Piatt's Discrimination Complaint

It came out a couple of weeks ago, but in case you haven't seen it, Texas Lawyer has a story on Rosanne Piatt's discrimination complaint against St. Mary's university:

A full-time instructor at the San Antonio law school since January 1999, Piatt alleges in a charge of discrimination she filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division that St. Mary's University notified her a year ago that her contract would terminate on May 31, the end of the 2008-2009 academic year.

In the charge, which Piatt filed in November 2008, she alleges her belief that St. Mary's law school has discriminated against her because of her age and gender. She is 57 years old.

"If you're an older female at St. Mary's, you're at risk," Piatt alleges in an interview.

There's also this letter to the editor (scroll down) in the Express-News which says the dismissals of Rosanne Piatt and Cheryl George are not because of discrimination, but due to academic politics:

All across the school, faculty and staff members who had any connections to former Dean Bill Piatt are finding themselves without a job. Many of these people have excelled in their jobs and received excellent performance reviews, yet were let go with spurious excuses and little warning.

Finally, here's a question from a member of the academic community on the Legal Writing Prof Blog:

One question that comes to mind is: why is the legal writing community hearing about this for the first time from the TaxProf blog? And what are we doing to help her? Like the Marines, we don't leave our wounded behind. Professor Piatt, if you're reading this and need our help, let us know and we'll spread the word. Semper Fi.

St. Mary's Law School Professor to Senate: Enhanced Interrogation ≠ Torture

In a hearing this week on the Bush Administration's torture memos, Professor Jeffrey F. Addicot, Director of the St. Mary's law school's Center for Terrorism Law, tells the U.S. Senate's Administrative Oversight and the Courts subcommittee that he does not consider "enhanced interrogation" methods such as waterboarding to amount to torture.

The witnesses at the hearing included two other law professors, a former State Department official, and a former FBI agent and interrogator. From NPR's coverage of the hearing:

Of the five witnesses who testified before the panel Wednesday, only one, Jeffrey Addicott of St. Mary's University School of Law's Center for Terrorism Law, defended the methods approved by the Bush White House.

"In my legal opinion, the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques did not constitute torture," Addicott said.

Politics Daily coverage of the hearing quotes the second law prof calling the torture memos an "ethical train wreck," and the third noting that just like with the World War II internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, "Good people, fearful for the safety of their fellow Americans, made bad decisions."

The former State Department official called the enhanced interrogation program a "collective failure." The ex-FBI agent also testified that these tactics were unreliable and ineffective.

The earliest torture memo sets out ten "enhanced interrogation" methods the CIA wanted to use. They include:

1. attention grasp: the interrogator grabs you by the collar and pulls you toward him
2. walling: you're stood against a flexible false wall, yanked forward, then pushed back into the wall
3. facial hold: he puts a hand on each side of your face, holding your head immobile
4. facial slap: what it sounds like
5. cramped confinement: they put you in a dark box and restrict your movement--you can stand or sit in the larger one, where they stick you for 18 hours; you can only sit in the smaller one for up to 2 hours
6. wall standing: you stand 4-5 feet from a wall and lean against it, putting all your weight on your fingertips; you can't reposition your hands or feet
7. stress positions: "designed to produce physical discomfort associated with muscle fatigue"
8. sleep deprivation: keep you awake for up to 72 hours
9. insects placed in a confinement box: just like No. 5 above, but they tell you they're putting a stinging insect in there, too (relax, it's just a caterpillar)
10. waterboarding: they strap you to an inclined board (feet up, head down) and put a water-soaked cloth to your face while pouring water on it for 20 to 40 seconds, creating a "perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic'"

Prof. Addicott elaborates on why "enhanced interrogation" is not torture in an op-ed for Jurist Legal News & Research. He cites the 1978 European Court of Human Rights case Ireland v. United Kingdom, which holds that five interrogation techniques (wall-standing, hooding, subjecting to noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink) used by the British government are "inhuman and degrading," but do not sink to the depths of torture. The professor concludes:

Considering the level of interrogation standards set out in the Ireland case, the conclusion is clear. Even the worst of the CIA techniques that were authorized – waterboarding – would not constitute torture (the CIA method is similar to what we have done hundreds and hundreds of times to our own military special operations soldiers in military training courses on escape and survival).

Prof. Addicott refers to the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape training, which he has probably received himself. However, one of the torture memos (on page 6) notes a huge difference between waterboarding military trainees and waterboarding prisoners:

Individuals undergoing SERE training are obviously in a very different situation than the detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation regime, they presumably know it will last only a short time, and they presumably have assurances that they will not be significantly harmed by the training.

I have a lot of respect for Prof. Addicott, who taught me Federal Civil Procedure my first semester of law school. He might even be right as far as whether anyone can be prosecuted for any "enhanced interrogation." But leaving aside whether these techniques really are effective (and it doesn't look like they are) and whether the government should prosecute anyone over this, my main fear is that while now these methods are supposedly used only on "the bad guys," unless we put a stop to this immediately, one day we might see our government using them on us.

ADDENDUM: This story by the Washington Independent offers further testimony and additional analysis:

If it were torture, however, the Bush administration officials would be out of luck, Addicott continued. “Those who order, approve or engage in torture must be criminally prosecuted,” he said. “There is no way out of this. We have to prosecute under the torture convention. We can’t say, on the one hand, those people engaged in torture and not do anything. On the other hand, if we say they do not rise to level of torture then we’re not under any international obligation to prosecute.”

Addicott did not mention, however, that the United Nations Convention Against Torture — the same convention cited by Addicott — signed by Ronald Reagan and implemented by U.S. federal law, forbids not only “torture” but “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”, which must also be prosecuted under the law. And it was the definition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in particular, that gave rise to the objections of Zelikow and others.

That’s because, as later OLC memos acknowledged, the cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, according to the reservations included when the United States signed the anti-torture treaty, is to be interpeted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. If the actions would be prohibited under the substantive due process clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, or by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on Cruel and Unusual Punishment, then it would be likewise prohibited — and must be prosecuted — under the U.S. anti-torture statute.

The Hour Arrives

The February 2009 Bar Exam results are up. Congratulations to all those who passed.

From the February 2009 stats page, here's how St. Mary's grads did:

• First-timers: 28 of 32 passed (87.50%)--St. Mary's came in fourth in the state (behind Baylor, UH, and Tech).
• Repeat takers: 15 of 27 passed (55.56%)--St. Mary's ranked fifth in the state (behind Texas, Baylor, Tech, and Wesleyan).

Overall, 1118 people took the February Bar, and 732 of them passed--a 65.47% pass rate.

Congrats, new lawyers, and good luck finding work.

St. Mary's Law Grad Displeased with Changes to His Letter to Editor on professors article

Fellow 2008 St. Mary's law graduate Jason Petty isn't too thrilled with the changes to his letter to the editor that the Express-News ran today. Jason was responding to the E-N's story on St. Mary's law students protesting the dismissal of two law professors. Here's his response when I asked him what happened:

Mack,

Forgive my fantastical ego trip. Below is the original letter I emailed to the Express-News in response to the April 25th report on the student protest:

Dear Editors, I am a very recent St. Mary's Law alumnus. (Disclosure: I passed the bar, got a legal job, and love St. Mary's.) Your decision to frame the article "Students protest 2 St. Mary's law profs [sic] terminations" (Apr. 25, Metro p.3) as an expose on race and sex discrimination at St. Mary's confused me. Why does this paper insist on giving credit to a few students' claims of discrimination when none of the terminated professors/instructors/ administrators are making those claims themselves? There are only two possible outcomes of this publication decision on your part: one, a venerable San Antonio institution has its reputation lowered because it cannot defend itself against the accusations of students who are unable to distinguish correlation and causation; or two, these women, a few of whom I count among good friends, have their professional reputations tarnished because the university is forced to justify its decision to terminate them by making statements like "Not all minorities, even in a national context of pervasive if somewhat unconscious racism and sexism, are qualified.”

Not well done at all, Express-News. St. Mary, pray for us.

Jason C. Petty, J.D., St. Mary's, 2008

Here is what they put on their website:

A hit on St. Mary's

I'm a recent St. Mary's Law School alumnus. I was confused by your decision to frame your April 25 report, “St. Mary's students protest 2 law professor terminations,” as an exposé on race and sex discrimination there.

Why did the newspaper give credence to a few students' claims of discrimination when neither of the terminated professors/instructors/ administrators made such claims themselves?

Two possible reasons:

• A venerable law school has its reputation lowered because it cannot defend itself against accusations by students who are unable to distinguish correlation and causation, or;

• These women, a few of whom I count among good friends, have their professional reputations tarnished because the university is forced to justify its decision to terminate them.

Not well done at all, Express-News. St. Mary, pray for us.

- Jason C. Petty, J.D., Alexandria, La.

My original beef, motivated by my love of the school, is that the article doesn't give any information about credible allegations of sex or gender discrimination by St. Mary's against the professors themselves. All the article gives us is the students' suggestive protest. Yet at most all we have is a throwaway argument of retaliation for defense of other minorities in the EEOC complaint made by the beloved Instructor Piatt. Is Professor George alleging actual discrimination, or just saying that she, personally, felt uncomfortable at St. Mary's? We don't know. That's all the article gives us. In other words, where's the discrimination?

My new, entirely personal beef is that the change in my letter switches "two possible outcomes" of the report to "two possible reasons" for it, which would have me be some sort of crystal-ball wielding apologist for the reporter's insinuations. Are
cause and effect wholly obliterated in our post-metaphysical world? And then they don't change the grammatical construct of the two items they bullet, which would make sense if I were providing hypothetical effects rather than the causes they suggest. That just makes me look dumb and, I believe, undercuts any argument I might have. (Sort of like the comment box below the online version of the article, where one commenter self-identified as a "Steller Law Student.")

I loathed that April 25th report: no one comes out a winner. The school looks bad and the professors look bad.

jcp

I know what Jason means about the online comments to that article. I look at some of the spelling and grammar mistakes from supposedly educated people--not to mention the attitudes of some who posted--and I wince.

Disclosure: Jason and I worked on the St. Mary's Law Journal during our second year of law school.

E-N Story on St. Mary's Shakeup

The Express-News covers student reactions to the ouster of two law professors:

A group of students at St. Mary's University School of Law are protesting the school's decision to terminate contracts for two female professors, one of them black, saying the move is a blow to diversity on a faculty where women and minorities are already underrepresented.

Raul Pelaez-Prada, the student leading the protest, has put up fliers on campus and collected around 150 signatures on a petition supporting Professors Cheryl George and Rosanne Piatt, who are both fighting their terminations.

I'd be happy to post a copy of that petition, if someone will send it to me. The newspaper also posted a letter (page 1 and page 2) from the American Association of University Professors on Rosanne Piatt's de facto tenure claim, which I wrote about earlier this month. The letter states in part:

Because Ms. Piatt has served as a full-time lecturer in the law school for more than eight years, she would therefore be entitled under the above documents to the procedural protections that normally accrue with tenure. ... They include the right to a pre-termination hearing of record in which the administration bears the burden of demonstrating adequacy of cause for dismissal before an elected faculty committee.

One possible reason for the dismissals? From the E-N article:

Students say the ousting is due in part to the professors' connection to former law school Dean Bill Piatt, who was forced out in 2006 after a rocky tenure. Rosanne Piatt is married to the former dean, and claims she has earned de facto tenure after teaching for 10 years. George was hired by the former dean and has been a staunch supporter.

In addition, the story notes that Bill Piatt tried to bring in four other African-Americans besides Prof. George to teach at the law school.

One was never hired and another worked as a visiting professor for a year. A third taught at St. Mary's for six years before accepting a tenure track position at another university. Reached at her office, the professor did not want to be identified, but said she too felt unwelcome at St. Mary's.

The fourth is Sharon Breckenridge-Thomas, director of the Office of Academic Excellence, whose contract was not renewed this year. Breckenridge-Thomas declined to comment.

I'm more inclined to believe that it's office politics, not racism, that led to this result. However it happened, it sure makes the law school look bad.

St. Mary's students and alumni should take a look at the comments on this article. A few samples:

• This has little to do with racism or sexism. This is an example of the incompetence of Dean Charles Cantu. ...
• The termination of these two professors is just another bad mark on a Law program struggling to regain a positive reputation in this State. ...
• Staffing decisions should not be based on race/gender. Professors who can't teach should be released. End of story. ...
• These comments are embarrassing to those of us who are proud to be students at St. Mary's. ...

Justice Dept. Names Interim U.S Attorney

First Assistant U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy will step in temporarily to replace U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who resigned as the top prosecutor in the Western District of Texas. According to the Express-News:

Murphy has spent nearly 34 years in the Western District, 14 of them as the first assistant U.S. attorney. He will hold the job until the Obama administration nominates a U.S. attorney, a process that requires Senate confirmation.

According to Murphy's State Bar of Texas member directory entry, he's a 1972 St. Mary's grad.

Piatt Claims De Facto Tenure

Last month I blogged about how three individuals will not be back to teach at St. Mary's law school after this semester. I just received an email from one of the three, Instructor Rosanne Piatt. She said that because she has been a full-time faculty member at St. Mary's for ten years, she has tenure.

Here's her email, in its entirety (links added by yours truly):

St. Mary's Law School is a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). One of the conditions of membership is that member schools agree to adhere to the standards regarding academic freedom and tenure of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The AAUP standards describe two categories of full-time teachers: probationary (up to 7 years) and tenured. If a school continues a full-time teacher beyond seven years, that professor is tenured, per the AAUP (and AALS). Twice now the American Association of University Professors has written to St. Mary's, informing St. Mary's that I hold tenure and requesting my reinstatement, or the initiation of formal tenure revocation proceedings, with the burden on the university to show cause. St. Mary's has refused to comply. I will be able to share additional information within a week. Thank you for your interest.

According to the AAUP, de facto tenure exists if, after the probation ends, a faculty member continues teaching or working at the school:

Upon continuance of full-time service beyond the maximum probationary period, faculty members who so serve should be recognized as having an entitlement to the procedural safeguards that accrue with tenure, even in the absence of institutional regulations to that effect or of specific action by a particular college or university.

However, the case law on de facto tenure runs both ways. The AAUP lists a number of federal and state court cases on this subject, including a couple of federal cases from Texas:

• Owens v. Board of Regents of Texas Southern University, 953 F. Supp. 781 (S.D. Tex. 1986): Faculty manual adopted subsequent to plaintiff's appointment explicitly provided that tenure would be granted only upon affirmative action by governing board and would not be granted automatically. Factual question existed as to whether plaintiff had rights under earlier manual that administrator testified provided for tenure by default through length of service. Court denied university's motion for summary judgment.
  
• LaVerne v. University of Texas System, 611 F. Supp. 66 (C.D. Tex. 1985): Under the applicable university regents' rules, there was no tenure by default, de facto, or "common law" tenure. When university published written tenure procedures, "the legitimacy of a claim to tenure acquired outside the procedures is vitiated because there is no basis for mutuality." Because no entitlement to continued employment existed, no property or liberty interest existed.

I will post more on this subject as soon as I hear anything.

Who Will Be the Next U.S. Attorney?

Now that Johnny Sutton, the somewhat controversial U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, has announced his retirement (his last day will be April 19), who will take over his job?

Maybe an attorney from San Antonio--one with a St. Mary's connection. According to news reports, potential replacements include:

• Travis County Attorney (and U.T. grad) David Escamilla
• San Antonio City Attorney (and St. Mary's alumnus) Michael Bernard
• private practice attorney and former federal prosecutor (and former St. Mary's adjunct professor in trial advocacy) Michael McCrum (read about him in his own words here)

I would love to see a San Antonio attorney step into this office, but who knows?

Hat tip: Grits For Breakfast

Statesman Article on George Trip

The Austin American-Statesman interviewed St. Mary's law school Assistant Professor Cheryl George and her 10-year-old son Gabriel about their trip to Washington, D.C. to promote awareness of sickle cell disease. From the Statesman article:

Last week, Gabriel, his mother and sickle cell advocates visited President Barack Obama in the Oval Office to discuss the disease.

"He was very nice and he was funny," Gabriel said of Obama. "He joked about things. He gave me a postcard and he signed it."

Professor George Goes to Washington

St. Mary's law school Assistant Professor Cheryl George and her son Gabriel recently traveled to Washington, D.C., to spread awareness about sickle cell disease--and they met the President of the United States while they were in town.

Prof. George emails that not only did they visit the offices of U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston, Rep. Barbara Lee of California, and members of Congress from Illinois and from the Virgin Islands:

But we met with President Obama for 10-15 minutes in the Oval Office. He joked with Gabriel about the gifts we gave he and his family. He was INCREDIBLY kind and took his time talking to Gabriel.

The proud mom also said the Austin American-Statesman interviewed them about the trip; we should see an article in the paper this Sunday. She said in her email about the meeting:

It was a HUGE blessing!!!

God is incredibly GOOD!!! :)

George has wanted to meet Barack Obama for more than a year, since the 10-year-old predicted Obama's election victory back in February 2008. Congrats to the George family!

Shakeups at St. Mary's (2nd update)

While attending the SAYLA Counselors & Cocktails fundraiser Thursday night, I heard about some recent personnel changes at St. Mary's University School of Law, including some professors that might not be teaching next semester.

I haven't been able to confirm all the names mentioned, but after making some inquiries, I verfied the following:

• Sharon Breckenridge-Thomas, director of the Office of Academic Excellence and professor, said that she still has not yet heard whether her contract will be renewed. However, I found that the law school does have a nationwide advertisement seeking candidates for a very similar postion.
• On the staff side, Annette R. Wilson is no longer director of the law school's Career Services department. In her place, the office website lists Faye Bracey as the interim director.

There are two other individuals who may not be back to teach at St. Mary's; once I get them confirmed, I will update this post.

UPDATE: I spoke with one of the other individuals I heard about:

• Assistant Professor Cheryl George, who teaches educational law and criminal law, is under consideration by the law school's faculty senate tenure committee, but she told me that she doesn't think she is at liberty to talk about her situation. She said she will let me know what happens.

SECOND UPDATE: I talked to the final individual I had been trying to reach:

• Roseanne Piatt, an instructor at St. Mary's for 10 years, also did not have her contract renewed. This comes as no surprise; she is the wife of former law school dean Bill Piatt, who had his share of controversy and later was ousted as dean (unjustifiably, in my opinion, since St. Mary's bar passage rate increased while he was dean). Bill Piatt remains on the St. Mary's faculty, since he has tenure.

Roseanne Piatt told me she received high evaluations from law students who took her classes, and students held a rally on her behalf recently. She said she will do what she can to convince administrators to change their minds. Meanwhile, she plans to stay in San Antonio.

DISCLOSURE: While a law student at St. Mary's, I took classes from all three of the professors/instructors I mentioned above.

New Location for Graduation

Here's some news I just heard that should be of interest to the S.A. law community:

St. Mary's University School of Law is moving its graduation ceremony from on campus to downtown. My classmates and I walked the stage at the school's traditional graduation location, the Bill Greehey Arena. Many law students didn't like the thought of receiving their diploma on a basketball court, so the Student Bar Association--and Keith McMahon in particular--worked to convince the law school administration to change that.

As Keith announced in an email to law students, in 2009, the law school graduation ceremony will take place at the Municipal Auditorium, followed by a reception at the Crowne Plaza Hotel.

So congrats to Keith and the SBA for their hard work. (Although I have to admit I am a little jealous.)