« What We Can’t Teach: Norman Finkelstein, DePaul and the Suppression of Academic Freedom
DePaul University Provost Helmut Epp Tries to Defuse Growing Protest Against Tenure Processes. »

Terri Ginsberg, Former North Carolina State Adjunct Professor, Files Complaint

I received this complaint from an attorney working on this case in North Carolina. Dr Ginsberg had shown a film on the Palestinian suffering and conducted a discussion afterward that enraged her superiors and led to her dismissal in 2008. This purge and ideological cleansing represented an unseemly denial of First Amendment rights and an abridgment of her academic freedom. It also is another assault on the students who are denied the opportunity to engage in critical thinking and comprehension of the sufferings in the Middle East.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

FILE NO. _____________________

TERRI GINSBERG,)
Plaintiff,)           COMPLAINT)

v.                       (Jury Trial Demanded)

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF                           

NORTH CAROLINA ,     

Defendant. 

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Terri Ginsberg (“Plaintiff”), complaining of the defendant, the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina (“Defendant”), as follows:

Introduction

  1. This is a direct constitutional claim based in North Carolina common law alleging freedom of speech violations, employment discrimination based on religion and national origin, and retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of her right to freedom of speech and for her complaints about discrimination.
  2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is brought pursuant to Article I, Sections 1, 13, 14, and 19 of the North Carolina State Constitution.
  3. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages.


Parties and Jurisdiction

  1. Jurisdiction of this Court is proper pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-240 and 7A-243.
  2. Venue of this Court is proper pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-79 and 1-82.
  3. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of New York, New York, and a former employee of North Carolina State University, a constituent institution of Defendant.
  4. Defendant is a corporate body subject to suit pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 116-3.  Defendant’s principal place of business is located in Orange County, North Carolina.
  5. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies and complied fully with all prerequisites to jurisdiction in this Court.

Factual Allegations

  1. Introduction:  The actions of which Plaintiff complains herein were taken because of Plaintiff’s religious identity, in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination, and in order to suppress her statements and characterizations with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Plaintiff herein challenges punitive actions that Defendant imposed on her solely because of her statements, and its subsequent failure to remedy those punitive actions despite being given ample opportunity to do so.

A. Activities taken during the course of Plaintiff’s employment

  1. Plaintiff is a Jewish professor who began working at North Carolina State University on August 16, 2007 as a Teaching Assistant Professor (“TAP”) “for a one-year term . . . with the possibility of renewal.”
  2. Defendant stated in its February 29, 2007 addendum its offer letter, “Your appointment to this position is subject to the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of North Carolina . . . .”
  3. In December of 2006, during Plaintiff’s interview for the TAP position, Dr. Antony Harrison, Chair of the English Department, Dr. Marsha Orgeron, Assistant Professor and Director of Film Studies, and Dr. Devin Orgeron, Assistant Professor of Film Studies, informed Plaintiff that the Department planned to advertise for a tenure-track Assistant Professor of Film Studies position that was to begin in the fall semester of 2008.   They strongly encouraged Plaintiff to apply for the position.
  4. At the beginning of the fall semester of 2007, Dr. Akram Khater, Director of the Middle East Studies Program, also strongly encouraged Plaintiff to apply for the tenure-track position.
  5. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff performed her job at a level that met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate expectations.
  6. On information and belief, Dr. Marsha Orgeron is Jewish and of American national origin, Dr. Devin Orgeron is Christian and of American national origin, Dr. Akram Khater is Mormon and of Lebanese national origin, and Dr. Antony Harrison is Christian and of American national origin.
  7. Dr. Marsha Orgeron, Dr. Khater and Dr. Harrison were hostile to Plaintiff’s political views, and believed that as a Jewish American, Plaintiff should not espouse, teach or communicate views that they interpreted as being sympathetic to Palestinian or Muslim perspectives.  In their view, Jews who question and challenge the Zionist colonial project are non-conforming Jews, and therefore are outsiders and dangerous.  Similarly, Drs. Orgeron, Orgeron, Khater and Harrison were hostile to anti-Zionist Arabs and Muslims, whom they also view as undesirable and threatening to their worldviews.
  8. During her employment by Defendant, Plaintiff articulated and presented Arab, Muslim, Iranian, Palestinian, and alternative Jewish perspectives and critiques on U.S. and Israeli policy in Europe and the Middle East.  Drs. Orgeron, Orgeron, Khater and Harrison considered Plaintiff’s alternative Jewish perspective to be anti-Jewish and inappropriate for a Jewish professor.
  9. On October 30, 2007 Dr. Marsha Orgeron issued a teaching evaluation which praised Plaintiff’s pedagogy but criticized her choice of materials, despite the fact that choice of materials was not one of the criteria Dr. Marsha Orgeron was qualified or authorized to evaluate.
  10. Specifically, Dr. Marsha Orgeron suggested the exclusion of an interview with the author of a book whose contents she described as “controversial” and “radical.”
  11. Dr. Orgeron also questioned Plaintiff’s decision to include a short film that presented documentary images of Palestine and asked critical questions about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
  12. On information and belief, similarly situated individuals who do not share Plaintiff’s religion and point of view, or belong to religious and national groups about which she was speaking, were not evaluated similarly.  On information and belief, Dr. Marsha Orgeron criticized Plaintiff’s choice of teaching materials because she espoused personal political beliefs that led her to dislike or disagree with the points of view the materials expressed.
  13. In violation of NC State University Regulation 05.20.10.6.3, Dr. Marsha Orgeron, without first discussing the evaluation with Plaintiff or obtaining her signature, submitted the evaluation to Dr. Harrison, the individual who subsequently approved two of the employment decisions complained of herein.
  14. On November 9, 2007 Dr. Khater asked Plaintiff to resign from the Middle Eastern screening series because he deemed a point of view she expressed during her introduction to a film presented at an on-campus presentation to be “pro-Palestinian.”  Plaintiff was also excluded from curating other Film Studies Program activities, despite the fact that she was highly qualified to do so, and despite the fact that curating such programs was one of her job requirements.
  15. Also on November 9, 2007, Dr. Khater verbally admonished Plaintiff for having e-mailed him a request for travel reimbursement for a guest speaker of Syrian/Muslim background which had previously been improperly denied.  The speaker had given a well-attended campus presentation about Orientalism in American culture on October 18, 2007 in conjunction with the Middle Eastern screening series.  Defendant never issued the speaker the travel reimbursement he was due, and Defendant deducted taxes from his honorarium despite his submission of proper papers showing exemption from such taxation.
  16. In that meeting, Dr. Khater further admonished Plaintiff for having invited an Iranian filmmaker to the Middle Eastern screening series to present one of his short films, introduce an Iranian feature film, and speak afterwards on a panel of scholars about Middle Eastern cinema.  Dr. Khater, who had originally agreed to the invitation, subsequently reneged upon learning that the filmmaker was of Kurdish ethnicity.  Dr. Khater insisted that the short film was inappropriate for the series but supplied no explanation for his assertion.  The filmmaker did not receive his full travel/accommodations reimbursement from NCSU, despite his and Plaintiff’s repeated inquiries into the matter, until November 2008, approximately one year after his campus visit.
  17. Beginning in November of 2007, Dr. Marsha Orgeron refused to purchase a majority of the visual materials Plaintiff had requested for her Spring 2008 course on cinema of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.  The only films on that syllabus for which she agreed to place orders (that were not already owned by the Film Media Lab) were those directed by Zionist Jewish Israelis.
  18. On information and belief, Dr. Marsha Orgeron did not refuse to order necessary equipment for similarly-situated colleagues who do not share Plaintiff’s religious background and academic viewpoint or who did not speak out in defense of individuals of Palestinian, Arab or Muslim national origin or religion.  Faculty who received full support in equipment and instruction material had a crucial advantage in their ability to adequately perform their teaching jobs.
  19. On information and belief, Dr. Marsha Orgeron’s negative performance evaluation and refusal to order equipment for Dr. Ginsberg’s course, Dr. Khater’s admonishments relating to Plaintiff’s speech and the guest speakers, Dr. Khater’s instructions to Plaintiff to resign from the Middle Eastern screening series, and Defendant’s exclusion of  Plaintiff from curating Film Studies Program activities, stem directly from Defendant’s hostility to Dr. Ginsberg’s religious identity and point of view, as well as from its hostility to Dr. Ginsberg’s association or perceived association with individuals of Middle Eastern and Muslim descent and Middle-East-related organizations.

B. Non-reappointment and Failure to Hire

  1. On information and belief, when Defendant hired Plaintiff, it intended to terminate Plaintiff’s TAP position in the fall of 2008 and instead hire her for a tenure-track position.
  2. Before Plaintiff complained about discrimination and voiced opinions with which Defendant disagreed and which clashed with Defendant’s idea of appropriate Jewish viewpoints, Dr. Harrison, Dr. Khater, Dr. Orgeron and Dr. Orgeron had indicated to Plaintiff that she was a strong and favored contender for the tenure-track position.  Defendant also made several statements to Dr. Ginsberg implying that she would continue to be employed at Defendant the following year.
  3. Plaintiff was not even granted an interview for the position, despite the fact that it is Defendant’s customary practice to grant interviews to internal candidates.
  4. Plaintiff was not selected for a tenure-track Assistant Professor of Film Studies position that was to begin in the fall semester of 2008.
  5. On information and belief, the selected candidate, Dr. Ora Gelley, who is Jewish, was selected in preference to Plaintiff because she had not published scholarly work or engaged in classroom speech that challenged Zionist policy in the Middle East, or that would be perceived to represent Palestinian, Iranian, Arab or Muslim, or alternative Jewish perspectives on those topics.  In fact, on information and belief, Dr. Gelley avoids discussion of Zionism in her scholarly work even when it is highly relevant to the issues she is discussing.
  6. Plaintiff’s academic qualifications far exceeded those of Dr. Gelley.
  7. Dr. Marsha Orgeron served as Chair of the search committee that rejected Plaintiff from the position.  Dr. Devin Orgeron also served as a member of the search committee.  Drs. Marsha and Devin Orgeron took Plaintiff’s religious identity, associations and expressed viewpoints into account during the search committee process.  Dr. Marsha Orgeron interfered with the search committee process to ensure Plaintiff was removed from consideration for the position.
  8. On January 25, 2008, Plaintiff sent an electronic mail message to the Film Studies Search Committee asking why she had not been selected, and sent a copy of the message to Dr. Antony Harrison, Chair of the English Department.
  9. On January 31, 2008, Dr. Harrison responded that “[t]he candidates who most closely matched the specific qualifications were selected for interview.”
  10. On January 31, 2008, Plaintiff asked for further clarification, alleging that “the committee’s decision . . . was adopted pursuant to impermissible considerations.”  Dr. Harrison declined to provide further clarification.
  11. On February 18, 2008, Dr. Harrison informed Plaintiff in writing that she would not be hired for the tenure-track Assistant Professor position in Film Studies, stating that “other applicants are a better match for our needs at this time.”
  12. On March 24, 2008, Dr. Toby Parcel, Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, having previously met with Plaintiff to discuss the search committee’s decision not to hire her for the tenure-track position, communicated to Plaintiff that she found nothing improper in the search committee’s decision-making process.
  13. On March 26, 2008, Plaintiff filed a grievance petition with James D. Martin, who, as Chair of the NCSU Faculty, was charged with administering grievance procedures.  She included in the petition allegations that Defendant had violated her constitutional rights.  At the advice of Dr. Martin, who had consulted with other employees and agents of Defendant, Plaintiff filed an amended petition on May 6, 2008 that excluded allegations about discrimination.
  14. On April 10, 2008, Dr. Harrison informed Plaintiff that she would not be reappointed as a Teaching Assistant Professor for the 2008-2009 school year.  His stated reason for the non-reappointment was that the department’s “staffing needs for film courses next year have been met.”
  15. Dr. Harrison failed to renew Plaintiff’s TAP contract because of the improper and discriminatory influence of Dr. Marsha Orgeron and Dr. Khater, and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints about discrimination.
  16. On June 17, 2008, Chancellor James L. Oblinger ruled that Plaintiff’s grievance could not continue, in part because Defendant did not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s grievance since Plaintiff was no longer employed at Defendant.  Chancellor Oblinger further stated that “the decision not to extend another contract at the expiration of an appointment is not grievable.”
  17. The effect of Chancellor’s ruling is that TAPs have no adequate internal mechanism to grieve adverse employment actions that are based on prior discrete discriminatory acts.
  18. On or about September 16, 2008, Plaintiff appealed the decision of Chancellor Oblinger to the Academic Affairs and Personnel Committee of the NCSU Board of Trustees.
  19. On November 3, 2008, the Committee informed Plaintiff that it had affirmed the decision of Chancellor Oblinger.
  20. On December 5, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings, appealing the dismissal of her grievance and alleging employment discrimination and retaliation, as well as violations of the North Carolina State Constitution.
  21. On March 24, 2009, the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), on Defendant’s motion, dismissed the petition with prejudice on the basis that the OAH lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because teaching faculty of the UNC system are exempt from the contested case provisions of the State Personnel Act.
  22. Accordingly, Plaintiff has no non-constitutional remedy under state law for the deprivation of her constitutional rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS

TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND EQUAL PROTECTION

  1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
  2. Defendant’s actions as alleged herein constitute violations of the freedom of speech provision of the North Carolina State Constitution.  NC Const. art. I, § 14.
  3. Defendant’s actions as alleged herein constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights of conscience, as guaranteed by the North Carolina State Constitution.  NC Const. art. I, § 13.
  4. Defendant’s actions as alleged herein constitute violations of the right to equal protection as guaranteed by the North Carolina State Constitution.  NC Const. art. I, §§ 1, 19.
  5. Plaintiff has suffered lost wages in an amount exceeding $10,000 as a proximate result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein.
  6. Plaintiff has suffered mental and emotional distress, and other damages in an amount exceeding $10,000 as a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct alleged herein.


Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:

  1. That all matters so triable be tried by a jury.
  2. That the Court declare that the acts and practices complained of herein are in violation of Sections I, XIII, XIV and XIX of Article I of the North Carolina State Constitution.
  3. That Plaintiff be granted compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $10,000.
  4. That the Court award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees.
  5. That the Court direct Defendants to pay Plaintiff such interest as may be allowed by law.
  6. That the Court order such other relief as law and justice allow.

This the _____ day of October, 2009.

___________________________________

Caitlyn T. Fulghum

Attorney for Plaintiff

100 East Parrish Street, Suite 300

Durham, NC 27701

(919) 680-6100

VERIFICATION

TERRI GINSBERG, having affirmed or been sworn, states that she is the Plaintiff in this action, that she has read the foregoing Complaint, and knows the contents thereof, that the same is true of her own knowledge, save and except those matters and things therein stated upon information and belief and, as to those, she believes them to be true.

_____________________________________

Terri Ginsberg

Affirmed or sworn to and subscribed before me

This the _____ day of October, 2009.

__________________________________

Notary Public

My Commission expires:  _____________________________

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm and is filed under Academia/Academic Freedom. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.