Fabricating An Air of Sexual Harassment
SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas endorsed Ave Maria School of Law at the beginning in 1999. Since then, he has remained its friend and offered speeches and lectures. Maybe Thomas will call the Dean to remind him about the disgrace that goes with weak allegations of physical/sexual harassment and the attempt to derail one's career:
"This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the US Senate rather than hung from a tree."
- Clarence Thomas; October 11, 1991, speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Anita Hill allegations
Dean Dobranski's perverted twisting of an AMSL staffer's complaint is no less a lynching on Professor Safranek; whether intentional or not, Dobranski's fabricated air of sexual harassment seems clear to any fair-minded person. Safranek and the faculty who "deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas" know all too well that "unless you kowtow to an older order, this is what will happen to you".
This is an affront to higher education, both Catholic and legal. It is also an affront to victims and justice. The Dean's ludicrious interpretation of the complaint discredits the efforts and stories of women who have been - and will be - real victims of physical/sexual harassment and workplace intimidation.
If this incident is an example of the accuracy and objectivity of Dobranski to act as unaccountable fact-finder and judge, how can anyone trust as credibile his behavior and decisions in the "Boys Cherries" incident where civil and canoncial authorities were frustrated in their investigation? (background here; series here). How much of Dobranski's slick and twisted lawyerly wordsmithing is imbedded in his explanation of the matter? AveWatch already demonstrated that much of the explanation was empty. But how many more half-truths and airs are there? For example, when Dobranski says that (emphasis added) "no Law School employee" ever "handled, touched, or possessed" the pornographic hard drive, does that mean that a non-employee at AMSL, like a student, may have done so? This is the level of scrutiny and skepticism that any statement from Ave Maria must be subjected to for an accurate portrayal of a situation. It is no wonder that AMSL co-founder and former Board member Charles Rice called for an independent investigation of the matter.
[clip from AMSL's 2007-2007 Prospectus and
Application]