dr. Dines, and
Page 56 of 74
falsely accused them of writing a letter to the Colleges trustees complaining

about a hostile working environment caused by President Jenkins-Scotts
leadership;
c.
providing details of the alleged complaint or complainant;
d.

Colleges policy for handling complaints and investigations of student
Silverman to be put on unpaid leave during the investigation, and Ms.
Jenkins-Scott
Following
ordered Dr. Gallos to conduct the investigation.
Dr. Gallos eventually
refused to oversee it, because she thought it was unnecessary, predetermined

Jenkins-Scott still pursued an investigation, appointing Michelle Crews of
HR as the new investigator. HR should never have been involved, as this
was not a personnel issue;
e.
Page 57 of 74
Jewish faculty that directly implicated Dr. Dines. President Jenkins-Scott,

Ms. Taylor and/or Ms. Rosa permitted and/or instructed Dr. McManus to
include false statements directed at Dr. Dines in his public presentation
about the campus climate survey, namely that Jewish faculty have a
problem with people of color on campus and many faculty say the n-word
here at Wheelock.
f.
Wheelock and contended that she and her colleagues had displayed white
fragility by supporting each other after being retaliated against by the
College and that their behavior was racially motivated.
The Diversity
in her class, and accused her of bullying;
g.
in Dr. Dines classroom contrary to the requirements of Wheelocks Student
Handbook, in order to pressure and humiliate her and to foment further
protest. Instead of trying to contain the disruption the protests caused, the
Co-Deans encouraged them, undermining Dr. Dines teaching and her rights
as a professor to exercise stewardship over the content of her course and the
conduct of her classroom in a manner suitable to learning;
h.
Page 58 of 74

i.
j.
k.
Students, and the Dean of Student Success on February 28, 2016, that
notified recipients that Drs. Dines had filed a complaint with the EEOC,
villified them for contributing to an article in The Boston Globe about their
disputes with Wheelock, falsely claimed that students in their classes felt
marginalized, intimidated, and unsafe, and fomented further classroom
protests by saying they supported the students rights to protest peacefully
and would not punish them if they continued to do so, despite the disruption
the protests had caused to teaching and learning contrary to College rules;
l.
The College, with the explicit approval of Ms. Taylor and the Vice-Chair,
misrepresentation, using the alleged complaints of a handful of students
cultivated by President Jenkins-Scott and her subordinates to support the
Page 59 of 74
Colleges contention that Dr. Dines had used racial epithets in her class and
therefore had demonstrated racist behavior. Drs. Silverman and Dines were
the only faculty members to be investigated, despite other non-Jewish
teachers using the same material in similar ways to discuss issues relating to
race;
n.
demoted Dr. Dines to Director status.
164.
As a direct and proximate result of the Colleges retaliation against her,
Dr. Dines has suffered adverse employment actions, where the Colleges desire to
retaliate was a determinative factor in its adverse action. Dr. Dines continues to suffer
loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, pain and suffering,
embarrassment, humiliation, and physical distress.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Dines respectfully demands judgment against Defendant
College awarding:
a.

Page 60 of 74
b.
Punitive damages;
c.
d.
Costs;
e.

Ch. 151B, 9; and
f.
and proper.
COUNT III
TITLE VII AND CHAPTER 151B
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
165.

166.
Since September 2014, Dr. Dines has been and continues to be subject to
severe and pervasive acts of unwelcome and/or offensive conduct, which have created a
hostile work environment. Specifically, Dr. Dines avers the following, and/or in the
alternative, are acts of harassment:
a.

2014 letter, which expressed concerns about the extent of Jewish
programming at Wheelock. But when asked for more information by Dr.
Silverman about the alleged complaints, she could not provide any
particulars;
Page 61 of 74
b.
On December 1, 2014, at a meeting with Wheelocks administration and

some of the Jewish faculty members, President Jenkins-Scott refused to
accept the legitimate concerns raised in the September 22, 2014 letter,
verbally attacked the Jewish faculty in attendance, including Dr. Dines, and
falsely accused them of writing a letter to the Colleges trustees complaining
about a hostile working environment caused by President Jenkins-Scotts
leadership;
c.
providing details of the alleged complaint;
d.

Colleges policy for handling complaints and for investigations of student
Silverman to be put on unpaid leave during the investigation, and Ms.
Jenkins-Scott
Following
ordered Dr. Gallos to conduct the investigation.
Dr. Gallos eventually
refused to oversee it because she thought it was unnecessary, predetermined

Jenkins-Scott still pursued an investigation, appointing Michelle Crews of
Page 62 of 74
HR as the new investigator. HR should never have been involved, as this

was not a personnel issue;
e.
Jewish faculty that directly implicated Dr. Dines. President Jenkins-Scott,
Ms. Taylor and/or Ms. Rosa permitted and/or instructed Dr. McManus to
include false statements directed at Dr. Dines in his public presentation
about the campus climate survey, namely that Jewish faculty have a
problem with people of color on campus and many faculty say the n-word
here at Wheelock.
f.
Wheelock and contended that she and her colleagues had displayed white
fragility by supporting each other after being retaliated against by the
College and that their behavior was racially motivated.
The Diversity
in her class as a slur, and accused her of bullying;
g.
in Dr. Dines classroom contrary to the requirements of Wheelocks Student
Handbook, in order to pressure and humiliate her and to foment further
protest. Instead of trying to contain the disruption the protests caused, the
Co-Deans encouraged them, undermining Dr. Dines teaching and her rights
Page 63 of 74
as a professor to exercise stewardship over the content of her course and the
conduct of her classroom in a manner suitable to learning;
h.
i.
j.
k.
Students, and the Dean of Student Success on February 28, 2016, that
notified recipients that Drs. Dines had filed a complaint with the EEOC,
villified them for contributing to an article in The Boston Globe about their
disputes with Wheelock, falsely claimed that students in their classes felt
marginalized, intimidated, and unsafe, and fomented further classroom
protests by saying they supported the students rights to protest peacefully
and would not punish them if they continued to do so, despite the disruption
the protests had caused to teaching and learning contrary to College rules;
l.
The College, with the explicit approval of Ms. Taylor, and the Vice-Chair,
Page 64 of 74
misrepresentation, using the alleged complaints of a handful of students
cultivated by President Jenkins-Scott and her subordinates to support the
Colleges contention that Dr. Dines had used racial epithets as a slur in her
class and therefore had demonstrated racist behavior. Drs. Silverman and
Dines were the only faculty members to be investigated, despite other nonJewish teachers using the same material in similar ways to discuss issues
relating to race;
n.
demoted Dr. Dines to Director status.
167.
This abusive and hostile behavior and treatment of Dr. Dines was
pervasive and severe, objectively and subjectively offensive and so demeaning, such that
it caused emotional distress to Dr. Dines and interfered with her employment.
reasonable person would find the College through its administrators and agents
behavior and treatment of Dr. Dines to have created a hostile work environment.
168.
As a direct and proximate result of the hostile work environment, Dr.
Dines continues to suffer loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress,
pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical distress.
Page 65 of 74
WHEREFORE, Dr. Dines respectfully demands judgment against

defendant College, awarding:
a.

b.
Punitive damages;
c.
d.
Costs;
e.

Ch. 151B, 9; and
f.
and proper.
COUNT IV
CHAPTER 151B AIDING AND ABETTING
DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION
As to Defendant JENKINS-SCOTT
169.

170.
Dr. Dines, a Jewish employee of the College, was subjected to
discrimination and retaliation on the basis of her Jewish race and religion.
171.
At all times relevant to the allegations stated here, President Jenkins-Scott
was employed by Wheelock.

Page 66 of 74
172.
Dines.
President Jenkins-Scott engaged in acts of abuse and hostility towards Dr.
President Jenkins-Scott aided and abetted the discrimination and retaliation
against Dr. Dines in at least the following ways:

a.
Failing to respond to the September 22, 2014 letter in which Dr. Silverman
raised concerns about the Colleges lack of Jewish programming on campus;
b.
Repeatedly singling out Dr. Dines, in particular, and the Jewish faculty in
general, for hostile criticism at the October 22, and December 1, 2014
meetings;
c.
Permitting and/or instructing Dr. Malone-Fenner to initiate an external

investigation into the false accusations against Dr. Dines in violation of the
Colleges policy for handling complaints about faculty;
d.
Permitting and/or instructing Dr. McManus and KBG to include

defamatory statements against Dr. Dines by specific implication and Jewish
faculty generally in Dr. McManus presentation on June 30, 2015;
e.
Permitting and/or instructing and Dr. McManus and KBG to include

defamatory statements against Dr. Dines by specific implication and Jewish
faculty generally in its Diversity Report released on September 17, 2015;
f.
Permitting and/or encouraging student protests to take place in Dr. Dines

classroom on February 18 and 25, 2016;
g.
Permitting and/or instructing the Co-Deans to send an unprecedented email

to all students enrolled in Dr. Dines Feminist Theories class, informing
them that they could drop her class without penalty;
Page 67 of 74
h.
Permitting and/or instructing the Co-Deans to send an email informing

faculty that Dr. Dines had filed an EEOC complaint, and repeating the false
claim that students felt marginalized, intimidated and unsafe in Dr. Dines
classroom;
i.
Actively soliciting complaints from students about Dr. Dines in order to

defame her;
j.
Commissioning the Sanghavi Report and steering it to a predetermined

conclusion hostile to Dr. Dines and contrary to the facts;
k.
Permitting and/or directing that Dr. Dines be targeted on social media on

February 23, 2016, February 29, 2016 and March 5, 2016;
l.
Permitting and/or instructing Dr. Adelabu to remove one of Dr. Dines two
annual course releases allocated to compensate her for her duties as a
Department Chair. By doing so, Dr. Dines was effectively demoted to
Director status.
173.
Dr. Dines has suffered loss and damages on account of President Jenkins-
Scotts actions aiding and abetting discrimination, harassment and retaliation against her.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Dines respectfully demands judgment against President
Jenkins-Scott awarding:
a.

Page 68 of 74
b.
Punitive damages;
c.
d.
Costs;
e.
Attorneys fees pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151B, 9; and
f.
and proper.
COUNT V
CHAPTER 151B AIDING AND ABETTING
DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION
As to Defendant TAYLOR
174.

175.
Dr. Dines, a Jewish employee of the College, was subjected to
discrimination, retaliation and an abusive and hostile work environment on the basis of
her Jewish race and religion.
176.
At all times relevant to the allegations stated here, Ms. Taylor was
appointed by Wheelock as Chair of the Board of Trustees.

177.
Ms. Taylor aided and abetted the discrimination and retaliation against Dr.
Dines in at least the following ways:

a.
In the spring of 2015, permitting and/or instructing the Wheelock

administration to begin an investigation into Dr. Dines, in violation of the
Faculty Handbook, after President Jenkins-Scott approached her with
unsubstantiated student complaints;
Page 69 of 74
b.
Permitting and/or instructing President Jenkins-Scott and/or KBG to publish

the Diversity Report which made untrue and damaging statements about the
Jewish faculty that directly implicated Dr. Silverman;
c.
In the spring of 2016, permitting and/or instructing President Jenkins-Scott

to commission the Sanghavi Report and steer it to a predetermined
conclusion hostile to Dr. Dines and contrary to the facts;
d.
Despite receiving regular reports that President Jenkins-Scott was acting in a

discriminatory and retaliatory way towards faculty and staff including Drs.
Dines and Silverman, taking no effective action to intervene, restrain, or
discipline her.
178.
Dr. Dines has suffered loss on account of Ms. Taylor's actions aiding and
abetting discrimination, harassment and retaliation against her.

WHEREFORE, Dr. Dines respectfully demands judgment against Ms. Taylor
awarding:
a. Damages in amounts to be established at trial, including without
limitation, damages for past, present, and future emotional pain and
suffering, ongoing and severe mental anguish, compensation for harm to
reputation, loss of past, present and future enjoyment of life, and past and
present lost earnings and earning capacity;
b. Punitive damages;
c. Pre- and post-judgment interest;
d. Costs;
e. Attorneys fees pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151B, 9; and
Page 70 of 74
f. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
COUNT VI
Defamation
As to Defendants WHEELOCK COLLEGE,
JENKINS-SCOTT and KINGSTON BAY GROUP
179.

180.
Defendants, through its agents, made numerous false statements
concerning Dr. Dines, from December 2014 to March 2016, as stated in paragraphs 44,
49, 51, 53, 64, 70-76, 80, 86-88, 90-93, 117, 118, 123, 127, 132, 149151.
181.
These defamatory statements were made to Dr. Dines colleagues, faculty
members and staff at Wheelock College.

182.
Furthermore, Defendants disseminated false and defamatory statements
about Dr. Dines in the Diversity Report. The Diversity Report was published on the
Wheelock website, presented to the Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff, and was
released to all students.
The students and Wheelock community understood the
references to Jewish faculty to refer to Drs. Dines and Silverman.

183.
Defendants statements included false information, including but not
limited to, that Dr. Dines regularly used the n-word in her classroom, had a problem with
people of color on campus, was racist and sexist, and had refused to meet with the
protesters who protested in her classroom.
184.
Defendants knew that the statements they disseminated were false, and did
so intentionally to damage Dr. Dines reputation.

Page 71 of 74
185.
During the time these defamatory statements were made, President
Jenkins-Scott was acting within the course of her employment as President of Wheelock.
As a result, Wheelock is vicariously liable for the defamatory conduct of President
Jenkins-Scott. In the alternative, if President Jenkins-Scott was acting outside the course
of her employment, President Jenkins-Scott is individually liable for the defamatory
statements.
186.
Further, during the time these defamatory statements were made, KBG
was acting as an agent of Wheelock and therefore Wheelock is vicariously liable for their
defamatory conduct. In the alternative, if KBG was acting outside the scope of its
engagement with Wheelock, KBG is individually liable for the defamatory statement it
and/or Dr. McManus made on its behalf.
187.
As a result of Defendants defamatory conduct, Dr. Dines has suffered
injury to her status and reputation, and has suffered considerable harassment and
emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Dines respectfully requests judgment against Defendants
WHEELOCK COLLEGE, JENKINS-SCOTT and KBG, awarding:
a. Damages in amounts to be established at trial, including without
limitation, compensation for harm to reputation, back pay in the form of
lost wages, loss of future earnings, and punitive damages;
b. Pre- and post-judgment interest;
c. Costs; and
d.
and proper.
Page 72 of 74
RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE, having set forth the above-described legally sufficient causes of
action against the Defendants, Plaintiff Dr. Dines prays for the entry of Final Judgment
against all Defendants jointly and severally, for damages in an amount not yet quantified
but to be proven at trial, for costs and attorneys fees, and for any other and further relief
which is just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff Dr. Gail Dines respectfully demands a trial by jury as to all matters so
triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
BY:
_________________________________
BY: Attorney Anita Vadgama
BBO #669319
MCALLISTER OLIVARIUS
5 Wells Street
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Telephone:
(518) 633-4775
Facsimile:
(781) 658-2480
Email: avadgama@mcolaw.com
The Pearce Building

West Street
Maidenhead, SL6 1RL
U.K.
Page 73 of 74
Telephone: +44 1628 567544
Attorney for Plaintiff

GAIL DINES
Page 74 of 74
Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 1
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS 44 (Rev. 08/ 16)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Dines, Gail
Wheelock College; Jenkins-Scott, Jackie; Kingston Bay Group; Taylor,

Katherine S.
(b) County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff
_N_o_rf_o_l_
k ______ _
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

NOTE:
( C) Attorneys {Firm Name. Address. and Telephone Number)

McAllister Ohvarius, 5 Wells Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-633-4775
Pearce Building, 7th floor, West Street, Maidenhead, SL6 1RL UK
CJ 2
U.S . Government
Plaintiff
~ 3 Federal Question
U.S. Government
Defendant
CJ 4
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known}
Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP, 24 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110

617-348-4326 for all defendants except Kingston Bay Group
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL p ARTIES (Place an
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X"' in One Box Only)

CJ I
(For Diversity Cases Only)

PTF
Citizen of This State
~ I
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item Ill)
Citizen of Another State
CONTRACT
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
210
220
230
240
245
290
REAL PROPERTY
Land Condemnation
Foreclosure
Rent Lease & Ejectrnent
Torts to Land
Tort Product Liability
All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
CJ 310 Airplane
CJ 315 Airplane Product
Liability
0 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
CJ 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
CJ 340 Marine
CJ 345 Marine Product
Liability
0 350 Motor Vehicle
0 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
0 360 Other Personal
Injury
CJ 362 Personal Injury
Medical Maloractice
CMLRJGHTS
0 440 Other Civil Rights
CJ 441 Voting
~ 442 Employment
0 443 Housing/
Accommodations
0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities
Employment
0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities
Other
0 448 Education
DEF
~I
CJ
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
CJ
CJ 5
CJ
CJ
Foreign Nation
CJ 6
CJ6
Click here for Nature of Suit Code Descriptions
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
"X" in One Box for Plaintiff

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
CJ 4
~4
Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business In This State
CJ 2
IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X"" in One Box Only)

I
-=
S-"u"-ff'-"o-"lk-'------ - - - -
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
BANKRllPTC Y
FORFEIT' ' uJPENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
CJ 365 Personal Injury
Product Liability
CJ 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
CJ 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
0 370 Other Fraud
0 371 Truth in Lending
0 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
0 463 Alien Detainee
0 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
0 530 General
0 535 Death Penalty
Other:
0 540 Mandamus & Other
0 550 Civil Rights
CJ 555 Prison Condition
CJ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
CJ 625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
CJ 690 Other
CJ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

CJ 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
Pu wERTY 11u;HTS
0 820 Copyrights
CJ 830 Patent
0 840 Trademark
'AWi'
~u
0 710 Fair Labor Standards

Act
0 720 Labor/Management
Relations
0 740 Railway Labor Act

0 751 Family and Medical
'A
RITY
0 861 HIA (I 395fl)

CJ 862 Black Lung (923)
CJ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
0 864 SSID Title XVI
0 865 RSI (405(g))
Leave Act
0 790 Other Labor Litigation

0 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

CJ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
CJ 871 IRS-Third Party
26 USC 7609
IMMIGRATION
OTHER STATUTES
CJ 375 False Claims Act
CJ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
CJ 400 State Reapportionment
0 410 Antitrust
CJ 430 Banks and Banking
CJ 450 Commerce
0 460 Deportation
CJ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
0 480 Consumer Credit
CJ 490 Cable/Sat TV
0 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
0 890 Other Starutory Actions
CJ 891 Agriculrural Acts
CJ 893 Environmental Matters
CJ 895 Freedom oflnformation
Act
CJ 896 Arbitration
CJ 899 Administrative Procedure
Act!Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
CJ 950 Constirutionality of
State Starutes
0 462 Naruralization Application

0 465 Other Immigration
Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

?1'( I Original
Proceeding
0 2 Removed from
State Court
Remanded from
Appellate Court
0 4 Reinstated or
Reopened
0 5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
0 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
0 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File
Cite the U.S . Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not citejurisdiclWnal statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION .....r_it_le_V_l_I_of_t_he_C_iv_il_R......

i __h_ts_A_c_t_19_6_4.._,_42_U_.s_.c_._.._2_0_uo....._e_t._s_eq......_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Brief description of cause:
Discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation based on race and religion
VII. REQUESTED IN
0
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IFANY
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23, F RCv P
DEMAND $
.:!J"S 1 OJ()
QV{((
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:
:!!(Yes
0 No
(See instructions):
DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
FOR OFF
RECEIPT#
AMOUNT
APPL YING IFP
JUDGE
MAG.JUDGE
Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1-2 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) Dines, Gail v. Wheelock College et al.
2. Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local
rule 40.1(a)(1)).
I.
410, 441, 470, 535, 830*, 891, 893, 895, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT.
II.
110, 130, 140, 160, 190, 196, 230, 240, 290,320,362, 370, 371, 380, 430, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 710, 720,
740, 790, 820*, 840*, 850, 870, 871.
III.
120, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 245, 310, 315, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 365, 367, 368, 375, 385,
400,422, 423, 450, 460, 462, 463, 465, 480, 490, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555, 625, 690, 751, 791, 861-865, 890, 896,
950.
*Also complete AO 120 or AO 121. for patent, trademark or copyright cases.
3. Title and number, if any, of related cases. (See local rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior related case has been filed in this
district please indicate the title and number of the first filed case in this court.
4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court?
YES
NO
5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest?
2403)
YES
NO
YES
NO
(See 28 USC
If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party?
6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC 2284?
YES
NO
7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the United States and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (governmental agencies), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)).
YES
A.
NO
If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside?

Eastern Division
B.
Central Division
Western Division
If no, in which division do the majority of the plaintiffs or the only parties, excluding governmental agencies,
residing in Massachusetts reside?
Eastern Division
Central Division
Western Division
8. If filing a Notice of Removal - are there any motions pending in the state court requiring the attention of this Court? (If yes,
submit a separate sheet identifying the motions)
YES
NO
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)

ATTORNEY'S NAME Anita Vadgama Roberts
ADDRESS McAllister Olivarius, 5 Wells Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 / Pearce Bldg, West St. Maidenhead UK SL6 1RL
TELEPHONE NO. 518-633-4775
(CategoryForm-201.wpd )

2016-09-15 Dines V Wheelock

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2016-09-15 Dines V Wheelock

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 74

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dr. Dines, complaining of the Defendants by her attorney,

respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, the following:

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 74

been systematically subjected to a continuous series of adverse employment actions by

1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000, et seq. (hereinafter, Title VII).

Dr. Dines is a resident and citizen of Norfolk County, Massachusetts. She

is employed by Wheelock as a Professor and Chair of the American Studies department.

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 74

Wheelock is a private educational institution and non-profit corporation

Defendant College is an employer subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, 1 (5).

President Jenkins-Scott is a resident of Middlesex County, and at all

material times, was employed at Wheelock as President of the College.

serving as Chairperson of the Colleges Board of Trustees.

KBG is a limited liability corporation whose principal place of business is

168 Indian Pond Road, Kingston, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.

On February 1, 2016, Dr. Dines filed a charge of discrimination with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

On April 4, 2016, Dr. Dines filed supplemental particulars to her EEOC

On May 23, 2016, Attorney Jeffrey Hirsch on behalf of Wheelock asked

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 74

Dr. Dines has suffered a continuous series of discriminatory, harassing and

claims have occurred, been performed, or are otherwise waived.

Dr. Dines is of Jewish heritage and practices Judaism.

Dr. Dines is a Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies and Chair of

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 5 of 74

President Jenkins-Scott was the President of Wheelock from July 2004 to

Although she had some accomplishments, President Jenkins-Scott had

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 6 of 74

At a Faculty Senate meeting on April 4, 2014, Dr. Adelabu, an African

American faculty member, raised concerns about a letter circulated by 22 faculty

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 7 of 74

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 8 of 74

outreach initiative aimed at Jewish students, any religious or cultural student

In light of the Colleges recently renewed emphasis on diversity and

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 9 of 74

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 10 of 74

letter, President Jenkins-Scott and other Wheelock administrators treated it as a personal

When President Jenkins-Scott and other senior administrators refused to

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 11 of 74

Despite these obstructions, Drs. Dines and Silverman proposed a meeting

Although the Jewish faculty asked the Faculty Senate to mediate a

In frustration at the lack of response from the Co-Chairs of the Diversity

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 12 of 74

On December 1, 2014, a meeting between the Colleges administration

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 13 of 74

At the meeting, Ms. Rosa and President Jenkins-Scott offered a vague

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 14 of 74

resolve such student complaints based on his experience as a diversity consultant.

At this point, Dr. Battenfeld, attending as a neutral member of the Faculty

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 15 of 74

As a result of this meeting, Dr. Dines felt disrespected, silenced,

At an ILT meeting two days later, on December 3, 2014, President

The Wheelock Hillel chapters first event was to hold a student-organized

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 16 of 74

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 17 of 74

Indeed, Dr. Dines classes consistently attract some of the highest

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 18 of 74

Case 1:16-cv-11876-DJC Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 19 of 74

Prompted and promoted by Dr. McManus, Wheelock responded by taking

investigation was unprecedented, and a violation of Wheelocks policy; the Faculty