Thread by @spiantado

If you want to know what an institution stands for, don't read their press releases, read their court filings. #MeToo #MeTooSTEM #WeSaidEnough @thedartmouth (Thread) thedartmouth.com/article/2019/0…

While @Dartmouth was congratulating itself for joining the NAS "Action Collaborative" on sexual harassment, it was filing in court to try to ensure that those who complained about their own faculty couldn't remain anonymous (news.dartmouth.edu/news/2019/04/d…)

To stay anonymous, @Dartmouth argues that PBS plaintiffs must show "reasonable risk of severe retaliation or other significant harm." If there are no risks to students and faculty coming forward, why are your own internal Title IX processes confidential?

In the filing, @Dartmouth suggests that the fact that some plaintiffs have given media interviews is relevant to the question of whether the *new* plaintiffs should be allowed to be anonymous.

But even their own attorneys can't formulate an argument for why some people speaking out publicly (the only thing that led to change) should mean nobody can be confidential. It makes no sense and they don't even try to explain.

In the filing, @Dartmouth says its too "confusing" to keep track of the terms "Jane Doe 1", "Jane Doe 2", etc. The @Dartmouth trustees should be terrified that they are being defended by a law firm that finds sequential numbering too confusing.

Then @Dartmouth criticizes the plaintiffs for providing only a "cursory statement" that breaking anonymity will prevent others from coming forward. Again, why does @Dartmouth itself have any confidential processes internally if it doesn't believe this is true?

.@Dartmouth argues that because they haven't engaged in discovery yet, they don't KNOW whether the plaintiffs would be willing to proceed non-anonymously. But there can be no doubt @Dartmouth understands that breaking anonymity will prevent more from coming forward.

In the filing, @Dartmouth quotes that there is a "universal interest in favor of open judicial proceedings." Why did they keep the numerous problems and complaints in Psychological and Brain Sciences secret for so long if this is something they value?

And even @Dartmouth was worried that people would read this and point out that it's just a tactic to discourage others from joining the lawsuit as well as new complainants.

They try to get around this just by declaring that there *couldn't* even be a question of their motivations because their arguments are so good. If only...

Though only the plaintiffs' whistleblowing led @Dartmouth to terminate the abusive faculty, @Dartmouth says in court the plaintiffs "drag numerous innocent, well-intentioned faculty and administrators into the public record in an apparent effort to gain more publicity."

This is what they truly think. @Dartmouth isn't proud of their own students for speaking out when the administrators wouldn't do anything. @Darmouth isn't grateful for the changes they've instigated.

Shame on @Dartmouth. Shame on their trustees. Shame on Philip Hanlon. Shame on Choat, Hall, & Stewart LLP.

Psychological and Brain Sciences faculty, where are you? These are your students.