Prianka Bose v. Rhodes College

Case 2:16-cv-02308-JTF-tmp Document 120-1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 17 of 146 PageID
1344
EXHIBIT 14 TO TRO Hearing, June 7, 2016
Law Offices
Bl-ack McLaren J'ones Ryland g Griffee
A Professional CorPoration
530 Oak Court Drj,ve, Suite 360
Memphis, Tennessee 3811-7
Telephone 901-? 62-0535
Telecopíer 901-? 62-0539
Brice M. Timmons: !{ebsite:

btimmonê@b.la ckmclaw. com www.BMJRGlâhr.com
Shee rin Mehdi an :

smehdi. anßb1 ac kmclaw. con
.Tanuary 16, 201-6
VI¡\
FacuJ-ty Appeals Committee
Rhodes College
2000 North ParkwaY
Memphis, Tennessee 38112
RE: Prianka Bose
Our File No . 2 685 . 001-
Dear FacultY APPeals Committee:

Prianka Bose (hereinafLer "Ms. Bose") is a junior
neuïoscience major at Rhodes who has demonstrated her moral
integríty and proven herself as an asset of the Rhodes College
community. Ms. Bose has excelled academicaLl-y' has been

accepted for early admission to George Vüashi-ngton School of
Medícine and Heal-th SciencesT and has gualified for a third
round interview for the Truman Foundation scholarship, and has
balanced academics with athletics, by playing on the varsity
tennis team.
1345
Faculty Appeals Committee

.Tanuary16, 20L6
Page 2
It ís unfortunate t.hat she finds herseLf in this

predÍcament before you today. Ms. Bose is a víctim of sexual
harassment and retafiation from Dr. Bea (hereinafter "Dr, Bea").
Dr. Bea has engaged in inappropriate conduct by seeking a
personal relationship outside of the normal bounds of a
student/professor relaticlnship with Ms, Bose. Immediately

followÍng Ms. Bose's decision to politely confront Dr. Bea
consistent with Section VTII (1) of the Rhodes College Sexual
Misconduct Policy, Dr. Bea violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy

by retaliating against Ms. Bose via a basefess allegation of
cheating. The fol-l-owíng points detail Ms. Bose/s grounds for
appeal of the Rhodes Honor CounciL decision on December L1, 2015
to sanction Ms. Bose for allegedly cheating and stealing via
expulsion.
I, RETAI,TATTON FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
A. Introductíon
Bea and Ms. Bose shared a cfose professional relationship.
During the Spring semester of 2015, Dr. Bea acted as a mentor Lo
Ms. Bose. Beginning j-n the summer of 20L5, Dr. Bea began
increasingly to approach Ms. Bose outside of cl-ass or of f ice
hours to discuss matters outsíde the scope of his professional

1346
Facully Appeals Committee

,January 16, 2016
Page 3
roIe, including Ms. Bose/ s romantíc relationships and än
invitation to dinner with him outside of any professional

context. Ms. Bose greu/ uncomfortable with Dr. Bea's advances and
Ms. Boseconfronted Bea to refrain from askíng her personal
questions about her romantic life. Bea retaliated by alleging
that Ms. Bose had cheated in his course presumably to protect
his tenure consideration from being soiled by allegations of
sexual misconduct.
Ms. Bose sustained a concussion after a car accident in
February 201-5. Rhodes placed her under the concussion protocol
for the remainder of the Spring 201-5 semester, and she began
taking her Organic Chemistry I exams and quizzes early in Bea's
office. She continued this pattern of taking quizzes early, as

permitted by Bea's syllabus, throughout her Fall 20L5 Organic
Chemistry II course with Bea.
Bea of fered to \^,rite a letter of recommendation for Ms.
Bose previousty. He also offered her a posítíon as an assístant

in his research lab. Most tetling of the hiqh esteern in whÍch
Bea heLd Ms. Bose was his nomination that she serve as a student
evaluator for his tenure review. Ms. Bose also attended the
1347

January 1-6, 2016
Page 4
majority of Bea's office hours so he coufd help her better

understand the complicated nature of the maLeriaJ-.
Given the length and nature of their professional
relaLionship, it is incredibly uncharacteristíc that Bea woufd
have any reason to suspect Ms, Bose of academic dishonesty. If
he viewed her as a repeat Honor Code violaLor, he would not have
agreed to recommend her, offered her employment, or certainly
not asked her to write him a fetter of recommendation for his
t.enure position. ft hras not until Ms. Bose confronted Bea about
h1u sexual harassment that he completely changed his demeanor
Lowards her. Presumably fearing a sexual harassment cfaim

against him, Bea proceeded to do anything in his pohrer to
faloricate a claim that Ms. Bose had been cheating on every
assignment, stealing from his files, and accessing his computer
wíthout permission, all allegations that. would have had to have
Laken place during Dr. Bea' s of f ice hours when he r^¡as present
and supervising her.
B. History of Inappropriate Conduct from Bea- ,fuly 2015
Ms. Bose hras completing an internship in Memphis and living

on Rhodes campus in the suÍìmer of 2075. One afternoon ín JuIy
2015, Bea ran into Ms. Bose on campus. They chatted about her
1348

January 16, 20L6
Page 5
summer inLernshíp, and he began to ask her many personal

guestions including where she was staying on campus, how she was
spendíng her evenìngs, whether she had friends stayÍng with her
during the sulltmer, and how her reì-ationship with her boyfriend
r^ras. Bea then invited Ms. Bose to dinner with him. Ms. Bose
declined his inviLat3-on, and the conversation ended'
Ms. Bose had never discussed her personnel l-ife with Bea,
and she was surprised that he knew that she had a bolzfriend.
Ms. Bose was so uncomfortable after thls encounter that she
called her mother to tell her about the conversation. Ms. Bose
expressed her discomfort by the stream of personal questions to
her mother Ms. Boset s mother advised Ms. Bose to l-et the
encounter go and keep all meetings with Bea at a professional
l-eveI because Ms. Bose had another class with Bea scheduled for
the next semester.
C. Bea Alvarding Ms. Bose Unfair Grading Advantages

On several occasions throughout the Fall 2015 semester' Bea
awarded Ms. Bose higher marks on guizzes in Organic Chemístry II

couïse than she actuall-y earned. He gave her a grading
advantage he did not offer to other students. For example, Bea
1349

'January 16, 20L6
Page 6
would mark a problem incorrect on Ms. Bose's quizzes, yet he
would not deduct poínts from her final score. Ms, Bose has a
copy of Quiz l- and Quiz 2 on which he graded her in this

fashion
This grading preference is an example of Bea favoring Ms.
Bose and behaving in an inappropriate fashion towards her.

D. Bea Appearing in Ms. Bose/s Lab Section thaù He Does not
Instruct Every $Ieek
Ms. Bose took a lab course in conjunction with her Organic
Chemistry II course. Professor Kimberly Brien taught the fab
couïse. Bea uras not the instructor of the collrse nor had any
reason to be physically present in the laboratory.

As corroborated by Professor Brien and another student who
sat near Ms. Bose in lab, Bea woul-d show up in Ms. Bose's lab
course every week. Bea would exclusively pay attention t.o Ms.
Bose. He wouJ-d correct the l-ab mistakes she made and speak with
her. Bea showed up and behaved in this manner each week in Ms.
Bose's lab course though he had no reason to be present there,

other than to behave inappropriately towards Ms. Bose.
E. History of Inappropriate Conduct from Dr. Bea - November 2015
Around the third rtreek of November 2075, Bea again engaged

1350
Faculty Appeals Commit.tee

January 16, 20L6
Page 7
in inappropriate sexual conduct Lowards Ms. Bose. Ms. Bose was

sitting with â cl-assmate in the Catherine Burrow Refectory
texting on her celf phone. Dr. Bea approached Ms. Bose from
behind, -Ieaned over her shoulder, and abruptly asked her. "fs
that your boyfriend?" before leaving the Refecl,ory. Dr. Bea's
odd behavior shocked Ms. Bose and t.he student with whom she was
sitt.ing who witnessed the entire encounLer.
Feeling uncomfortable with Dr. Bea's ínvasive behavior, and
upon encouragement. by her friend who wí1-nessed the encounter and

her roommate, Ms, Bose resolved to confront Bea. While Rhodes
CoIlege's sexual mísconduct policy advises students of their

right to make formal complaints, Ms. Bose considered her
professional relationship with Dr. Bea to be worth preserving
and believed that takíng "individual- action" was appropriate
under these clrcumstances. t'Individual- actionr" or, in essence,
politely and directly confronting a harasser is outlined in
Rhodes' sexual mj-sconduct policy as an appropriate course of
action in situations of this sort, It is critical to note that
Dr. Bea's allegations of cheating occurred a mere six days after
Ms. Bose confronted Dr. Bea. As sel forth below, Ms. Bose was
noL permltted to introduce evidence of this confrontation in the

1351
Faculty APPeals Committee

January 16, 20:.6
Page 8
Honor Council- hearing, though such testimony exists in affidavít

form and wifl be provided to the appeals councif'
In taking .' j_ndivídual action" Ms. Bose's f riend who
witnessed the encounter accompanied Ms. BoSe to confront Bea'
They encÕuntered hÍm in front of Kennedy, the chemistry

building. Ms. Bose totd Dr. Bea that his questions about her
personal tife and continual ínquiries about her boyfri-end made
her very uncomfortable. Ms. Bose asked Bea to maintain a
strictly professional relationship with her. Bea then stormed
âü¡ay angrily, as witnessed by Ms. Bose's friend'

Immediately after Ms. Bose confronted Bea' Bea stopped
communicating with Ms. Bose and \Îas hostile towards her. Ms '
Bose attempted one final- time to communicaLe with Dr. Bea about
the subject. Six days later Dr. Bea made the accusations under
consideration.
TT. PROCEDI'RJAÍ, ERRORS WIÍH MS. BOSE BOSE' S HONOR COUNCIÏ,
HEARING IN VIOLATION OE. ITONOR COT'NCII, CONSTITUSTON
A. Introduction
Ms. Bose's Honoï council hearing and investigation \^tas
riddled with proced.ural errors and violations of the very Honor
Councif Constitution on whích the Council re1íes for the
1352
Faculty ApPeals Committee

January 16, 20!6
Page 9
justification for its decisi-ons. Ms. Bose was not given a fair
opportunity to present her proof. Additionally, an egregj-ous
error with her proceedings \^¡as that Ms ' Bose v/as given no
explanation for the dlsposition of the Council-merely an email
stating that she had been expelled.
B. Conflict of Interest
According to Article IV, Section (3) (A) (2) of The
Constitution of the Honor Council of Rhodes College ('HC
Constitution"):
The council must act with compl-ete impartiality. Any
Council member who believes that his or her particípation
in any aspect of the investígation or hearing process
constitutes a conftict of interest must report the
potential_ conf l-ict of interest to the Honor council-
President, who shal-l decide whether that member should
recuse himself or herself.
one of the Honor council members, Mf, zaLn virk, should
have recused himsetf from the hearing because he was Bea's
research assistant. Mr. Virk could not have been able Lo do any
justice to Ms. Bose and thi-s hlas borne out ín the hearing
process. Mr. Virk's body language !úas derogatory towards Ms.
Bose a¡d detrimental- to the enli-re hearing process itself,
especially when Ms. Bose and her witnesses spoke. When Ms.
Bose's wi-tnesses spoke about timeframes, Mr. Virk shoolc his head
1353
Faculty Appeals Commíttee

January 16, 2016
Page l-0
openly showing his disagreement with what the witnesses were
saying. His body ìanguage hlas seen by the Honor Council, and
ínfluenced them against the witness.

In another example, Mr. Virk asked Ms, Bose's witness if
Bea had ever said not to use the bottom*top process of reading
lR spectra, to which the witness answered no. To this response
Mr. Virk once again shook his head in dísagreement, witnessed by
everyone at the hearing. This behavior from Mr. Virk totaJ-1y
denied and/or refuted the witness's statement and contributed to

the unfair hearing.
Anticipating that Mr. Virk would be bj.ased, both Ms. Bose
and her parents brought their concerns of Mr. Virk's confl-íct of

j-nterest by notifying Dean Blaisdel-I via text on December L2,
2015. Furthermore, ímmediately after hearing from the witnesses

as to what Mr, Virk was doing to them in the hearing, Ms. Bose's
mother sent a second text to Dean Blaisdell- on December 17, 201,5
whil-e the hearing proceedings were taking place.

In essence, h/ith hÍs qestículations and open disagreement
wíth the witnesses, not only \Îas Mr. Virk acting as a rebuttal
witness himself, he was also testifying for Bea. Mr. Vírk found
himself in a position of defending not only his professor, but
1354
Faculty APpeals Committee

January 16, 2016
Page 11
someone wÍth wh<¡m he has an employee-employer relatíonship' Mr'
Virk served as Bea's advocate throughout the delíberaLions

process, thus skewing the Honor council's ability to make an
impartial decision.
C. Breach of Conf,idential-itY
According to Articl-e IV, Section (2 ) (F) of the HC
Constitution, *Al1 parl-ícipants in the hearing process should
keep the maLter under consideraLion confident iaL'"
fn Bea's to his original complaint statement, he
amenclment
admitted that he spoke to other Chemistry professors about the

specifics of a "private conversation" between himsel-f and Ms.
Bose. The very conversation he alleges Ms. Bose stated she had
with the other professors neveÏ occurred' By merely speaking to
other professors abouL hís allegations, Bea expressed to the
other professors that Ms. Bose was cheating and stealing.
Therefore, Bea blatant.ly violated the Honor code whíIe
bolstering hís allegations against Ms. Bose' Bea's actions
violated the privacy of the Honor Code proceeding and the
inclusion of other ChemÍstry Professors in Bea's âllegations had
undue infl-uence on trre sludents in the Honor council.
1355

January 1-6, 201,6
Page 12
Spêcifically, Bea alleges and stated in the Honor Council

hearing that Ms. Bose obt.ained practice problems from the public
academÍc fol-ders of these two professors. In her statement to
the Honor Council, however, Ms. Bose stated that. she never
obtained information about the bonus questi-ons from these

Chemistry professors-she never spoke to the professors about
practice problems nor did she access their public folders.
Bea/ s rationale for breaking confidentiality by speaking
to these professors is therefore unproven. However, even if Ms.
Bose had spoken to the professors or accessed their public

fol-der, Bea would stil-1 have been precluded from speaking wiLh
anyone as to fotlow the confidentiality requirement of the HC
Constitution cited above.
D. Dísruptive Behavior of Dr. Bea j.n Hearing

According to Article IV, Section (3) (A) (4) of the HC
Constitution, "Disruptive behavior on the part of anyone present

shall result in immedíate and permanent removal from the
hearing. "
lrlhen Ms. Bose/ s wítnesses testified, Bea was very
aggressive while asking questions. His aggressiveness inhibited
Ms. Bose's witnesses from compÌeting their statements or from
1356

.Tanuary 1-6, 20:-.6
Page f3
providing complete responses to questions due to Bea's constant

interruptions and multiple outbursts. This intimidation tactic
was seen and heard by the Honor Council n¡embers and his
outbursts coufd be heard by Ms. Bose's parents and witnesses who
were sitting outside the hearing room'
After one witness, Mtatthew, finished testifying' the Honor
councit president, Regan Adolph, actual-1y apologized to the
wiLness in front of Ms. Bose's parents for Bea's aggressive
behavior. Ms. Adol-f apologized that Bea's hostility and
constant interruptions toward the wiLness prevented him from
fully answering questions.

As a result of Bea's oulbursts, the witnesses were not able
to fully on i:ehalf of Ms. Bose. Bea's constant
testify
interruptions are very apparent in the hearing transcripL'
Additionally, when Ms. Bose questioned Bea, he responded with
sarcasm and did not answer her queslions. HiS most conìmon
anshrer to Ms. Bose/s questions wAS "r dO not remember."
Bea also presented new evidence during the hearing that he

did not submit duríng hís investígation. No one' including the
Honor CounciL knew that Bea would present this evídence' He
introduced a low grade that Ms. Bose had made on Midterm 3 in
1357

January L6, 201'6
Page L4
order to make a sweeping allegation that Ms. Bose lacked a

mastery of organÍc chemistry. Bea displayed Ms. Bose's test
around the Honor Council Lo prove that Ms. Bose had no aptítude
for the subject. He used this piece of nertl evídence to build
his case that Ms. Bose must have been cheatíng during the entire
course.
It is imPortant to note that Ms Bose earned the grade of
an A in her Organic ChemistrY lab course The lab course

corresponds with the materíal of Bea's cl-ass, Yet was taught by
Professor Brien. Since Ms. Bose performed all of the i-ab
funct ions, quizzes, and Lests in front of Professor Brien, there
is no that Bea coufd accuse Ms. Bose of cheating in lab.
\ntay
Furthermore, Professor Brien prepared a sv/orn affidaviL stating

ivs. Bose,s aptitude and A grade in the Organic Chemistry lab
course.
E. tack of Evidenc€ on Doetored Grade sheet AJ"J-egation
Bea's accusation that Ms. Bose changed her grading sheet

for the grades marked is absurd and unfounded: Ms. Bose had no
knowledge that Bea kept a physical copy of his grade sheet. She
al-so had no know knowledge of where he stored this grade sheet.
Additionally, the alleged individual grade changes would
1358
Faculty Appeals Cornmittee

.ranuary i-6, 20t.6
Page 15
not have made any difference in Ms. Bose's final grade for the
class, Therefore, she would have gained absolutely zerQ
Íncrease in her final grade by changing the grade sheet, as Bea
alleges.
F. Lack of, Adherênce to the Proper Impartial Role of the Honor
CounciL President
According to Artj-cle II, section 4 of the HC constitution,
..The President shalt decide questions of procedure and
interpretations arising under the constitution t, .I the
President's role in the hearing and ín deliberations shall
be one of impartial participation, and the President shall-
not vote. "
Throughout the hearing Process, Presídent Regan Adolf
faíIed to adhere io the HC Constitution Vùhile she was supposed
to serve as a neutrat facilitator of the hearing, she asked

questíons throughout the procêss- Ms. Adolf also demonstrated a
l-ack of knowledge with the provisions of the HC Constitution.
signif icantly, Ms . Adotf pressed Ms . Bose to anst'úer the
quest,ion of whether Ms. Bose befieved that Bea bras telling the
truth throughout the hearing process. Ms. Bose expressed that

she did not. wish to make any accusatíons of lying and had
refraíned from using any such hard language i-hroughout any of
her testimony. Ms. Bose attempted to deftect Ms. Adolphfs
1359
Faculty Appeal-s Committee

.fanuary 16, 2076
Page 16
question to show deference to Bea and to avoid name calling

during the hearing. Ms. Adolf repeated her question of whether
Ms. Bose thought Bea \^¡as lying several times, and Ms. Bose
stated she was uncomfortable answerì-ng the question. Finally,

Ms. Adolf flatly asked Ms. Bose if she was refusing to answer
the question, to which Ms. Bose answered she wâs. Ms. Adolf
exceeded the bounds of her role as one of "i-mpartíal
participation" by her barrage of guestions to lvls. Bose.
G. Failure to Permit Ms. Bose to present evidence.

Ms. Bose attempted to present witnesses on her behalf,
advising Ms. Adolf that she had wiLnesses who would t.estify with
regard to Dr. Bea's sexua]- harassment. Ms Adolf refused to
aflow Ms. Bose to present this key evidence by telling Ms. Bose
that the time for witnesses had passed. Ms. Adolf thereby
precluded Ms, Bose from presenting a vital component of her
evidence. Without the abitíty to demonstrate that Dr Beat s
allegations were retaliatory, the ent.ire proceeding was reduced
to a professor demanding that twelve students, includíng his

research assistant, take his word over that of a student. Thís
procedural decision deprived Ms. Bose of any semblance of a fair

1360

January 16, 20L6
Page 11
hearing
III. FAILURE OF HONOR COUNCIT TO MEET CLEAR
AlfD CONVTCING STAI.TDARD
According to Articl-e IV, Section (2) (G) of the HC Constitution,

"The Council may find the Accused \In Violation' of ìClear
the Honor
Code only upon cfear and convincing evidence. and
convincing evidence' is an intermediate standard of proof,
greater than 'by a preponderance of evidence,' but less than
'beyond a reasonable doubt.'"
Based on the definition above, as well as the legal definitíon
of "clear and convincing evidencer " an accllsation must be híghly
and substantiatly more probable to be true than not and the
trier of fact must have a firm bel-ief or conviction in its
f actualit'y. . This standard cannot be meL by the evidence
present.
SpecificaÌly, the only evidence presented ât the Honor
Council hearing was a "fake" answer key that Bea created. The
Council- had no meâns of assessing when Bea made the answer key
or of assessing its valÍdity other than Beat s o\ilrn self -serving
assertions.
Other than the fake answer k.y, the only evidence of
cheating presented was Bea's testímony, much of which was mere
supposition. I.or example, Bea testj-fied that because Ms. Bose
1361

January 16, 2OL6
Page 1"8
made a low grade on one tesl that she shoul-d not have been abl-e
to perform well on other tests. Bea claimed to have suspected
Ms. Bose of cheating for a long period of time, yet durinq that
time period he hlas offering to assist her with employment
opportunities and continuing to mentor her closely, acts
inconsistent with a student that he suspected of cheating. Bea's
supposed .'smoking gun" \^7as a f ake anshrer key that he cJaimed
bOre too StrOng a resemblance tO Ms. Bose's aCtual ans\^rer key.
Bea cLaimed to have placed this key on his compuLer for Ms. Bose
to fínd if she accessed his computer during his office hours.
First, Ms. Bose never had an opport,unity to do thÍs. Second, the
keys are not identical nor completely wrong. Bea never
ans\,\rer
claimed to have directly witnessed cheating, nor did anyone

corroboraLe hís testimony. Neither indivj-dual" invofved is more
intrinsically trustworthy than the other. It was the

responsibílíty of the Council to maintain Ms. Bose's innocence
unless they could find that Bea's accusations were highly and
substantially more probable to be true than not. Basing their
entire sanction around the extremely limited evidence and
testimony fails to meet the clear and convincing evidence
1362

January 1-6, 20L6
Page L9
standard necessary to uphold any sanction, Iet alone a sancLion

so severe as expulsion.
IV. IACK OE .AIi¡Y PUBI,TSHED REASONING RATIONATJE OR
OPTNION EXPTAINING THE ENSTATED SANTTON
When Ms. Bose hlas informed of her sanction of expulsion,

she received no explanation of the Honor Council's reasoning for
the determinati-on. Ms. Adolf email-ed Ms. Bose on December 18,
20L5 and stated,

"After a careful review of the facts, the Council has
determined you 'fn Violation' of stealing and tIn
Violatíon' of cheating. Your víolatíon has resuJ-ted in the
foll-owing sanctions : Expuls.ion. "
The Honor Council failed to provide Ms. Bose with any
written opinion stating the basis for their determinaLion. Me

Bose received â harsh sanction that expelled her from college,
and in essence' revoked her earlY acceptance to medical school,
without being given anY insight as to the basis of the Councif's
r{ecision.
The l-ack of any formaf opinion of fact or reasoning
supporting the Council's disposition, along with the
deliberations portion of the hearing not being recordedr left
Ms. Bose without any understandì-ng of how the Council reached
it.s decision. She has no Ìîay of knowíng what evidence t.he
1363

January 16, 2016
Page 20
Council did or did not consider, how Mr. Virk/s bías played ínto
the delíberations, and how active Ms. Adolf's rol-e htas to s\Áray
the Council-.
As a result of the faiLure of the Honor Council- to adhere
to its oh/n Constitution, polícíes and procedures, Ms. Bose
requests that this appeal-s committee recornmend a reversal of t,he
Honor Councif's sanction.
Sincerely,
rï,vrUÅ¡dÅ
Brice M. Timmons, €se.
Sheerin Mehdían, esq.
On Behalf of Prianka Bose
BMT/SM/c1w
1364
ÁT}FIDAYIT
having firsf been duly swom by the unclcrsignecl officer, duly authorizrd to administer
oåths. ståtes as follows:
L My namc is
2. I rnake this Afliclavit based on my own personâl knowlcdgc of thc rnattcrs described herein.
i. I a,n nfsftrclent at Rhodes College, located st 2000 Norlh Parkrvay, Memphis, TN 38t 12.
4. I am over the legal age of rnajority and competetrt in all tespecls to make this Affidavit.
5. I anr rcsideut of the State of Tenllessee, County of Shelby.
6. I anr af Majorzurdlr4inor.
7. I give tlris al'lìdavit bsset| on my personal knowletlge regarding issues pertaining to Prianka Bose who is
a fcllow Str¡dent at Rhocles College,
8. I live on Rhodes dormitory rvhich is located on Rhodes Canrpus.
L I n'as of' Prianka Bose in Fall Senlester of 201 5
I 0. We rvorkedfon outlAssignmcnrs.
I l. The profbssor who i¡lstructed and supervised our lab course is Dr. Kinlberly Brien, Ph.D,
12. On rnultiple occasions I rvitnessecl Dr. Bea who was not our Lab Instructot'cotne into the Lab and
approach Prianka to check what shc rvas doirrg and atlcmpt to assist her.
13. I witnessetl Dr. Bea come into every lab and I cannot re¡nenrber that he went to other students but he
always rvent and gave Priankû g lot morcr allention.
Sworrr to antl subscribed to me on this lZth tlay ol'January, 2016
MY C:OMMISSION ËXPIRES: (3*{- crÇ . ? rrlS
Notary Public
1367
ÅFFTDAVIT
Ihaving lìrst been tluly srvom by the undersigned offìcer, duly authoLizcd to administer
oaths, states as follows:
l. My natne is
2, I make this AfTidavit based on my o\ryn personâl knowledge oltlte nratters described hercin.
3, I am alstudcnt nt Rhodes College, located åt 2000 Nor"th Parku'ay, Memphis,'lN 381 12.
4. I arn over the legal age of rnajority and conìpetent in all respects to make fhis Àllidavit,
5. I am resident of the State of 'Iennessee, County of Shelhy.
6. I am afMajor unol Major.
7. I give this affidavit based on rny personal knowledgc rcgarding issues peftaining to Prianka Bose rvho is
a lbllow Student at Rhodes College,
8. I live on lUrodes donnitory rvhich is located on Rhodes Cantpus'
9. I have been for the past two yeats.
10. So¡netime in November 2015 Prianka tolcl me about an incident rvith her Chemistry pncfessor, Dr. Bea.
I l. Prianka infor¡ncd ¡ne that f)r. Bea came up to lrer in thc Rat room and asked her about her boyfriend.
12. Upon hearing åhout it. I told her to infbrnt s{Jmeone with authc¡rity and tepoft the incident.
FURTI{E,R AFFIAN'I' SAYËI}I NOT.
Sworn to ancl subscríbed to me on this l2tl' clay of January, ?01 6'
MY C0À,I!r4ISSION EXPIRES: O'1: c:-9-k!$
Notary
1369
It¡tID¿tYIT
S1-ATI! OF TËNNËSSEE
CÕUN'TY OF SIIELBY
having first been duly su,onr by the undersigned officer, duly authorized
to ndnlinister oatlts, states as follows:
l. Ivly nanre is
2 I nlake this Affidavit based on lny own psrsonnl knorvledge of the urattct's
describecl hcteiu.
lanrafStt¡clelrttrttìhodesCollcgc,tocatedat2000NortltPnrkway,
Menrpltis, TN 38t 12.
4 I a¡n over the legal age ol'rlajority and conrpetent in all respects to make this
¡\fhdavit.
5 I a¡n resident of tlre State of TennessËe, County of Shelby.
6 I am af N{ajorunof Minor.
7 I gir,e this alTìdavit basetl on nìy personãrl lcnowledge regarding issues pertaining
to Prianka Bose (hereinafter "Prianka"), who is a fellow Student at Rhodcs
College.
L I live in the l(hodes donnitory which is located on Rhodes' c¡unpus.
9. I havc my rneals at the Rhodes Refeclory, r,vhich is located on Nrodes' ca¡npus.
10, In Novcrnber 2015^ I rvas waiting rvith Prirnfta on the sofa in the lounge of the
Refectory r,vaitirrg ft:r another friend to join us for lurch.
1 l. Both Prianka and I u'crc busy looking al our cell ¡rhones.
12. During lhat time, a Chemistry Professor, I)r. Ilea, approached Pri¿rnka ftarn the
side and abruptly asked her, "Are you textirrg your boyf'riend?" and then hc
walkcd arvay.
13. Prior to this incident, Prianka had spoken to ne about sinilar conduct orr Dr.
Bca's part a¡rd advised me tltat she n'as unconlfoilable wilh his conduct, As a
result, specilìcally, she stated that Dr. Bea had asked her out to dimer in,
.lllpår1]ntly, a personal context.
14. I lbund Dr. Bea's actio¡rs s(rauge a¡rd out of place.

1370
t5 I told Prianka that Dr. Be¡'s actions \\Ìere odd and that shc had to do sometltirtg
about it.
ló. I encouragcd Priauka to repott this incident to someons.
t7. I acconrpanied Prianl<a when slre appruached Dr. Bea to tell him that she was lrol.
conrfortable rvith his advances into her perconal life nnd space. I observetl the
co¡rvers¿rtion fronr neartry.
t8. Aller their co¡rversrìtion, I sarv I)r. Bea angrily rvalk away, anel Pria¡rka joined me
to rvalk back to our l'oolìl.
FIJRTI-IËR AFFIA}fT SAYHTI-I NOT
SWCIRN TO AND SUBSCRIBED trefore nre on this l2tl' clay of January, 2016.
"f.,{
ij 'lTr tË
*t;
TËf$¡l[5ä[ä
MÛTERY
ÊuBr.ti;
h$ tor¡ìrû, å¡+. -t 2-18

Prianka Bose v. Rhodes College

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Prianka Bose v. Rhodes College

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:16-cv-02308-JTF-tmp Document 120-1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 17 of 146 PageID

Brice M. Timmons: !{ebsite:

Shee rin Mehdi an :

.Tanuary 16, 201-6

Dear FacultY APPeals Committee:

community. Ms. Bose has excelled academicaLl-y' has been

Faculty Appeals Committee

It ís unfortunate t.hat she finds herseLf in this

personal relationship outside of the normal bounds of a

student/professor relaticlnship with Ms, Bose. Immediately

consistent with Section VTII (1) of the Rhodes College Sexual

Misconduct Policy, Dr. Bea violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy

increasingly to approach Ms. Bose outside of cl-ass or of f ice

hours to discuss matters outsíde the scope of his professional

Facully Appeals Committee

roIe, including Ms. Bose/ s romantíc relationships and än

invitation to dinner with him outside of any professional

taking her Organic Chemistry I exams and quizzes early in Bea's

office. She continued this pattern of taking quizzes early, as

Bose previousty. He also offered her a posítíon as an assístant

Faculty Appeals Committee

majority of Bea's office hours so he coufd help her better

h1u sexual harassment that he completely changed his demeanor

Lowards her. Presumably fearing a sexual harassment cfaim

Ms. Bose hras completing an internship in Memphis and living

Faculty Appeals Committee

summer inLernshíp, and he began to ask her many personal

C. Bea Alvarding Ms. Bose Unfair Grading Advantages

awarded Ms. Bose higher marks on guizzes in Organic Chemístry II

Faculty Appeals Committee

would mark a problem incorrect on Ms. Bose's quizzes, yet he

copy of Quiz l- and Quiz 2 on which he graded her in this

Bose and behaving in an inappropriate fashion towards her.

reason to be physically present in the laboratory.

Bose's lab course though he had no reason to be present there,

Around the third rtreek of November 2075, Bea again engaged

Faculty Appeals Commit.tee

in inappropriate sexual conduct Lowards Ms. Bose. Ms. Bose was

sitt.ing who witnessed the entire encounLer.

Feeling uncomfortable with Dr. Bea's ínvasive behavior, and

upon encouragement. by her friend who wí1-nessed the encounter and

CoIlege's sexual mísconduct policy advises students of their

noL permltted to introduce evidence of this confrontation in the

Faculty APPeals Committee

Honor Council- hearing, though such testimony exists in affidavít

witnessed the encounter accompanied Ms. BoSe to confront Bea'

They encÕuntered hÍm in front of Kennedy, the chemistry

âü¡ay angrily, as witnessed by Ms. Bose's friend'

Faculty ApPeals Committee

Constitution of the Honor Council of Rhodes College ('HC

Faculty Appeals Commíttee

openly showing his disagreement with what the witnesses were

ínfluenced them against the witness.

Mr. Virk once again shook his head in dísagreement, witnessed by

everyone at the hearing. This behavior from Mr. Virk totaJ-1y

denied and/or refuted the witness's statement and contributed to

and her parents brought their concerns of Mr. Virk's confl-íct of

2015. Furthermore, ímmediately after hearing from the witnesses

mother sent a second text to Dean Blaisdell- on December 17, 201,5

whil-e the hearing proceedings were taking place.

Faculty APpeals Committee

someone wÍth wh<¡m he has an employee-employer relatíonship' Mr'

Virk served as Bea's advocate throughout the delíberaLions

admitted that he spoke to other Chemistry professors about the