Thread by @spiantado

As the petition for @dartmouth to reverse course on de-anonymizing its alumnae gains steam, be sure not to miss the Plaintiffs' lawyer's dissection of @dartmouth's motion (Thread). #MeToo #MeTooSTEM #WeSaidEnough @thedartmouth
docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAI…

I sure can't summarize the situation better than this:

And @dartmouth is an

Then, @dartmouth argues that the "personal and sensitive" nature of sexual assault is not enough to warrant anonymity. But this contradicts many court precedents

You can see that @dartmouth doesn't care about their own.

A lot of @dartmouth's filing is about the status of anonymous students in a class action lawsuit. Turns out, the issue of class representatives is not normally argued at this stage, making it clear that @dartmouth has other motives.

And then the Plaintiff lawyers point out a bunch of case law establishing that members of class actions lawsuits can proceed under pseudonyms.

And what of the case law that @dartmouth cites? Well it turns out that they were using a case where people were *already* deanonymized (accidentally!) and a court held that it wasn't important to allow pseudonyms because their names were already out!

But the biggest news of the filing is this: @dartmouth itself already knows the names of anonymous plaintiffs. It's court filing is just about making these women's public.

Turns out the plaintiffs had already worked out a way for @dartmouth to conduct discovery/investigation without publicly outing anyone. @dartmouth couldn't even be bothered to respond (instead they argued in court it wasn't feasible)

What about Dartmouth's worst argument--that it was too confusing to say "Jane Doe 1", "Jane Doe 2", etc?

Time for some new leadership, @dartmouth.

(Plaintiff's document is here: docdro.id/0pCYeVz)

^ names