2016-09-15 Silverman V Wheelock

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 88
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON DIVISION
ERIC K. SILVERMAN,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-11879
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 ERIC K. SILVERMAN (Plaintiff or Dr. Silverman), sues
Defendants WHEELOCK COLLEGE (Wheelock, the College or Defendant
College), a not-for-profit corporation, JACKIE JENKINS-SCOTT (President JenkinsScott) in her official and individual capacities, KATHERINE S. TAYLOR ("Ms.
Taylor") in her official and individual capacities, and the KINGSTON BAY GROUP
(KBG), a limited liability corporation. Dr. Silverman, complaining of the Defendants
by his attorney, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief, the following:
INTRODUCTION
This action arises from the discrimination, harassment, retaliation and defamation
of Dr. Silverman by Defendants based on Dr. Silvermans Jewish race and religion. Dr.
Silverman has been systematically subjected to a continuous series of adverse

employment actions by President Jenkins-Scott, the Wheelock administration,
Wheelocks Board of Trustees and KBG; who have humiliated and punished Dr.
Silverman, diminished his standing at the College and in the wider community, and
prevented him from progressing at the College. As a result, Dr. Silverman has been and
continues to be subject to significant reputational damage and emotional distress as well
as loss of employment opportunities.
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. Silvermans 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 court's 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.
Page 2
PARTIES
5.
Dr. Silverman is a resident of Framingham and citizen of Middlesex
County, Massachusetts. He is employed by Wheelock as a Professor and Chair of the

Department of Psychology and Human Development.
6.
Wheelock is a private educational institution and non-profit corporation
with its principal place of business at 200 The Riverway, Boston, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts.
7.
Defendant College is an employer subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and as defined pursuant to Mass. General Laws Chapter 151B 1 (5).
8.
KBG is a limited liability corporation whose principal place of business is
168 Indian Pond Road, Kingston, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.

9.
President Jenkins-Scott is a resident of Middlesex County, and at all
material times, was employed at Wheelock as President of the College.

10.
Ms. Taylor is a resident of Norfolk County, and at all material times, was
serving as Chairperson of the Colleges Board of Trustees.

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

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

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17.
Dr. Silverman is of Jewish heritage and practices Judaism.
18.
Dr. Silverman is a Professor of American Studies and Chair of the
Psychology and Human Development department at Wheelock. Dr. Silverman has been
employed by the College since 2006 and has held tenure since 2011.
19.
Dr. Silverman is a distinguished academic. Before working at Wheelock,
he was the Edward Myers Dolan Professor of Anthropology at DePauw University in

Indiana. He had quickly progressed through the ranks at DePauw, obtaining tenure and
early promotion in 2004, serving on several committees, including one to establish an
Ethics Institute, and directing the Jewish Studies program. He was one of the most
prolific scholars in his department.
20.
By 2006, Dr. Silverman sought to return to the East Coast to be closer to
family and the Jewish community in New England. Inspired by Wheelocks vision of
creat[ing] a safe, caring and just world for children and families, Dr. Silverman took a
Page 4
leave without pay from DePauw to teach as an adjunct professor at Wheelock for the
2006-2007 academic year. After a year at Wheelock, Dr. Silverman resigned his tenured
position and rights to a fully paid sabbatical at DePauw in order to continue to teach as an
adjunct professor at Wheelock for the 2007-2008 academic year.
Career at Wheelock
21.
In 2008, Dr. Gail Dines, a Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies,
and Dr. Detris Adelabu, then Associate Professor of Human Development, chaired a
search for a tenure-track Assistant or Associate Professor position to be shared between
the Department of Psychology and Human Development and the Department of
American Studies. After a national search, Dr. Dines recommended to President JenkinsScott that Dr. Silverman be hired for this position, and he was.
22.
During his first four years at Wheelock, Dr. Silvermans academic
achievements were significant. He taught courses in the first year seminar program,
introduced several new courses to the curriculum, sat on many committees, co-organized
the Introduction to Online Learning faculty development program, published a number of
book chapters and other writings, presented numerous conference papers, received an
international competitive grant, and was editor of a book review series in a scholarly
journal.
23.
In 2011, Dr. Silverman was granted tenure following glowing
recommendations from all his reviewers. The College Promotion and Tenure Committee
rated Dr. Silvermans teaching outstanding. The committee wrote that Dr. Silverman
was deeply committed to his students intellectual and ethical development and called
him an immensely gifted professor. Many reviewers noted Dr. Silverman's gifts as an
Page 5
educator, and one colleague wrote that according to virtually anyones standards, Dr.
Silvermans scholarship could only be described as prolific.
24.
After receiving tenure, Dr. Silverman enthusiastically took on leadership
roles at the College. He became Chair of the Department of Psychology and Human
Development, chaired the Research and Development Committee and joined the
Academic Policy Committee, the Student Outreach Task Force, the Advisory Board for
the Center for International Programs and Partnerships, and the Faculty Senate. He also
joined other committees and task forces, and took on leadership roles.
25.
In September 2013, Dr. Silverman was granted full professorship; again,
the Promotion and Tenure Committee rated his teaching outstanding. The promotion
report stated that Dr. Silverman intentionally align[s] his teaching with the mission of
the College and that he work[s] exhaustively to create a working structure and safety
nets for [his] students to support their learning.
By this time, Dr. Silverman had
published his third book, and around the same time, Dr. Silverman also started a new
academic journal titled Wheelock International Journal of Children, Families, and
Social Change," serving as its editor.
President Jenkins-Scott
26.
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 was hired. 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.
Page 6
27.
Although she had achieved accomplishments, President Jenkins-Scott also
had notable deficiencies as President. Under her management, the College faced 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 merit reward, lack of support for the core
academic function of the College, and blaming faculty unfairly for campus problems
while excluding them from decision-making.
administrators was unusually high.
Further, turnover among senior
For example, during President Jenkins-Scotts
twelve-year tenure, there were seven Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs.

Search for Dean of Arts and Sciences
28.
In September 2013, the College announced that Dr. Malone-Fenner would
be stepping down as Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences.
Although faculty
members requested the College consider internal candidates to replace her, President
Jenkins-Scott rejected this and hired an external search firm to conduct a candidate
search.
29.
On January 12, 2014, Dr. Silverman submitted his candidacy to the
external search firm to replace Dr. Malone-Fenner as Dean.

30.
On January 27, 2014, President Jenkins-Scott and Dr. Joan Gallos, then
Vice President of Academic Affairs ("VPAA"), sent a letter to the faculty postponing the
search for a new Dean of Arts and Sciences, providing only a brief explanation that
campus conversations continue on key questions at the College. As a stopgap, the
Page 7
College decided it would appoint an interim Dean to serve during the 2014-2015
academic year.
31.
That same day, Dr. Silverman met with Dr. Gallos to indicate his
willingness to serve as the interim Dean. Dr. Silverman was told by Dr. Gallos, pursuant
to President Jenkins-Scotts express instruction, that he could apply for the interim Dean
role, but only on the proviso that he would not put his name forward for the permanent
Dean role. This was an extremely unusual and indeed strange stipulation, contrary to
normal practice in academia; usually interim office holders are automatically expected to
be candidates for the permanent position. Long-term faculty members could recall no
similar stipulation in the history of the College. Nonetheless, Dr. Silverman agreed
because he felt the interim position would provide him with valuable administrative
experience and possibly be a stepping stone to other senior positions at Wheelock.
32.
In the meantime, on January 20, 2014, the department chairs of the School
of Arts and Sciences sent a joint email to President Jenkins-Scott and Dr. Gallos
unanimously recommending Dr. Silverman as a candidate for the Interim Dean position.
33.
On February 5, 2014, the department chairs met with President Jenkins-
Scott and Dr. Gallos to discuss Dr. Silvermans candidacy. During the meeting, President
Jenkins-Scott appeared angry and hostile. She stated, Well, did anyone think that
anyone else might want to be Dean over Eric Silverman? And: Did anyone ask Shirley
[Malone-Fenner] to continue? Maybe she wants to be Dean! This was surprising, as the
only reason an interim Dean was being sought was because of Dr. Malone-Fenners
stated plan, publicly announced by President Jenkins-Scott, that she wanted to step down
Page 8
from being Dean and take a year-long sabbatical during 2014-2015. None of the other
faculty knew that Dr. Malone-Fenner had apparently decided to reverse her decision.
34.
On March 6, 2014, Dr. Silverman met with President Jenkins-Scott and
reiterated his interest in the interim Dean position, and again agreed to her unusual
stipulation that he could not apply for the permanent position. She replied with an email
stating she would make a decision soon.
35.
On April 9, 2014, after a month had elapsed, President Jenkins-Scott
announced that Dr. Malone-Fenner would remain as Dean of Arts and Sciences for
another year. Dr. Silverman was asked to attend a meeting with Dr. Gallos and President
Jenkins-Scott the same day to discuss this decision. At the meeting, he was offered the
opportunity by Dr. Gallos to work with her in a quasi-administrative position for the
following year to provide him with experience for future administrative roles.
Dr.
Silverman agreed to this, and a role was later created for him called Faculty
Administrative Fellow, in which he did highly-regarded work.
36.
In August 2014, the search for the permanent Dean of Arts and Sciences
position resumed, and Dr. Silverman again applied for the role through the same external
search firm.
37.
On November 10, 2014, Dr. Gallos told Dr. Silverman that he had not
made it to the short list, on the grounds that he did not have Assistant or Associate Dean
experience, even though the published job description had required neither. President
Jenkins-Scott later appointed Dr. Adelabu to the Interim role, even though she also had
no Assistant or Associate Dean experience and was junior to Dr. Silverman. Not only was
Dr. Adelabu less qualified for the role than Dr. Silverman was (she had less scholarship,
Page 9
was not a Full Professor, and had not served on Faculty Senate), but she was also on the
search committee for the permanent role, which created a clear conflict of interest.
38.
Dr. Gallos told Dr. Silverman after Dr. Adelabus appointment that she
was surprised he had not been considered for Interim Dean this time or when considered
previously, given his strong support from the Arts & Sciences chairs. But President
Jenkins-Scott always seemed strongly predisposed against him, and especially so after his
leadership in Jewish issues on campus.
A Diversity Climate Survey is instigated immediately following faculty concerns of
racism
39.
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 that many
faculty had raised during All-Faculty meetings over a number of years, and 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 freshman had dropped significantly during
President Jenkins-Scotts tenure and the percentage of students being retained after the
first year had dropped to 63%, because the College did not have the resources to give
under-prepared students the help they needed which was detrimental for the students
morale and the Colleges reputation.
40.
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
Page 10
requesting that the College appoint an external diversity consultant to address racial bias
issues and what they perceived as racial tension on campus.
41.
Around 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 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. Joe-Joe
McManus was specifically chosen to manage the Wheelock diversity climate survey. Dr.
Silverman supported the idea of seeking an external diversity consultant to assist with
campus-wide diversity conversations.
The Jewish faculty letter receives no response
42.
Several weeks into the 2014 fall semester, Dr. Silverman became
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 did not object to the performance, but he was surprised that neither he nor
any of the faculty members who teach about and/or conduct scholarly research and
publish on 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
Page 11
member with a record of peer-reviewed, scholarly publications on Judaism, yet he had

not been approached. 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.
43.
In light of the Colleges newly revived emphasis on diversity and
inclusion and its prompt response to Dr. Adelabus letter raising concerns about racism,
Dr. Silverman suggested he draft a similar letter about the inclusion of Jewish culture in
the Colleges commitment to diversity. 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
Jenkins-Scott, 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
(hereafter, the September 22, 2014 letter).
44.
Dr. Silverman and six of the other eight tenured Jewish faculty members
signed the letter (Drs. Gail Dines, Janine Bempechat, Ellie Friedland, Lee Whitfield,
Debra Borkovitz, and Sara Levine) (hereafter collectively referred to as the Jewish
faculty).
45.
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
Page 12
non-tenured Jewish faculty members offered support to the signatories and indicated that
they agreed Jewish culture was underrepresented at the College.
46.
On October 22, 2014, President Jenkins-Scott invited all members of the
Faculty Senate, including Dr. Silverman, to attend an ILT meeting. During that meeting,
President Jenkins-Scott adjusted the agreed agenda to provide time for Ms. Rosa to
discuss the September 22, 2014 letter. Rather than deal with the letter in a constructive
and positive manner, Ms. Rosa openly criticized and demeaned Dr. Silverman. She
asserted that the September 22, 2014 letter was accusatory, combative, insulting to many
students, demeaning to her team, and generally inappropriate.
47.
Ms. Rosa 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 in 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.
48.
At the same meeting, Dr. Malone-Fenner also claimed that a group of
students had approached her in the hallway to complain about the September 22, 2014
letter. Dr. Silverman was surprised at this announcement, and deeply concerned and
puzzled since Dr. Malone-Fenner had not, as his immediate supervisor, informed him or
Page 13
the Jewish faculty prior to the meeting, nor tried to arrange a meeting with them to
discuss the matter in accordance with normal College policy and procedure.
49.
When asked at the ILT meeting what the students 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 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 VPAA, Dr. Gallos, who
oversaw all faculty matters. Genuinely concerned that the September 22, 2014 letter
could have caused offense, Dr. Silverman asked to meet with the students and/or to speak
with them anonymously by email. Ms. Rosa and Dr. McManus denied both requests.
50.
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. So surprised was one member of Faculty
Senate, Dr. Tina Durand, at Ms. Rosas verbal attack on Dr. Silverman at the October 22,
2014 ILT meeting, that she said Ms. Rosa should apologize to them (the Jewish
faculty).
51.
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.
Page 14
52.
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.
53.
After hearing what transpired at the ILT meeting on October 22, 2014,
many faculty members, both Jewish and non-Jewish, expressed support for Dr.
Silverman. Another faculty member who attended the meeting stated, I was frankly
amazed that you were chastised publically for the tone of the email, signed by several
faculty, including myself, with no mention of substance. It is also vital that students who
express concerns related to any faculty be immediately put into contact with that faculty,
and it is of great concern that you had to make a special request for that.
54.
Another meeting attendee stated: Ultimately, [Ms. Rosas] conduct
constitutes tactics to harass (a violation of the pledge that all of us signed) and to
intimidate you, to suppress a diversity of perspectives and freedom of expression from
her colleagues . . . indeed the very mantle of diversity she is entrusted to guide at
Wheelock. Such explicit lack of respect for colleagues, intolerance, and repression of
ideas endangers the Wheelock community and the reputation of Wheelock.
55.
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, President Jenkins-Scott (neither in her capacity as President
of the College nor as the co-chair of the Diversity Council), nor Dr. Malone-Fenner, who
was the immediate supervisor of Dr. Silverman, responded to this request.
Page 15
56.
Despite these obstructive actions, Drs. Dines and Silverman proposed a
meeting between the Jewish faculty and the Colleges Diversity Council as an alternative
way to initiate a productive dialogue.
Setting up this meeting turned out to be
surprisingly arduous, showing again the Colleges reluctance to engage seriously.

57.
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 asked 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 their
mediation being the well-established way to handle such a matter.
58.
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 in discussion with the Jewish faculty, which so far the Wheelock
administration had refused. Drs. Kim and Rodriguez responded dismissively, expressing
disappointment that the September 22 letter, 2014 had been made public to the faculty;
Dr. Brown never responded to Dr. Silvermans email.
Page 16
59.
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.
60.
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, and making that letter an institutional priority.
61.
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. 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. President
Jenkins-Scott acknowledged to Dr. Gallos that KBG was doing more than we contracted
them to do.
Page 17
62.
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 Drs. Silverman and Dines. President JenkinsScott 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 again 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.
63.
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. Dr. Silverman has never hosted any holiday or other events for students at
his home, so this could not have been the reason for any such alleged feelings of
exclusion.
64.
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
Page 18
present only as an observer. He also did not offer to help moderate a meeting with the
students at another time, and, in fact, the only comments he volunteered at the meeting
were to indicate 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.
65.
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?
66.
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 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
believed President Jenkins-Scotts assertion that Drs. Silverman and Dines were trying
secretly to undermine her; and that his role was thus to seek evidence confirming this.
67.
At an ILT meeting two days later, on December 3, 2014, President
Jenkins-Scott stated with reference to the complaint letter about her to the Board, The
Jewish faculty talked to the Board members probably Jewish Board members.
Page 19
68.
Later that month, Dr. Silverman wrote a newspaper guest column entitled
From One Minority to Another, about the duty of American Jews, as an ethnic minority
with white privilege, to engage with the Black Lives Matter racial justice movement as
allies. The article concluded with Not long ago, we cried Jewish lives matter. Some
of us still do. And for this reason, we must commit to making Black lives matter. It was
published in the Metrowest Daily News on December 21, 2014. On the same day, Dr.
Silverman submitted the article to the Colleges marketing department for distribution
through its social media networks, as it had done with many of his previous newspaper
guest columns and other public media writings. The marketing department refused to
distribute it on the alleged grounds that the article was too controversial.
In fact,
President Jenkins-Scott had determined to treat Dr. Silverman as a pariah and racist, and
it would have undercut that narrative to give publicity to his sincerely held progressive
views.
Search for Interim Vice President of Academic Affairs
69.
In the spring of 2015, the College announced that Dr. Gallos contract as
VPAA would not be renewed and the College would need a new VPAA. On April 27,
2015, the Faculty Senate sent an email to all College faculty asking for nominations for
an Interim VPAA, while the College would recruit externally for the permanent job.
70.
Dr. Silverman and three other faculty members were nominated for the
position. By any objective assessment in regard to administrative experience, academic

rank, teaching, scholarly productivity, and international reputation, Dr. Silvermans
candidacy should have received at least equal treatment to the other three candidates.
Page 20
However, President Jenkins-Scott announced that she would interview all internal
candidates except him.
71.
President Jenkins-Scott later appointed Dr. Malone-Fenner to the position
of Interim VPAA, despite the fact that Dr. Malone-Fenner has produced significantly less
scholarship than Dr. Silverman. When Dr. Malone-Fenner was later found to have
plagiarized work forcing her to resign as Interim VPAA, President Jenkins-Scott
appointed Dr. Adelabu, a non-Jewish, African American woman who had just been
appointed Interim Dean, with no administrative experience as one of three Co-Deans
that replaced the VPAA role.
72.
Again, Dr. Silverman had superior qualifications to Dr. Adelabu. She was
an associate professor, while Dr. Silverman was a full professor. Dr. Silverman has
served on Faculty Senate; Dr. Adelabu had not. Neither of them had any experience as
an Assistant or Associate Dean (which was the stated criteria for the Dean role in 2014).
Yet Dr. Adelabu was again promoted this time to a position more senior than the Dean
of Arts and Sciences without having the relevant experience, in place of Dr. Silverman,
who was more qualified and had a higher academic rank. It seemed as if there was one
rule for Dr. Silverman, and another rule for other applicants.
Wheelock retaliates against Dr. Silverman with accusations of racism
73.
In the spring of 2015, Dr. Silverman had started working with Dr. Dines 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.
Page 21
74.
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. Joe-Joe
McManus was invited by Dr. Silverman and Dr. 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
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.
75.
The day after the event, Dr. Malone-Fenner asked to speak with Dr.
Silverman privately. She told him an allegation of racism had been made against him,
and an external investigator would be hired to examine the matter. The allegation was
that students had reported to Dr. McManus that Dr. Silverman had repeatedly used the
word nigger (hereafter the n-word) in a hostile, aggressive fashion during his classes,
creating a hostile educational environment. However, she could not say in which classes
he had said the n-word, or when this had been reported.
76.
This accusation was baseless. Dr. Silverman has never said the n-word in
or out of the classroom during his time at the College. His only "use" of the n-word is in
his American Identities class, where he assigns academic materials that reference the nword, as well as other slurs for minority groups, in exploring how language reflects the
realities of power. The materials include a renowned book written by Harvard Law
Page 22
School Professor Randall Kennedy titled Nigger: the Strange Career of a Troublesome
Word.
77.
Dr. Silverman first began to assign this book, and to show the film The
N-Word: Divided We Stand, before his tenure review in order to have students directly
apply course material to their own lives, e.g., the music they listen to, how young people
today talk among themselves, popular culture in general. Dr. Silverman uses an exercise
which involves writing derogatory words, including the n-word, on the board, but when
he uses this exercise or references the assigned materials he always says the phrase nword. He does not state the full word aloud out of respect for his students and in
recognition of its power to cause harm and distress.
As a white Jewish man, Dr.
Silverman has always felt that he has no right to speak the n-word in any context.
78.
However, several other Wheelock professors do use and, more
importantly, say the full n-word during various courses in American Studies and History.
Three other professors who did not contribute to the September 22, 2014 letter (Drs. Jama
Lazerow, Tina Durand, and Mary Battenfeld) have confirmed that they say the word
aloud when citing academic materials, that students say it in class, and that they have
never received any complaints from students or faculty regarding this choice. Wheelock
administrators never picked them out for investigation, unlike Dr. Silverman, and as it
turns out, Dr. Dines, another signatory of the Jewish faculty letter, who was told she was
being investigated for inappropriate use of the n-word a week before Dr. Silverman was.
79.
At no point during Dr. Silvermans academic career has he ever received
any negative comments regarding the use of improper and/or racialized language in any
of his student evaluations, nor during any of his tenure or promotion reviews.
Page 23
80.
Even Dr. Malone-Fenner, who had claimed at the October 22, 2014 ILT
meeting and the December 1, 2014 meeting to have heard student complaints that
students had felt excluded by Jewish faculty from holiday celebrations, confirmed later
that she had not personally heard a student accuse Dr. Silverman of saying the n-word
inappropriately. She said only that Dr. McManus had told her that students had
complained, and he would not give further information.
81.
Moreover, the allegation was that Dr. Silverman directly and aggressively
spoke the n-word repeatedly in his classes; the allegation did not concern course readings
or the film.
But when Dr. Gallos spoke to Dr. McManus, he provided her with
inconsistent, confusing, and contradictory information about the alleged student

complaints; he could not specify anyone who had accused either professor (Dr. Silverman
or Dines).
82.
Nevertheless, he told Dr. Gallos that students knew that [Drs. Silverman
and Dines] dont like Jackie and that they are trying to stick it to her. How students
would know such a thing was not explained. Dr. Dines had been on good terms with
President Jenkins-Scott since her arrival at Wheelock. Dr. Silverman was not a close
ally, but had no animus towards her.
83.
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 on these
issues, 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
Page 24
and followed widely used and up-to-date curricula and norms 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,
students know [Drs. Silverman and Dines] dont like Jackie and they are trying to
stick it to her through their racist teaching.
84.
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.
85.
Dr. Gallos, as VPAA, the most senior academic officer next to the
President, 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 member so as to determine and report to the President
whether an external investigation was warranted. With respect to the alleged complaint
against Dr. Silverman, 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 the Vice Chair of the
Board, Dan Terris, was delegated to oversee it.
Page 25
86.
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. .
87.
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. Silverman, and who say the word in class 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.
88.
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, and
scholarly reputations and raised serious issues for the College about selective targeting of
faculty and academic freedom; (c) she could find no grounds for an investigation; and (d)
President Jenkins-Scott was paying KBG to give external validation to improper conduct.
89.
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
Page 26
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.
90.
Skepticism was voiced by others, including the Colleges attorney, Jeffrey
Hirsch (Attorney Hirsch), about whether an investigation was needed or appropriate.

Attorney Hirsch said that he had read Dr. Silverman's syllabus, and that the materials he
included were appropriate for the course. Dr. Malone-Fenner admitted confusion over
which courses the complaints covered, as Dr. Silverman hadn't taught American Identities
that semester, and in no other course does Dr. Silverman expressly include a course
segment on the language of race and ethnicity. Dr. McManus then confirmed that the
alleged student complaints did not refer to Dr. Silverman's written materials.
91.
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
academic context, in classes which handle issues like the language of oppression and
racial inequality. When she had spoken to Dr. Silverman about the alleged complaints, he
had been visibly upset and confused, asking if she was sure the complaints were about
him, and had requested more information so he could try to solve any misunderstanding
informally with students. Dr. Malone-Fenner appeared to believe Dr. Silverman, but she
Page 27
made no attempt to assist him in meeting with the students who supposedly registered
complaints.
92.
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.
93.
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 (a meeting to which
Dr. Gallos, despite being the Colleges chief academic officer, had not been invited or
informed of). 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.
94.
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 28
the faculty member should discuss the problem with the person involved in personal
conference and attempt to resolve the matter by mutual consent.
95.
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.
96.
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.
97.
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.
98.
At this point, neither Dr. Dines nor Dr. Silverman had been shown any
evidence in any form, written or verbal, concerning their alleged racism. They had not
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 and Dr. McManus were pushing for them to be placed on
unpaid leave.
Page 29
99.
Regardless of Dr. Gallos efforts to keep the College from discriminating
and retaliating against Drs. Dines and Silverman through an unfounded investigation,
President Jenkins-Scott continued on her quest to punish and embarrass them. On May
10, 2015, she 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.
100.
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 30
101.
The College never arranged a meeting with Dr. Silverman regarding the
alleged students complaints.

102.
On May 14, 2015, Dr. Silverman wrote letters to Human Resources and
Ms. Rosa noting that his working conditions changed dramatically for the worse shortly
after, and in direct response to, his dissemination of the September 22, 2014 letter.
103.
Ultimately, after counsel for Drs. Silverman and Dines wrote to Attorney
Hirsch that Wheelock should refrain from further defamatory and retaliatory conduct
toward them, the investigation was called off.
104.
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;
d.
Senior administrators continued to manifest anti-Semitic bias towards them;

and
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.
105.
Ms. Crews initially agreed to meet about these concerns, but this meeting
never happened.
Page 31
KBG's Diversity Report

106.
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.
107.
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.
108.
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.
109.
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.
Page 32
110.
The Diversity Report contained several statements that belittled Dr.
Silverman's experiences of isolation and victimization as a Jewish person, and reassured

students and staff that he 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 Jenkins-Scott 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
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.
111.
The Diversity Report also contains the following statements that criticized
Dr. Silverman and his 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:
Page 33
a.
Manifestations of what is referred to as White Fragility were recounted and

observed among faculty and staff . . . claims that any concern raised about
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.
112.
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.
113.
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.
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.
Page 34
114.
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 made by President Jenkins-Scott that were racially motivated and
bad for Wheelock, to be replaced by Dr. Malone-Fenner.
115.
These statements clearly targeted Drs. Silverman and Dines 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
unfair allegations against them that President Jenkins-Scott and Dr. McManus trumpeted
to the Board and ILT but refused to detail.
116.
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 final approval of the Diversity
Report.
Page 35
117.
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, indicating 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.
118.
A non-Jewish faculty member replied to this email stating that she felt
Drs. 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.
119.
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
120.
In the fall of 2015, Dr. Silverman continued to be targeted by President
Jenkins-Scott, as well as administrators reporting to her and their faculty allies.

121.
From the start of the fall semester, President Jenkins-Scott excluded Dr.
Silverman from working on initiatives and programs in the 2015-2016 academic year that
he had begun as Faculty Administrative Fellow the previous year.
Though he had
performed well as Faculty Administrative Fellow in a one-year appointment, this left him
Page 36
no opportunity to hold leadership roles or to follow-up with the work he had initiated as
Faculty Administrative Fellow, even when such work was carried on by others the next
academic year. Further, it effectively blocked him from gaining the experience that would
allow him to progress into an administrative role at the College or elsewhere.
122.
In September 2015, it was revealed that Dr. Malone-Fenner, who had been
appointed Interim VPAA to replace Dr. Gallos, had plagiarized a significant percentage
of her welcome speech to Wheelock students, without attribution, from similar speeches
by the presidents of Harvard, Rutgers, and The University of the Pacific. President
Jenkins-Scott robustly defended her, but because Dr. Malone-Fenner was responsible for
handling student plagiarism cases and as VPAA was the chief guardian of academic
standards on campus, she resigned as VPAA on September 14, 2015. On September 23,
2015, Dr. Silverman emailed the Faculty Senate that he had been advised that there are
other instances whereby [Dr. Malone-Fenner] has potentially plagiarized, and gave
examples that he believed warranted further investigation.
123.
In response, Dr. Malone-Fenner filed a Human Resources complaint
against Dr. Silverman for harassment based on his alleged impugnation of her
character.
124.
Despite having sufficient grounds, President Jenkins-Scott did not initiate
any further internal or external investigation of Dr. Malone-Fenners academic record to

identify if it revealed other examples of academic dishonesty, nor did she cause Dr.
Malone-Fenners complaint against Dr. Silverman to be withdrawn.
125.
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
Page 37
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.
126.
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 KBGs approach rather than moderate it, continuing the retaliation against Drs.
Silverman and Dines that employed KBG as one of its vehicles.
127.
At the next Faculty Senate meeting, Dr. Silverman was removed over his
own objection from the Senate because of an apparent conflict of interest arising from Dr.
Malone-Fenners retaliatory and unfounded complaint against him.
128.
The fierce campaign waged by President Jenkins-Scott and her allies
against Dr. Silverman since he wrote the September 22, 2014 letter was devastating to
him. An institution which he loved and planned to stay at for the rest of his career was
now hostile.
He was under investigation for things he had not done, and the
administration was deliberately ignoring the truth and straining to punish him.
129.
Dr. Silverman was anxious, upset, had trouble sleeping, worried about his
personal safety on campus, felt that every word he said in his classroom was put under
scrutiny that no other facutly member, except for Dr. Dines, had ever received at the
Page 38
College, and was deeply concerned about his professional reputation as a scholar and
public intellectual. The time he needed to spend, moreover, defending himself from these
false accusations was also taking time away from other activities, such as his elected role
as a School Board member in his home town. He was also concerned about how this
experience was affecting his family, especially his two teenage children.
130.
The College refused to take Dr. Silvermans concerns seriously. He hired
attorneys and sought mediation, but in November 2015 Wheelocks attorney Jeffrey
Hirsch said it would 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 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.
131.
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.
132.
Ms. Taylor's letter, while purporting to endorse 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.
Page 39
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.
133.
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 that she 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 entrenched President Jenkins-Scotts power had become so much so
that even the Board was unwilling to rein her in.
134.
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 her, 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. President Chard 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 administrator
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.
Colleges problems were deep and could not be turned around overnight.
Page 40
He thought the
135.
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; thus he questioned why they had done 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.
136.
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
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. Silvermans class
137.
Over time, Wheelocks administrations failure to resolve or rebut the
false accusations of racism made and repeated by President Jenkins-Scott and Dr.
McManus created a hostile working environment and induced some students to believe
Dr. Silverman was guilty of racism. By late fall 2015, students began to target Dr.
Silverman.
138.
On November 12, 2015, a student unknown to Dr. Silverman, who had
never taken a class with him, approached him in his office during a 10 minute class break
and said she had, for a long time, heard lots of student complaints about him saying the
n-word. He was caught off guard and baffled by the false accusation but continued a
Page 41
conversation with the student for several minutes, until the break ended. They continued
the conversation as Dr. Silverman walked back to his classroom. When he indicated he
needed to return to class, she raised her voice in the hallway and yelled Dont try to hush
me! repeatedly until others in the hallway took notice. Afterwards, Dr. Adelabu, now
the Dean of Arts and Sciences and one of the Co-Deans filling the interim role of VPAA,
called Dr. Silverman to a meeting to discuss this incident.
139.
On November 16, 2015, a group of students at a Town Hall meeting
brought up Dr. Silvermans alleged use of the n-word, and read aloud a statement calling
for him to be fired on the basis that he is allegedly racist. Two days later, on November
18, 2015, a group of students raised the same issues at a Diversity Council. They stated
that they would go to the press if Dr. Silverman did not resign, that Dr. Silverman
repeatedly used the n-word in class, and that students were afraid of him. When
questioned by Dr. Villegas-Reimers, who co-chaired the meeting, the students admitted
that none of them had taken a class with Dr. Silverman, nor had they heard him say the nword personally.
140.
At the Town Hall meeting, the evidence relied on by the students to
demonstrate Dr. Silvermans use of the n-word was the class exercise in which Dr.
Silverman asks students anonymously to write down derogatory names for racial and
ethnic groups on note cards. As previously stated, Dr. Silverman wrote all the epithets on
the board, in an exercise to demonstrate the power of certain words, particularly the nword, but never spoke the n-word aloud. The only epithets he spoke aloud were those for
Jewish people, a group to which he belongs. Regardless, the students who provided this
Page 42
exercise as evidence had never attended one of his classes, and could only have heard
about the exercise from other students or faculty.
141.
The hostility some students exhibited toward Dr. Silverman was a direct
result of the Colleges dissemination of the false accusations against him and leaking
partial information about his legal dispute with the College, at the direction of President
Jenkins-Scott, and aided by other administrators and Dr. McManus. President JenkinsScott could have easily put the record straight, but remained publicly silent in order to
allow the accusations to travel and gain traction.
142.
Following these alleged student complaints, on November 18, 2015, Dr.
Adelabu told Dr. Silverman that neutral observers would be placed in all of his classes for
the rest of the semester. This was an unprecedented step and a public rebuke of his
qualities as a scholar and teacher, and was taken to humilate and undermine him in front
of his students. Dr. Silverman asked, but never learned; the directions given to these
neutral observers; to whom they reported; in what format they made their reports; what
they reported; nor did any follow-up.
143.
The same day, at the Diversity Council meeting, President Jenkins-Scott
stated in front of over 40 administrators, students, staff, and faculty members that:
a.
Eric Silverman will never teach alone again;
b.
He will not teach that course ever again; and
c.
He will be removed from his Chair position for next year.
These statements were openly hostile, threatening and defamatory.

Administrators use student demands to ramp up their retaliation against Dr. Silverman
Page 43
144.
On December 18, 2015, the Colleges Black Student Union sent a letter to
the administration and Board of Trustees with a list of demands regarding diversity and
inclusion that included the following:
a.
That Eric Silverman write an apology letter to the concerned students,

faculty, and staff acknowledging his white male privilege and the misuse of
academic freedom to use racial slurs, sexist and homophobic statements in
the classroom.
b.
That Eric Silverman mention the importance of systems of oppression that

make it possible for him to use academic freedom as a means to oppress
students in the classroom.
c.
That Eric Silverman acknowledge the impact of making his Anthropology

and Globalization (HAD 121-01) and American Identities (AST 160) class
an online course in order to avoid being observed by administration in the
Fall Semester of 2015.
d.
That Eric Silverman continues to be observed throughout the academic

year.
145.
No other faculty member was mentioned by name in the list of demands.
Nevertheless, President Jenkins-Scott ignored that this attack on Dr. Silverman was based
on a false premise of his racism, and did not come to his defense. Indeed she took
immediate action to achieve some of the students goals. This included the scheduling of
a professional development day for Wheelock faculty, with Robin DiAngelo lecturing on
white fragility in higher education.
146.
On January 5, 2016, Dr. Silverman responded to the students letter with
an email to all faculty and students. In his email, he explained his dedication to social
justice and his commitment to teaching students to combat racism, sexism, and
homophobia. He also explained that he had been falsely accused of using the n-word in
class, and that he believed the accusation was in retaliation for voicing concerns to the
administration about Jewish inclusion.
Page 44
147.
Dr. Silverman received many positive responses both from students and
faculty to his email.
As a direct result, the President of the Black Student Union
suggested a meeting with him to discuss how he could work with the Union to address
their concerns. Dr. Silverman responded positively twice but the student never got back
in touch.
148.
Nevertheless, Dr. Silvermans email was quickly removed from all student
inboxes by Roy Schifilliti, Vice President for Administration, Institutional Effectiveness

and Innovation, at the direction of President Jenkins-Scott.
Never before had this
happened to a faculty member at the College. Mr. Schifilliti told Dr. Silverman that his
email was a violation of the Colleges email policy because college-wide emails cannot
be used as a forum for stating personal views. On January 6, 2015, Mr. Schifilliti
emailed all faculty informing them that Dr. Silvermans email had been removed, which
was a public rebuke.
149.
The enforced removal of Dr. Silvermans email by President Jenkins-Scott
was an attempt to silence and retaliate against him, rebuke him in front of his students
and the rest of the Wheelock community, and violated his academic freedom. Several
faculty spoke in Dr. Silvermans defense at an All-Faculty Meeting. On January 7, 2016,
Dr. Silverman made a formal request to President Jenkins-Scott to authorize the Faculty
Mediation Committee to address and resolve the decision by Mr. Schifilliti to recall his
email.
Although the Faculty Handbook, approved by the Board, specifies that the
President shall submit such requests to the Faculty Mediation Committee within 14 days,
President Jenkins-Scott did not forward the request or respond within 14 days, and did
not do so during the six months she remained President of Wheelock.
Page 45
150.
That same day, the Faculty Senate made an official statement in defense of
Dr. Silvermans email and its opposition to its withdrawal by Vice President Schifilliti.
The Faculty Senate wrote: Senate is clear that Dr. Silvermans email accurately states
his understanding of events and includes relevant information; is related to Wheelock
College business or activities; that it was sent to relevant groups, and that his email
communicates pertinent information of concern to all intended recipients.
151.
In response to the Faculty Senate letter, President Jenkins-Scott authorized
the release of Dr. Silvermans email to the students in the Black Students Union only, but
not to all its previous recipients. She did not consult with Dr. Silverman or ask him
which student groups should receive the email.
She was continuing to censor his
communications.
152.
During the week of February 1, 2016, President Jenkins-Scott, Ms. Rosa,
and Dean of Students Barbara Morgan met with the Black Student Union, the Student
Government Association, and a student group known as WheeSpeak, to present an update
on actions taken in response to the students demands to observe, curtail the activities of,
and punish Dr. Silverman. Some faculty members, following the lead of President
Jenkins-Scott, voiced support for these demands, which included a requirement that Dr.
Silverman admit that he has used racist language and holds racist beliefs, which would be
a lie.
153.
Never before at Wheelock has a College faculty member been singled out
by students, administration, and faculty on the basis of false allegations manufactured and
inflamed by the Presidents office. Throughout the attack on his reputation and capacity
Page 46
to teach, Dr. Silverman has been censored and denied due process to respond within the
Colleges governance structure.
Student protest disrupts Dr. Silvermans class
154.
On February 1, 2016, Dr. Silverman filed a complaint with the EEOC
against the College. He then sent a copy of his EEOC filing to the faculty so that
President Jenkins-Scott could not misconstrue it, seeking to keep the process and faculty
dialogue honest.
155.
After Drs. Silverman and Dines were interviewed on television about their
EEOC charges, a student emailed Dr. Silverman the following message: Hi Eric, I just
watched a segment on TV about the anti-Semitism at school. I took your class last
semester (Anthropology and Globalization) and I never heard you use or misuse the Nword, in fact I thought you did a great job teaching the class and educating us on
diversity. It really saddens me to see two great professors being put through this. Best of
luck!
156.
On February 23, 2016, about ten minutes into Dr. Silvermans
Anthropology and Globalization class, a group of 35 protesters marched into the

classroom and stood along two walls of the room, behind students and Dr. Silverman.
Dr. Silverman tried to engage the protesters in conversation, but they refused to answer
his questions or speak. They also refused to move. They stood there, silently and
ominously. Dr. Silverman then asked his students to wait a moment while he went to
request assistance from his Dean, Dr. Adelabu.
Page 47
157.
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.
158.
The conduct of the protest indicates that members of the Wheelock
administration encouraged it, as further retaliation. When Dr. Silverman returned to the
classroom, the Co-Deans were already there. They repeatedly told the students that they
had the right to assemble but not to disrupt the class. However, the protest was obviously
seriously disruptive to the class. The Co-Deans never asked the students to cease the
disruption. The Co-Deans called Dr. Silverman outside and pressured him to teach in the
protesters presence. It appeared to Dr. Silverman that the Co-Deans were taking the side
of the protestors against him, using the protest and perhaps even encouraging it to isolate
and punish him, despite the disruption to his students who wanted the class to continue
normally.
159.
Dr. Silverman asked the protesters if they would like to set a time to meet
outside of the class, but they remained entirely silent and thus would not agree to a
meeting. Dr. Silverman ultimately decided that their stony presence did not create a safe
and comfortable environment for teaching and cancelled the class, apologizing that
afternoon by email to his students for the disruption.
160.
Later that day, Dr. Silverman received several emails of support from his
students, who agreed with his decision to cancel the class under the circumstances.
161.
A few hours after the protest, without first consulting Dr. Silverman, the
Co-Deans sent an email to the entire faculty, the Faculty Senate, the President, Dean of
Students, and Dean of Student Success providing a biased account of the student protest
Page 48
that portrayed Dr. Silverman as uncooperative. The email stated that Students expressed
much of the same concerns regarding their safety.
162.
Dr. Silverman responded to the email asking what these student safety
concerns were, assuming that any discomfort they felt was due to the 35 protesters in the
room. Dr. Adelabu responded, After you left the classroom, students expressed feeling
unsafe on campus due to a number of classroom experiences.
163.
Dr. Silverman explained to the Co-Deans that any unsafe classroom
experiences this semester could have not occurred in his classes. One of his two courses
is entirely online; all the communication between Dr. Silverman and the students in that
course occurred through an online learning platform that records all such communication.
Dr. Silverman did not understand what unsafe meant in this context, and checked all
the online recorded conversations and could identify nothing that was unsafe. The CoDeans provided no instances or examples of supposedly unsafe teaching.
Before
making this accusation, they had not brought it up to him or asked for any information
from him.
164.
The other course is 80% online, and Dr. Silverman had only met with the
students in this class once before the cancelled class (the very first day of class). Again,
Dr. Silverman checked the recorded online course conversations and could identify
nothing unsafe and again the Co-Deans did not provide him with any specific
examples.
165.
In fact, Dr. Silverman has never been provided with any evidence or
details concerning the allegations of unsafe experiences in his classrooms because
Page 49
there is no evidence. The accusations are false and without foundation, and were made to
retaliate against him further.
166.
Once again, the Co-Deans appeared to be inflating and distorting the facts,
reflecting the deep discriminatory animus their boss, President Jenkins-Scott, had
expressed for Dr. Silverman since he signed and distributed the September 22, 2014
letter.
167.
This was consistent with President Jenkins-Scotts many other acts of
retaliation, such as her push to have his teaching investigated by KBG or some other
outside group, removing his administrative role, refusing to interview him for
administrative leadership positions despite his possessing qualifications at least as
satisfactory as the other candidates, and in some cases greater, and failing to promote him
to roles for which he was more qualified than the successful candidate.
Dr. Silverman is portrayed as targeting Wheelock administrators
168.
On February 24, 2016, The Jewish Advocate newspaper published a story
on Drs. Silvermans and Dines EEOC filing. Dr. Silverman tweeted a link to the story,
but unbeknownst to Dr. Silverman, the newspapers Twitter feed automatically included a
photograph in his tweet that accompanied the newspaper story. The photograph was of
President Jenkins-Scott, Dr. Malone-Fenner, and Ms. Rosa, who are all women of color.
169.
Many students interpreted the inclusion of this photograph as a racist
attack by Dr. Silverman on the administrators in the photograph and created a poster of
his tweet with the phrase Dont support spiteful acts targeted against our community
members. These posters had been widely distributed around campus, and were sent by
email to the entire faculty by a faculty member (which, unlike Dr. Silvermans previous
Page 50
faculty-wide email, was not removed for allegedly violating the Colleges email policy).
The posters had even been put on official bulletin boards, implying administration
approval, and remained there for months despite lacking the date stamp from the Office
of Student Life required on all notices posted on official bulletin boards. This was one
more element in the campaign of the Wheelock administration against Dr. Silverman.
Co-Deans reframe student protests to target Dr. Silverman
170.
On February 28, 2016, the Co-Deans sent an email to all 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 Wheelock administration would not intervene if students protested again in
classrooms. This email was a direct attack on Drs. Silverman and Dines for filing their
EEOC charges, despite the federal protection against retaliation and further attacks the
EEOC process guarantees.
Fact-finding exercise: the Sanghavi Report
171.
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.
172.
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
Page 51
ever explained to Dr. Silverman the specific accusations or incidents included in the
alleged student complaints, which certainly did not track his enthusiastic student
evaluations, nor did they facilitate any meetings between Dr. Silverman and students.
173.
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.
174.
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
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.
175.
The firms report (the Sanghavi Report), issued March 31, 2016,
contains multiple indicators of unfairness and procedural oddness that belie its retaliatory
purpose.
176.
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
Page 52
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 sent an email on March 1, 2016 by Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees
Dan Terris that described them as the sole targets of the exercise.
177.
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 do so in
their written or creative writing assignments. But Drs. Dines and Silverman were the only
members 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 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.
178.
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
Page 53
his knowledge was false, and had been supplied by the Colleges senior employee,
President Jenkins-Scott, as part of her campaign of retaliation.
179.
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 was also designed as a weapon against Drs. Dines and
Silverman instead of a fair inquiry. Their legal counsel advised them not to participate,
and they did not.
180.
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.
Drs. Dines and Silverman requested that the Wheelock
administration provide any information it had about specific complaints that justified this
investigation. None was ever provided.
Page 54
181.
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.
182.
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.
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.

183.
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.
Page 55
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.
184.
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.
185.
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.
186.
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.
Page 56
187.
Most startling was that the worst substantive complaint the Sanghavi
Report could come up with against Dr. Silverman was 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. The 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 to
criticize enduring inequalities caused by racism in the quality of housing available to
African Americans in the United States.
188.
Even though it stretched, the Sanghavi Report found nothing because
there was nothing to find.

189.
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 targeted retaliation. It continued the
campaign of discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on his race, religion and
color, that began when Dr. Silverman sent the September 22, 2014 letter.
190.
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
Page 57
embarrassment to Wheelock, one that is contrary to its values of truth-seeking and

scholarly integrity.
Targeting and retaliation through social media
191.
The Wheelock administration has also used social media to target and
retaliate against Dr. Silverman.

192.
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. Silverman and Dines.
193.
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 entry on the widely read, progressive
blog Jewschool. Mr. Wilkenfeld-Mongillo stated his Wheelock employment in the
very first paragraph of this blog. He then stated that Dr. Silvermans 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 antiSemitism 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.
194.
At a Town Hall meeting on March 1, 2016, President Jenkins-Scott stated
to all attendees [t]he narrative has been hijacked and we have an opportunity to take
back the narrative.
This statement was posted on a student Twitter account and
Page 58
retweeted. President Jenkins-Scott here was accusing Drs. Dines and Silverman, in a
public forum, of falsely hijacking the reputation of the College.
195.
On March 1, 2016, Dr. Silverman tweeted about a news report that African
American students were escorted out of a Trump rally. On March 5, 2016, a student
tweeted to Dr. Silverman, @EKSilverman Funny-I see a strong correlation between
protests @ WheelockCollege and this one, where students are silenced and asked to
leave.
That same day, Ms. Rosa retweeted that students tweet, even though Dr.
Silverman silenced no students, nor did he ever ask any of his enrolled students to leave
his class.
Further retaliation and differential treatment
196.
On March 3, 2016, a small group of faculty and staff circulated a letter for
signatures, which accused Drs. Dines and Silverman of jeopardizing the very
existence of the college. The letter was then sent to the The Boston Globe and Jewish
Advocate.
Later that day, the letter was emailed by Jamie Boussicot, Director of
Multicultural Affairs, to all undergraduate and graduate students and, which only the
administrators can do, to all staff at the College. The note accompanying the letter
included the following statement I am sure many other staff and faculty would have
agreed to signWe encourage others to continue working toward making Wheelock the
college we envision, that is, to continue marginalizing Drs. Silverman and Dines. Yet
President Jenkins-Scott did not order this letter removed from student or staff inboxes.
Once more the College was taking sides against Drs. Dines and Silverman for engaging
in protected activity, including filing their EEOC complaints.
Page 59
197.
Dr. Malone-Fenners HR complaint against Dr. Silverman for his alleged
impugnation of [her] character after her plagiarism was not investigated further and
thus is held in permanent abeyance. By refusing to formally retract the complaint, Dr.
Malone-Fenner has sustained the false perception that Dr. Silvermans removal from
Faculty Senate (based on his correct complaint about her plagiarism) was legitimate, and
has prevented him from being reinstated to that role. This also allows the faculty to
wrongly believe that Dr. Silverman remains under an HR investigation called by Dr.
Malone-Fenner.
198.
On March 11, 2016, Dr. Silvermans 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. Silverman has not made any
defamatory statements about KBG; his statements about KBG have been true and factual.
The letter was intended to intimidate Dr. Silverman and was retaliatory.
199.
Wheelock.
On June 30, 2016, President Jenkins-Scott left the presidency of

Her exit package, agreed by the Board, provided for a years full pay,
approximately $500,000, with no responsibility to do or produce anything for the

College.
200.
Her successor is David Chard. Since President Chards arrival, several
administrators have left the college, including Ms. Rosa, former Co-Chair of the
Diversity Council, Co-Dean Davis, and Vice President Schifilliti three of President
Jenkins-Scotts inner circle.
Page 60
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I
TITLE VII AND CHAPTER 151B EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
As to Defendant WHEELOCK COLLEGE
201.
Dr. Silverman re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth above in
Paragraphs 17-198 as though fully set forth herein.

202.
Wheelock discriminated against Dr. Silverman, a white Jewish employee,
on the basis of his Jewish race and religion, and his color. The acts of discrimination
suffered include, inter alia:
a.
Following Dr. Silvermans application to act as Interim Dean of the School

of Arts and Sciences on January 27, 2014, Dr. Gallos, the then VPAA,
relayed President Jenkins-Scott express instruction that he could only apply
for the interim role on the proviso that he would not apply for the permanent
Dean role;
b.
The College subsequently rejected his application to be the Interim Dean of

the School of Arts and Sciences despite Dr. Silverman being the most
suitable candidate for the position. He was offered the lesser position of
Faculty Administrative Fellow;
c.
At the ILT meeting on October 22, 2014, Ms. Rosa, President Jenkins-Scott
and Dr. Malone-Fenner publicly disparaged and admonished Dr. Silverman
for sending the September 22, 2014 letter;
d.
At the same meeting, 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 lack of Jewish programming
Page 61
at Wheelock. But when Dr. Silverman asked for more information about the
alleged complaints, she could not provide any particulars;
e.
On November 10, 2014, Dr. Silverman was told by Dr. Gallos that his
application for the permanent position of Dean of Arts and Sciences had
been unsuccessful;
f.
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. Silverman, as well
as accusing them of writing a letter to the Colleges Board of Trustees
complaining about the hostile working environment caused by President
Jenkins-Scotts leadership;
g.
The College refused to promote an article entitled From One Minority to

Another written by Dr. Silverman and which he submitted to the Colleges
Marketing Department on December 21, 2014.
h.
In spring 2015, Dr. Silvermans application for the position of Interim

VPAA was rejected. Dr. Malone-Fenner, a non-Jewish African American
employee, was appointed to this position despite having produced less
scholarship than Dr. Silverman;
i.
When Dr. Malone-Fenner was forced to resign as Interim VPAA following

a substantiated allegation of plagiarism against her, Dr Adelabu and two
other Deans (one of whom was an Interim Dean), all non-Jewish employees
and two of which were African American, were unilaterally appointed to
Page 62
serve in the role of Co-Deans in place of an Interim VPAA. Dr. Silverman

was not considered for these position, despite being more qualified than Dr.
Adelabu and Dr. Banks-Santillli, who got the jobs;
j.
On April 30, 2015, Dr. Malone-Fenner informed Dr. Silverman that she had
received student complaints that he had used the n-word in a hostile,
aggressive manner during one of his classes. The source of this alleged
complaint was Dr. McManus of KBG;
k.
Despite no proper evidence being given to Dr. Silverman to substantiate

these alleged student complaints, the College decided that they warranted an
external investigation. This contravened the Colleges policy for handling
complaints and investigations of student complaints against faculty.
Following representations from the Faculty Senate and other faculty
members, the College backed down and ordered Dr. Gallos to conduct an
investigation.
Dr. Gallos eventually refused to oversee it because she
thought it was unnecessary and predetermined, 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;
l.
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 that directly implicated Dr. Silverman. President JenkinsScott, Ms. Taylor and/or Ms. Rosa permitted and/or instructed Dr.
McManus to include false statements directed at Dr. Silverman in his public
Page 63
presentation, namely that Jewish faculty have a problem with people of

color on campus and faculty say the n-word here at Wheelock;
m. For the 2015-2016 academic year, President Jenkins-Scott excluded Dr.
Silverman from working on initiatives and programs that he had begun as
Faculty Administrative Fellow the previous year;
n.
On September 17, 2015 the College released the Diversity Report which
implicitly criticized Dr. Silverman for raising concerns about Jewish
inclusion at Wheelock, and claimed that he and other Jewish faculty 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. Silverman had used a
racial epithet in his class and was a bully;
o.
Following further unidentified complaints from students that Dr. Silverman

had used racial epithets in his classroom, on November 18, 2015, Dr.
Adelabu told him that neutral observers would be placed in all of his
classes for the rest of the semester. Dr. Silverman was never informed of
the observers charge, to whom they would report, or in what format they
would issue their reports. Dr. Silverman has never had access to their
reports;
p.
The same day, President Jenkins-Scott told Wheelock administrators,

students, staff, and faculty members that Dr. Silverman would never teach
alone again; would not teach that course again; and that he would be
removed from his Chair position;
Page 64
q.
Following a letter from the Colleges Black Student Union on December 18,
2015 listing demands regarding diversity which specifically attacked Dr.
Silverman, he wrote an open letter to Wheelock students and faculty on
January 5, 2016. This letter was unilaterally removed from all student
inboxes by Vice President Schifilliti in contravention of the Colleges email
policy;
r.
The College failed to properly deal with and/or encouraged a student protest
in Dr. Silvermans classroom on February 23, 2016, contrary to the
requirements of the Wheelock Student Handbook. The Co-Deans told the
students they had the right to assemble in Dr. Silvermans classroom during
his class even though their assembly disrupted it. The Co-Deans then gave a
false and biased report to the faculty that Dr. Silverman had been
uncooperative during the protest;
s.
On February 28, 2016, the Co-Deans sent an email to the entire College
informing them that Dr. Silverman had filed an EEOC complaint against the
College, and repeated the false claim that students felt marginalized,
intimidated, and unsafe in his classroom;
t.
The College revived the investigation into Dr. Silvermans 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 to support the Colleges false contention that Dr. Silverman had
used racial epithets in his class and therefore had demonstrated racist
behavior. Drs. Silverman and Dines were the only faculty members to be
Page 65
investigated, despite other teachers using the same material and alleged
racial epithets in similar ways to discuss issues relating to race;
u.
College employees targeted Dr. Silverman on social media on February 23,

2016, February 29, 2016 and March 5, 2016;
v.
Wheelock failed to rescind the false HR complaint by Dr. Malone-Fenner

against Dr. Silverman or to re-appoint him to Faculty Senate following the
decision to hold her complaint in abeyance on November 19, 2015.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dr. Silverman respectfully demands judgment against

defendant WHEELOCK 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;
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.
Page 66
COUNT II
TITLE VII AND CHAPTER 151B
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
203.

204.
Since the beginning of 2014, Dr. Silverman 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. Silverman avers the following,
and/or in the alternative, are acts of harassment:
a.
Following Dr. Silvermans application to act as Interim Dean of the School

of Arts and Sciences on January 27, 2014, Dr. Gallos, the then VPAA,
relayed President Jenkins express instruction that he could only apply for
the interim role on the proviso that he would not apply for the permanent
Dean role;
b.
The College subsequently rejected his application to be the Interim Dean of

the School of Arts and Sciences despite Dr. Silverman being the most
suitable candidate for the position. He was offered the lesser position of
Faculty Administrative Fellow;
c.
At the ILT meeting on October 22, 2014, Ms. Rosa, President Jenkins-Scott,
d.

had approached her to complain about the contents of the September 22,
Page 67
2014 letter which expressed concerns about the lack of Jewish programming
at Wheelock. But when Dr. Silverman asked for more information about
these alleged complaints, Dr. Malone-Fenner could not provide any
particulars.;
e.
On November 10, 2014, Dr. Silverman was told by Dr. Gallos that his
been unsuccessful;
f.
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. Silverman, as well
as accusing them of writing a letter to the Colleges Board of Trustees
complaining about a hostile working environment;
g.
The College refused to promote an article entitled From One Minority to

Another written by Dr. Silverman and which he submitted to the Colleges
Marketing Department on December 21, 2014;
h.

VPAA was rejected. Dr. Malone-Fenner, a non-Jewish African American
employee, was appointed to this position despite having produced less
scholarship than Dr. Silverman;
i.

other Deans (one of whom was Interim Dean), all non-Jewish employees
Page 68
and two of which were African American, were unilaterally appointed to

serve in the role of Interim VPAA. Dr. Silverman was not considered for
this position, despite being more qualified than Dr. Adelabu and Dr. BanksSantillli, who got the jobs;
j.
On April 30, 2015, Dr. Malone-Fenner informed Dr. Silverman that she had
received student complaints that he had used the n-word in a hostile,
k.

external investigation. This contravened the Colleges policy for handling
complaints and investigations of student complaints against faculty.
Following representations from other Faculty Senate and other faculty
members, the College backed down and ordered Dr. Gallos to conduct an
investigation.
Dr. Gallos eventually refused to oversee it because she
thought it was unnecessary and predetermined, but President Jenkins-Scott

still pursued it, appointing Michelle Crews of HR as the new investigator.
HR should not have been involved, as this was not a personnel issue;
l.
Page 69
presentation, namely that Jewish faculty have a problem with people of

color on campus and Faculty say the n-word here at Wheelock;
m. For the 2015-2016 academic year, President Jenkins-Scott excluded Dr.
Faculty Administrative Fellow the previous year;
n.
inclusion at Wheelock, and claimed he and other Jewish faculty had
racial epithet in his class and was a bully;
o.
Following further unidentified complaints from students that Dr. Silverman

Adelabu told him that neutral observers would be placed in all of his
classes for the rest of the semester. Dr. Silverman was never informed of
the observers charge, to whom they would report, and in what format they
would issue their reports
Dr. Silverman has never had access to their
reports;
p.
The same day, President Jenkins-Scott told administrators, students, staff,

and faculty members that Dr. Silverman would never teach alone again;
would not teach that course again; and that he would be removed from his
Chair position;
Page 70
q.
2015 listing demands regarding diversity which specifically attacked Dr.
Silverman, he wrote an open letter to Wheelock students and faculty on
January 5, 2016. This letter was unilaterally removed from all student
inboxes by Vice President Schifilliti in contravention of the Colleges email
policy;
r.
The College failed to properly deal with and/or encouraged a student protest
in Dr. Silvermans classroom on February 23, 2016, contrary to the
his class even though their assembly disrupted it. The Co-Deans then gave a
false and biased report to the faculty that Dr. Silverman had been
uncooperative during the protest;
s.
On February 28, 2016, the Co-Deans sent an email to the entire College
informing them that Dr. Silverman had filed an EEOC complaint against the
College, and repeated the false claim that students felt marginalized,
t.
teaching by commissioning the Sanghavi Report. The report was a skewed
students to support the Colleges false contention that Dr. Silverman had
used racial epithets in his class and therefore had demonstrated racist
behavior. Drs. Silverman and Dines were the only faculty members to be
Page 71
investigated, despite other teachers using the same material in similar ways
to discuss issues relating to race;
u.

2016, February 29, 2016 and March 5, 2016;
v.
Wheelock failed to rescind the false HR complaint by Dr. Malone-Fenner

against Dr. Silverman or to re-appoint him to Faculty Senate following the
decision to hold her complaint in abeyance on November 19, 2015.
205.
This abusive and hostile behavior and treatment of Dr. Silverman was
pervasive and severe, objectively and subjectively offensive and demeaning, such that it
caused emotional distress to Dr. Silverman and interfered with his employment. A
reasonable person would find the College, through its administrators and agents
behavior and treatment of Dr. Silverman, to have created a hostile work environment.
206.
As a direct and proximate result of the hostile work environment, Dr.
Silverman continues to suffer loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional

distress, pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, and physical distress.
a.

b.
Punitive damages;
Page 72
c.
d.
Costs;
e.
Attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) and Mass. Gen. Laws

Ch. 151B, 9; and
f.
and proper.
COUNT III
TITLE VII AND CHAPTER 151B - RETALIATION
207.
Plaintiff Dr. Silverman re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth
above in Paragraphs 17-200.

208.
Dr. Silverman 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. Silverman co-authored the September 22, 2014 letter which raised
concerns about the lack of Jewish programming at the College;
b.
Following the ILT meeting on October 22, 2014, Dr. Silverman emailed the
ILT and Faculty Senate on October 26, 2014 reporting the unfair treatment
he had suffered at that meeting;
c.
Having not received a substantive response to the September 22, 2014 letter,
Dr. Silverman emailed three members of the Diversity Council on
November 19, 2014 encouraging them to engage in discussion about its
contents;
Page 73
d.
Dr. Silverman sent letters to Human Resources on May 14, 2015 and June 8,
2015 as well as a letter to Attorney Hirsch, dated November 20, 2015,
reporting that he had suffered acts of discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation as a result of the September 22, 2014 letter;
e.
On February 1, 2016, Dr. Silverman filed a charge with the EEOC against
the College and President Jenkins-Scott, and filed supplemental particulars
to that Charge on April 4, 2016.
209.
Specifically, the following are, inter alia, and/or in the alternative, acts of
retaliation by the College.

a.
At the ILT meeting on October 22, 2014, Ms. Rosa, President Jenkins-Scott
b.

had complained about the contents of the September 22, 2014 letter which
expressed concerns about the lack of Jewish programming at Wheelock.
But when Dr. Silverman asked Dr. Malone-Fenner to provide details of the
complaints, including the names of the complainants, she could not provide
any particulars;
c.
On November 10, 2014, Dr. Silverman was informed by Dr. Gallos that his
been unsuccessful;
d.
On December 1, 2014, at a meeting with Wheelocks administration and

some of the Jewish faculty members, President Jenkins-Scott refused to
Page 74
accept the legitimate concerns raised in the September 22, 2014 letter,
verbally attacked the Jewish faculty members in attendance, including Dr.
Silverman, as well had accused them of writing a letter to the Colleges
trustees complaining about a hostile working environment;
e.
The College refused to publish an article entitled From One Minority to

Another written by Dr. Silverman which he had submitted to the Colleges
Marketing department on December 21, 2014;
f.

VPAA was rejected.
Dr. Malone-Fenner, a non-Jewish employee, was
appointed to this position despite having produced less scholarship than Dr.
Silverman;
g.

other Deans (one of whom was Interim Dean), all non-Jewish employees,
two of which were African American, and some of whom had less
experience than Dr. Silverman, were unilaterally appointed to serve in the
role of Interim VPAA. Dr. Silverman was not considered for this position,
despite being more qualified than Dr. Adelabu and Dr. Banks-Santillli, who
got the jobs.
h.
On April 30, 2015, Dr. Malone-Fenner, on behalf of Dr. McManus, falsely

accused Dr. Silverman of racism and saying the n-word in a hostile,
Page 75
i.

external investigation. This investigation contravened the Colleges policy
for handling complaints and investigation of student complaints against
faculty.
Following representations from the Faculty Senate and other
faculty members, the College backed down and ordered Dr. Gallos to
conduct an investigation.
Dr. Gallos eventually refused to oversee it
because she thought it was unnecessary and predetermined, but but the
College still pursued it, appointing Michelle Crews of HR as the new
investigator. HR should not have been involved, as this was not a personnel
issue;
j.
presentation about the campus climate survey, namely that Jewish faculty
have a problem with people of color on campus and Faculty say the nword here at Wheelock;
k.
For 2015-2016 academic year, President Jenkins-Scott excluded Dr.

Faculty Administrative Fellow in the previous academic year;
Page 76
l.
inclusion at Wheelock and implied that he and other Jewish faculty had
racial epithet in his class, as well as accused him of bullying;
m. Following further unidentified complaints from students that Dr. Silverman

Silverman was informed, without consultation, by Dr. Adelabu that a
neutral observer would be placed in all of his classes for the rest of the
semester. Dr. Silverman was never informed of the observers charge, to
whom they would report, and in what format they would issue their reports.
Dr. Silverman never had access to their reports;
n.
The same day, President Jenkins-Scott told administrators and faculty

members that Dr. Silverman would never teach alone again; would not teach
that course again; and that he would be removed from his Chair position;
o.
2015 listing demands for action regarding diversity and which specifically
attacked Dr. Silverman. Dr. Silverman wrote an open letter to the Wheelock
community on January 5, 2016. This letter was unilaterally removed from
all student inboxes by Vice President Schifilliti in contravention of the
Colleges email policy;
Page 77
p.
The College failed to properly deal and/or encouraged a student protest in

Dr. Silvermans classroom on February 23, 2016, contrary to the
his class even though their assembly disrupted it. The Co-Deans then gave
a false and unfair report to the faculty that Dr. Silverman had been
uncooperative during the student protest;
q.
On February 28, 2016, the Co-Deans sent an email to the entire College that
notified recipients that Dr. Silverman had filed an EEOC complaint against
the College, and repeated the false claim that students felt marginalized,
r.
teaching, by commissioning the Sanghavi Report. The report was a skewed
students to support the Colleges contention that Dr. Silverman had used
racial epithets in his class and therefore had demonstrated racist behavior.
Drs. Silverman and Dines were the only faculty members to be investigated,
although other teachers use the same course material in similar ways to
discuss issues relating to race, and some say the n-word in full;
s.

2016, February 29, 2016, and March 5, 2016;
t.
The College failed to rescind the HR complaint by Dr. Malone-Fenner

against Dr. Silverman made in September 2015 and to re-appoint Dr.
Page 78
Silverman to Faculty Senate following the decision to hold the complaint in

apparently permanent abeyance on November 19, 2015.
210.
As a direct and proximate result of the Colleges retaliation against Dr.
Silverman, he has suffered adverse employment actions; and he continues to suffer loss
of income, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, pain and suffering,
embarrassment, humiliation, and physical distress.
a. Damages in amounts to be established at trial, including without limitation,
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 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.
Page 79
COUNT IV
CHAPTER 151B AIDING AND ABETTING
DISCRIMINATIONAND RETALIATION
As to Defendant Jenkins-Scott
211.

212.
Dr. Silverman, a white Jewish employee of the College was subjected to
unlawful discrimination and retaliation on the basis of his Jewish race and religion and
color.
213.
At all times relevant to the allegations stated here, President Jenkins-Scott
was employed as President of Wheelock College.

214.
President Jenkins-Scott engaged in acts of abuse and hostility towards Dr.
Silverman. President Jenkins-Scott aided and abetted the discrimination, and retaliation
against Dr. Silverman in at least the following ways:
a.
Instructing Dr. Gallos to inform Dr. Silverman on January 27, 2014 that he
could only apply for the role of Interim Dean of the School of Arts and
Sciences on the proviso that he did not apply for the permanent Dean
position;
b.
Refusing to hire Dr. Silverman for the role of Interim Dean of the School of
Arts and Sciences, and offering him the lesser position of Faculty
Administrative Fellow;
c.
Failing to respond to the September 22, 2014 letter in which Dr. Silverman
raised concerns about the Colleges lack of Jewish programming on campus;
Page 80
d.
Repeatedly singling out Dr. Silverman, in particular, and the Jewish faculty
in general, for hostile criticism at the October 22, 2014 and the December 1,
2014 meetings;
e.
Permitting and/or instructing Dr. Malone-Fenner to initiate an external

investigation into the false accusations against Dr. Silverman in violation of
the Colleges policy;
f.
Permitting and/or instructing the College not to publish Dr. Silvermans

article entitled From One Minority to Another;
g.
Refusing to hire Dr. Silverman for the position of Interim VPAA and/as CoDean in Spring 2015;
h.
Permitting and/or instructing Dr. McManus and KBG to include defamatory

statements against Drs. Dines and Silverman by specific implication and
Jewish faculty generally in his presentation on June 30, 2015;
i.
Excluding Dr. Silverman from working on initiatives and programs that he

had begun as Faculty Administrative Fellow in the previous academic year;.
j.
Permitting and/or instructing Dr. McManus and KBG to include defamatory

statements against Dr. Silverman by specific implication and Jewish faculty
generally in the Diversity Report released on September 17, 2015;
k.
Permitting and/or instructing Dr. Malone-Fenner to file an unfounded HR

complaint against Dr. Silverman for harassment on September 28, 2015;
l.
Permitting and/or instructing Dr. Adelabu to place observers in all of Dr.

Silvermans courses, despite no evidence of any wrongdoing in any of Dr.
Silvermans courses;
Page 81
m. Stating in a Diversity and Inclusion Council meeting on November 18, 2015

that Eric Silverman will not teach alone again, he will not teach that
course ever again, and he will be removed from his Chair position for next
year;
n.
Permitting and/or instructing Vice President Schifilliti to remove Dr.

Silvermans email of January 5, 2016 from all student inboxes, and then
sending a faculty-wide email making a false allegation that this email had
violated College policy;
o.
Permitting and/or encouraging a disruptive student protest to take place in

Dr. Silvermans classroom on February 23, 2016;
p.
Permitting and/or instructing the Co-Deans to send an email informing

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

defame him and give the College grounds to terminate his employment;
r.
Commissioning the Sanghavi Report and steering it to a predetermined

conclusion that Dr. Silverman had used racial epithets in his classroom
and/or that he had a created a hostile educational environment;
s.
Permitting and/or directing that Dr. Silverman be targeted on social media

on February 23, 2016, February 29, 2016 and March 5, 2016.
215.
Dr. Silverman has suffered loss and damages on account of Defendant
Jenkins-Scotts actions aiding and abetting discrimination and retaliation against him.
Page 82
WHEREFORE, Dr. Silverman respectfully demands judgment against President

Jenkins-Scott, awarding:
a.

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
216.

217.
Dr. Silverman, a white Jewish employee of the College, was subjected to
discrimination, retaliation and an abusive and hostile work environment on the basis of
his Jewish race and religion and color.
218.
At all times relevant to the allegations stated here, Ms. Taylor was
appointed by Wheelock as Chair of the Board of Trustees.
Page 83
219.
Ms. Taylor aided and abetted the unlawful discrimination and retaliation
against Dr. Silverman 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. Silverman, in violation of
the Faculty Handbook, after President Jenkins-Scott approached her with
unsubstantiated student complaints;
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. Silverman 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 Dr.
Silverman, taking no effective action to intervene, restrain, or discipline her.
220.
Dr. Silverman has suffered loss on account of Ms. Taylor's actions aiding
and abetting discrimination and retaliation against him.

WHEREFORE, Dr. Silverman respectfully demands judgment against Ms.
Taylor awarding:
a.

Page 84
b.
Punitive damages;
c.
d.
Costs;
e.
Attorneys fees pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151B, 9; and
f.
and proper.
COUNT VI
Defamation
As to Defendants WHEELOCK COLLEGE, KINGSTON BAY GROUP and

JENKINS-SCOTT
221.
Plaintiff Dr. Silverman re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth
above in Paragraphs 17-200 as though fully set forth herein.

222.
President Jenkins Scott, KBG and Wheelock made numerous false
statements concerning Dr. Silverman, from December 2014 to March 2016, as stated in
paragraphs 46-49, 61-64, 66, 67, 74, 81-84, 89-93, 99, 106, 110-113, 152, 153, 161, 170,
175, 192-194, 196.
223.
These defamatory statements were made to Dr. Silvermans colleagues,
faculty members, and staff at the College as well as professionals at a national search
firm in the field of higher education.
224.
Furthermore, Defendants disseminated false and defamatory statements
about Dr. Silverman in the Diversity Report. The Diversity Report was published on the
Colleges website, presented to the Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff, and was released
Page 85
to all students. The students and Wheelock community understood the references to
Jewish faculty to specifically refer to Dr. Silverman and his colleague, Dr. Dines.
225.
Defendants statements included false information, including but not
limited to, that Dr. Silverman regularly and aggressively used the n-word in his classroom
and that he had a problem with people of color on campus.
226.
Defendants knew that the statements they disseminated were false and
defamatory, and did so intentionally to damage Dr. Silvermans reputation.

227.
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.
228.
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.
229.
As a result of President Jenkins-Scotts, KBGs and Wheelocks
defamatory conduct, Dr. Silverman has suffered injury to his reputation, and has suffered
considerable harassment and emotional distress. He has lost employment opportunities at
the College which will prevent his career from progressing as it would have.
Page 86
WHEREFORE, Dr. Silverman respectfully requests judgment against all

Defendants, awarding:
a.

compensation for harm to reputation, back pay in the form of lost wages,
loss of future earnings, and punitive damages;
b.
c.
Costs; and
d.
and proper.
RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE, having set forth the above-described legally sufficient causes of

action against the Defendants, Plaintiff Dr. Silverman 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. Eric Silverman 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: _______/s/ Anita Vadgama_________
Page 87
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.
Telephone: +44 1628 567544
Attorney for Plaintiff

ERIC K. SILVERMAN
Page 88
Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB 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
Silverman, Eric K.
Wheelock College; Jenkins-Scott, Jackie; Kingston Bay Group; Taylor,

Katherine S.
(b) County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff
_M_i_d_d_le_s_e_x_ _ _ _ _ __
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

NOTE:
II. BASIS 0 F JURISD I CTI 0 N (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

0 I
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
~3
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
0 2
U.S. Government
Defendant
0 4
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item Ill)
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
(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

McAllister Ohvarius, 5 Wells Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-633-4 775
Pearce Building, 7th floor, West Street, Maidenhead, SL6 1 RL UK
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in one Box/or Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
~ I
Citizen of Another State
CONTRACT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectrnent
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
0
0
0
V. ORIGIN (Placean
l1i( I Original
Proceeding
PERSONAL INJURY
0 310Airplane
0 315 Airplane Product
Liability
0 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
0 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
0 340 Marine
0 345 Marine Product
Liability
0 350 Motor Vehicle
0 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
0 360 Other Personal
Injury
0 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
0 440 Other Civil Rights
0 441 Voting
~ 442 Employment
0 443 Housing/
Accommodations
0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
0 448 Education
and One Box/or Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
0 4
~4
of Business In This State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
0 5
Foreign Nation
0 6
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
ofVeteran' s Benefits
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
I 96 Franchise
DEF
~ I
0 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)
BANKRUPTCY
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
0 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
0 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
0 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
0 370 Other Fraud
0 371 Truth in Lending
0 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
0 3 85 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
0 555 Prison Condition
0 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
0 625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21USC881
0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

0 423 Withdrawal
0 690 Other
28 USC 157
,.,,, ..... ,,TY Rl~J.ITS
0 820 Copyrights
0 830 Patent
0 840 Trademark
_... IM.
.a~OK
0 710 Fair Labor Standards

0
0
0
0
0
OTHERSTATlJTES
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
7 51 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
0
0
0
0
0
861
862
863
864
865
IA
:"lllo ... I
IKI
0
0
0
0
0
0
HIA (1395ff)
Black Lung (923)
DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
SSID Title XVI
RSI (405(g))
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

or Defendant)
0 871 IRS- Third Party
26 USC 7609
0
0
0
IMMIGRATION
0 462 Naturalization Application
0 465 Other Immigration
Actions
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom oflnformation
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
"X"inOneBoxOnly)
0 2 Removed from
State Court
Remanded from
Appellate Court
0 4 Reinstated or
0 5 Transferred from
Reopened
Another District
(specify)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
0 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
0 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which )'OU are filing$Do notcitedurisdictionalstatutes unless diversity):
1-T_i_tle_V_ll_o_ft_h_e_C_iv_i_IR_i""'-ht_s_A_c_t_19_6_4...._,_42_U_._._C_.~2_0_0..._,_et_._ s e _ q . . . . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brief description of cause:
Discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation based on race and religion
0
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DEMAND$
{\~ fl0l41
5j 7( 1 [>CQ
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:
~Yes 0 No
(See instructions):
DATE
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT#
0 375 False Claims Act

0 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
AMOUNT
APPL YING IFP
JUDGE
MAG.JUDGE
Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB 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) Silverman, Eric K. 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.
Ill.
120,150, 151,152, 153, 195,210,220,245,310,315, 330,340,345,350,355,360,365,367,368,375,376,385,

400,422,423,450,460,462,463,465,480,490,510,530,540,550,555, 625,690, 751, 791,861-865, 890,896,
899, 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 beer filr in this couh
YES
5.
YES
NO
YES
NO
[{]
NO
lv'I
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 theraJle division? - ~Local Rule 40.1(d)).
YES
A.
B.
L{j
NO
L_j
If yes, in which divis~oJ!!! of the non-governmental rartrs reside?

Eastern Division
liJ
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
8.
(See 28 USC
Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges rrsrnt to title 28 USC 2284?
YES
7.
L{J
Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest?
2403)
If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party?
6.
NO
Central Division
Western Division
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
TELEPHONE NO. 518-633-4775
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(CategoryForm3-2016.wpd }

2016-09-15 Silverman 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 Silverman V Wheelock

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 88

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-11879

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 88

Silverman has been systematically subjected to a continuous series of adverse

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

The Court has jurisdiction over Dr. Silvermans claims pursuant to 28

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 88

Dr. Silverman is a resident of Framingham and citizen of Middlesex

County, Massachusetts. He is employed by Wheelock as a Professor and Chair of the

Wheelock is a private educational institution and non-profit corporation

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

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

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

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.

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

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

On April 4, 2016, Dr. Silverman filed supplemental particulars to his

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 88

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

Dr. Silverman has suffered a continuous series of discriminatory,

All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this suit and Dr.

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

Dr. Silverman is of Jewish heritage and practices Judaism.

Dr. Silverman is a Professor of American Studies and Chair of the

Dr. Silverman is a distinguished academic. Before working at Wheelock,

he was the Edward Myers Dolan Professor of Anthropology at DePauw University in

By 2006, Dr. Silverman sought to return to the East Coast to be closer to

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 5 of 88

In 2008, Dr. Gail Dines, a Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies,

During his first four years at Wheelock, Dr. Silvermans academic

In 2011, Dr. Silverman was granted tenure following glowing

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 6 of 88

After receiving tenure, Dr. Silverman enthusiastically took on leadership

In September 2013, Dr. Silverman was granted full professorship; again,

By this time, Dr. Silverman had

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

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 7 of 88

Although she had achieved accomplishments, President Jenkins-Scott also

Further, turnover among senior

For example, during President Jenkins-Scotts

twelve-year tenure, there were seven Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs.

In September 2013, the College announced that Dr. Malone-Fenner would

be stepping down as Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences.

On January 12, 2014, Dr. Silverman submitted his candidacy to the

external search firm to replace Dr. Malone-Fenner as Dean.

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 8 of 88

On February 5, 2014, the department chairs met with President Jenkins-

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 9 of 88

On March 6, 2014, Dr. Silverman met with President Jenkins-Scott and

On April 9, 2014, after a month had elapsed, President Jenkins-Scott

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 10 of 88

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-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 11 of 88

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 12 of 88

member with a record of peer-reviewed, scholarly publications on Judaism, yet he had

In light of the Colleges newly revived emphasis on diversity and

Case 1:16-cv-11879-ADB Document 1 Filed 09/15/16 Page 13 of 88

On October 22, 2014, President Jenkins-Scott invited all members of the

At the same meeting, Dr. Malone-Fenner also claimed that a group of