1

ResponsetotheAllegationsbyFernandaLopezAguilarTheinternetisnotasuitableplaceforadjudicatingclaimsofmisconductforatleasttworeasons.First,therearesubstantiallimitationsonthepresentationofevidence.Thereisnoopportunity,forinstance,tointerrogatetheprotagonistsorwitnesses.Inthepresentcase,additionally,IamnotpermittedtocitematerialsthatLopezAguilarhadpresentedtoYale’sUniversity-WideCommitteeonSexualMisconduct(includingvariousprovablefalsehoodsandinconsistenciesthatunderminehercredibility),ImustavoidanythingthatmightbeconstruedasretaliationagainstmyaccuserandImustrespecttheprivacyofthirdpartieswhodonotwishtobeidentifiedbyname.Giventheselimitations,IfocushereexclusivelyonallegedmisconductagainstLopezAguilarwhich,inanycase,constitutesthebulkoftheBuzzfeedarticle.Second,participantsininternetdiscussionsoftenrespondemotionallytotheinherentfeelandplausibilityofaspeed-readstorywithoutasubstantialefforttolookcriticallyandimpartiallyattheevidencepresentedbybothsides.Inthisregard,eachparticipantinaninternetproceedingsuchasthisbearsanimportantresponsibilitynotunlikethatofajurorinacourtroomtrial.Weowetofeministsthecrucialinsightthatsomeveryimportantsocialrulesandpractices–forexample,thosegoverningthedistributionofdomesticwork–arenotcodifiedinthelawbutratherconsistin,andevolvethrough,myriadparticulardecisionsofindividualparticipants.Trialbyinternetwillalwaysbeagreatlysuboptimalprocedure.Butourindividualcontributionsdeterminehowfaritfallsshort.Atitsworst,trialbyinternetisashaphazardandunfairasstoningsinAfghanistan.Atitsbest,itcanclarifytheissuesandachieveatleastapartialweighingoftheevidence.ItisinthehopeforasfairatrialastheinternetcanfacilitatethatIheresubmitmyresponsetoLopezAguilar’sallegations.Myresponse,inbrief,isthatnoneoftheallegedmisconductevertookplace.IdoubtIwillbeablefullytoconvincemanyofyouinthisforum.ButIcanprovideasubstantialamountofevidencethatshouldeasilysufficetoconvinceyoutoatleastsuspendbeliefuntiltheseallegationscanoncemorebeadjudicatedinaproperjudicialforum.Iunderstandwhymanypeoplereadingabouttheallegationsontheinternetrushtotheconclusionthattheymustbetrue.Weareonlytoofamiliarwiththethemeofoldermenmakingunwantedsexualadvancestomuchyoungerwomen.Therearefrequentreportsofsexualmisconductandassaultinacademia.Weknowthatsexual

2

harassmentoftengoesunreportedandthatthereisahighpricetopayinreportingit–whichgivesusallthemorereasontobelievethemwhentheyarereported.Butallthisdoesnotentailthatanyparticularallegationmustbetrue.Thereareotherfamiliarphenomenathatcanexplainfalseallegations:weknowoflawfirmsgoingafterrichinstitutionsforthesakeofwinninglargefinancialsettlements,whichcanoftenbeobtainedthroughtheextremeembarrassmentofamediafrenzyevenwithoutcourtproceedingsinwhichtheevidencecouldbecarefullyandcriticallyexamined.Andweknowthatfalsechargesandrumorscanbehighlyeffectiveweaponsintheintenselycompetitiveworldsofacademiaanduniversitypolitics.Theideathattherecanbenomotiveforfalsemisconductaccusationsisfarfromtrue.WhatreasonscanIofferyoufordisbelievingLopezAguilar’sallegations?Iherehighlightfivesuchreasonsinparticular.First,afterthetimeofallmyallegedmisconduct,LopezAguilarspontaneouslywrotemeenthusiastice-mails(“thankyouforanamazingtripandforgracinguswithyourpresencethesepastfewdays.I'mstillecstaticandsometimespinchmyselfthinkingaboutallthedoorsthatyou'velatelyopened”–23June2010)andaskedmetoletherjoinmeonatriptoArgentina:“Also,istheoffertoaccompanyyouinyourforaytoArgentinastillstanding?Ifbychanceitis,pleasedoletmeknow;I'dlovetogo”(5July2010).(Thee-mailcorrespondenceofthethreerelevantmonthsisappendedtothisdocument.)Second,LopezAguilarhasgivenfourverydifferentversionsoftheallegedmisconduct.Third,oneversionofherallegationswasthoroughlyinvestigatedinquasi-judicialproceedingsbyaYalecommitteeoffivefacultymembersandoneFederalJudge,whofoundherchargesofsexualharassmenttobenotcredible.Fourth,Ihavetakenapolygraphtestonsomeofherlaterspecificallegations,andhavepassedthistest.Istandreadytosubjectourconflictingclaimstoanotherpolygraphtestwithamutuallyagreeableexpert,andIampreparedtocoverthecostofthistestforbothparties.Fifth,IofferaplausiblealternativeexplanationofLopezAguilar’sbelatedallegationsofsexualmisconductbyreferencetoourseriousfalling-outattheendofAugust2010,whichleftbothofushurtandangry,andleftherdeterminedtotakemedownand,afterherlossintheYaleproceedings,towinafinancialsettlementfromYale.LopezAguilar’sallegationshavechangedconsiderablyovertime.Theinitialversion(fall2010)ofhersexualmisconductclaimwasthatIhadrescindedajoboffertoherbecauseshehadaboyfriendorbecauseshehadrejectedmysexualadvances.Thisclaimmakesnosensebecausewebarelycommunicatedbetweenthedateofthejoboffer–21July2010–and(whatshecalls)therescindingofthisofferattheendofAugust2010.Weexchangedafewemailslong-distance,butnothingthatcouldremotelybeconstruedasa(rejected)sexualadvance.AndIhadknownabouther

3

boyfriendallalongandhadstayedwithbothofthemovernightinJune.HadIbeendispleasedinanywayoneitherofthesecounts,Iwouldsurelyhavedeclinedtowriteherthejobofferratherthangoingthroughthetroubleoffirstmakingandthenwithdrawingit.Thesecondversionofhersexualmisconductclaim(spring2011)wasthatIhadmadevariousunwantedsexualadvancestowardherduringhersenioryear(2009-10)andduringthefollowingJune,whenwetraveledtogethertoparticipateinseveraleventsinSantiago,Chile.ThisversionwasthoroughlyinvestigatedbyfiveYalefacultymembersandaretiredFederalJudgeintheproceedingsofYale’sUniversity-WideCommitteeonSexualMisconduct,reachingtheconclusionthatherallegationsofsexualharassmentwerenotcredible.Intheseproceedings,evenunderextensivequestioning,LopezAguilarneverallegedthatIhadforcedmyselfuponherphysicallyinanyway.Thethirdversionofhersexualmisconductclaim(April2014)wasthatshe“wasattackedduringoursenioryearbyherthesisadviser,arenownedprofessorofethicsandhumanrights.Hisbrutal,sadisticattemptatrapewastheculminationofmonthsofescalatingharassmentthatsheenduredbecauseshefearedretaliationifshedidnot.”Itisinexplicablewhy,aftersuchahorribleexperience,LopezAguilarwould,afterhergraduation,havegoneonatripwithmetoChile.ThissamefundraisingappealalsoallegedthatIama“knownrapist”andthatthereisa“substantiatedcase”ofanequallyhorribleviolentcrimeIhavesupposedlycommitted.Thesewildaccusationsarepalpablyfalse–andnotbelievedbytheirpurveyors,noneofwhombotheredtobringthesesupposedcrimestotheattentionofthepolice.TheydidnonethelessraisethefullamounttheysoughtfortheirlawsuitagainstYale.ThefourthversionofthesexualmisconductclaimmakesnomentionofaphysicalattackduringLopezAguilar’stimeasastudentbutinsteaddescribessuchanattackinmid-June2010.Confrontedwiththisnewallegation,explicitlyconfirmedbyLopezAguilar“underoathandunderpenaltyofperjury,”Itookandpassedapolygraphtestdenyingthisandvariousotheraccusations.Iproposeandoffertopayforadditionalpolygraphtestsofbothparties’conflictingclaimswithamutuallyagreeableexpert.Ialsopointoutthat,afterthisallegedattackinJune2010,LopezAguilartooktheinitiativetoasktoaccompanymeonaprofessionaltriptoArgentina:“Also,istheoffertoaccompanyyouinyourforaytoArgentinastillstanding?Ifbychanceitis,pleasedoletmeknow;I'dlovetogo”(5July2010).Ineverrespondedtothissuggestionandtraveledtherealone.

4

Thejust-mentionedswornstatementbyLopezAguilarwasexecutedinJuly2014andtransmittedtoYaleUniversityaspartofalargerlaw-firmsubmissionwhoseevidentpurposeitwastoconvinceYaleofthestrengthofthelegalcaseagainstitandtherebytoobligeYaletosettleoutofcourt.Yaledidnotsettle;andLopezAguilarandherlawfirm/employerthenhaduntilDecember2014tofiletheircase.Theychosenottobringlegalaction,andthestatuteoflimitationsforchallengingthedecisionofYale’sUniversity-WideCommitteeonSexualMisconductthenexpired.TheBuzzfeedarticlespeaksofanotherlawsuitshemightfile(withoutsayingwhereandagainstwhomsuchasuitwouldstillbepossible)andofacivilrightscomplaintwiththeU.S.DepartmentofEducation.Iwouldwelcometheopportunitytochallengeherallegationsinaproperjudicialforum.ButIfearthatsuchtalkoflegalactionisnomorethanacoverforlegallyextortingafinancialsettlement.Letmeinconclusioncommentonhowthisfriendlyandconstructivestudent-teacherrelationshipwentsohorriblywrongfourmonthsafterLopezAguilar’sgraduation.(IappendthepreservedemailsfromthisperiodofJunetillSeptember2010.)Inretrospect,Ibelievethatbothofuswereunnecessarilyconfrontationalinourdisputeandcouldandshouldhavepartedwaysinamorecivilmanner.IfirstmetLopezAguilarwhenshewasastudentinalargelectureclassItaughtinthefallof2008.Inthefallof2009,Iagreedtosuperviseherseniorthesis,whichIdidmostlybyemail,withafewface-to-facemeetings.Duringthissenioryear(2009-2010),shetoldmethatshewouldverymuchliketoremainintheU.S.forayearof“optionalpracticaltraining”(OPT).WeagreedthatIwouldwriteevaluationlettersinsupportofherapplicationsforsuitablepostsandalsothat,shouldnosuitablepositionmaterialize,shecouldbeaffiliatedwithmyGlobalJusticeProgram.Sheinitiallyindicatedthatshewouldbehappywithsuchanunpaidaffiliation,butlaterexpressedadesiretobefinanciallyindependentofherparentsbymakingatleast$1300amonthtocover“food,rentandutilities”because“Ifeelabitbadaboutmakingmyparentspay”(2May2010).IrespondedthatIwouldhelpher:“we’llmakeitworkout,don’tworry.”IbelievethatIknewwhenIwrotethisthatshecomesfromawealthyfamilybutthatshetoldmeonlylaterthatherfamilyisamongthefiverichestinHonduras.On26June2010shewroteme:“ThegoodthingisthatI’mactuallyquitecomfortablefinancially.”MyoptimismwasvindicatedinJuly2010when,withthehelpofmyevaluations,shefound“ajobasaSeniorResearchAssistant”withtheBrookingsInstitute“atafinesalary”(21July2010),whichwouldgiveherOPTstatusandalsorelieveherfromhavingtoaskherparentsformoney.

5

ButBrookingscouldnotprovideanofferlettertosecureherleaseoftheapartmentshewanted—orsoshetoldmeinthesameemail(21July2010).SheaskedmetostepinwithaYaleofferletter.Iaskedhertoformulatesuchaletterandshesentmebackadraftwiththewords“Idraftedatheoreticalofferofemployment.WecanripittoshredsafterIsendittotheTaftifyoulike.Ijustwrotedownsomethingthattheycouldbeappeasedwith,asfarasthesalaryfigurewasconcerned.”Irevisedthedraftofferletter(butnotthesalaryfigureof$2000permonthwhichshehaddeclaredtobenecessaryforsecuringherlease)andreturnedittoherpromptlywithmysignature.Writingherafakejobofferletterwasobviouslywrong.IhadnorighttoinvolveYale,withoutitsknowledgeorconsent,insecuringanapartmentleaseforLopezAguilar.Andtherewasnoneedforit,asIcouldhaveguaranteedhertimelyrentpaymentswithmyownresources,hadIwantedto.Yale’sreprimandformylapseofjudgmenthereisentirelydeserved.On30August2010,LopezAguilarpresentedherselfwithmyfakejobofferletteratYale.Thiswasremarkableforfourreasons.First,shehadneveracceptedthepositionbysigningandreturningtheofferletterasthetextofthisletterclearlyprescribed.Second,sheshowedupforworktwodaysbeforethestartingdatespecifiedintheofferletter,justbeforeIwouldreturnfromLatinAmericaasshewellknew.Third,shehadaconcurrentfull-timejobattheBrookingsInstituteandthuswasnotavailableforasecondfull-timejob.Fourth,sheobviouslyknewthatshehadaskedforthislettertosecureanapartmentleaseandhadofferedto“ripittoshreds”(21July2010)afterithadservedthatpurpose.OnthebasisofLopezAguilar’sconductandsubsequentcommunications,Iinferredthatherplanwastoforcemeintopayingherasecondfull-timesalaryforthe2010-11year.MyalternativetosomehowfindingthemoneytopayherwastoconfesstoYalethatIhadprovidedherwithafakeofferletter.Findinghertotallytransformedinthewayshecommunicatedwithme,IalsobecamemindfuloftheriskthatshemightmakeupsomesexualharassmentcomplaintifIrefusedtopay.Shehadoncetoldmeaboutadormroomconversationamongafewwomenstudentsabouthoweasyitwouldbeto“takedown”anyprofessorinthisway.Inonethelessdecidednottogiveintoherdemandsforayearlongsalary,insteadconfessingmytransgressionandsharingtherelevantcorrespondencethatclearlyshowedthattheletterwasmeantstrictlyasastand-inforthedelayedBrookingsoffer.LopesAguilarthendemandedaone-timepaymentof$2000forworksupposedlydone

6

overthesummerof2010.Nothavingaskedhertodoanysignificantworkoverthesummer,notawareofherhavingdoneanyandnothavingagreedtoanypaidsummerwork,Iaskedhertospecifywhatshehaddoneandtoshowmeanyworkproducts.ShegavevariousunsatisfactoryanswersandliedabouthavingretypedalengthyPDFdocumentintoWordwhenshehadinsteadaskedmyassistanttoconvertitforher.Somewhatexasperated,Iturnedthecaseovertotherelevanthumanresourcesdepartment,whichquicklydecidedthat$2000wasn’tworththesubstantialhassleofapotentialEEOCcomplaint.SoLopezAguilarwaspaidwhatsheaskedforfrommyresearchaccount.Idon’tknowwhatsortofstatementYaleaskedhertosigninexchange,butIknowshehadtheservicesofalawyerwhenshesignedit.Sincethattime,LopezAguilarhasworkedhardtotakedownthisprofessor,firstwithhercomplainttoYale’sUniversity-WideCommitteeonSexualMisconduct,thenwithawell-orchestratedinternetcampaign.HereshewasaidedbytheOlivariuslawfirm,whichalsoemployedher(https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernanda-lopez-aguilar-esq-2098664a),by“Aye”,whosesecretrecordingsofourconversationsandunauthorizedcopyofmyharddriveendedupwithOlivarius,andbyanumberofprominentphilosopherssomeofwhomhavepubliclydenouncedmeasarapist.Theyallhavetriedhardtofindvictimsofmysexualmisconduct–JasonStanleybypublishingthisappealontheinternetwhereithasbeennearthetopof“ThomasPogge”searchresultsforovertwoyears:“Anyonewithinformationthatmayberelevanttoviolationofuniversitypolicy,i.e.thatinvolveshisprofessionalbehaviortowardsotherphilosophersinhisstatusasaYaleProfessor,evenstudentsinhisareasatotheruniversities,isencouragedtocontactDeputyProvostSpangleratherpersonalemail,stephanie.spangler@yale.edu.Allcommentswillbekeptinabsolutestrictestconfidence.”Thisappealhasproducednonewallegationsornewpurportedvictimsintwoyears.Iamdeeplygratefulthat,despitealltheexcoriation,nooneelsehasbroughtforwardafalsecharge–nooneatYaleandnooneatthe600+academicvenuesIhavevisitedsincejoiningYale.IwillcontinuetodowhatIcando,underthecircumstances,toputtheseallegationstorest.