The story of the Solicitous Note:
The student’s unchanging story
The student describes the incident in her sworn declaration. This story does not conflict with Dr. Burton’s story at all but it does conflict with the administration’s numerous stories.
Criminal Justice department Chair Tom Caywood’s inconsistent story of the solicitous note:
Oct. 11, 2012 (1:50 pm): Dkt 53-24. Dkt 54-9, pg3 Dr. Burton emailed Dr. Caywood “May I request that we are informed of such experiments in the future. It certainly interrupted my schedule having to attend to a student who was visibly upset. I wish I knew about it before and could have put her mind at ease right away.”
Oct. 11, 2012 (2:32 pm): Dkt 53-24. Dkt 54-9, pg3. Dr. Caywood’s response: “I don't think we need to do that. That in and of itself could bias the results of the experiment. If a student is having a problem with a faculty member he or she needs to come see me and let me sort it out.” (exhibit EZZZZB) This shows that Dr. Caywood believed the note to be part of an actual experiment and that the results extended outside the classroom. If he believed the event to be merely a lecture about how to conduct an experiment he would not have been concerned about biasing the results of the “experiment.” Experiments with human subjects require IRB approval. Both Dr. Gibson and Dr. Caywood knew of this requirement.
This shows that Caywood believed the incident to be an actual experiment, otherwise he wouldn’t be concerned about results. He contradicts himself when he tells Zupec that he had authorized the experiment. He also contradicts himself when he claims that the incident was just a lecture about experiments. These contradictions show pretext.
Oct 11, 4:27 PM Dkt 54-9, pg4. Dr. Burton sent Dean Throop an email update. (exhibit EZX) She informed Dean Throop that Dr. Caywood told her that the incident was just an “experiment.” In this update Burton point out that Dr. Caywood doesn’t see the need for future “experiments” to be shared with other faculty. She made the case that Dr. Caywood may be practicing sexual discrimination.
Oct 11, 2012 7:16 PM –Dkt 53-24. Dkt 36-5 pg5. Caywood writes Throop that it was not an IRB issue as no “research” was being conducted. He said it didn’t require IRB approval. [UW-P 000565] This conflicts with his statement of 2:32 pm on the same day.
On Oct 11, 8:19 PM Dkt 53-26, pg 2. Dkt 53-27. Dkt 54-9, pg1. Dkt 36-5 pg3. Dr. Caywood asked for the student’s name so he could interview her. He gave Burton a definition of a breach experiment that he copied from Wikipedia. “In the field of social psychology, a breaching experiment is an experiment that seeks to examine people’s reactions to violations of commonly accepted social rules or norms.” He further explained that: “This sounds exactly what he (Dr. Gibson) did – pass a note to a student which is a violation of a commonly accepted norm. Particularly inappropriate behavior since we all received the warning from the Dean about student contact.” [sic] (exhibit EZW) Dr. Gibson was not teaching in the department of social psychology, he taught in the Criminal Justice department. Breach experiments are not even a topic that should be taught in a CJ class nor is it in the textbook. (exhibit EB)
Oct. 11, 2012 (9:31 pm): Dkt 53-26, pg 2. Dkt 36-5 pg3. Dkt 40-4. Dkt 40-7. Dr. Burton asked Dr. Caywood if she was part of the experiment. That question has never been answered. (exhibit EZW, also exhibit EZZZY)
On Oct 12, 8:03 AM Dkt 53-28. Dr. Burton sent the student a reassuring email explaining what was being done about the incident. (exhibit EZV) She wrote that Gibson got permission to run a breach experiment from Dr. Caywood. Obviously this is the information that had been given to her at the time, not that it was a lecture about breach experiments. The defense changed the reasoning later.
Oct. 16, 2012 (10:20 am): Dkt 40-11. Dkt 40-18. Dkt 42-74 Dr. Caywood sent out a department email with attachment on “how we should deal with student complaints.” (exhibit EZO) (exhibit EZO-1). His procedure is contrary to UW-Platteville guidelines the law. He generated this procedure as a direct result of the student complaint of Oct. 11 and shows that he disapproved of the way Burton handled the event. Rule 26 Disclosure - 28. Memorandum from Dr. Caywood, dated October 16, 2012, Dkt 53-6 This does not conform to policy or law and it limits options for students with any kind of complaint to just one reporting point, the CJ chair Dr. Caywood.
4-12-13 – In (Audio A6-CDII Track 41) (Transcript for CD 1 and CD 2) Caywood said “So, was the whole thing handled poorly? Yes. I think, I think, it was handled, you know, I did not handle it very well. You know, I misunderstood what was going on. I did not see it as sexual harassment and, you know, when we had the meeting with the Dean and HR it was brought to my attention that that’s what this is.”
8-21-15 – In his deposition Dr. Caywood said that he did not consider the possibility that Dr. Gibson was being untruthful when he described the breach experiment. (Caywood Deposition pg 31)
Dr. Caywood stated, under oath, that he believed that Dr. Gibson acted appropriately when he gave a female student a handwritten note that asked her to call him on his cell phone after class. (Caywood Deposition pg 39)
11-6-15 In his declaration Caywood claimed that Dr. Gibson explained the note was part of a lecture on breach experiments and the note was intended as an example of how to elicit a response. (Caywood Decl.Dkt 36, ¶ 28.) (Dkt 45 – para 50)
Dean Throop has described the incident in various ways
Oct 11, 2012 8:39 pm -Dkt 53-24. Dkt 36-5 pg4. Caywood writes throop saying that he is trying to find out the name of the student so he can determine exactly what happened. Throop responds “This is very serious, Tom.” [UW-P 000564]
Oct 11, 2012 5:44 PM – Dkt 53-24. Dkt 36-5 pg5. Throop sent an email to Caywood writing “Such a note could be rightly interpreted as sexual harassment regardless of intent. This behavior must cease immediately.” [UW-P 000565 - 566]
Oct 12, 2012 05:06 AM –Dkt 53-26, pg 1. Dean Throop replied to Dr. Burton’s email saying ” I have been in touch with Human Resources, the Provost, and the Chancellor about this (I was on the phone with Jeanne Durr until after 10 p.m. last night). I am meeting with Tom, Lorne, and Jeanne Durr on Tuesday. What you describe is completely unacceptable and I am taking all measures that I can to cure this situation. This is a profoundly serious problem. Please reassure the student that it will be resolved as quickly as possible. Again, I am very concerned about what is being described and I will make sure that proper action is taken. There is no need, at this juncture, to reveal the student's identity.” (exhibit ED) This shows that Burton was excluded from the discussion about what happened. She was not allowed to advocate for the student.
On Oct 12, Dr. Burton sent Dr. Caywood an email asking for his discretion as it seemed there was concern of a law suit and suggested that he talk to the Dean about it (exhibit EB). Dean Throop informed Burton that she had been talking to HR, the Provost and the Chancellor about the incident and that she would meet with Dr. Gibson soon (exhibit EC). She said “What you describe is completely unacceptable and I am taking all measures that I can to cure this situation. This is a profoundly serious problem. Please reassure the student that it will be resolved as quickly as possible.” (exhibit EZZZZC)
Approx Dec 2013 - Throop’s notes say: “When I discussed the matter with Caywood and Gibson, Caywood attempted to explain it away to me as a classroom exercise; Gibson attempted to instruct me on the use of “breach experiments” and claimed that the note was a breach experiment. It of course is NOT a proper breach experiment and was interpreted by the student as sexual harassment.” (Dkt 101-20)
10/28/2015 - In Throop’s deposition she said that Burton came to her “with a complaint of a biased student. It was not a sexual advance.” Dkt 42 pg 114-115
HR director Jeanne Durr’s politically safe story.
Oct 16, 2012 - Dkt 42-88 pg 1&2, Jeanne Durr wrote notes about the meeting that Dr. Burton, the only person who really knew the student’s side of the story, was not asked to attend. Why wasn’t Burton asked to attend? So they could get their (protect the university) story straight? UW-P 000097 In this document Durr makes several incorrect and vague statements:
October 17, 2012 1:43:47 PM – Dkt 53-5. Dkt 53-30. Durr sends Caywood an email cc to Burton and Throop. She wrote “Under the circumstances Sabina acted quite appropriately. We are following up appropriately and believe that the interests of both the student and the faculty member at issue are being properly protected. I do not want there to be any perception that we are retaliating against one of our employees for advocating for, or protecting the interests of our students.”(exhibit EZL) [UW-P 000070] Burton didn’t do anything wrong.
Durr wrote: “Our faculty and staff are under an obligation to refer issues that provide them with pause for concern.” This shows that Durr believed Caywood was pushing to punish Burton for her reporting the incident.
Dec. 3, 2012 (10-10:30 am): (not recorded) Burton met with HR Director Jeanne Durr to address the hostile work environment created by Dr. Caywood and the student complaint issue. Durr wrote in her notes that Burton complained that “Tom Caywood was retaliating against me because I had reported that a female student was uncomfortable with last October’s breach experiment.” [UW-P 000068] She got right the part about my complaint but again she wrongly refers to Gibson’s actions as a “breach experiment.”
Burton’s unchanging story of the solicitous note.
Burton’s story has never changed but the university’s position has changed significantly.
On Oct 16, 2012, 3:36 PM Dr. Burton wrote a draft response that she intended to send to Dr. Caywood with an in depth assessment of her perspective of the student complaint and subsequent events. She was professional and the tone of her email was respectful though she explained that she felt that Caywood was unhappy with the way she handled the student complaint. (never sent - EZR) Burton never sent the memo to Caywood because Dean Throop asked her not to send a response. Burton’s draft memo, which was sent to her husband, does shed light on the situation and should be reviewed in an investigator of this matter.
Dr. Burton wrote a response to Caywood and showed it to Jeanne Durr in a meeting on about 11-27-12. She said Burton should not send it to him so she did not. (exhibit 647). SB000834]
Court documents describe a different reality.
Dkt 45 – Defendants’ Findings of “Facts:”
Para 41 Defense changed the notes actual wording from “Call me tonight !! 642-0020” to “call me tonight 642-4160.”
Para 44 – the defense changed the note’s actual wording from “Call me tonight !! 642-0020” to “call me! 642-4160.”
Gibson’s personal cell phone number was 642-0020.
This easily proof-read mistake was just one of many, many, errors in the defendants’ findings of lies document.
The defense’s “findings of facts” document is full of wrong information, lies and inconsistencies. Many of the defendants’ “facts” rely on statements from the defendants with no evidence to back up their statements. It is an incredible collection of baloney.
How did Judge Peterson side with the Defense in light of all this? Was he unfair to dismiss the case at summary judgment? I think so.
A strange twist:
Tue – Sep 17, 2013 – Department meeting: Lorne Gibson nominated Rex Reed and Rex nominated Lorne for chair. The vote favored Dr. Lorne Gibson. The guy who handed the solicitous note to a student was voted in as chair of the CJ department by the faculty and staff of the department.
See short story “The Criminal Justice Department Chair position.” – A story of incredible failed power grabs that left the CJ department leaderless.
I’m not making this stuff up guys.