Dr. Melvin Hale's Opposition To Derek Wilson and Deidra Elijah's Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Complaint - Emporia State University

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 121
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MELVIN HALE, PH.D,
Plaintiff
v.
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY (ESU).,
JACKIE VIETTI, PH.D.,
DAVID CORDLE, PH.D.,
JUDY ANDERSON.,
GWEN ALEXANDER, PH.D.,
CHRIS HOOVER.,
DEBRA RITTGERS.,
KEVIN JOHNSON.,
RAY LAUBER.,
MIRAH DOW, PH.D.,
GARY WYATT, PH.D.,
JASON BROOKS.,
SARAH SPOON.,
ARIEL COOLEY.,
DEREK WILSON.,
DEIDRA ELIJAH.,
KAYLA GILMORE.,
and DOES 1 to 100,
Case No. 15-4947-SAC-KGS
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS WILSON AND

ELIJAHS MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants Derek Wilson and Deidra Elijah claim that this Court should dismiss
plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has set forth that these defendants knowingly
reiterated the jargon of a flawed investigation in which evidence was manufactured, and Dr. Hale
was retaliated against, defamed, stigmatized, placed in a false light, and his integrity questioned,
all for reporting a hate crime and racism in SLIM. Plaintiff will show that both Wilson and
Elijah are each personally responsible for their acts as employees and/or agents of ESU, and that
they knew the facts in advance of the September 9th Vietti and Johnson press conference (Doc.
49, pgs. 3-16), and learned more facts after the press conference, but that they reiterated the
jargon of the press conference, while using leadership roles to convince others to do the same.
These two defendants did this for personal gain. This is a sham pleading, a final ditch effort to
divert attention away from the deliberate actions they undertook in an intentional campaign to
destroy the livelihood and reputation of an African-American professor who dared report a hate
crime and identify a suspect.
Defendants viewed plaintiff as powerless to stand up to the institution from which they
derived significant personal benefits. The press conference held by defendants Vietti and
Johnson on September 9th, 2015 depicted Dr. Hale as a liar and an opportunist whose perception
was different than others. (Doc. 49, pg. 14). He only learned about the hate crime as a
fluke. (Doc. 49, pg. 6). Both statements are complete lies, and are undeniably slanderous.
Hales color and race left him vulnerable to attacks by a racially-insensitive university
administration. Dr. Hale refused to allow an egregious act of racial aggression to go unchecked
and was immediately denigrated and banished. Dr. Hale reported the incident in an accreditation
year for both ESU and SLIM. Plaintiff was portrayed as an outsider, and not a loyal member of
Hornet Nation. An Emporia Gazette story dated September 16th, 2015 provides a more
nuanced and accurate picture of the racial climate at ESU: Students see stuff going on and
nothing being done about it. We are the voice of this campus. Our generation wants a change, so
if no one is going to do it then we are. When you actually sit down [with the Hales] and hear
2
their perspective, that is when you understand things that are important. Even if it isnt
considered a hate crime, it is emotionally harmful. These are things that scar a person for the rest
of their life. A true and correct copy of the Emporia Gazette story is attached as Exhibit A, and
is incorporated by reference herein. The author of those comments: defendant Elijah. She
mentioned permanent scarring, and she recommends that people talk to the Hales in order to
understand things. What would make a person with these beliefs abruptly cut off all
communication? An unconstitutional gag order from the university, and perks?
The following policy is found in both the student and employee manuals as factors when
determining Racial and/or Ethnic Harassment: Racial and/or ethnic harassment may be blatant
or subtle. Examples of the conduct that is prohibited include, but are not limited to:
Repeated ignoring or excluding of ones presence or existence in a University setting.
Student Policy Manual, 3D0106.02.02. A true and correct copy of the policy is attached as
Exhibit B, and is incorporated by reference herein.
Defendants Elijah and Wilson, and those they led, did exactly that; so according to its
own policy, ESU and all defendants are guilty of Racial and/or Ethnic Harassment. Elijah had
regular communications with Angelica Hale up until a week after she had a private meeting with
Vietti; a meeting with Vietti and the BSU Board; and finally, the regular meeting of the BSU on
September 17th, at a minimum. Up to that time, Elijah sold March on Emporia t-shirts, and owed
Angelica Hale a visit to return the leftover t-shirts and money from the fundraising. The call and
the money for the sales never came. Elijah states that either she or BSU President Emmanuel
Cockrell would be giving plaintiff or his wife a call to discuss the outcome of the meetings with
Vietti, but that call never came, although Angelica stated that it was important for the Hales to
hear back from Elijah. Defendant Elijah and the BSU repeatedly ignored and excluded the
Hales presence, and did not acknowledge their existence in a University setting. This was
becoming a familiar pattern at ESU. Defendant Dr. Mirah Dow told Dr. Hale in the hallway at
SLIM on August 25th, 2015 that defendant Lauber told her not to talk to him. This practice of
not speaking to the Hales became rampant after the slanderous press conference, and after
defamatory things were said about the Hales in private closed door meetings. A true and correct
copy of the email that plaintiff sent to Angelica Hale discussing this incident is attached as
Exhibit C, and is incorporated by reference herein.
In a recent peer-reviewed scientific journal article entitled Is Negative Attention Better
Than No Attention? The Comparative Effects of Ostracism and Harassment at Work, observed
that Our work indicates that ostracism is a stronger threat to ones sense of belonging than
harassment, and a threatened sense of belonging is an important mediating variable between
ostracism and an employees well-being and work-related attitudes. We define ostracism as an
individual or a group neglecting to take actions that engage another organizational member when
it would be customary or appropriate to do so. A true and correct copy of the relevant pages
from the study are attached as Exhibit D, and are incorporated by reference herein. These results
establish a psychological rationale for why ostracism is a damaging experience. Vietti shunned
plaintiff and invited others to do the same; a prima facie violation of Racial and/or Ethnic
Harassment.
PATTERN OF RACISM, RETALIATION AND DISCRIMINATION
Plaintiff was the victim of a pattern of racism in SLIM, and both Elijah and Wilson knew
about this pattern, where faculty of color in SLIM were ushered out the door amid allegations of
racism and discrimination, only to be replaced with more faculty of color that would ultimately
be treated in a similar fashion. Plaintiff discussed these patterns with both defendants, so they
knew that it was not possible to state that there was no racism in SLIM. A former SLIM student
posted a letter from then Dean Alexander for his colleagues to see on Facebook on July 28th,
2009 in which she refers to concerns expressed about the recent resignations of Dr. John Agada
and Dr. Cecelia Salvatore. Why concerns? Dr. John Agada and Dr. Cecelia Salvatore are both
persons of color, and it appears that they exited amid confusion on the part of SLIM students. A
true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit E, and is incorporated by reference
herein. Alexander informs SLIM that Dr. Rajesh Singh was coming: We are excited about the
August 2 arrival of Dr. Rajesh Singh. Fast forward to May 2014 when Hale meets Singh and
Dr. Cameron Tuai during his interview at SLIM. They were the only faculty of color. Both
were tenure-track faculty, and Singh had been with SLIM five years. Dr. Hale was looking
forward to working with them. However, both Singh and Tuai were summarily fired by
Alexander shortly after Hale accepted the job. Unbeknownst to Dr. Hale, Alexander had planned
for him to be the minority faculty replacement.
In the SLIM faculty meeting on August 12th, 2015, immediately following the Associated
Press story about discrimination at SLIM and ESU, Dr. Barbara Montgomery, an AfricanAmerican library professor, was approved for adjunct faculty status. Montgomery was
recommended by SLIM faculty member Dr. Robin Kurz, a Caucasian who is a close friend of
Rittgers. The practice of bringing persons of color onboard SLIM to maintain an external
appearance of diversity and inclusion, while not actually accepting them as peers, is the pattern
at SLIM. A true and correct copy of the SLIM faculty agenda for August 12th, 2015,
Montgomerys biography, and her SLIM home page are attached as Exhibit F, and are
incorporated by reference herein.
According to plaintiffs knowledge, no persons of color have ever attained tenure at
SLIM. Hale, and his wife, both African-Americans, unwittingly assumed the role of maintaining
a semblance of diversity and inclusion during an important accreditation year. From day one,
Alexander disparaged both Dr. Singh and Dr. Tuai to the Hales, constantly justifying her actions
in letting them go. Alexander and Rittgers discussed Dr. Singhs personal matters and even told
Angelica Hale that Dr. Singh abandoned his wife and children in India, and refused to send them
money. The stories were pure ad hominem attacks. In the Rajesh Singh lawsuit, he claims that
Alexander failed to justify her reasons for giving Andrew Smith, a Caucasian male with
significantly lesser academic qualifications than Singh, and no library degree, tenure and the title
of Associate Dean. Alexander gave Andrew Smith the opportunity to claim Singhs corner
office in a display of power. Offices in most businesses have connotations, and it was no
different in SLIM. Turnover in SLIM under Alexander disproportionately affected persons of
color. Persons of color were routinely ushered in and out of SLIM during Alexanders tenure.
Dr. Singhs 2015 lawsuit in this Judicial District brings Title VII, KAAD, and 42 U.S.C. 1983
claims against ESU and ESU administrators (Doc. 43-1, pgs. 2-28). The defendants who brought
this motion knew that racism was a much bigger issue in SLIM and ESU than what Dr. Hale and
his wife had reported, yet they still defected to the administrations position that no instances of
discrimination were discovered in SLIM. They were induced to do this for the good of the
Hornet Nation, and for their own good.
As student employees and leaders, defendants Defendants Wilson and Elijah chose to
support their Hornet Nation (which became a rallying cry), despite the cost to Dr. Hale; and
6
plaintiff will show that they reaped benefits for leading other students to support the falsehoods
told by the university. The Hales were vilified in the worst possible terms in Viettis press
conference on September 9th, and Wilson and Elijah knew Viettis and Johnsons narrative bore
little relationship to the facts, yet both made a complete about-face. At ESU it is far more
expedient and gainful to support the official narrative. Disagreement is not tolerated and broad
unconstitutional censorship is rampant. Not only has plaintiff and his wife been terminated;
adjunct faculty who supported Dr. Hale have had contracts terminated, and students who support
him are being harassed and censored, up to the present time.
1. Exhausting Kansas Human Rights Commission Administrative Remedies
Plaintiff has obtained Administrative Closure from the KHRC. A true and correct copy
of the document referring to that action is attached as Exhibit G, and is incorporated by
reference herein. Plaintiff has filed for Reconsideration of Dismissal Pursuant to K.A.R. 21-4110. A true and correct copy of that document is attached as Exhibit H, and is incorporated by
reference herein. Both documents are dated May 10, 2016. Plaintiff has exhausted his KHRC
administrative remedies and his Title VII claims for retaliation and discrimination should go
forward.
2. Title VII claims against individuals are inappropriate
Plaintiff agrees that Title VII claims are inappropriate against individuals, and has asked
the Court to strike these claims as to all persons except defendant ESU. Title VII claims against
a state university can go forward notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment. Smith v. Grady,
960 F.Supp.2d 735 (S.D. Ohio 2013).
3. Defendants Wilson and Elijah and their ESU capacity

Derek Wilson held at least two jobs at ESU, one in Public Safety working for defendant
Chris Hoover and the ESU Police Department, and for Professor Shelly Rowley, for whom he
was a Teaching Assistant. Wilson was also the Student President of the Honors College,
reporting to defendant ESU Associate Provost Gary Wyatt who is the Director of the Honors
College and filled-in as Interim Dean of SLIM, replacing Gwen Alexander. Later, Gary Wyatt
would transition Mirah Dow into the role as Interim Dean of SLIM. It is also important to note
that Wilson was in the middle of a serious campaign of soliciting student votes for Homecoming
King in October, which he won.
Deidra Elijah was an officer of the ESU Black Student Union, officer of Zeta Phi Beta
Psi Tau Chapter Sorority of ESU, and secretary of the ESU Multicultural Greek Council, student
organizations that rely on institutional funding, and she personally receives private university
financial scholarship support through ESUs Freddie Mae Harris Fordham award. She is also
part of the Leadership Minor program at ESU, along with defendant Kayla Gilmore. Deidra
Elijah had just transitioned from a job for ESUs Sauder Alumni Center, part of the university
alumni department until 2014, and as part of her education major, was placed as a teacher for the
Emporia School District. It is also important to note that the three remaining student defendants,
Gilmore, Spoon and Cooley, also ESU students, were employed by ESU during the period
covered by this litigation.
Vietti as Interim President was most responsible for conducting the conspiracy to claim
that a hate crime did not occur, and she exerted considerable influence as she wielded the power
of the institution. But Elijah and Wilson had freedom of will and choice, and instead of taking
the principled stands that typically underpin student protest movements, they chose personal gain
and wielded the power of leadership as a weapon, which is a form of corruption, a lesson that
students do not need to practice in college. Looking the other way when violations of human
rights occur makes it easier to make other unprincipled decisions in life. Society does not benefit
from public universities that behave this way. What each and every one of the defendants did is
reprehensible.
Derek Wilson
Dr. Hale and his wife Angelica spoke to Derek Wilson and others about their experiences
to an undergraduate class taught by Dr. Shelly Rowley on social stratification and race on
September 8th, 2015, one day before the Vietti press conference. Derek Wilson may have been
employed as the graduate assistant for the class, and he told us and the class that after hearing
our story, he wanted to personally carry the Dismiss the Dean sign at the march. Following
that class, on September 10th, 2015, Wilson promoted information about the March On Emporia
in an email blast to a large number of students, including the entire Honors College cohort. A
true and correct copy of that email is attached as Exhibit I, and is incorporated by reference
herein. In a subsequent email, dated September 15th, Wilson retracts his support of the Hales
cause, and claims that he was upset about his friend and cohort Alexa Thomas mother, Debra
Rittgers, being named as a suspect (which happened at the end of July 2015). A true and correct
copy of that email is attached as Exhibit J, and is incorporated by reference herein.
Dr. Rowley, who is a non-party to this suit at this time, sent an email to Dr. Hale in which
she claims that Wilson was threatened with retaliation through the loss of several important
student government roles at ESU, and that his reputation would suffer for associating with the
plaintiff. One of the positions that would suffer was Wilsons position as student President of
the Honors College, reporting to defendant Gary Wyatt (who was then Interim Dean of SLIM).
A true and correct copy of an email from Dr. Rowley to Dr. Hale referencing her concerns about
Derek Wilson, her Teaching Assistant, is attached as Exhibit K, and is incorporated by reference
herein. A photo of Wilson with several other Honors College associates, including defendants
Spoon and Wyatt is attached as Exhibit L, and is incorporated by reference herein. Wilson is an
ESU ambassador. A true and correct of a tweet sent out by Wilson referencing his work as an
ESU ambassador is attached as Exhibit M, and is incorporated by reference herein. Wilson
speaks on behalf of the Honors College to the media. A true copy of a photograph of Wilsons
interview with KVOEs Chuck Samples is attached as Exhibit N, and is incorporated by
reference herein. Wilson announced his job working with Chris Hoover and the ESUPD on his
Facebook page, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit O, and is incorporated by
reference herein. Wilson states on his Change.org petition for March on Emporia that he was
joining the Hales cause against racism at ESU because I do not like bullies. A true and correct
copy of that petition is attached as Exhibit P, and is incorporated by reference herein. It was
clear to Wilson that plaintiff was bullied by ESU.
Plaintiff understands that taking an unpopular stand is not without personal sacrifice and
risks. The circumstances called upon Wilson to take a stand, and he did not. Wilson is not being
sued for his beliefs, and certainly not because he quit talking to the Hales. Wilson is being sued
because he knowingly became part of the conspiracy for personal gain: he chose to repeat
falsehoods that defamed and caused damage to the plaintiff. Deidra Elijah is being sued for the
same reason. Plaintiff has produced evidence where Wilson states for a fact that Rittgers is
innocent. Where did he get that information? Wilsons own statements involving his
10
experiences working on Security at ESU indicates that Vietti and Johnson lied about the
circumstances surrounding Office 413, thus any pronouncements they made about a hate crime
happening or not happening were flawed.
Deidra Elijah (A.K.A. Deidre Elijah)
Elijah is an influential student leader who assumed a leadership role in assisting the first
March On Emporia that took place on September 15th, 2015. She has received multiple
scholarships from ESU in 2014 and 2015. In December, 2015, the university announced in the
media that Elijah received a new privately funded scholarship for the school year for education
majors. The specter of losing her new education scholarship for providing any further support to
the Hales could have been enough alone to persuade Elijah to make an unprincipled decision, but
that is the type of price people pay every day to maintain their integrity. Besides that, Elijah
professes that she aspires to be a leader, not a follower. She is President of the Zeta Phi Beta
Sorority at ESU. A true and correct of a Zeta website page, and a Facebook page depicting
Elijah are attached as Exhibit Q, and are incorporated by reference herein. She is wearing a
March On Emporia t-shirt and a Love not Hate t-shirt in a Facebook post while selling March On
Emporia t-shirts and soliciting petitions for the march while at a booth in the Memorial Union
with two other BSU members, Ceanna Trice and Miquie Bowe; a true and correct copy of which
is attached as Exhibit R, and is incorporated by reference herein.
In a Facebook post dated September 15th, 2015, Elijah states in response to a comment by
Angelica Hale on Facebook that Its been such an honor working with you all! Please let us
know if you need anything! Less than two weeks later Elijah disappeared from the face of the
earth as far as the Hales were concerned. The issue is not that she quit communicating; it is why
11
she quit communicating, and specifically what she did after that. A true and correct of the
aforementioned Facebook post is attached as Exhibit S, and is incorporated by reference herein.
The involvement of students in the struggle against stubborn and unyielding vestiges of
racial inequality that are manifest in society and at ESU is nothing new for the BSU at ESU. A
recent Facebook post by Nyne Blackmon states in a caption to a photo he posted on Facebook
that This is back when I was the president of the Black Student Union at Emporia State, fighting
for freedom and racial equality. A true and correct of Blackmons Facebook post is attached as
Exhibit T, and is incorporated by reference herein. A history of standing up for social justice in
the face of injustice is a highly guarded obligation of BSUs in schools and colleges across
America. Disappearing and running away from a legitimate political and social contest is not
recognized as appropriate in the tradition of the BSU, and an unprincipled stand like the one
taken by Elijah and the ESU BSU is unconscionable.
What Deidra and the BSU at ESU did is turn traitor to the cause of justice, for personal
gain. Elijahs about-face involved a form of coercion, after which she induced others to do the
same. This is not an example of leadership. And it is unlawful. Although Dr. Hale shows
communications that prove that she did so, Vietti did not need to explicitly tell Deidra to treat the
Hales adversely; she merely had to make it plain that she would not discourage it. A supervisor
who has knowledge of the protected activity need not expressly order an agent to take adverse
action against an employee (in retaliation); a jury can find causation where the supervisor
encouraged treating the employee adversely. (Burlington No., 548 U.S. at 69). The pressure
placed upon Elijah was twofold: she was induced to submit to the official narrative in order to
maintain her scholarship, teaching opportunities and leadership titles, and she was informed that
the university was going to axe Dr. Hale and all his supporters. She also worked with and
12
supported Emmanuel Cockrell, the president of the BSU, who had just started working that
semester as a personal graduate assistant to interim president Vietti, which based on the history
of the BSU, it would be a conflict of interest/undue influence for the black students on campus.
Elijah, and Wilson, two sane adults who are aged 21 and over, are both agents for Vietti
and ESU, and they used their leadership to encourage others to comply with her marching orders
to do the same, as Vietti flatly demanded. Referring to her exoneration of Rittgers, Vietti stated:
I solicit your support to do the same. (Doc. 13, pg. 43). What stronger call to action could she
make? She makes an explicit call out for solidarity using the theme of the history of the Hornet
Nation. I ask again that we move forward from here to lay the foundation for the next 150,
working together to build a better, stronger, more inclusive Hornet Nation in which no one is
marginalized, no one is disrespected or subjected to any kind of slur, and no ones voice is
unheard. It is by listening intently to all voices, participating in hard, absolutely honest
conversations, and committing to be part of the solution that we will be able to do so. (Doc. 13,
pg. 43). When did Vietti or Elijah or Wilson have that absolutely hard honest conversation with
Dr. Hale or his wife? That question has to be asked, and defendants need to answer.
Despite sounding Kennedyesque, Vietti is no Kennedy. She makes it clear that the Hales
will not be part of the solution, neither will their voices be heard. According to the investigation:
Plaintiff is a liar, and had no business trying to milk publicity from an incident that had no
bearing on him. The defendants who brought this motion knew that the official narrative was
false to a level of certainty that many others could not, but if they did not support the official
narrative, bad things would happen to them. It didnt seem to matter that Vietti was a hypocrite
or that Dr. Hale had been defamed and placed in a false light. This is the crime of Wilson and
Elijah.
13
In a statement made by then-supporter Deidra Elijah on September 15th, 2015 at the

March On Emporia, published and broadcast in the KVOE story of the march she said that the
upcoming work on diversity may not be enough to satisfy minority students like herself. She had
sent a letter to Interim President Dr. Jackie Vietti and had arranged a face-to-face meeting on
September 17th. She said, You cant move past situations and just brush racism under the rug,
and I feel like thats what the university does a lot of times. Maybe she (Vietti) was kind of
offended by my approach, but you know what; as a black student on this campus, I know what it
feels like to be a minority. I know what it feels like to be the only person in my classroom, and to
do inventory to look for people who look like me in my classroom. So, its not ok, its not ok to
brush these issues under the rug. And if it was such a horrible issue that she (Vietti) claimed it
was, then why have you not done anything about it? A true and correct of the letter Vietti sent
to Elijah arranging the meeting is attached as Exhibit U, and is incorporated by reference herein
What happened to that Deidra Elijah? Elijahs remarks are in a public post on the KVOE
website entitled: March on Emporia provides support to Hales, criticism of ESU. A true and
correct of the accompanying online KVOE webpage is attached as Exhibit V, and is
incorporated by reference herein. The direct link to the article and the recording with Elijah can
be found here: http://www.kvoe.com/newsedit/10402-march-on-emporia-nearly-here.
Vietti did do something about reports of racism at ESU; she retaliated and went on a
campaign to discredit and silence Dr. Hale. In the institutional culture and climate that is ESU,
no one can feel safe reporting racist acts, and ESU didnt care if its facts were wrong. ESU had
to conduct a smear campaign to counteract the bad press that they received once the Associated
Press story broke on the Hales allegations of racism at ESU. Dr. Hale had angered them and
they were going to repeat the pattern of what they have done for years, decades, soon to be
14
centuries; they slandered, repeatedly ignored, excluded and banished Dr. Hale in an employment
action thinly disguised as a press conference. This is the institutional culture.
Plaintiff went into the Emporia Post Office one day and was confronted by a respected
and well-known government employee and member of the Emporia community who knows just
about everybody in town, which numbers about 35,000 people. He got directly in plaintiffs face
and said I hope you dont believe youre going to change anything with that march. ESU will
roll right over you. Its been doing what it wants for over 150 years, and your coming here aint
gonna change nothing. You could march against racism at ESU every month. Dr. Hale was
surprised at his rough candor. It turned out that the man was supportive of Dr. Hale, but he had
to get the truth about ESU off his chest first before admitting to that.
Elijah and the ESU BSU abandoned the principles on which they were founded. Elijah
had a responsibility to represent the facts to the BSU. A statement she made in a Facebook post
before her meeting with Vietti was feisty: Meeting with the President inter[im] Im ready.
The question is, is she ready? That comment sounds like an officer of the BSU. After meeting
with Vietti, Elijah shortly thereafter went silent. She backed down, and she took cover, and she
took others with her by ignoring and excluding the Hales on campus. She never returned the tshirts and money made from the ESU booth fundraising for the marches on campus. She
instantly gave her word to divert her followers for Vietti and fell in line with the administration
and supported their narrative, which was patently false, and Elijah knew it.
In the September 15th, 2015 March On Emporia, Elijah requested that she say the
opening prayer in a Prayer Circle, conducted media interviews and carried a protest sign, as
evidenced in the photo attached as Exhibit W, and is incorporated by reference herein. At one
15
point Elijah carried a Black Lives Matter sign in the march. Dr. Hale in his presentation at the
march passed out information, and made sure that every person knew the facts that Vietti and
Johnson conveniently overlooked in their press conference, which occurred before the march.
After the press conference the Hales still had the support of the BSU. After the success of the
march of signs and wonders, ESU realized how much influence Dr. Hale still had even after the
press conference and the media reports that followed. Vietti immediately embarked on a
whirlwind tour through student organizations at ESU to draw support away from Dr. Hale and
his wife. At the same time, Vietti immediately set-up a private one-on-one meeting with Elijah
to talk about the Hale situation. It just so happened that Elijah had a big influence in other
organizations as well. She was secretary of the Multicultural Greek Council, and sat on its board
where she interfaced with five Greek member organizations. A true and correct copy of the
home page of the Multicultural Greek Council is attached as Exhibit X, and is incorporated by
reference herein.
By the time the September 17th BSU general meeting was held in the evening, Elijah had
already decided to walk back her antagonistic comments towards Vietti earlier that afternoon. A
Caucasian student named Jay Vehige, who was an ardent supporter of the Hales, attended that
BSU meeting, and when Vietti came to the meeting he lit into her for numerous things, including
her refusal to speak to the Hales. Vehige asked Vietti point blank if she had ever spoken to the
Hales, and her answer was no. Vehige asked all the hard questions that Elijah earlier had said
she was going to ask. Vehige became a target of Elijah and the BSU. According to Vehige,
numerous individuals recorded the meeting, including Elijah. Plaintiff wants to know what that
recording says and what the BSU decided that evening and in subsequent closed-door BSU
meetings in which the Hales were discussed. According to Vehige, the meeting was recorded.
16
According to Vehige, he was so intense in his questioning of Viettis investigation by ESU and
treatment of the Hales that she left angry at the BSU and in tears. Vietti posted a public quote
that evening on Facebook after the meeting: Id rather be honest and authentic and disappoint
people, than to exhaust myself trying to keep up with the facade of perfection. But that is a lie.
Elijah and the BSU were furious with Vehige because they had already agreed in the
closed-door board meeting and Elijahs private meeting with Vietti earlier that day to follow the
administrations game plan, but Jay wasnt privy to that, and it didnt matter. Jay wasnt for sale.
Vietti made it clear, no doubt, that those who stood with the Hales would suffer their fate, and
those who supported their school would be rewarded. Not only did Elijah verbally berate
Vehige, Kayla Gilmore and other BSU members later accosted Vehige and threatened violence
for his supporting the Hales and confronting them for their silent treatment. Vehige was so
concerned that he left Emporia for Oklahoma to recharge. In one text Vehige writes: Deidra
apologized for going off on me and asked for my forgiveness yesterday. A true and correct
copy of text messages between Jay Vehige and Angelica Hale are attached as Exhibit Y, and are
incorporated by reference herein. Each and every defendant acquiesced to the dominant false
narrative enunciated by ESU, to the detriment of plaintiffs reputation, in retaliation for plaintiff
making noise at ESU about racism. Jason Brooks awarded Elijah and her sorority with an award
for leadership. A true and correct copy of a Facebook post showing Elijah receiving the award
from Brooks is attached as Exhibit Z, and is incorporated by reference herein.
4. Relevance of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Claims
Plaintiff has alleged violations as they pertain to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 enacted on
April 20, 1871, specifically the part expressed as 42 U.S.C. 1983, also known as Section
17
1983. In 1871, Representative Lowe of the 42nd Congress stated the following as rationale for
passage of Section 1983: While murder is stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings and
lynchings and banishing have been visited upon unoffending American citizens, the local
administrators have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective. Cong.
Globe, 42d Cong. 1st Sess., 374 (1871)(remarks of Rep. Lowe)(quoted in Wilson, 471 U.S. at
276). The term in disguise referred on one level to hooded white supremacists, but on a
different level it refers to thinly disguised racial contempt and bigotry, and institutional racism.
ESUs public slandering and defamation of Dr. Hale was nothing less than a whipping and
banishment, and it occurred because local administrators have been found inadequate or
unwilling to apply the proper corrective. The lies told by Vietti and Johnson at the press
conference indicate that ESU would stop at nothing to disgrace and destroy a black professor
who dared speak out against the offenses of an all-white administration. Abuse of hegemonic
power is what inspired 42 U.S.C. 1983 where state authorities do nothing. Plaintiff was an
unoffending American citizen when defendants set upon him using lies and deceit.
Plaintiff does not need to prove that racism occurred. That is the work of the jury.
Holding that direct evidence of race discrimination presented a genuine issue of fact for the trier
of fact to decide. Pollitt v. Roadway Express, Inc., (S.D.Ohio 2002), 228 F. Supp.2d 854 (S.D.
Ohio 2002). In regards to retaliation, plaintiff is not required to allege discrimination in order to
allege retaliation under 42 U.S.C. 1983. It was clear under well-settled law that a plaintiff
need not have alleged discrimination based upon his race as an African American in order to
satisfy the protected status requirement of his claims[,] but rather plaintiff's advocacy on behalf
of minorities was sufficient to allege retaliation under section 1981. Humphries v. CBOCS
West, 474 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 2007).
18
By devising a scheme of deceit in the announcement of the results of their

investigation, ESU and those who repeated their lies did so because the all-white ESU
administration enacted the basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was local
administrators have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective. Racial
animus as ground for not applying the proper corrective is understood in the enactment of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Acts of 1871, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. [The] jury must
decide whether defendants sued in individual capacities terminated plaintiff out of discriminatory
animus. Ross v. City of Memphis, 394 F. Supp.2d 1024 (W.D. Tenn. 2005.
Defendants made concrete assertions of wrong-doing on the part of plaintiff, accusing
him of creating a hate crime out of nothing but a fluke. Defendants characterization of
plaintiff was sufficient alone to stigmatize him, suggesting that he was foolish and unethical
enough to insert himself into a situation that had nothing whatsoever to do with him or his wife.
Plaintiff was characterized as someone who made a lot of complaints about racism, but not only
were those complaints unjustified, they werent even close! However, the facts prove that
Vietti and Johnson both lied about almost everything they said in the press conference.
5. Plaintiffs communication with defendants Wilson and Elijah
Defendants claim that it appears Hale believes that the above identified students were
required to support him and communicate with him. This statement is ludicrous and
preposterous on the face of it. Plaintiff has made it clear that he is concerned about what
defendants said to others to defame him and impugn his good name, and about being ostracized.
19
6. Claim for due process through 42 U.S.C. 1983 not asserted in Count III.
Plaintiff asserted due process claims against ESU and ESU administrators only, not
against those defendants who did not participate in devising and performing the sham
investigation, meetings and press conference, wherein plaintiff and his wife were vilified for no
apparent reason. ESUs supporting evidence was manufactured and opposing evidence was
ignored.
By calling a press conference that directly related to his charge of a hate crime, and
deprecating his ethics, morals and judgment without affording him the opportunity to present
opposing evidence and opinion, defendants named in Count III failed to provide plaintiff with
due process. The press conference was an open hearing. The information presented needed to
be factual. But it was not. Deprivation of due process rights by an agency of the state of Kansas
is a violation of fundamental protected rights. To state a claim under 1983 for deprivation of
procedural due process rights, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he was deprived of an individual
interest that is encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of "life, liberty, or
property," and (2) the procedures available to him did not provide "due process of law." Alvin v.
Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2000). Plaintiff was deprived of due process when a final
hearing on him and his complaint of a hate crime was conducted without his knowledge, and
because the statements made by Vietti and Johnson were highly offensive. An agency of the
State of Kansas shut Dr. Hales narrative down, and they substituted a narrative filled with lies
and deception and pulled in two independent reviewers to give the lies a certification stamp.
7. 42 U.S.C. 1983 conspiracy claims
20
"[F]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level"; further holding, to state a claim of conspiracy, plaintiff must allege "enough facts to raise
a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement." Kinney v.
State Bar of Cal., No. C-13-1396 MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct 02, 2013). The conspiracy operated as a
dog and pony show conducted by Vietti and members of the administration to individuals and
groups across ESU and the Emporia community. The conspiracy was enacted by an ESU
administration led by Vietti. Materials sought in discovery will shed much more light on the
operation of the conspiracy.
Jason Brooks was the staff advisor to the BSU and to Deidra Elijah. A true and correct
copy of Brooks Facebook page in which he thanks his advisee Deidra Elijah for bringing him
chicken, is attached as Exhibit AA, and is incorporated by reference herein. Plaintiff can show
that Vietti and Jason Brooks advised Elijah to steer away and abandon the cause of truth, and she
did so willingly despite reservations according to her Facebook posts. Plaintiff was told by an
ESU department dean that Brooks, Elijahs administrative advisor, was demanding that people
cease all communication with the Hales. A true and correct copy of the agenda for the
September 17th, 2015 BSU meeting is attached as Exhibit BB, and is incorporated by reference
herein. It includes the following line items:
Conversation with President Vietti
Introductions
Discussions on personal view points
Racial Discrimination
Hate Crimes
Diversity
Internal investigation conversation
A photograph of Dr. Vietti in attendance at this meeting is shown in Doc. 20-1, pg. 15.
In the days following this BSU meeting, the members of the BSU terminated all contact with
21
plaintiff. A week later, at the September 24th, BSU meeting the following was listed as Topics
for Discussion:
Have you ever disassociated yourself from people in your community?
What happens when you disassociate yourself from people from your community?
What does it mean to be classy?
This sounds a lot like a discussion on ostracizing. What was said in these BSU meetings
about plaintiff? Only a court case will allow plaintiff to get answers to these questions. A true
and correct copy of the BSU agenda for September 24th is attached as Exhibit CC, and is
incorporated by reference herein.
Plaintiff was told by an ESU department dean that Brooks, Elijahs administrative
advisor, was demanding that people cease all communication with the Hales. A claim of
conspiracy is plausible. Wilson and Elijah fell in lock-step with ESU. This is structural racism,
manifest through age-old forms of reward and punishment that even pits blacks against blacks.
8. Claim for retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights
Plaintiff alleges that defendants ESU, Vietti, Cordle, Anderson, Alexander, Johnson,
Lauber, Dow, and Wyatt retaliated against him for speaking out against racism at ESU. A
widely publicized incident of First Amendment violation at ESU occurred during a meeting
hastily called by ESU officials to discuss claims of racism and diversity as a result of the Hale
incident and student concerns at ESU on November 19th, 2015. Members of the press had been
invited to attend, but shortly after the start of the meeting, ESU asked the media to leave. An
article in the Washington Post on November 20th, 2015 claims that ESU violated the First
Amendment. ESU has attempted to muzzle Dr. Hale and all of his supporters, and have censored
Facebook posts that criticize their actions, all First Amendment violations. A true and correct
22
copy of the Washington Post story is attached as Exhibit DD, and is incorporated herein by
reference.
A SLIM student who started the program in one of Dr. Hales classes, sent a message to
Angelica Hale in Facebook stating that SLIM included the following on its application for
international trips: I got into the Serbia trip and the section under academic references included
the line Dr. Hale is working off campus at this time, so you should not ask him for a reference.
I thought that was weird since I don't know how that'd be relevant. ESU and the defendants
named in this count exerted maximum effort to make Dr. Hale invisible in the University setting,
a violation of its own policy on Racial and/or Ethnic Harassment, a flagrant violation of
prohibited conduct. A true and correct of the text of the students Facebook message is attached
as Exhibit EE, and is incorporated by reference herein.
9. Failure to state a claim for defamation or false light in Count VI
Plaintiff believes that it has fully set forth facts that support its contention that defendants
acted in concert with ESU administrators and others to defame him. Plaintiff truly believes that
comments made by Elijah endorsing her support for Vietti and the flawed ESU narrative and
their conduct encouraging others to ostracize the Hales will be uncovered in discovery.
10. Injunctive relief and the defendants
Defendants appear to suggest that slander is not actionable by injunctive relief. This is
untrue. No one has a right to slander another. Plaintiff seeks to prevent further occurrences of
slander by any of the defendants by appropriate injunctive relief narrowly tailored to protect First
Amendment rights. The court may issue an injunction prohibiting a defendant from repeating
statements determined at trial to be defamatory. Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood, 893 F.Supp.2d
23
1157 (D.N.M. 2012). Upholding permanent injunction limited to material found libelous after
full trial. Chambers v. Scutieri, Docket No. A-4831-10T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Apr 04,
2013).
Institutional / Structural Racism at Emporia State University
Although this memorandum deals specifically with the role of two defendants in the
cover-up at ESU, it is symptomatic of a much larger issue, which is institutional and structural
racism at ESU. There is a significant disparity between the population of white faculty and
white students to African-American faculty and students, and concerns about racism long predate
the problems encountered by the plaintiff and his wife.
Just days ago, a student in SLIM was asked to take down a post supporting Dr. Hale and
criticizing ESU on the Student Chapter of the American Library Association (SCALA) for
Emporia State on Facebook by David Willis, the Denver area Regional Director for SLIM. The
student is a second-year student who was in Dr. Hales popular class on Foundations of Library
and Information Science, and knows his dedication to his students and his commitment to social
justice. Although there have been innumerable posts on the ESU SCALA page in Facebook,
only those who favor or support the Hales have been removed and/or criticized, indicating that
SLIM is actively engaged in censorship, a practice highly disfavored in the library community.
The student was explicitly threatened and screamed at by David Willis, who is a non-party to this
suit at this time. This type of conduct is condoned and promoted by the culture at ESU and
SLIM and passed on to the students. Max Macias, another former student of color from the
library program has had issues with racism at SLIM, and posted his discontent in a Facebook
24
post on the March on Emporia Facebook page, a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit FF,
and is incorporated by reference herein.
Public universities have an obligation to not only teach ethical conduct, but to model it as
well. ESU violated the publics trust, and defendants Wilson and Elijah supported that violation.
As difficult as it may seem, ESU General Counsel Kevin Johnsons experience includes a stint as
an Administrative Law Judge (pro tem) for the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC).
The challenges of fighting racism at ESU are formidable, made more difficult by the actions of
defendants Wilson and Elijah. Both could have joined the ranks of other concerned students,
faculty, alumni, and community who voiced support for plaintiff and what he was doing. What
follows are a few of their comments from their Change.org petition:
One would want to think: The president seems way too bent on shutting down
every POV that isn't Nothing happened, let's drop this already in all of these update
announcement things she keeps sending to students.
The administration of the school I am attending for my MLS, Emporia State
University in Kansas, has recently made some very poor decisions not to punish racist
acts, harassment and retaliations against a faculty member and former assistant to the
dean of the School of Library and Information Management.
Libraries and librarians are supposed to be inclusive, and are supposed to support
the needs of the community they serve, a value that strongly influenced my desire to go
into the library field. It is heartbreaking to see this institution fall so drastically short of
these basic tenets of the discipline in which they purport to educate future librarians. It is
reprehensible that such behavior should be allowed to go unpunished.
25
The university's first mistake was not in telling you, the students, and the world,
that it deplored racism in any form, and that they would investigate allegations to the
fullest extent of their ability. They didn't... and it said everything about how this was
going to turn out. Keep your chins up. Right is on your side.
Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are
unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. - People of
the Lie, M. Scott Peck
I'm signing this [petition] because, as a former ESU faculty member, I witnessed
the stark whiteness of the university and had some unpleasant dealings with the current
leadership of SLIM.
I'm signing because ESU has refused to do a proper investigation up until the
point that it became bad publicity, meaning that they never actually cared. This is
indicative of many things that need to change in this society and in our city and
University.
A Word document listing Comments From Concerned Students, Faculty, Alumni and
the Community from Change.org Petition is attached as Exhibit GG, and is incorporated by
reference herein.
In the spring semester of 2010, defendant, Sociology Professor and former SLIM Interim
Dean and Associate Provost Gary Wyatt and one of his classes conducted a project called the
Campus Diversity Survey Project in conjunction with the Diversity Education Committee, and
produced the results. True and correct copies of selected pages from Wyatts report are attached
as Exhibit HH, and are incorporated by reference herein. Students were asked to self-identify in
26
a number of classifications, including race, gender, age, religion, academic class, grade point
average, disability, veteran status and their first language. Answers given ranged from numerical
values to qualitative questions. However, the level of granularity represented in the results, or
more significantly, the lack thereof, renders a clear picture of the attitudes of specific
classifications impossible. Wyatts results lump all the participants into one classification: those
who answered the questionnaire. The report does not allow someone to know, for example, how
those who self-identified as Black rated the statement Favorable Climate for Minority
Students. This is exactly what is wrong with the culture at ESU. This is what is meant by
sweeping racial problems under the rug, and in this case, under the survey results. The voices
and opinions of the white majority are allowed to drown out the voices of minorities. It is highly
unprofessional, bordering on malpractice, to lump disparate voices together in such a way that
minority voices are muted and silenced. Wyatt has been at ESU for nearly thirty years, and is
part of the administrative nucleus that has resisted diversity and inclusion all that time. Some
selected quotations from the survey suggest intolerance and discrimination and retaliation is not
absent from ESU, as claimed in the press conference:
Race and Ethnic Issues
1. - A lot of the African American students will group together and then yell racist and
sexist things as I walk by. Or a lot of times it is just totally segregated, and theyll ignore
me and my friends. (students)
2. - People in the community look down on interracial relationships, and I was treated
poorly for dating outside my race. (community members)
3. - When Obama won the Presidency, some students placed hate messages on my door
in Central Morse Hall. (students)
Religion
1. - In a setting where opinions on political and religious views were requested both
faculty and students were in disagreement. This resulted in a strained relationship for the
rest of the course. (students and faculty)
27
Political Views
1. - A girl in class was asked her political opinion and then that opinion was picked apart
by faculty in front of the class. (faculty)
Race and Ethnicity
1. - The mistreatment of Mexican workers. (Administration)
2. - Really, someone needs to educate some professor that certain terms for racial groups
are inappropriate and that its kinda low-class to call someone out as representative of a
whole group particularly one professor referred to Asian students as - Orientals really
inappropriate. (faculty)
4. - One student called another student a - negro under his breath. (student)
6. - Teachers getting irritated with international students. Other students get frustrated
with BSU and all the funding minority groups receive. (administration, faculty, students)
Diversity on Campus-Negative
1. - I think ESU may be trying too hard to be - diverse. The minorities are sometimes
granted free passes due to language barriers, learning disabilities etc. causing an
unfairness to the majority groups. Dont try too hard!
ESU culture is white-centric, representing the typical Kansas demographic, and is
tolerant only to a point. That is not good enough in the 21st century. In a radio interview on
KVOE, Wyatt tells the public that in regards to sweeping racial issues, and issues of diversity
under the rug, there are always going to be issues, the question is do you ignore them, sweep
them under the rug, or do you really try to deal with them?
Dean Alexander failed to address the hate crime, by whatever name, and neither did
Cordle, Anderson, Johnson, Hoover, Vietti, Lauber, Wyatt, and Dow, despite all of these having
some form of administrative authority and access to the facts. The crime was never investigated.
The livelihood and career of a newly minted African-American professor in higher education has
been derailed, perhaps permanently. This does not serve the common good at all.
28
Section 1983 provides no substantive rights, "but merely provides a method for
vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred. Light v. City Of Plant City, Case No. 8:05-cv888-T-23TBM. (M.D. Fla. Jun 06, 2006). Plaintiff suffered because no one in the chain of
command in the administration on the State level was willing to do the right thing, which goes to
the heart of a 42 U.S.C. 1983, and race cannot be ignored as a factor for this conduct.
Judgment for the plaintiff, in the sense that its case moves forward in some form, would
mean that voices of the minority cannot be snuffed out at the whim of a public institution that
resists change. Might should not trump right. Plaintiff has offered the Court copious factual
evidence of its claims, while defendants have produced virtually nothing except bare denials,
bald allegations and conclusions of law. Plaintiff may have an inartful manner of litigating, not
being a professional litigator, but that has no bearing on the facts or the conduct of the parties in
this case.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Melvin Hale, PhD prays the Court to render judgment in its favor,
and against all Defendants and Does 1-100 for all remedies allowed by law, costs of suit, and for
such other and further relief as the Court may order. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to
deny Defendants Wilson and Elijahs pending motion to dismiss directed at Plaintiffs Third
Amended Complaint.
DATED: May 17, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Melvin Hale, PhD, Plaintiff Pro Se
P.O. Box 6176
Goodyear, AZ 85338
reefresh@yahoo.com
916-690-7927
29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case No. 15-4947-SAC-KGS
I hereby certify that I have served this PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS WILSON AND ELIJAHS MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT on May 17, 2016. I personally mailed a copy of the document in the above action
by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following:
Anne Gepford Smith
Assistant Attorney General of Kansas
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW 10th Avenue
Topeka, KS 66612-1597
Larry Michel
Kennedy Berkley Yarnevich & Williamson, Chartered
119 West Iron Avenue, 7th Floor
P.O. Box 2567
Salina, KS 67402
lmichel@kenberk.com
Attorney for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Debra Rittgers on her Counterclaim
Paul E. Dean
Patton Putnam & Dean LLC
605 S. Lincoln, P.O. Box 1135
Emporia, KS 66801
pauldeanlawllc@hotmail.com
Attorney for Defendant Deidre Elijah
I am not a party to this matter. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
/s/ Angelica G. Hale

P.O. Box 6176
Goodyear, AZ 85338
30
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Melvin Hale <*******@yahoo.com>

To: "angelicahale7@yahoo.com" <********@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:38 PM
Subject: No talk zone
Mirah passed by and was talking for a minute, then said she remembered that Ray said don't talk
to me. Just fyi...
EXHIBIT D
Organization Science
Downloaded from informs.org by [142.103.160.110] on 27 May 2014, at 12:32 . For personal use only, all rights reserved.
Articles in Advance, pp. 120

ISSN 1047-7039 (print) ISSN 1526-5455 (online)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0900
2014 INFORMS
Is Negative Attention Better Than No Attention?

The Comparative Effects of Ostracism and
Harassment at Work
Jane OReilly
Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada, jane.oreilly@telfer.uottawa.ca
Sandra L. Robinson
Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z2, Canada,
sandra.robinson@sauder.ubc.ca
Jennifer L. Berdahl
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada, jberdahl@rotman.utoronto.ca
Sara Banki
Graduate School of Management and Economics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, 1459973941 Iran, sbanki@sharif.edu
stracism has been recognized as conceptually and empirically distinct from harassment. Drawing from theory and
research that suggests that employees have a strong need to belong in their organizations, we examine the comparative
frequency and impact of ostracism and harassment in organizations across three field studies. Study 1 finds that a wide range
of employees perceive ostracism, compared with harassment, to be more socially acceptable, less psychologically harmful, and
less likely to be prohibited in their organization. Study 2 surveyed employees from a variety of organizations to test our
theory that ostracism is actually a more harmful workplace experience than harassment. Supporting our predictions, compared
with harassment, ostracism was more strongly and negatively related to a sense of belonging and to various measures of
employee well-being and work-related attitudes. We also found that the effects of ostracism on well-being and work-related
attitudes were at least partially mediated by a sense of belonging. Study 3 replicated the results of Study 2 with data collected
from employees of a large organization and also investigated the comparative impact of ostracism and harassment on
employee turnover. Ostracism, but not harassment, significantly predicted actual turnover three years after ostracism and
harassment were assessed, and this was mediated by a sense of belonging (albeit at p < 0010). Implications for theory,
research, and practice are discussed.
Keywords: ostracism; harassment; belongingness; well-being

History: Published online in Articles in Advance.
(Jones and Kelly 2010), is a common (Fox and Stallworth

2005, Hitlan et al. 2006b, Williams 1997) yet particularly
painful experience (Eisenberger and Lieberman 2004)
associated with a variety of detrimental physical, psychological, and work-related consequences (Ferris et al. 2008,
Hitlan et al. 2006a, Mor Barak et al. 2001; see Williams
2007 for a review).
In the organizational sciences, behaviors that serve
to socially exclude colleagues have traditionally been
studied in conjunction with a number of other behaviors
that capture negative workplace interactions (e.g., Duffy
et al. 2002, Glomb 1998, Rospenda and Richman 2004).
More recently, however, organizational scholars have
recognized that ostracism is distinct from other forms of
harmful social behaviors at work (Balliet and Ferris 2013,
Ferris et al. 2008, Hitlan et al. 2006a). Ferris et al. (2008)
conceptually and empirically distinguished workplace
ostracism from a wide range of other mistreatment constructs, echoing decades of psychological research that has
If no one turned round when we entered, answered when

we spoke, or minded what we did, but if every person we
met cut us dead, and acted as if we were non-existing
things, a kind of rage and impotent despair would ere
long well up in us, from which the cruellest bodily tortures
would be a relief; for these would make us feel that,
however bad might be our plight, we had not sunk to such
a depth as to be unworthy of attention at all.
William James (1890/2007, pp. 293294)
Introduction
Starting with early studies on social rejection (e.g., Jackson
and Saltzstein 1958, Schachter 1951), the study of behaviors that isolate or disconnect others from social interaction
has grown in recent decades. Ostracism (Williams 1997,
2007; Williams et al. 2000), also referred to as social
exclusion (DeWall et al. 2009), social isolation (Rook
1984), peer rejection (Prinstein and Aikins 2004), abandonment (Baumeister et al. 1993), and being out of the loop
1

OReilly et al.: Ostracism vs. Harassment
established the importance of understanding ostracism as

a unique form of social mistreatment (see Williams 2007
for a review). Although the distinct nature of workplace
ostracism has been established, an important question that
remains is whether understanding ostracism as a distinct
workplace experience adds value beyond what we already
know about workplace mistreatment in general. In other
words, do workers view ostracism differently from other
forms of mistreatment in the workplace, and, if so, how?
More importantly, does the impact of ostracism differ
from the impact of other forms of mistreatment?
In this research, we provide answers to these questions
by comparing employees perceptions of and reactions to
workplace ostracism to their perceptions of and reactions
to other forms of mistreatment. We collectively refer to
these other forms of mistreatment as harassment. For
the purposes of our research, we use the term harassment
to capture a range of active verbal and nonverbal behaviors that are directed at a target and derogate or cause
embarrassment to that target. Importantly, harassment,
unlike ostracism, engages a target in a social dynamic
with negative social attention and treatment, rather than
disengaging a target with a lack of attention and treatment
(Robinson et al. 2013).
We theorize that workplace ostracism is perceived by
employees to be less psychologically harmful and more
socially and organizationally acceptable than harassment
but that the impact of ostracism runs directly counter
to these common perceptions. Whereas scholars have
established that ostracism is a painful experience, employees are likely to believe that it is relatively mundane and
innocuous given its indirect nature, particularly compared
with harassment. Drawing from theory and research on
the fundamental human need to feel a sense of belonging
with others (Baumeister and Leary 1995, Fiske 2004),
we argue that ostracism has a more negative impact on
employees sense of belonging compared with harassment.
Relatedly, we theorize that, on average, ostracism has an
even more detrimental effect on employees psychological
and organizational well-being than the more direct and
engaging forms of mistreatment captured by harassment.
Answering the proposed research questions is important
because, as a field, we need to show not only that
ostracism and harassment are distinct constructs from one
another but also that they have distinct effects. Although
researchers acknowledge that both workplace ostracism
and harassment are negative experiences, we currently
know very little about whether, and how, the effects of
these experiences differ. Our research extends the work of
Ferris et al. (2008) to further explore the distinctiveness
of ostracism from other negative workplace interactions
and, in doing so, makes several contributions to the
literature. First, we highlight how a threatened sense of
belonging is relevant to an understanding of the disparate
effects of workplace ostracism on employees. Our work
indicates that ostracism is a stronger threat to ones
Organization Science, Articles in Advance, pp. 120, 2014 INFORMS
sense of belonging than harassment, and a threatened

sense of belonging is an important mediating variable
between ostracism and an employees well-being and workrelated attitudes. These results establish a psychological
rationale for why ostracism is a detrimental experience
in organizations. Second, our work shows that, directly
counter to lay perspectives of ostracism and harassment,
ostracism has a stronger and more negative relationship
than harassment with employee well-being outcomes
and work-related attitudes. Our work supports theory
that suggests that ostracism is a uniquely detrimental
experience (Spoor and Williams 2007). Finally, as we will
discuss further, our work joins the broader discussion in
the literature on understanding the uniqueness and relative
impact of related but distinct constructs (e.g., Hershcovis
2011, Tepper and Henle 2011).
We test our hypotheses across three field studies. In
the first study, we examine whether employees perceive
ostracism, compared with harassment, to be less harmful
and more acceptable in their workplaces. In the next
two studies, following methodological guidelines for
comparative tests (Cooper and Richardson 1986), we
examine our predictions that ostracism is more common
and more harmful than harassment, and we test the role
of a threatened sense of belonging. Study 2 involves a
diverse sample of employees across many organizations,
whereas Study 3 seeks to replicate and extend our findings
with longitudinal data from one large organization. We
begin by briefly explaining the nature of ostracism in
organizations and how it is distinct from more overt and
direct forms of mistreatment.
Ostracism in Organizations
Ostracism occurs across many social contexts, including
the workplace (Ferris et al. 2008, Hitlan et al. 2006a).
Workplace ostracism can include having ones greetings
go ignored, being excluded from invitations, noticing
others go silent when one seeks to join the conversation,
and the like. We define ostracism as an individual or
a group neglecting to take actions that engage another
organizational member when it would be customary or
appropriate to do so (Robinson et al. 2013).
The unique nature of ostracism is captured by two
distinguishing features. First, ostracism involves the omission of behavior, or directing no behavior toward the
target, in contrast to harassment, which involves acts
of commission, or directing hurtful behavior toward the
target. As Ferris et al. (2008) pointed out, forms of mistreatment that engage the target in a social interaction
is antithetical to the very nature of ostracism: ostracism
involves the absence of a wanted behavior, whereas
harassment involves the presence of an unwanted behavior.
Second, whereas harassment may involve a wide range of
verbal and nonverbal behaviors intended to harm, demean,
belittle, or cause personal humiliation or embarrassment

OReilly et al.: Ostracism vs. Harassment
Organization Science, Articles in Advance, pp. 120, 2014 INFORMS
to a target, ostracisms underlying motives can be many,

such as obliviousness or oversight on the part of the actor
(Ferris et al. 2008, Williams and Sommer 1997), and
are not necessarily intended to cause harm (Williams
2001, 2007).
These unique features combine to disengage the target
of ostracism from social interaction and to inhibit the
target from responding to this form of mistreatment.
Harassment, on the other hand, engages the target in a
social dynamic, albeit a negative one, and thus is likely
to fuel further social interaction. Ostracisms primary
impact is to disconnect and to isolate, not to involve. As
we will articulate throughout this paper, it is this core
feature of ostracism that, on the one hand, increases the
social acceptability and prevalence of ostracism relative to
harassment, but, on the other hand, is likely to contribute
to its stronger and more negative impact.
Perceptions of Ostracism and Harassment at Work
Before considering the actual differences in the effects
of ostracism and harassment, let us first consider how
those differences are socially perceived. The prototypical
view of mistreatment in organizations is that of petty
tyranny, characterized by overt behaviors that convey
hostility, antagonism, and opposition (Ashforth 1994).
Anti-bullying laws and organizational policies often focus
on eliminating these more overt antisocial behaviors rather
than the more subtle and invisible ones of ostracism.
Sexual harassment policies, anti-bullying legislation, and
other formal rules and organizational guidelines explicitly address and prohibit verbal and physical behaviors
that actively demean or threaten another employee. It is
comparatively rare to find, however, personnel rules and
guidelines that address the issue of socially excluding
an employee from formal or informal interaction, or
ignoring or not responding to an employees greetings
and attempts to interact. As an example, a nationwide
campaign in the United States, the Healthy Workplace
Campaign, encourages states to adopt antiworkplace
bullying legislation that targets the elimination of prototypical harassment behaviors such as verbal abuse, threats,
humiliation, intimidation, work interference, or sabotage
and omits specific attention on behaviors that represent
ostracism (Healthy Workplace Campaign 2013).
The focus on prohibiting explicit forms of mistreatment
(i.e., harassment) reflects conventional wisdom. Examples
abound of the belief that openly expressing negative attitudes against someone is worse than avoiding someone or
giving them the silent treatment. For instance, the common belief that a time-out is a gentler or more humane
form of punishment than is yelling for a misbehaving
child, or even that solitary confinement of prisoners is
more humane than corporal punishment, reflects the belief
that negative engagement is more reprehensible than
disengagement. The idea that ostracism is a more acceptable way to express displeasure than harassment seems
commonplace. Empirical research indirectly validates

this anecdotal evidence. Broadly speaking, individuals
tend to show a preference for committing harm through
acts of omission rather than acts of commissiondubbed
omission bias (Baron and Ritov 2004, p. 74). Harmful
acts of commission are generally perceived as more offensive than harmful acts of omission (Cushman et al. 2006).
Along the same lines, we expect that employees tend to
perceive ostracism versus harassment in the workplace
much the same way and therefore judge ostracism as less
harmful and more socially and organizationally acceptable
than harassment.
Hypothesis 1. Ostracism, compared with harassment,
is perceived to be less (a) psychologically harmful,
(b) socially inappropriate, and (c) organizationally
prohibited.
The perception that ostracism is relatively harmless and
acceptable should combine with the lack of organizational
policies and sanctions against it to make ostracism a
safer way than harassment to mistreat someone at work
(Bjrkqvist et al. 1994). One is less likely to be seen as
a bad person for ignoring or excluding someone than
for openly insulting, yelling at, or threatening him or
her. Furthermore, one is less likely to be caught or
reported for ostracizing someone and can more easily
claim a lack of intent (e.g., being too busy to respond,
forgetting to include someone). For these reasons, we also
predict that ostracism is more common than harassment
in organizations.
Hypothesis 2. Employees experience more ostracism
than harassment at work.
The Relative Impact of Ostracism and Harassment
Despite the lay perception that ostracism is a relatively
benign form of mistreatment compared with harassment,
psychological research shows that ostracism can be an
extremely painful and unpleasant experience (Eisenberger
and Lieberman 2004; Williams 2001, 2007). The powerful
impact of ostracism has been documented in laboratory
studies, where ostracism is temporary and simulated.
Responses to ostracism in laboratory settings include both
inward-directed and outward-directed reactions: targets
experience hurt feelings, sadness, anxiety, loneliness, and
shame (Buckley et al. 2004, Williams et al. 2000) and
show less interest in continuing to work with their laboratory groups, dislike for group members, and reduced effort
on group tasks (Kerr et al. 2008, Williams et al. 2000).
Given the consistently negative and diffuse way in
which ostracism affects individuals in laboratory experiments, ostracism in the workplacea location of great
importance for personal, social, professional, and economic outcomesis likely to have a particularly negative
effect on employees as well. Research into workplace
experiences of ostracism has found that it harms employees sense of well-being and undermines their attitudes
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
Faculty Meeting
AGENDA
August 12, 2015
1) STEM Grant
guest: Dr. Ken Thompson, Department of Physical Sciences
Curriculum Changes
New Courses:
LI 791 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Classrooms and
Competitions: Asking Questions, Defining Problems
LI 792 Key Literacy Connections in STEM Subjects: Conducting Investigations,
Analyzing, Interpreting Data
LI 793 Advancing and Defending New Ideas: Engaging an Argument from Evidence
LI 794 Skills for a Deep Technical Workforce: Obtaining, Evaluating, Communicating
Information
New Certificate:
Certificate in Information, Technology, and Scientific Literacy
2) Election of Faculty Chair for 2015-16
3) Approval of Minutes of May 6, 2015
4) Graduate Faculty Status
Full Graduate Faculty Status Dr. Sarah Sutton (Sarah will excuse
herself for this portion of the meeting)
Associate Graduate Faculty Status Dr. Sandy Valenti (Sandy will

excuse herself for this portion of the meeting)
Temporary Graduate Faculty Status Dr. Barbara Montgomery
5) Curriculum Changes
Clean up:
LI 860 make repeatable
LI 810 remove prerequisite
LI 857 description alignment
6) Deans comments
ALA review
7) Faculty Brown Bag lunches
8) Research Literacy update
9) Capstone update
10)
MLS Admissions process update
Information items:
Next Faculty meeting: August 26 1:30 p.m.
Faculty Brown Bag lunch: August 19 noon
Ph.D. Research Seminar: November 14 9 a.m.
EXHIBIT G
Phone: (785) 296-3206

Fax: (785) 296-0589
TIV (785) 296-0245
800# 1-888-793-6874
Landon State Office Bldg.

900 S.W. Jackson St., Suite 568 S.
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1258
www.khrc.net
Metvin J. Neufeld, Chair, Garden City
Sam Brownback, Governor

Ruth Glover, Executive Director
Bill Wright, Assistant Director
Barbara Girard, Investigative Administrator
Orie Kirksey, Investigative Administrator
Beth Montgomery, Office Manager
Terry Crowder, ViceChair, Topeka

David Brant, Wichita
Michael Kane, Kansas City
Eric Laverenlz, Overland Park
Haroid Schorn, II, Newton
May 10,2016
Melvin Hale
P.O. Box 724
Emporia, KS 6680 I
RE: Case No. 38246-16, Hale v. Emporia State University
Dear Mr. Hale:
We have been notified that a complaint was filed on behalf of the above Complainant in the U.S. District
Court on the above-referenced complaint. The Kansas Human Rights Commission ("KHRC") will dismiss the
investigation of a complaint when a criminal or civil action is filed, based on the same allegations as the complaint
filed with the KHRC. This dismissal is authorized by K.S.A. 44-1003; KS.A. 44-1004; KA.R. 21-41-8(b)
(Administrative Convenience) and K.A.R. 21-41-10 (Criminal and Civil Proceedings). Specifically, K.A.R. 21-41-10
provides:
When a Complainant institutes either criminal or civil proceedings on a matter pending before
the Commission, the Commission may, in its own discretion, suspend or dismiss action on a
complaint based on the same matter.
Therefore, we have dismissed the above-referenced complaint and will take no further action on this matter.
Please note, that in order to properly exhaust administrative remedies, you must file a timely petition for
reconsideration of this dismissal pursuant to KA.R. 21-41-10. See Simmons v. Vliets Farmers Cooperative, et al 19
Kan. App. 2d I (1994). In order to be timely, the petition for reconsideration must be received by the Commission no
later than fifteen (15) days after this dismissal. See KS.A. 44-1010 and K.S.A. 77-529. Such a petition is deemed to
be denied if the Commission takes no action within 20 days of its filing. Failure to follow this procedure will likely
result in the court dismissing any claim you may bring under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination andlor the Kansas
Age Discrimination in Employment Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
A copy of the Kansas Court of Appeals' decision in Simmons is available at our website at www.khrc.net.
Click on the "Legal Resources" tab, click on the "KHRC Court Cases" link, and then proceed to the link at case
number 37, Simmons v. Vliets Farmers Cooperative, et al. If you prefer to receive a hard copy of this decision, please
contact this office and we will be happy to provide it to you. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
'-f0dbtftd-J;9/Jt&1::"1#!l
Barbara Girard;/'
Investigative Administrator
EXHIBIT H
Melvin Hale, Ph.D.

P.O. Box 6176
Goodyear, AZ 85338
reefresh@yahoo.com
(916) 690-7927
May 10, 2016
Barbara Girard
Kansas Human Rights Commission
Re: Case No. 38246-16, Hale v. Emporia State University
Subj: Reconsideration of Dismissal Pursuant to K.A.R. 21-41-10
Dear Ms. Girard,
Thank you for your assistance obtaining an Administrative Closure on my case at the KHRC. In
accordance with Kansas law, I am requesting a reconsideration of this dismissal.
Cordially yours,
Melvin Hale, Ph.D.
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT K
From: Shelly Rowley <******@gmail.com>

To:
09/21/15 at 7:56 PM
Melvin Hale <******@yahoo.com>
Thank you for all of this. Derek is upset because he was trying to show support by providing the
link to the Facebook page. What he didn't know was that Deb Rittgers had been named on the
page. This caused him to almost lose his Presidency of the Honors College Student Organization
and possibly be removed from the honors college because Deb's daughter is an honors college
student. As a result of his sharing the link and subsequent viewing by all honors college students
of her mom's name as a suspect, many students began harassing the daughter calling the daughter
a racist and asking why her mom is a racist. This, as you can imagine, created an issue and Derek
was brought in to explain why he sent the link at that time. Was he trying to hurt the daughter on
purpose? He had to withdraw his support at that time because the posting of that information
and his support almost cost him greatly. He still believes something happened that was very
wrong, but he can't support vilifying a specific person who is innocent until proven guilty. All
his words. He's my teaching assistant so he and I discussed it in depth. He really wishes there
was a handwriting sample to test and doesn't understand why the paper wasn't saved. I will
provide him with this information though.
EXHIBIT L
EXHIBIT M
EXHIBIT N
EXHIBIT O
EXHIBIT P
EXHIBIT Q
EXHIBIT R
EXHIBIT S
EXHIBIT T
EXHIBIT U
EXHIBIT V
EXHIBIT W
EXHIBIT X
EXHIBIT Y
EXHIBIT Z
EXHIBIT AA
EXHIBIT BB
EXHIBIT CC
EXHIBIT DD
EXHIBIT EE
11/24/15 Facebook Post
SLIM Student
Thanks for letting me know. I got into the Serbia trip and the section under academic references
included the line "Dr. Hale is working off campus at this time, so you should not ask him for a
reference." I thought that was weird since I don't know how that'd be relevant. Let your husband
know I send my regards too.
EXHIBIT FF
EXHIBIT GG
Comments From Concerned Students, Faculty, Alumni and the Community

from Change.org
Re: March On Emporia (www.marchonemporia.com)
One would want to think: The president seems way too bent on shutting down every POV that
isn't Nothing happened, let's drop this already in all of these update announcement things she
keeps sending to students.
The administration of the school I am attending for my MLS, Emporia State University in
Kansas, has recently made some very poor decisions not to punish racist acts, harassment and
retaliations against a faculty member and former assistant to the dean of the School of Library
and Information Management.
Libraries and librarians are supposed to be inclusive, and are supposed to support the needs of
the community they serve, a value that strongly influenced my desire to go into the library field.
It is heartbreaking to see this institution fall so drastically short of these basic tenets of the
discipline in which they purport to educate future librarians. It is reprehensible that such
behavior should be allowed to go unpunished.
The university's first mistake was not in telling you, the students, and the world, that it deplored
racism in any form, and that they would investigate allegations to the fullest extent of their
ability. They didn't... and it said everything about how this was going to turn out. Keep your
chins up. Right is on your side.
Thank you so much for posting this. As a sad SLIM alum, I am heartened by all the support for
Melvin and Angelica.
I hate that this is happening, but I am proud of the students for standing up against racist
behavior like this...especially when it seems to be institutionally supported. SHAME on ESU.
If not for the other students like this one, I would be ashamed to be an alumni.
To be silent is giving power to racists....
'Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in
the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity.' - People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck
I'm signing because I am a.) an ESU student who believes that the school should absolutely be
leaders in the field of diversity, especially library science. 2.) as a student of Melvin Hale's I feel
that he is a major asset to the program and to hurt, offend and mistreat him as an individual is not
only wrong but misguided. ESU cannot afford to lose such a thoughtful and knowledgeable
professor. 3.) racial bigotry in Kansas must end. 4.) do not let the attitude of a few backwards
people determine the state of accreditation for the institution. SLIM is a decent program with
hard working professor s and students that excel. To hurt SLIM is to hurt libraries.
ESU advertises itself as a diverse and welcoming institution. Emporia advertises itself as an
inclusive community.
Therefore, our actions need to mirror our words. Racially crimes must be addressed by the
university or else, students and faculty will not feel welcome or safe on campus. Reputation is
everything when you're trying to recruit and retain students.
I'm signing because ESU has refused to do a proper investigation up until the point that it
became bad publicity, meaning that they never actually cared. This is indicative of many things
that need to change in this society and in our city and University.
I grew up in Emporia, and I took some classes at ESU in high school. I'm disappointed that the
university has not done more to address its lack of diversity. This incident only serves to
demonstrate how ill-equipped the community is for confronting and fighting against the white
supremacy that plagues this town. ESU's leaders and community leaders have a responsibility to
ally themselves with victims of racism and make real, systemic changes to hold themselves
accountable. Shame on ESU.
I'm deeply concerned about racism, particularly with the under-representation of minorities in
academic faculties like Emporia. In addition, the wave of hate crimes committed of late are of
deep concern and need to be investigated and addressed fully and appropriately. Thank you.
Im signing because I am a SLIM alumni, a life-long Kansan, and someone who has fought
injustice, war and hate my entire adult life. This is intolerable amid today's climate.
I worked in the library at ESU and witnessed the poor treatment of SLIM and ULA faculty.
There is no place in an honorable institution for racism and small minded bigots. No professional
should be subjected to hate crimes, much less retaliation for wanting justice!
Im signing because I am a SLIM alumni, a life-long Kansan, and someone who has fought
injustice, war and hate my entire adult life.
This is intolerable amid today's climate.
I'm showing my support because I believe that one by one we can all make a difference to end
racism. Every positive thing we do is a step in the right direction. Often, racism is taught and
passed down through generations. I want to be a positive example for my children by showing
my love and respect for others and by teaching them to love & not hate. just as my parents did
for me.
I am signing this as a ESU alum.. Who is tired of seeing discrimination that has taken place on
more than one occasion at ESU.. To the minority, and disabled alike...
I abhor racism, and feel institutions of higher learning should adhere to a higher standard in
building better race relations - particularly if they receive any public funds. The Regents should
want a fare and unbiased investigation of this complaint to absolve their organization of any
wrongdoing.
This issue shouldn't even exist. Equality is important.
I'm signing because things need to change and they won't change unless we all come together as
one.
This has to end!
I am totally against racism and we must stand up to this behavior. I know Angel she is a person
with integrity.
I am tired of seeing this type of blatant disrespect played out across America against people who
would do anything for the greater good of humanity. This has to stop. NO more white
preference. How about some justice?
I do not want to be part of an institution that practices, condones, or excuses racism and
harassment in any form.
I was a SLIM faculty member and have witnessed several incidents of bias toward Asian and
other minority SLIM faculty.
I expect better from my alma mater. It's time for Emporia's SLIM program to admit fault, express
regret, and work to make things better.
EXHIBIT HH
Campus Diversity Survey Project Results

Diversity Education Committee
Spring Semester 2010
Conducted by
Gary Wyatt, Ph.D. and SO 550 Students
The questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 390 students. In the end 128
completed questionnaires were returned for a 33% response rate. The questionnaire was mailed
twice in an effort to improve response rates.

1
Directions: Please take a few minutes to respond to the following questions related to
diversity on campus. Completing the questionnaire should take about 15 minutes of your
time and the information you provide will be very valuable to us. Please feel free to skip
any questions you would rather not answer. After you complete the questionnaire, please
place in the envelope we provided and drop it in the mail. Thanks so much for your help.
Please circle the letter in front of the response you select.
1) What is your classification? Please circle the letter in front of the answer you select.
a) Freshman (under 30 credit hours)
b) Sophomore (30-59 credit hours)
c) Junior (60-89 credit hours)
d) Senior (90 or more credit hours)
e) Graduate
f) Other (non-degree seeking, 2nd Bachelors, etc.)
Class Standing
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Freshman
25
19.5
19.5
19.5
Sophomore
25
19.5
19.5
39.1
Junior
29
22.7
22.7
61.7
Senior
35
27.3
27.3
89.1
Graduate
10
7.8
7.8
96.9
Other
3.1
3.1
100.0
Total
128
100.0
100.0
2) What is your cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA)?

a) 3.1 - 4.0
b) 2.1 - 3.0
c) 1.1 - 2.0
d) 0.0 1.0
Grade Point Average
Valid
3.1 to 4.0
Frequency
72
Percent
56.3
Valid Percent
56.3
Cumulative
Percent
56.3
2.1 to 3.0
53
41.4
41.4
97.7
100.0
1.1 to 2.0
Total
2.3
2.3
128
100.0
100.0

5
10) Is English your first language?

a) Yes
b) No
If no, what is your first language? ____________________________
English First Language
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
92.2
Frequency
118
Percent
92.2
Valid Percent
92.2
No
7.0
7.0
99.2
4.00
.8
.8
100.0
Total
128
100.0
100.0
Yes
11. Generally speaking, how much personal contact would you say you have had on campus with people from the
following backgrounds? Please respond by marking an X in the appropriate space below.
No
Contact
Little
Contact
Moderate
Contact
Frequent
Contact
Very
Frequent
Contact
African-Americans
American Indians
Asian/Pacific Islanders
Latino/Hispanic/Chicanos
Whites/Caucasians
International Students
Gays, Lesbians, or
Bisexuals
Persons with Different
Religious Backgrounds
Persons with Disabilities
How Much Contact with African Americans
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
No Contact
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
5.5
5.5
5.5
Little Contact
28
21.9
22.0
27.6
Moderate Contact
45
35.2
35.4
63.0
Frequent Contact
26
20.3
20.5
83.5
Very Frequent Contact
21
16.4
16.5
100.0
Total
127
99.2
100.0
9.00
.8
128
100.0

22
Interpersonal integration of minority groups on campus
has been successful.
Right Emphasis on Diversity
Valid
Frequency
25
Percent
19.5
Valid Percent
19.8
Cumulative
Percent
19.8
Agree
81
63.3
64.3
84.1
Disagree
19
14.8
15.1
99.2
100.0
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
.8
.8
Total
126
98.4
100.0
9.00
1.6
128
100.0
Total
Favorable Climate for Minority Students
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree
31
24.2
24.4
24.4
Agree
81
63.3
63.8
88.2
Disagree
13
10.2
10.2
98.4
100.0
Strongly Disagree
Total
Missing
Percent
9.00
Total
1.6
1.6
127
99.2
100.0
.8
128
100.0
Administrators Care about Climate for All Students
Valid
Strongly Agree
Agree
Missing
Frequency
30
Percent
23.4
Valid Percent
23.8
Cumulative
Percent
23.8
86
67.2
68.3
92.1
Neutral*
.8
.8
92.9
Disagree
6.3
6.3
99.2
Strongly Disagree
.8
.8
100.0
Total
126
98.4
100.0
9.00
1.6
128
100.0
Total
Minority Faculty Treated with Fairness and Respect
Valid
Frequency
30
Percent
23.4
Valid Percent
24.0
Cumulative
Percent
24.0
Agree
82
64.1
65.6
89.6
Disagree
12
9.4
9.6
99.2
Strongly Agree
All results are tallied

in the aggregate in
this "diversity" survey,
and do not provide a
breakdown by any
other other
classification.
This approach means
that minority opinions
are not expressed in
numerical values,
although sorting the
data to allow minority
perspectives was as
simple as creating a
report.
In other words,there
are no values in this
report for how Blacks,
for instance, rated
"Favorable Climate
for Minority Students.
Blacks make up less
than 6% of the ESU
population, so the
author of the survey
was content to allow
their views to
disappear.

24
Minority Integration Successful
Valid
Frequency
1
Percent
.8
Valid Percent
.8
Cumulative
Percent
.8
Strongly Agree
23
18.0
18.7
19.5
Agree
78
60.9
63.4
82.9
.8
.8
83.7
19
14.8
15.4
99.2
.8
.8
100.0
123
96.1
100.0
.00
2.50
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Total
Missing
9.00
Total
3.9
128
100.0
17. During your experience at ESU, how many times, if ever, do you believe you have been mistreated at Emporia
State University because of the characteristics listed below?
Never
5+
Language/Accent
Age
Disability
Gender
National Origin
Race/Ethnicity
Religious Beliefs
Political Views
Sexual Orientation
Parent/Family Status
Other: Please Specify
Have you been mistreated because of language
Valid
Frequency
118
Percent
92.2
Valid Percent
92.2
Cumulative
Percent
92.2
1.00
3.1
3.1
95.3
2.00
.8
.8
96.1
.00

27
19. Please describe the mistreatment as best you can.
This question asked students who reported that they have been mistreated on
campus to describe the mistreatment. The responses were placed in the categories
of mistreatment listed below and the individuals responsible for the mistreatment
are indicated at the end of each statement in parentheses. If a single response listed
more than one category of mistreatment, that statement is listed in both categories.
Each numbered statement below is a word-for-word written comment provided by
students.
Academic Mistreatment
1. Unfair Grading of homework, Tests, and Grades. (faculty)
2. Reading a whole chapter with a quiz before doing or discussing the material in class.
(faculty)
3. I was graded unfairly on a couple of big projects. (faculty)
Ageism and Non-Traditional Student Issues
1. Its just simple things like being older than everyone else on your floor you live in the
dorms and having your teachers doing extra work in order to cover your ODS letter.
(faculty, students)
2. Some classes unnecessarily take on a Christian or Judeo-Christian bias, which is very
uncomfortable and not conducive to open discussion. This semester at the beginning of one
of my classes non-trads were asked to raise their hand and explain why it had taken them so
long to get to college. Very inappropriate. I have also had to deal with sexual
harassment/stalking issues from a former ESU student. (faculty, students)
3. Ageism and sexism. (staff, students)
Disability
1. Its just simple things like being older than everyone else on your floor you live in the
dorms and having your teachers doing extra work in order to cover your ODS letter.
(faculty, students)
2. I have Type 1 diabetes and in my 1st year here, it was a problem for a lot of my teachers to
excuse me from class for mandatory doctors appointments, or if I needed to eat during
class. As I have gone along it has gotten more accepting and less of a hassle with faculty.
(faculty, students)
Gender and Sexual Harassment
1. [Male professor] talked about titties in class-told girls he was just a guy so he had the
right to look at our chest if possibleif felt like I had to war large sweaters in class, even in
90 temp, to keep him from staringalmost failed the class because I was scared to go to his
office to ask for help.(faculty)
2. Just sexist jokes (students)
3. Male teacher touching and getting too close. (faculty)
4. First semester speech class I was told if I had been a blond she would quit listening. Staff
members of male variety have hit on me in sexual manor (sp). (staff, students, teaching
assistants)

28
5. Faculty tend to think because Im a girl, Im not capable enough. Also, professor treats
women in the business depart. (faculty)
6. A teacher in business department treats females differently than males. (faculty)
7. Ageism and sexism. (staff, students)
8. Some people can be very sexist. (students)
GLBT
1. We would joke about being gay and straight. (students)
2. Hateful comments about sexual orientation. (neighbors, students, teaching assistants,
people in local businesses)
3. My roommates are homosexuals and a man kicked our door in for such reason. I
confronted him, and was then involved in a fight, police were called, assailant got away.
Also, lots of biases towards religion/political views here in Emporia, if youre not one way
or believe a certain way you are seen as an idiot. (neighbor, student)
Political Views
1. In a setting where opinions on political and religious views were requested, both faculty
and students were in disagreement. This resulted in a strained relationship for the rest of the
course. (students and faculty)
2. I have been discriminated against in the classrooms, when students decide to talk about
political views. (faculty, staff, and students)
3. My roommates are homosexuals and a man kicked our door in for such reason. I confronted
him, and was then involved in a fight, police were called, assailant got away. Also, lots of
biases towards religion/political views here in Emporia, if youre not one way or believe a
certain way you are seen as an idiot. (neighbor, student)
Race and Ethnic Issues
1. A lot of the African American students will group together and then yell racist and sexist
things as I walk by. Or a lot of times it is just totally segregated, and theyll ignore me and
my friends. (students)
2. People in the community look down on interracial relationships, and I was treated poorly
for dating outside my race. (community members)
3. When Obama won the Presidency, some students placed hate messages on my door in
Central Morse Hall. (students
Religion
1. In a setting where opinions on political and religious views were requested both faculty and
students were in disagreement. This resulted in a strained relationship for the rest of the
course. (students and faculty)
2. My religious beliefs were made fun of by students when discussing my views on physicianassisted suicidealthough it was not the teachers fault. As I left, I was ridiculed and made
fun of. (students)
3. Some classes unnecessarily take on a Christian or Judeo-Christian bias, which is very
uncomfortable and not conducive to open discussion. This semester at the beginning of one
of my classes non-trads were asked to raise their hand and explain why it had taken them so

Dr. Melvin Hale's Opposition To Derek Wilson and Deidra Elijah's Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Complaint - Emporia State University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr. Melvin Hale's Opposition To Derek Wilson and Deidra Elijah's Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Complaint - Emporia State University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 121

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 15-4947-SAC-KGS

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS WILSON AND

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 4 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 5 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 6 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 7 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 8 of 121

3. Defendants Wilson and Elijah and their ESU capacity

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 9 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 10 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 11 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 12 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 13 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 14 of 121

In a statement made by then-supporter Deidra Elijah on September 15th, 2015 at the

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 15 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 16 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 17 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 18 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 19 of 121

By devising a scheme of deceit in the announcement of the results of their

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 20 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 21 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 22 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 23 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 24 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 25 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 26 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 27 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 28 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 29 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 30 of 121

Case No. 15-4947-SAC-KGS

I hereby certify that I have served this PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

/s/ Angelica G. Hale

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 31 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 32 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 33 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 34 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 35 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 36 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 37 of 121

----- Forwarded Message ----From: Melvin Hale <*******@yahoo.com>

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 38 of 121

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 39 of 121

Articles in Advance, pp. 120

Is Negative Attention Better Than No Attention?

Keywords: ostracism; harassment; belongingness; well-being

(Jones and Kelly 2010), is a common (Fox and Stallworth

If no one turned round when we entered, answered when

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 40 of 121

established the importance of understanding ostracism as

Organization Science, Articles in Advance, pp. 120, 2014 INFORMS

sense of belonging than harassment, and a threatened

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 41 of 121

Organization Science, Articles in Advance, pp. 120, 2014 INFORMS

to a target, ostracisms underlying motives can be many,

commonplace. Empirical research indirectly validates

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 56 Filed 05/17/16 Page 42 of 121