.@michiganstateu released an update on reforms today, allegedly in response to the Nassar scandal and input from survivors during "listening sessions". Here's start administration and the Office of General Counsel and the BoT isn't telling you:
*thread
*thread
At the time these reforms were commissioned, I and a group of survivors (@SG_Klein and @sterling_shea ) had been working directly with the BoT on an external review process...
Administration never talked to us. We asked. It was refuses.
During that process...
Administration never talked to us. We asked. It was refuses.
During that process...
We vetted several firms, and specifically rejected the firm Cozon O'Connor because they had a clear conflict of interest.
Cozon O'Connor is lead by the exact same attorneys who LouAnna Simon hired in 2014/2015 to review MSUs Title IX process after so many violations were found..
Cozon O'Connor is lead by the exact same attorneys who LouAnna Simon hired in 2014/2015 to review MSUs Title IX process after so many violations were found..
At the time those attorneys were at Pepper Hamilton. That was the review that came after Amanda's 2014 police and Title IX report.
Whatever was found is likely part of the 6,000 documents MSU won't release.
We said NO to Cozon O'Connor because...
Whatever was found is likely part of the 6,000 documents MSU won't release.
We said NO to Cozon O'Connor because...
Those attorneys, while at Pepper Hamilton, were directly involved in the earlier review that did NOT catch the problems and those failures in the 2014/2015 review, if properly identified, would be damaging to the attorneys who botched it.
Their prior involvement, knowledge of privileged information that MSU is still protecting, and relationship with the university on these same issues and with many of the same wrongdoers, was a glaringly obvious conflict of interest.
We said no.
We said no.
But that is exactly who the Administration brought on board to oversee the review and revision of the Title IX process again. While still refusing to disclose those 6,000 documents.
Without ever talking to the survivors (2 of whom are attorneys) directly involved in vetting.
Without ever talking to the survivors (2 of whom are attorneys) directly involved in vetting.
Please stop stating that these reforms are in response to what was heard when you listened.
Because you did not.
If you had, you would have known we rejected that firm due to clear conflict of interest.
But let's be honest. We both know that Board members did tell you that.
Because you did not.
If you had, you would have known we rejected that firm due to clear conflict of interest.
But let's be honest. We both know that Board members did tell you that.
So you knew.
And you did it anyway.
At least let's be honest that this isn't happening because you listened. That firm was selected because you DIDN'T.
Because they already held secrets. And they were safe.
I'm beyond exhausted.
And you did it anyway.
At least let's be honest that this isn't happening because you listened. That firm was selected because you DIDN'T.
Because they already held secrets. And they were safe.
I'm beyond exhausted.
Also my autocorrect is killing me. But I trust you all to be able to figure it out 😜
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
