Had everything gone according to plan for University sociology doctoral student Keith Appleby, he would have defended his dissertation in early November, and by now would have his degree after seven years of graduate-level education.
Instead, the sixth-floor room in Prince Lucien Campbell Hall sat empty on Nov. 15 when Appleby had initially planned to present his research to his committee.
A longtime member of the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation and a student of the University since 2004, Appleby has been barred from enrolling in classes by the University for failing to complete sanctions relating to his alleged harassment of three fellow University graduate students and for failing to comply with directions from University official Chicora Martin, assistant dean of students and director of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender education and support services program.
Instead of accepting the decision of the University Student Conduct Hearing Panel — which he says was a “kangaroo court” and “the worst day of my life” — Appleby became the first University student in more than a decade to appeal his ruling to the Oregon Court of Appeals on April 7, then filed a racketeering lawsuit against the University exactly four months later, seeking damages in excess of $1 million.
“I’m carrying the flag on this one to the Court of Appeals so that all current and future students at the University can be assured that they will have fair hearings,” Appleby said in a release announcing his appeal.
The University has declined comment on the case, with University spokesperson Julie Brown saying, “The University does not comment on pending litigation.”
****
Appleby is a self-proclaimed feminist, and that’s where he says all of his problems began. He says he was repeatedly harassed by colleagues for frequently wearing a T-shirt that says, “This is what a feminist looks like.” He says their definitions of feminism are “outdated” and “limited,” and that they didn’t consider him a “real” feminist.
“Feminism has devolved into being against men, period, and anything masculine,” Appleby says. “I’ve been very vocal about that problem. Men are not the enemy.”
Given his interest in feminism, Appleby enrolled in a graduate-level Gender Theory class at the University in September 2009 but found it to be a hostile environment for him because of his gender and sexual orientation. He dropped the class after its first session based on his initial reaction and continued to find another place to do sociological research on feminism.
Also, Appleby alleges that multiple threats were made against him, including a death threat posted to his since-deleted Facebook profile, but claims that because of his gender and sexual orientation, the University did not take his allegations seriously.
In April 2010, Appleby found another home in the Social Sciences Feminist Network Research Interest Group, where he was able to continue his studies. Then he found another hostile environment.
****
Within the interest group were two female graduate students with whom Appleby had a “long and tumultuous relationship,” as University Hearings Panel Chair Paul Dassonville wrote in the findings of Appleby’s student conduct hearing. One of the students had filed a harassment complaint against Appleby in the past.
A month before Appleby joined the group, however, that student had sent multiple emails to him expressing that she wanted no further contact with him. The other student received what she said was a string of harassing emails and took the same action.
The group’s leaders set up an alternative communication method in which Appleby could continue to take part without having direct interactions with either woman, but Appleby repeatedly emailed them directly anyway. Appleby justifies his actions by saying he was only contacting them for nonpersonal means; in one case, recruiting for the GTFF intramural softball team, which he said was a job duty of a GTFF steward, which both he and one of the complainants were.
“If you look at the emails, I was just looking for a safe and cordial work environment,” Appleby says.
Because of this, the board found him to be at fault for willfully harassing them, using his positions within the interest group to continue to make contact with the students despite their objections. Appleby — who in the past had a restraining order filed against him by an ex-girlfriend — was so intimidating to one of the women that she “felt the need to regularly phone her partner when she arrived at her office, just to reassure her that she had arrived safely.”
Appleby was also found at fault for disregarding a request from Assistant Dean Martin for a meeting after the two students had raised concerns to her. This put him in violation of University rules for failing to comply with a public official on University premises, as his conduct was deemed to impair educational and institutional activities.
The board assigned three sanctions for Appleby: He was to undergo a threat assessment with a local health professional, to not contact either of the complainants and to be placed on disciplinary probation at the University for the duration of his academic career.
“I have to undergo a mental health assessment at my own cost, which could cost up to $4,000,” Appleby says. “It’s almost like a fine.”
****
Appleby’s lawsuits, which have cost him more than $10,000 in legal fees and attorney costs, do not necessarily dispute the allegations against him, but they instead focus on what he considers to be procedural issues and missteps in the process of the University’s investigation of him; however, each complaint was rebutted by the University Appeals Board upon review.
In his appeal, Appleby listed 15 complaints, including the use of “secret evidence,” that he never knew what his sanctions were, and that a Department of Public Safety officer was present at the hearing by request of the complainants. Each of those and many of the other complaints were immediately ruled out by the Appeals Board. For instance, the board never found any “secret evidence” was used, Appleby was present at the hearing when his sanctions were announced and Appleby “stated that he did not object to the presence of the officer,” according to the appeals board.
Appleby also alleges that the University was retaliating against him for filing an affirmative action claim against members of the University’s Department of Sociology. He also alleges that the University willfully tampered with his 5,352-page student record and engaged in conspiracy. In return, he is seeking damages for emotional duress and economic losses, and is attempting to force the University to restructure its student conduct system.
The racketeering lawsuit cannot proceed until Appleby’s case with the Oregon Court of Appeals is completed, which should occur in the next months.
“I wouldn’t be able to appeal it if I completed the sanctions,” Appleby says. “And frankly, I find it abusive, and it’s very expensive.”
****
Appleby says he is going to fight these lawsuits to the end, not because of his own cause, but because of the cause of the students who will follow him at the University.
As Dassonville said in the conduct board’s findings, Appleby’s behavior “indicated someone that refused to take ‘no’ for an answer.”
Correction: The Emerald erroneously stated in a story summary that Keith Appleby was accused of sexual harassment. He was found to have committed “unwanted contact,” which is consistent with the colloquial definition of harassment. Appleby’s claims of the University being vengeful in its actions stemmed from his filing of an affirmative action claim, not a racketeering lawsuit. The Emerald regrets the errors.