The Alternate Universe Of Federal Judges
A U.S. District Judge receives a private reprimand for two years of loud sexual trysts in her chambers - a tenured professor is fired for assigning a reading that used the word "transvestite."
By now, almost everyone has read about Atlanta U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross, who received an inconsequential private reprimand after a law clerk complained about her loud sexual trysts in her chambers with a police officer over a two-year period.
The Judicial Conference of the U.S. told Ross to write a letter of apology to her clerks.
But few have heard about Linda Crawford, a tenured Spanish professor at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island who taught from 2004 to 2022, when she was fired after assigning students to read an article that identified transgender men as “transvestites.”
“Transvestite” is the term that was historically used for men who dress as women, and is still used today in many countries in Latin America.
During a class discussion, Crawford said LGBTQ+ rights “have not evolved to the level such rights have evolved to in the United States.” A student (identified as Student D) objected to the reference to transvestites in the article. Student D rallied a group of fellow students to meet with Modern Languages Department Chair James G. Mitchell to complain. Mitchell encouraged them to submit written statements to the university criticizing Crawford. She was subsequently fired.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Crawford alleging hostile work environment and discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation, age, and religion. Crawford also alleged Mitchell coordinated and inflated the student complaints to retaliate against her for supporting a teacher who had filed a grievance against Mitchell.
The absurdity of Crawford’s situation is obvious.
Many Latin American countries are far less tolerant of LGBTQ+ people than the West. The reading assignment was evidence of this. Crawford teaches about Spanish culture.
‘Ignorant Cis Woman’
Nevertheless, “Student D” wrote a lengthy letter to the Provost “explaining his view that the reading’s use of the word ‘transvestite’ was ‘inappropriate.’” He wrote that “he told Crawford ‘he was a ‘transgender gay man,’ and that because she’s a white straight cis woman,’ she cannot tell him what he finds offensive.’” He also called Prof. Crawford “ignorant.”
Another student wrote that the language of the assigned reading was “triggering” and opined that a “classroom should be a ‘warm and safe space.’”
The “university” then arranged and held a group Zoom meeting where students complained about Crawford’s supposed “offensive language and hateful rhetoric.” Crawford was not informed about the meeting or permitted to participate.
Without even conducting an investigation, the university emailed Crawford a “Notice of Interim Action” that restricted some of her duties.
The university then conducted an expedited “investigation” in which, again, Crawford was not given an opportunity to respond.
On Jan. 3, 2022, the University informed Crawford that her employment was terminated “for cause.” The university essentially said Crawford had a long history of not being able to get along with people.
What Caving Looks Like…
U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy summarily dismissed Crawford’s complaint — without a trial — on the grounds she failed to state a plausible claim. Crawford appealed. A three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit appellate judges upheld the dismissal, finding that Crawford failed to connect the actions of the University (as opposed to the students) with any discrimination she suffered.
The panel writes that Crawford’s complaint “supplies no facts suggesting that the decisionmakers referenced Student D’s language when deciding to fire her, endorsed his characterization of Crawford, or acted for reasons tied to her protected traits.”
The panel wrote that the University supplied “independent reasons” — mainly that she was hard to get along with — which Crawford alleged were pretextual. The panel agreed there were “multiple procedural irregularities” but “that does not mean we must credit Crawford’s unreasonable inferences from it.”
I could go on but, by now, surely you get the idea.
Crawford teaches about Spanish culture. She was fired because a transgender student didn’t like an assigned reading that stated Latin American countries consider men who dress like women to be “transvestites” - a fact that no one disputed.
Judge McElroy and the three appellate judges found vague and unconvincing reasons to ignore the evidence that Crawford was railroaded out of a tenured job by an overly sensitive student, a conniving boss, and a bunch of sniveling bureaucrats.
So now we return to Judge Ross.
Anything Goes?
After the law clerk complained about Ross’s loud sex trysts with a police officer in her chambers, Ross lied to her boss and claimed the clerk was retaliating because she was forced to work in the office. An investigation quickly found that the clerk was telling the truth and that Ross had violated judicial conduct rules.
Instead of firing Ross — as almost any private employer would — the 11th Circuit’s judicial council told Ross to write letters of apology to her clerks. This was affirmed by the national Judicial Conference.
Ross penned a three-line letter of apology for her “harmful” behavior that did not reference the specifics of her misconduct. Apparently, some clerks shared the letters, prompting Ross sent out a revised letter on Thursday.
This time, she wrote to the complaining clerk that she is “profoundly sorry for exposing you to my inappropriate relationship during your clerkship and the harm that I have caused you… I also want to convey my deepest apologies to you for my false accusation against you.”
Double Standard
Does anyone else see a marked difference between the treatment of Professor Crawford and Judge Ross? How do we explain this?
One factor is that federal judges, with lifetime tenure, either have no clue about what it is like to actually work for someone, and/or they fear criticism from the LGBTQ+ community.
The other factor is undoubtedly the federal judiciary’s farcical self-serving system of handing judicial misconduct. Crony judges have conflicts of interest and are no different from police or lawyers. They are demonstrably incapable of policing their own.
Judge Ross lied to Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit about her conduct and tried to blame her clerk. A group of crony judges in the circuit decided this was not significant enough even for suspension. The Judicial Conference agreed.
***I, of course, have experienced this farcical system first hand. If anyone is interested, read this.