Chapter 36

True to form, Henry adjourned the second hearing with lies-- it didn't matter, he reflected, we have the power.

The hearing panel met the next day. Each person was given a copy of the report that Henry had prepared. "Read it and when you have finished, come over here and sign this original. I will require that you turn in your copies today. You are to keep this report in confidence."

"When is Diana to be notified?" Timidly, Esther asked the question, raising her eyes from the doc.u.ment she was reading.

"In good time. When it is deemed appropriate." Henry was terse in his reply, warning that no further questions from the other members of the committee would be tolerated.

Following this, Esther sent a letter to The Pope asking him not to terminate Diana. Later, she would show copies of this letter to the staff and faculty women who criticized her for signing such a malicious report. "We had to sign it.

We had no choice, but see--I tried to help her!"

Henry sent a copy of the hearing panel's report to Diana late in March.

It was in the form of a memorandum addressed to The Pope. Even though the report had been signed early in February, it was dated March 31st, as were all the signatures at the end.

The report of six pages had four parts: Factual history; Procedures followed; Findings on considerations; and Recommendations.

Surprise, surprise--after maintaining in two separate hearings that the committee only gave a report and would not recommend any action.

Actually there was little in the report that came as any surprise.

The so-called 'Factual history' was a composite of the testimony of Lyle, Ian and Randy. It was carefully written. It reported that, "Lyle had discovered several 'suspicious' student feedback forms. . ."

when in fact he had said two.

The report was redolent with accusation. Phrases such as ". . .she forged. . ." and ". . .department could not tolerate forgery. . ." were found throughout and put in a context difficult to justify. One of these sentences read: "Given the opinion of the handwriting experts that she had 'forged student course evaluations in a manner designed to denigrate the performance of co-faculty members', the chairman of NERD decided to seek termination for cause." Thus the doc.u.ment examiners were not only given credit for identifying a person's handwriting, but Henry claimed they were able to read the intent of the person whom they said wrote the material examined. Nowhere in the hearing were their clairvoyant abilities established.

Indeed, the entire section contained nothing of the events as testified to by Diana and her witnesses.

The section on the 'Procedures followed' was again taken from what Henry had decided were the procedures followed and wickedly slanted against Diana. It did not mention that the reason thirty-two additional standards were sent to the second doc.u.ment examiner was because he could not make a decision on the basis of the standards sent to the first one. Instead, it claimed that the second doc.u.ment examiner confirmed the results of the first. It also omitted to add that the standards sent were abysmally poor copies from microfiche, covered a period of 25 years and included handwriting and printing of many different people.

Henry thought the section called 'Findings on considerations', was a gem.

After he had finished writing it, he had leaned back in his chair and mentally patted himself on the back. Here was contained the only mention that there had been other testimony entered into the hearing.

Here, in the entire six page report, only 10 lines were devoted to the witnesses for Diana. The testimony of Sarah, he tersely dismissed with: "One student witness identified one of the suspect critiques and claimed that she (the student) had written it, but the claim was not substantiated because the student would not have her handwriting examined."

Months later, the investigator for the Attorney General would note that incident in the transcript of the hearing and make the following comment in her report. "Did the committee really expect that the hired experts could, at a point when opinions had been stated under oath, seriously undertake a fresh a.n.a.lysis of the questioned doc.u.ment?"

Henry's report gave no indication that the standards were unauthenticated or why Diana was not asked to write for the doc.u.ment examiners to produce authenticated ones.

All of the testimony of Diana was totally ignored. It was as if she had never appeared at the hearing--a non-person status like that maintained against her by her department since the accusation was first made.

Of course it follows that the 'Recommendation' section would state, true to the faculty handbook's rhetoric, that termination was recommended since Diana had demonstrated a lack of professional and moral fitness.

THE COURT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL

Chapter 37

In the days following the hearing, the Belmont administration directed its attention to the complaint brought against it in the County Superior Court. On its behalf, attorney Simon Murrain began the usual returns from the baseline destined to increase costs, delay judgment and frustrate justice.

The a.n.a.logy to tennis is not farfetched. One side, the plaintiff via her attorney, Al Garret, serves. A volley of paper ensues from both sides directed at each other, but under the supervision and rule of the official, a judge.

Where the a.n.a.logy loses ground is that very little action occurs in the court. Sure, the plaintiff and respondent and the lawyers must show up for hearings, but most everything goes on in the judges' chambers.

Simon Murrain had a great deal of practice in delaying tactics.

Over the last four years, seven people had brought suit against Belmont for s.e.x discrimination. All seven had been forced to withdraw as their cases dragged on and on and their resources dwindled.

Simon's initial move this time was to have the case go to a higher court, in this instance the United States District Court.

This move placed two additional burdens on the plaintiff and her attorney.

First, the cost of the proceedings was greater than at the district level and second, the travel distance to attend hearings increased fifty-fold.

An advantage was also inadvertently given. The judge who was appointed to sit at this session was known for his fairness and knowledge of the law.

Al Garret immediately filed an amended complaint to the federal court which could rule on federal laws as well as state. In it, he listed six charges against Belmont University: 1. Violation of due process; 2. violation of const.i.tutional law; 3. violation of the state administrative procedures act; 4. violation of the state open meeting law; 5. violation of the state access to public records and 6. violation of the fair employment practices act.

With the listing of these charges, he asked that the court issue a restraining order, an injunction that would order the respondent, Belmont University, to grant the plaintiff her right to a fair and impartial hearing by the university and access to the doc.u.ments that had been withheld from her.

It was at this time, shortly after the final university hearing had ended, that Diana began getting threatening phone calls. She was told to drop the court proceedings if she didn't want something really bad to happen to her.

After the initial hearing on the complaint and before any decision was handed down by the judge, Murrain filed a motion for summary judgment on counts three, four, five and six--all of the counts related to state law.

In effect, he was asking the judge to throw out the four charges for lack of validity.

His motion caused a veritable flurry of other motions from both sides and effectively delayed the process of law by dividing the charges.

It also increased the cost to the plaintiff. It was a gamble for the university. If it paid off, it would cut the charges down to two-- both federal, while disposing of all the others. If it didn't?

No problem, there were always appeals to be made that could continue the process indefinitely.

At the hearing on these motions, Al Garret limited his argument to a synopsis of his brief. He carefully related the applicable laws and requested that the defendant, Belmont University, be ordered to grant a fair, open hearing to the plaintiff, Diana. Also, that the plaintiff be supplied with the student feedback evaluations she had requested and that had been denied to her.

Al was an intelligent work-horse of an attorney. At 57, he took his legal duties seriously. His heavy gla.s.ses with their thick rims gave him a scholastic air. All that was needed to complete the image of absent minded professor was a pipe.

He had diligently searched the literature for precedents which he presented to the judge in a mild but measured tone.

A reasonable man, he projected this image to the court and made a fine presentation. No sparkle, just facts and precedents clearly presented.

When the judge turned his attention to the respondent, Simon Murrain stood to address the court looking more like a walking advertis.e.m.e.nt for expensive men's wear than an attorney.

Simon oozed charm with all the proficiency of a hangman leading the way to the gallows. Close to Al in age, Simon was of a different bent. His argument was presented with show and words-- it worked well with juries who tended to watch him instead of what he said. Today, there was no jury present, but his modus operandi didn't change.

"Your honor," he commenced. "The plaintiff was given a fair hearing under the rules of Belmont University. She was given due process.

Despite the fact that she forged many evaluation forms causing untold harm to two young faculty persons, the university made every effort to treat her with fairness and consideration." He continued for some time in the same vein, constantly and consistently referring to the plaintiff as a forger--a criminal.

Gleefully, Murrain reflected, in court, we attorneys can say anything, or most anything, we want to. We do not have to operate under the constraints imposed on the rest of the populace and preface a charge with the word alleged. Truth is not required of us either, although most judges attempt to keep the elocution within the bounds of propriety.

Another check in the system is the presence of the opposing attorney who is supposed to function to limit any freewheeling antics of his colleague by appealing to the judge.

But Al did not object to Simon's presentation. He felt confident that the judge would rule on the law, not on the performance.

Besides, he rather enjoyed watching and listening to Simon's kind of theater.

Following the hearing, the wait began. How would the judge decide?

When would the judge decide?