What the hell are we meant to advise students just now if they have a complaint? Be prepared to be sued, have your name be made public at one of the most vulnerable times of your life and have to pay for a lawyer at one of the poorest times? What a despicable situation!--Ross Cameron
Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that Peter Ludlow has been treated unfairly by Northwestern's internal procedures that handled a number of accusations against him (and found against him). Let's also stipulate, for the sake of argument, that various public statements by Northwestern's Administrators this past Spring caused Prof. Ludlow real harm. It makes sense, then, for Ludlow to sue Northwestern University and its administrators. It's possible that a court will agree with Ludlow's version of the events and it might vindicate Ludlow. I don't have great trust in university procedures, with their routine use of non-disclosure agreements, which seem primarily designed to protect universities rather than protect victims, or -- let's stipulate -- the accused.
Even so, what could be the point of suing the PhD Student that complained against him? The PhD did not make public statements and has not sought attention to her case. In fact, (a) judging by Ludlow's own account, it seems that she was reluctant about filing a complaint; (b) outside the Northwestern community, the existence of her charge against Ludlow was disclosed by Ludlow in the brief filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division [HT Brian Leiter]. If one is concerned about "reputational damage," as Ludlow claims in his complaint, it is very odd to reveal that one dated a PhD student and that she filed a complaint against you and that one of your own colleagues thought you behaved inappropriately toward students on a trip abroad. (According to Ludlow's complaint, folk at Northwestern were informed of this by the NU administration.)
Moreover, I understand that lawyers will use any legal means to win cases, but it seems unnecessary and hypocritical (given that one cares about "reputational damage") to disclose information about the PhD Student's past (as Ludlow does in his complaint). It's not clear what purpose this could serve except to exploit existing stereotypes and to try to undermine her professional reputation.
Finally, as Prof. Cameron notes in the passage above, the foreseeable effect of Ludlow's course of action is that bystanders will likely discourage future victims to step forward. Active bystanders must now be concerned that they can be sued (cf. Prof. Lackey), and they will have to inform victims that they can also be sued when, in fact, they are most vulnerable. Perhaps, Prof. Ludlow will win his day in court. Perhaps, too, this case will lead to a fruitful reform of university procedures. But unless universities start assuring students that they will cover legal fees in such cases, the foreseeable consequence is that many victims will likely to prefer to keep quiet. It's disconcerting that a fellow professional philosopher's pursuit of justice, may well lead to such an outcome.
Comments