Appealing The Nursing University Decision While a Con Woman Deletes Her Tracks

Re: Dr. Peng is looking for you

FROM: Curt D

TO: 周 艾琳

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:26 AM

Dear Adeline, 

  Hi. Thanks for letting me know about this. I called Dr. Peng yesterday afternoon during a break from teaching. She told me a little of some interesting news about the committee but some more complicated details she was unable to tell me in English. I will ask the lawyer to call her today to get the complete information from Dr. Peng. Meanwhile, I have finished my draft of the appeal letter and will send it along with some other documents to the lawyer today. He will write an appeal letter in Chinese. 

Curtis 

To the Gender Equity Committee of NTCN

  You’re kidding me, right? Is this all you can show after 2 months of “investigating”? This document you have sent me is a prime example of the abuse and miscarriage of the Gender Equity in Education Act. Your absence of professionalism, objectivity, fairness, and lack of appropriate knowledge during the investigation shows clearly also in the convoluted, illogical and unsupported result. In response to your letter, I am presenting the following rebuttal:

1. Article 16 of the Regulations on the Prevention of Sexual Assault or Sexual Harassment on Campus states that ‘’Experts or scholars specialized in the investigation of sexual assault or harassment case…shall meet one of the following qualifications…” There were no such experts or scholars present for the investigation of this case. Present were three unqualified, ill-prepared, conspirators who made such obviously biased and prejudiced statements to me such as “How do you know you didn’t do anything?” and “Anybody is capable of sexual harassment.” They showed very little knowledge of a) “Basic concepts of sexual assault or sexual harassment and pertinent laws and regulations”;  and demonstrated a lack of b) “Skills and knowledge to investigate a campus sexual assault or sexual harassment case; as well as used improper c) “Handling procedures for a campus sexual assault or harassment case.
2. In result #1 of your letter, you did not make clear how many “students” were interviewed and the results of those interviews. In addition, at my meeting with the investigation committee they stated definitively and clearly that there was only the student accuser and one student witness in her support. You also did not state the results of my account of the activity and the corroboration of my two witnesses (staff of NTCN) present at the activity.  I have two witnesses who support my story that no such contact as alleged by the accuser happened.
3. In addition, you did not mention the video and photographic evidence I submitted that showed the accuser’s normal interaction with me just after the time of the alleged “touch.” In fact, you have totally ignored nearly all my strong evidence that refutes the accuser’s story. 
4. In result #2 of your letter, you contradict yourself and again ignore the evidence I submitted of the accuser’s emails and chat messages that included overtures of affection and flirting with me.  Since our relationship was good and friendly, and friendlier from the student towards me, it is illogical to say you can “exclude the possibility that the student intended to attract the teacher’s attention.” From the evidence I presented, it is a very real possibility that the student was trying to attract me and when I ignored her overtures she sought revenge on me with this false accusation.
5. In result #4, what clinical and substantial proof do you have of the accuser’s emotional, psychological and social conditions? How do you know the accuser was not, in fact, impaired by  some already existing emotional, psychological or social conditions, influencing her decision to make this false accusation against me?
6. In point III of your letter, you state that because of Result #4, that is the reason for not renewing my contract. However, at the meeting the committee stated at least twice that they wanted to make sure that I understood that the sexual harassment accusation and the non-renewal of my contract were not related and two different issues. They definitively stated that the non-renewal of my contract was not because of the sexual harassment accusation. It is clear you have twisted and altered certain parts of this case to fit your biases and to obtain and support the results you seek…the committee and NTCN’s abuse and miscarriage of this process.
7. In conclusion, the decision letter you have sent me shows one very important and overriding point: the evidence of the accuser and her witness are very weak and there is nothing realistically strong enough or “beyond a reasonable doubt” to prove any kind of harassment took place. And the reason their case is so weak is because “NOTHING HAPPENED”!!!  I repeat: “NO SUCH THING HAPPENED”!!! There is nothing they can prove since NOTHING HAPPENED! Hello? Anybody home? “NOTHING HAPPENED”!!!
8. An added point:  Article 2 of the Gender Equity Education Act states in #4 that sexual harassment qualifies as
1. Unwelcome remarks or conducts that carry explicitly or implicitly a sexual or gender discriminating connotation and thereby adversely affect the other party’s human dignity, or the opportunity or performance of her or his learning or work.
2. A conduct of sexual or gendered nature that is served as the condition for oneself or others to gain or lose rights or interests in learning or work.

Based on Article 2, the student’s accusation should never have even gotten to the investigation stage since her claim of a “touch on the waist” does not meet either of the above criteria.  And, more clearly:

• sexual harassment may be described as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other physical and expressive behavior of a sexual nature when submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment or education;
• submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for academic or employment decisions affecting the individual; or
• such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's academic or professional performance or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment or educational environment.  

More interesting information

FROM: Curt D

TO: 周 艾琳

Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:47 AM

Dear Adeline,

  Hi. I found some new interesting links/information about the student and am attaching a couple files for you. For some reason just after I found her information on Tealit she deleted that ad. She shouldn't have known I saw the ad.

  I also attached the appeal I wrote to the committee's decision. I sent it to the lawyer and he will write the appeal in his words plus some of mine in Chinese.

Regards,

Curtis