On Peter Ludlow's New Lawsuit

I did go read the complaint in Prof. Peter Ludlow's suit against Northwestern University, some of its senior officials, his philosophy colleague, Prof. Jennifer Lackey, and an unnamed PhD Student. [HT Brian Leiter & DailyNous]. To avoid confusion: this is separate from his counter-suit against the undergraduate student that filed suit against him (in Illinois state court) and that brought a Federal suit against Northwestern alleging that the university mishandled her complaint against him (recall this post, and this post).

We learn from Prof. Ludlow's complaint that, as the Daily Northwestern Reports, "the University also investigated Ludlow after a philosophy graduate student lodged a complaint in March that Ludlow had non-consensual sex with her." In addition, his complaint [HT Leiter] suggests that he has also been accused by Professor "Lackey" of behaving "inappropriately toward female students on a trip to South America." So, that's three different incidents. (He joined Northwestern in 2008.) It's an odd a feature of the law, I suppose, that even if one is concerned with (quoting the complaint) "reputational damage," one would make public information that cannot help one's reputation. It's striking that he does so while Rutgers is "considering whether to make...an offer."

In addition, Ludlow's complaint reports that an internal investigation by Northwestern "concluded that Plaintiff and Defendant PHD STUDENT’s relationship constituted sexual harassment even though [Northwestern's hired investigator] did not find that Plaintiff’s conduct was unwelcome and even though [investigator] specifically acknowledged that Defendant PHD STUDENT admitted that she and Plaintiff had consensual sex and dated for a number of months before breaking up." Ludlow's complaint does not quote the report, so the reader of his complaint is left without the reasoning, if any, that went into this conclusion. (Perhaps this will become clear when any of the defendants respond.)

So, it seems two separate Northwestern investigations found against Peter Ludlow. We are not told what happened with the South American travel complaint.  

I close with three disconnected thoughts:

First, I hope that Northwestern will pay for the "Defendant PHD StUDENT's" legal fees. (I assume Northwestern's employees are automatically covered.)

Second, my thoughts go first and foremost to the affected students at Northwestern. I hope you stick with professional philosophy. I honestly believe that the vast majority of professional philosophers want to develop a community that creates a welcoming and professional environment for those that wish to contribute to our joint effort.

Third, I commiserate with the philosophy faculty at Norhtwestern (which include some friends). These must be especially unpleasant times with colleagues at odds, now even in a court of law; I suspect most of us in professional philosophy realize that what's happening to you could happen to any of us.

Comments

[Kathleen Lowrey]

When Leiter linked to the legal papers that included Ludlow's account of what happened between him and the student that originally brought all of this into the public eye, clearly convinced that the "full story" would tend to generate sympathy for Ludlow, I had exactly the opposite reaction. Even were Ludlow's version completely and totally accurate -- the student sent him suggestive texts, invited him out, and so on -- all I could think as a university professor was "and Ludlow's reaction to this was, 'I think I'll invite this student out for drinks!'. Whut?"

I think most of us who teach, male and female, have during our careers at one time or another have had a student or students make some kind of opening gambit -- maybe it's just awkward friendliness, maybe it's trying out a kind of attempt at imagined sophistication they haven't quite fully grasped, maybe it's a come-on, who knows and WHO CARES. Every sensible prof just shuts it down, firmly and kindly. The end!

"S/he started it" -- and I am NOT saying I am convinced it is true in that case -- is never a defense for a prof and we all know it from our own experience. Come on. You don't even have to be a feminist to get this.

[Brian]

Lowrey aserts that "Leiter linked to the legal papers that included Ludlow's account of what happened...clearly convinced that the 'full story' would tend to generate sympathy for Ludlow." This statement is false and recklessly so. There is no evidential basis for attributing a non-existent motive or expectation.