Jackson v. Wright
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:21-CV-00033 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 2022 |
| Parties | TIMOTHY JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. LAURA WRIGHT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt #8). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings the Court finds the motion should be DENIED.
This case stems from the suppression of academic scholarship at the University of North Texas (“UNT”). UNT is a public institution that hales itself as an academy through which students and faculty may, among other things “publish . . . and/or display their scholarship freely as appropriate to their respective UNT-assigned roles and responsibilities” (Dkt. #1 Exhibit V at p. 18). But as the Plaintiff in this matter is now aware, pressures from offended constituents can overshadow promises of academic freedom.
Plaintiff Dr. Timothy Jackson is a professor and scholar of music theory at UNT (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 60-61). He has dedicated much of his 40-year career to studying Heinrich Schenker (“Schenker”), an Austrian Jew who developed a system of music theory that became influential in the United States after World War II (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 36, 38-42). Prior to this lawsuit, UNT was home to, and Plaintiff directed, the Center for Schenkerian Studies (the “Center”) (Dkt. #1 at p. 3). Plaintiff was also a founding member of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies (the “Journal”), which was formerly published by the UNT Press (Dkt. #1 at p. 3).
Plaintiff's area of expertise became a topic of controversy in November 2019 at a convention of the Society for Music Theory. Philip Ewell, a Black professor at Hunter College of the City University of New York, delivered for the Society a plenary address titled “Music Theory's White Racial Frame” (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 30-31). During this talk Professor Ewell critiqued the discipline of music theory for its “deep-seated whiteness” and described Schenker as “an ardent racist and German nationalist” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 33). In a paper later published on this talk, Professor Ewell argued that “Schenkerian theory is an institutionalized racial structure . . . that exists to benefit members of the dominant white race of music theory” (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 31, 34).
As a lead editor of the Journal (of which Schenker is the namesake), Plaintiff-with the help of his colleagues and his assistant editor, Levi Walls-organized a symposium and invited music scholars to submit papers in response to Professor Ewell's talk and publication (Dkt. #1 ¶ 44). The Journal sent a call for papers to members of the Society for Music Theory, including Professor Ewell (Dkt. #1 ¶ 44). Walls assisted with the symposium in nearly every aspect, from its inception to its publication. Notably, the idea for the symposium originated in an email chain between Plaintiff and Walls (Dkt. #1 Exhibit A).
The symposium contributions reflected a range of views on Professor Ewell's arguments and were published in the Journal in July 2020 (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 44-45). Plaintiff contributed one of the pieces, which accuses Professor Ewell of quoting Schenker without context, failing to discuss the evolution of Schenker's views on race during his lifetime, and refusing to acknowledge that Schenker was a victim of anti-Semitism (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 46-49). Plaintiff also suggested Professor Ewell's criticisms of Schenker might themselves have constituted anti-Semitism. In support of this contention, Plaintiff cited studies purportedly classifying Black people as more likely to hold antiSemitic views than whites (Dkt. #1 ¶ 50). Plaintiff closed his article by asserting that the paucity of African American involvement in music theory discipline results from “few grow[ing] up in homes where classical music is profoundly valued, and therefore . . . lack[ing] the necessary background” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 51).
The backlash was swift. Professors across the country circulated emails and “led [a] social media charge” condemning the symposium (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 53-54). The Executive Board of the Society for Music Theory issued a letter, stating, among other things, “[t]he conception and execution of [the] symposium failed to meet the ethical, professional, and scholarly standards of our discipline” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 54). Further, a number of UNT graduate students circulated a statement (the “Student Statement”) denouncing the Journal's “platforming of racist sentiments” and calling for potential removal of Plaintiff from the Journal for his “actions . . . both past and present” that were “particularly racist and unacceptable” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 55). One defendant in this case published the Student Statement on her Twitter feed (Dkt. #1 ¶ 56). In response, a majority of Plaintiff's colleagues in UNT's Division of Music History, Theory, and Ethnomusicology signed a letter endorsing the Student Statement and included a link for viewers to access it (Dkt. #1 ¶ 57). In addition, John Richmond, Dean of the College of Music at UNT, announced the College of Music's launch of a “formal investigation into the conception and production of the twelfth volume of the Journal” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 58). UNT officials formed an ad hoc panel (the “Panel”) to carry out this investigation (Dkt. #1 ¶ 58).
When the backlash began, Walls himself was “confused about what exactly people want” because they “seem[ed] to be speculating about the [J]ournal without actually reading it” (Dkt. #1 Exhibit S at p. 1). He further expressed that “the [J]ournal printed every response” it received, and the editors “emphasized in the [call for papers] that [they] wanted a wide range of views” (Dkt. #1 Exhibit S at p. 1).[1]
Despite what Plaintiff and (initially) Walls believed about the Journal's publication process, the Panel issued a report (the “Report”) in which it found the Journal did not observe “the standards of best practice in scholarly publication” in producing Volume 12 and, accordingly, made recommendations the Journal was expected to implement (Dkt. #1 ¶ 59). Provost Jennifer Cowley then sent Plaintiff a letter instructing him “to develop a plan to address the recommendations . . . and submit the plan to Chair Benjamin Brand and Dean John Richmond for review and approval” by a particular date (Dkt. #1 ¶ 59). A portion of the recommendations included: of the Journal; (Dkt. #1 Exhibit D at p. 4). Notably, Provost Cowley did not send the letter to any other faculty members associated with the Journal (Dkt. #1 Exhibit 1 ¶ 144).
Prior to the plan submission deadline, Dr. Brand, Chair of Plaintiff's department, “informed [Plaintiff] that he would be removed from the Journal and that the university would eliminate resources previously provided to the Journal and Center for Schenkerian Studies” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 60). Dr. Brand stated he “c[ould] not support a plan according to which [Plaintiff] would remain involved in the day-to-day operations of the [J]ournal, and its editorial process in particular, given the panel's findings of editorial mismanagement” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 61).
A week later, Plaintiff submitted his response (the “Response”) to Dr. Brand and Dean Richmond, addressing the Panel's findings, proposing a plan, and defending his actions and reputation. Plaintiff “plan[ned] to remain on the editorial board of the [Journal], albeit in a role that [would] ward[] off accusations recently leveled at the [Journal] of alleged ‘power imbalance'” (Dkt. #1 Exhibit V at p. 2). Plaintiff expressed that, “to protect academic freedom and also prevent pretextual abrogation of that right, ” it had become “absolutely necessary that the editor-in-chief be a full time, tenured faculty member whether at UNT or at an outside institution” (Dkt. #1 Exhibit V at pp. 4, 19). Plaintiff concluded his Response by indicating he would not be forced to resign from the Journal's editorial board but “look[ed] forward to a positive outcome of [the] ad hoc process by implementing the points recommended by the Panel” (Dkt. #1 Exhibit V at p. 22).
Since then, the Journal has been “on ice.”[2] No editorial board currently exists, and no one has applied for the position of editor-in-chief. Because of this indefinite suspension, Plaintiff has been de facto removed from the Journal.
Following these events, Plaintiff filed suit against two groups of defendants (collectively, “Defendants”): (1) members of the Board of Regents of UNT in their official capacities (the “Board Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the First Amendment; and (2) signatories of the Student Statement for defamation (the “Defamation Defendants”). As against the Board Defendants, Plaintiff seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 15, 2021, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #8) asserting first, that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and, second, that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed a response on April 12, 2021 (Dkt. #16). On April 19, 2021, Defendants filed their reply (Dkt. #21). On October 29, 2021, the Court held a hearing (the “Hearing”) to make factual findings that would dictate whether the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case. After the Hearing, Plaintiff filed supplemental briefing (Dkt. #44).
The Court will briefly summarize the facts as developed at the Hearing. Both Plaintiff and Dr. Brand, on behalf of UNT testified about the aftermath of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial