CONFIDENTIAL

INVESTIGATION REPORT

Issue: Possible Violation of SPG 201.89

Sexual Harassment

Complainant: Rebecca Gill

Former Student
Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research
Institute for Social Research

Respondent: William Jacoby

Adjunct Faculty Associate
Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research
Institute for Social Research

Investigator: Elizabeth Seney

Senior Investigator & Deputy Title IX Coordinator

Date: July 26, 2018

Recipients: David A. Lam

Director
Institute for Social Research

Copies to: R. Gill

W. Jacoby
S. Blair
J. Frumkin
 Contents
The Investigation Process ............................................................................................................... 1
The Allegations at Issue .................................................................................................................. 3
Complainant................................................................................................................................ 3
Respondent’s Response to the Complainant’s Allegations ......................................................... 5
Witness Comments Regarding the Complainant’s Allegations .................................................. 9
Other Concerns ............................................................................................................................. 12
Concerns Involving Witness 1 ................................................................................................... 12
Concerns Involving Witness 3 ................................................................................................... 13
Other Relevant Witness Comments ........................................................................................... 13
Other Evidence.............................................................................................................................. 13
Interviews of Recent Students ................................................................................................... 13
Relevant Disciplinary History................................................................................................... 14

ii
 The Investigation Process
OIE first learned of this matter on January 8, 2018, when it received information about the
concerns from Dr. Margaret Levenstein, Director, ICPSR. On January 9, 2019, OIE was
contacted by a Senior Investigator at Michigan State University (MSU), who provided the
Complainant’s name, and the next day, her contact information. I subsequently reached out to the
Complainant to request an interview.

I interviewed the Complainant on January 11, 2018. Prior to her interview, I discussed OIE’s
investigation process, ensured she was aware of the University’s prohibition on retaliation, and
offered her the opportunity to ask any questions she might have before her interview began.
After her interview, I sent the Complainant a draft summary of her statement to review for
accuracy and completeness. The Complainant’s comments and suggestions were reviewed and
relevant and clarifying information was added to her statement.

During her interview, I asked the Complainant if there were any witnesses or documents she
wished me to consider in this investigation. The Complainant identified Witnesses 4, 5, and 6 as
potentially having relevant information related to her concerns. We also discussed that due to the
public nature of her disclosure, she may be contacted by other individuals with concerns. As a
result, I asked her to share my contact information with anyone she may become aware of with
concerns related to any program at UM, and to identify any such individuals to me if she felt
comfortable doing so.

Following her interview, the Complainant provided me with contact information for Witness 1
and Witness 2, and I interviewed them.1 Throughout the investigation, in various ways and from
various sources, I learned of several other individuals identified as potentially having similar
concerns regarding the Respondent, with varying degrees of information about the specific
concerns and identities of those people. For example, Witness 3 contacted OIE during this
investigation, and was interviewed.

All witnesses who were interviewed were provided with relevant information prior to their
interview; specifically, they were told of OIE’s neutrality, how information would be used; and
the prohibition against retaliation. Each was provided the opportunity to ask questions before
their interview, and each was provided with a draft summary of their own statement and given
the opportunity to provide any feedback. Any feedback provided was reviewed and considered,
and relevant and clarifying information was incorporated into the summaries as appropriate.
Some witnesses provided information that is not relevant to the Complainant’s allegations, and
that information is not contained in this report.

1
Witness 1 also identified Witness 2 as potentially having relevant information.

1
I also learned that there may be others with similar concerns whose names and contact
information were not provided to me (e.g., the Complainant provided names only of those people
who gave her permission to do so; Witness 1 referenced a rumored concern involving the
Respondent and a former graduate student at another institution, but she did not know the name
of the former student and did not provide contact information for the person she said told her of
the concern). While these particular individuals were unidentified and thus unable to be
interviewed, OIE determined that it would be appropriate to contact recent students in ICPSR to
learn whether there may be additional, more recent concerns regarding the Respondent. OIE
interviewed ten students, primarily women, who took the Respondent’s course at ICPSR between
2015 and 2017. OIE also interviewed ten other students, primarily women, who had taken other
courses in ICPSR with other faculty during the same time frame. None of these twenty students
raised or reported any concerns regarding the Respondent.

As noted above, the Complainant also requested that I speak with Witnesses 4, 5, and 6
regarding knowledge they may have of her specific concerns. I interviewed Witnesses 4 and 5.
The Complainant did not provide and I was unable to obtain contact information for Witness 6,
so Witness 6 was not interviewed.

Once it appeared that all potential witnesses and individual with concerns with concerns were
identified to OIE, I then contacted the Respondent via email on April 19, 2018, requesting to
speak with him and identifying the general nature of the allegations. I did not receive an
immediate response, and on April 23, 2018, I sent the same email to the Respondent again using
his MSU email address. In these emails, I shared with the Respondent the Information for
Respondents, the University’s Sexual Harassment Policy, SPG 201.89 (“the Policy”), and the
Procedural Guidelines for Handling Discrimination and Harassment Complaints. I also
requested to set up two meetings regarding this matter. The purpose of the first meeting was to
discuss the policy, procedures and disclose the allegations. The purpose of the second meeting
was for the Respondent to have the opportunity to respond to the allegations. I advised the
Respondent in this email of his option to have a support person/advisor, including an attorney,
present at any and all meetings/calls with OIE. Based on the availability of the Respondent and
his advisor, the meetings were initially scheduled for May 22nd and May 23rd; however, on May
4th, they advised that they would be able to meet earlier and the meetings were scheduled for
May 10th and May 11th.

I first met with Respondent on May 10, 2018, at which time his support person, attorney John
Shea, was also present. Respondent was advised that he is not required to participate in an
interview and/or provide information. I informed the Respondent of the policy and the process,
and advised him not to take any retaliatory action against any individuals involved in this
matter. We thoroughly discussed the points raised in the Information for Respondents document
that had previously been shared with the Respondent via email. I provided the Respondent with
hard copies of the Information for Respondents document, the Policy, and the Procedural
Guidelines for Handling Discrimination and Harassment Complaints. I also provided the
2
Respondent the opportunity to ask any questions he might have. I then advised the Respondent of
the specific allegations, and offered him another opportunity to ask questions. The Respondent
requested to provide information in response to the allegations during that meeting, and at his
request, the May 11th meeting was cancelled.

On the same date, the Respondent requested that I interview Witnesses 7, 8, and 9, who I
contacted and interviewed. As other witnesses were, each of these witnesses were provided with
a draft summary of their own statement and offered the opportunity to provide any feedback
within two business days. As with others, any feedback provided was reviewed considered, and
relevant and clarifying information was incorporated as appropriate.

During May 2018, two additional individuals, Witness 10 and Witness 11, contacted OIE and
indicated they wished to share information they believed to be relevant. Witness 10 was
interviewed, with the above described information provided to him/her in advance of his/her
interview and this witness also had an opportunity to review a draft summary of his/her own
statement and provide any feedback. Witness 10 indicated that she intended to review the
statement and provide feedback, but to date, has not provided any feedback. Witness 11 asked to
re-schedule his/her interview due to a family medical concern, and then stopped responding
during the process of re-scheduling. As a result, Witness 11 was never interviewed.

I provided the Respondent with a draft summary of his statement on May 21, 2018, and he was
offered the opportunity to submit any feedback within two business days, by May 23, 2018. The
Respondent provided feedback on May 23, 2018. The Respondent’s feedback was reviewed and
considered, and clarifying and relevant information was incorporated into the statement as
appropriate.

The Allegations at Issue

Complainant

The Complainant stated that in November 2001, when she was a graduate student at Michigan
State University (MSU), she met the Respondent while presenting a paper at a conference and
during the conference. She said that he told her that her paper was interesting, and encouraged
her to take his course during the ICPSR Summer Program. The Complainant noted that this was
a common way for MSU graduate students in her field to fulfill their methods requirement, and
she did so the following summer, 2002.

The Complainant stated that she took the Respondent’s course at the ICPSR Summer Program
between late July through mid-August 2002. She said that she was aware at that time that the
Respondent was planning to leave the University of South Carolina and joining the faculty at
MSU in the fall 2003, in the same department in which the Complainant was studying. She said
that during the Summer Program course, their interactions were limited to the course content and
3
they may have discussed methodology related to her dissertation. The Complainant said that it
was common for Summer Program students and faculty to get together at a nearby pub at the end
of ICPSR to debrief and socialize. The Complainant said that she went with two other students,
Witness 5 and Witness 6, and sat with them at the bar. The Complainant said that she was seated
across the table from Witness 5 and next to the Respondent. She noted that she had
approximately two beers while there, and the Respondent was also drinking alcohol, though she
did not know how much he had to drink.

The Complainant said she and the Respondent began talking and noted that it “seemed normal
until it wasn’t.” She said that they were discussing the prospect of the Respondent serving on her
dissertation committee, and he made it clear that it would be good for her career to be associated
with him because he had a significant journal editorship and an established reputation in the
field. She said that from there, the conversations “went off the rails quickly,” when the
Respondent said, “I remember from the first time I saw you, you were so mysterious.” She said
that he made comments along those lines for a moment or two, and then asked, “Would you
consider having an affair with me?” the Complainant said that although there were a number of
people present, most were engaged in side conversations and likely did not hear, but Witness 5
did hear the Respondent’s question and Witness 5 immediately stood up and said, “We need to
go.” The Complainant said that she stood up as well, and told the Respondent, “You can’t
possibly expect me to answer that.” She said that she, Witness 5, and Witness 6 left the bar at
that time, and when they got outside, Witness 5 said, “I can’t believe he just said that,” and then
repeated the Respondent’s comment, “Would you consider having an affair with me?” The
Complainant said that Witness 6 was present for this conversation, but she does not believe he
heard the Respondent’s comment at the time it occurred.2

The Complainant said that she was shocked by this incident. She said that it felt “out of
nowhere” as there had been no flirtation between the two prior to that conversation. Further, she
explained that earlier in the conversation they had been discussing a recent highly publicized
scandal involving Jesse Jackson having an affair with a woman in a professionally subordinate
relationship to him, and the Complainant had just made it very clear that she felt that was
pathetic. She added that she was aware at the time that both the Respondent and his wife would
be joining the faculty at MSU in 2003.

She said that once at MSU, the Respondent’s wife was the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS)
and it was clear that the Complainant would not be able to defend her dissertation without having
the Respondent on her committee.3 She thus asked to meet with the Respondent in order to “clear
the air.” She said that she believes this meeting occurred in 2005. She said that she told him that
she had not asked him to be on her committee because he had made her feel uncomfortable, and
then she recounted the incident at ICPSR, and he told her, “That didn’t happen; you’re
2
Witness 5 agreed to be interviewed for this investigation, As noted in the Investigation Process section of this
report, OIE was not able to interview Witness 6.
3
The Complainant provided additional information regarding this concern, which is not related to ICPSR.

4
confused.” The Complainant said that the Respondent ultimately ended up on her dissertation
committee at some point, but she was later able to replace him with someone else. She said that
during this time, she delayed graduating and went to work as a Visiting Professor elsewhere for
two years (2006-2008) in order to avoid having the Respondent on her dissertation committee.

The Complainant said that she did not tell anyone other than Witness 5 and Witness 6 about this
incident until sometime later, and then eventually told her dissertation advisor, Witness 4, that
the Respondent had harassed her, but did not share with him the details of the incident. She said
that she also told another member of her committee who is recently deceased, when that
individual suggested that the Respondent should be on the committee and she needed to explain
why she did not want him to be on the committee.

Respondent’s Response to the Complainant’s Allegations

The Respondent said that the Complainant took his course during the second session of the 2002
Summer Program. He said that it is very common for students and faculty to get together,
typically at Dominick’s, during the Summer Program, but explained that he does not like
Dominick’s so he did not and does not usually participate in these social gatherings. He said that
one night during the last week of the session, he did participate in a similar gathering of ICPSR
students and faculty at Ashley’s, which he believes took place after a lecture that was part of a
lecture series he gave that summer. He said that he believes this was a Wednesday, based on his
recollection that it was after an evening lecture, which would have taken place on a Wednesday
night, and because he knows that he taught at least one more class after this occasion, and the last
day of classes for the session always falls on a Thursday. The Respondent said that other than
himself and the Complainant, he does not recall any other specific individuals who were present,
noting that there were a number of people from ICPSR there. He said that many of those would
have been people he would have recognized by sight without knowing their names. The
Respondent said that Witness 9 was likely present, though he noted that he does not specifically
recall him being there and has not asked him whether he was present. When asked whether he
recalls whether Witness 5 was present, he said that he does not recall him/her being present, and
does not recall him/her attending ICPSR that year, noting that she may nonetheless have done
so.4 When asked whether he recalls whether Witness 6 was present, he said that he recognizes
the name but does not recall anything about the individual and consequently, does not know
whether s/he was present the night of the incident.

The Respondent said that he had “a couple beers” at Ashley’s, noting that while he does not
specifically recall how many beers he consumed, he knows it would not have been many because
he was teaching the next day. The Respondent said that he sat near or next to the Complainant
for at least some portion of the evening, though he does not recall whether they were seated near
one another the entire time. He said that he talked to her, and to others who were present. He said

4
OIE confirmed from ICPSR records that Witness 5 was an ICPSR student during the session in which the alleged
incident is reported to have occurred.

5
that he does not recall the entirety of their conversation, but recalls some aspects of it. For
example, he said that he recalls that he and the Complainant talked about their respective
experiences in Australia, and he recalls that she strongly disliked a city in Australia that he has
found to be very pleasant. He said that she also asked him to review a paper that she had written
for another professor at Michigan State University (MSU), where she was a graduate student at
the time. He said that the purpose of the review was to assess whether, as the Complainant
believed, the professor had been excessively harsh in his grading of the paper. The Respondent
noted that he felt somewhat uncomfortable with the request as he had accepted an offer earlier in
the summer to teach at MSU beginning the following year, so he knew that the professor in
question would be his colleague in the near future. The Respondent said that otherwise, no
communications out of the ordinary occurred between himself and the Complainant at Ashley’s.
The Respondent said that he left Ashley’s before most of the other ICPSR attendees did, and he
does not recall whether the Complainant left before him or not. He said that the next day, she
brought him the paper after class and he briefly reviewed it and commented on his opinion about
the grading and how it could be improved for publication.

The Respondent said that as of the date of the Ashley’s gathering, since there was still at least
one more class and the session was not yet over, the Complainant had not yet received a grade
for his course. He noted that based on the standard practice at the time, the Teaching Assistant
would have done the grading for the course, rather than the Respondent. The Respondent noted
that most ICPSR Summer Program participants do not take the courses for formal grades. He
said that the Complainant did take the course for a formal grade. He further explained that
grading in the ICPSR Summer Program is very generous and the general philosophy is that
participants should never be penalized (i.e., given a bad grade) for attending ICPSR classes.

When asked whether the Complainant was aware of the Respondent’s plans to teach at MSU, the
Respondent said that he does not recall whether they discussed this at Ashley’s, but he is sure
that earlier in the session they discussed that she was an MSU student and he would be joining
the faculty at MSU the following year. He said they likely also discussed that he knew her
advisor, Witness 4, from overlapping for a year at the University of South Carolina. The
Respondent said that the Complainant stood out in his memory because of their shared
connections to Witness 4, MSU, and Australia.

The Respondent said that he did not at any time, during the gathering at Ashley’s or otherwise,
ever ask the Complainant if she would consider having an affair with him, or otherwise attempt
to initiate a sexual or romantic relationship with the Complainant. The Respondent said that he
does not know how such an affair would have even been possible, given that he would be
spending the 2002-2003 academic year in South Carolina while the Complainant would be in
Michigan. He noted that he understands her allegation to be that he invited her to engage in an
affair beginning at that time, rather than delayed until he joined the faculty at MSU. The
Respondent said he definitely does not remember telling the Complainant that she was

6
“mysterious,” and noted that is “just not something [he] would say.” He said that he does not
recall anything about her that would lead him to characterize her as “mysterious.”

The Respondent said that he did not have any contact with the Complainant again until, to the
best of his recollection, some point between 2004 and 2005, when the Complainant and Witness
4 came to his office to talk about the Complainant’s dissertation. He said that she had data on a
paper spreadsheet, which he said he recalls because it was so unusual. He said that he anticipated
that the purpose of this meeting would be to ask him to serve on the Complainant’s dissertation
committee, but she did not make that request. The Respondent said that he recalls that during the
meeting, he noticed that she appeared entirely disinterested in the methodological strategy he
recommended for her research, and he remembers that the meeting ended when Witness 4
advised her that she needed to develop specific hypotheses. The Respondent noted that the
Complainant studies judicial politics while his expertise is in the areas of public opinion and
methodology, so she does not study in his field of study, and it only would have made sense for
him to be on her dissertation committee as a methodologist. When asked if she ever studied
public opinion, he said that the paper she had him review while she was at ICPSR was related to
public opinion, but he does not know if she ever considered making public opinion her area of
focus.

The Respondent said that after this meeting, he never saw or otherwise had any contact with the
Complainant again. He said that he has never had any conversation with the Complainant
wherein she told him she did not want him to be on her dissertation committee, or in any way
discussed any idea of him being on her dissertation committee.

The Respondent said that he has no idea why the Complainant has made these allegations against
him. He noted that while he does not know her to be affiliated with any specific individuals who
may have a grudge against him, and has no direct evidence that she is motivated by any such
grudge on her part or the part of a third party, there are likely a number of people in the field who
may have such a grudge. He explained that at the time of the alleged incident, he was the Editor
of the Journal of Politics, which he said is widely regarded as the third best journal in the field,
and subsequently was, until recently, the editor of the American Journal of Political Science,
which he said is the highest-ranked journal in the political science field according to widely-used
metrics. He noted that both journals have rejection rates of over 90%, creating the potential for a
number of political scientists with negative feelings toward the Respondent.

The Respondent noted that the way in which the Complainant disclosed this allegation feels to
him to be particularly vindictive. He explained that the Complainant described the alleged
incident while speaking on a panel at a conference hosted by the Southern Political Science
Association (SPSA), of which he was the outgoing President, and the conference was planned by
his wife, who was in line to be SPSA president in 2020. He said that the Complainant described
the incident in such a way as to make him easily identifiable to the audience, though he has been
told that she did not use his name. He said that he did not personally attend the panel or hear the

7
Complainant’s presentation, but was returning from lunch when a colleague, Witness 9,
intercepted him to tell him what had just occurred with respect to the Complainant’s allegation.
The Respondent said that he was told (he believes by Witness 9) that the Complainant had
alluded to her allegation on social media the night before, saying that she would be making a
significant presentation the next day, and after the panel, posted the allegation on both Twitter
and Facebook. He said that the forum for the disclosure felt intentional and vindictive given the
role that he and his wife each played in the conference and the organization.

The Respondent referenced a post to poliscirumors.com, which he described as a website

dedicated to gossip within the field of political science. See Attachment 1. He said that the post
included the text of a message falsely purporting to be a denial of the Complainant’s allegations
against him. He explained that this post was not authored by him, and said he does not know who
did author it. See Attachment 1, which includes the text of this message and the Respondent’s
comments on it. He said that he at one time suspected it may have been a particular former
student who was trying to help him by denying the Complainant’s allegations, but he has since
asked that person and they denied authoring the post and he now believes that they did not do so.
He explained that the post contains several key inconsistencies with either the historical facts at
issue or the way in which the Respondent would address, write, and sign such a communication.
He identified these inconsistencies as follows:

 The purported letter/email that was posted to the website is addressed to “Friends
and Colleagues,” but purported to have been circulated to the Respondent’s close
friends and family. The Respondent says that he would not address a
communication to close friends and family in such an impersonal manner, and
noted that no one has reported or acknowledged receiving such a communication
from him; to his knowledge, this communication has only ever been posted to this
website and not otherwise circulated among his friends, family, or colleagues.
 The Respondent said that he would not have used this website as a forum to
communicate with friends, family, or colleagues, noting that it is primarily used
by graduate students, and many people avoid the website because they find it to
be “a cesspool of misinformation and rants.”
 The Respondent noted that the posted communication alleges that the
Complainant solicited the Respondent for an affair, which the Respondent has
never alleged, and denies occurred. He said that it is not the case that the
Complainant made sexual advances toward him, and he has never suggested as
much; rather, he has simply maintained that neither party made any advances
toward the other at any time.
 He noted that the post contains the words “adviser” spelled with an “-er,” while
the Respondent spells the word as “advisor,’ with an “-or.”
 The post offers thanks for “continued support of my family and me,” and the
Respondent noted that because he and his wife do not have any children, he

8
 would refer to “my wife and me,” or “Sandy and me,” and not “my family and
me.”
 The post is signed “Bill Jacoby,” and the Respondent said that if he were sending
such a message to friends, he would have simply signed it “Bill.”
 There are factual errors in the blogpost. For example, it says that the allegations
refer to the 2003 Summer Program when, in fact, they refer to the 2002 Program.
They also suggest that the Complainant made sexual advances towards the
Respondent, repeatedly asked him to be her advisor, that he suggested she seek
alcohol counseling, and that he refused to serve on her dissertation committee.
The Respondent said that none of this occurred and he has never suggested that
any of it did, noting that he was never asked to serve on her dissertation
committee.

The Respondent provided a document containing the text of this post with his comments
incorporated. See Attachment 1. He also provided another document that he said he authored and
which he said demonstrates his typical usage of the word “advisor.” See Attachment 2.

Witness Comments Regarding the Complainant’s Allegations

Witness 4

Witness 4 was interviewed because the Complainant reported that she told Witness 4 after the
incident that the Respondent had sexually harassed her.

Witness 4 stated that s/he served as the Complainant’s doctoral advisor at Michigan State
University (MSU) in the early 2000s. S/he said that at one point during ICPSR, the Complainant
took a temporary job at another institution, which delayed her completion of ICPSR. Witness 4
said that at the time, the Complainant attributed this to matters that appeared at that time to be
unrelated to the Respondent.

Witness 4 said that while the was a graduate student, she told Witness 4 that she was being asked
to have the Respondent on her dissertation committee and she did not want him to be involved
with the committee. Witness 4 said that s/he suggested someone else, but also asked the
Complainant why she did not want the Respondent to be on her committee, and the Complainant
said, “He sexually harassed me.” Witness 4 said that s/he specifically recalls that those were the
Complainant’s exact words. Witness 4 said that s/he responded along the lines of, “That really
sucks. What do you want to do about reporting it?” S/he said that the Complainant told him/her
that she did not want to report it because she just wanted to finish her PhD and was worried
about retaliation. Witness 4 noted that at the time, the Respondent held a lot of power in the
Political Science department at MSU. Witness 4 said that s/he did not ask for, and the
Complainant did not provide, additional details about the incident at that time. S/he noted that
the MSU policy around reporting concerns of sexual harassment differed at the time.

9
Witness 4 said that the Complainant did not tell him/her the details at that time. S/he said that
there were rumors, but s/he was only made aware of the details recently. S/he said that the
Complainant told him/her recently (early 2018) that via a comment at dinner, the Respondent
made or implied a “quid pro quo offer” to the Complainant involving having an affair and
guaranteeing her dissertation if she made him the chair of her committee. Witness 4 said that
Complainant also told him/her recently that she had experienced emotional distress as the result
of an incident involving the Respondent, which had prompted her to take the temporary job
elsewhere during her program.

Witness 4 said that s/he is not aware of anyone else having concerns related to ICPSR.

Witness 5

Witness 5 was interviewed because the Complainant reported that Witness 5 was present when
the Respondent asked her about having an affair with him. Witness 5 stated that s/he was a
student in the ICPSR Summer Program in 2002 and observed an interaction between the
Complainant and the Respondent. S/he said that at the time, the Respondent was teaching in
ICPSR, and the Complainant was a student in ICPSR.5

Witness 5 said that at the end of the summer, a group of participants in ICPSR went to a bar and
while there, s/he observed the Complainant and the Respondent talking. S/he said that the two
had been talking to one another on and off for most of the night when Witness 5 observed the
Respondent lean in toward the Complainant, and Witness 5 heard him ask her a question.
Witness 5 said that s/he does not recall all of the exact wording, but specifically recalls that s/he
heard the word “affair,” and at the time s/he understood the Respondent to be asking the
Complainant to have an affair with him. Witness 5 said that the Complainant appeared
uncomfortable, but remained composed and replied to the effect of, “I’m not sure how I’m
supposed to answer that.”

Witness 5 said that s/he and the Complainant locked eyes, and s/he knew that the Complainant
understood that s/he had heard the Respondent’s question. Witness 5 said that s/he tried to wait
for a few minutes, but estimates that it was probably only seconds, and then said that s/he was
ready to leave the bar, and invited the Complainant to go with him/her. Witness 5 said that s/he,
the Complainant, and another friend of the Complainant’s (Witness 6, who OIE was unable to
contact) went outside, where they discussed the incident that had just occurred. Witness 5 said
that the Complainant asked, “Did you hear that?” and Witness 5 said, “Yes.” S/he said that
Witness 6 asked, “What did he say?” and the Complainant answered, “He asked me to have an
affair with him.” Witness 5 said that s/he replied, “That’s what I thought he said.” S/he said that
the three decided they needed to further discuss the incident, and they went to Witness 6’s house
to do so. S/he said that the Complainant decided at that time not to tell anyone, so Witness 5

5
Witness 5 did not specifically indicate, but the Complainant and the Respondent agree, that the Complainant was
taking the Respondent’s course at ICPSR at the time of the interaction in question.

10
never told anyone in the discipline about the incident. S/he noted that s/he believes the
Complainant did subsequently discuss the incident with her advisor.

Witness 5 said that s/he is not aware of any similar concerns involving the Respondent, or related
to the ICPSR Summer Program.

Witness 8

Witness 8 was interviewed at the Respondent’s request. Witness 8, a faculty member in the
Political Science department at Michigan State University, stated that no one has ever reported
concerns regarding the Respondent to Witness 8 directly.

Witness 8 said that s/he is aware of the recently publicized concerns regarding the Complainant.
S/he said that s/he spoke with the Respondent about the concerns at the SPSA conference.
Witness 8 said that the Respondent told him/her that a conversation between the Respondent and
the Complainant took place when and where the Complainant alleges it did, but his recollection
of the content of the conversation is different than what the Complainant reported. Witness 8 said
that the Respondent told him/her that his conversation with the Complainant did not include any
comments related to sex or the possibility of a relationship between the two, Witness 8 said that
his/her impression was that the Respondent certainly remembered talking to the Complainant on
the occasion at issue in 2002, but was surprised by the account she provided at the conference.
Witness 8 said that the Respondent also told him/her that the Complainant was not a great
student and had come to the Respondent’s office a day or two after the conversation in question
and sought help from him. S/he said that the Respondent questioned why the Complainant would
have done such a thing if he had made her feel uncomfortable a few days prior.

Witness 8 said that s/he is aware of the post on poliscirumors.com purported to be a denial of
these allegations by the Respondent. See Attachment 1. S/he said that upon reading the post it
struck him/her that the post was not authored by the Respondent. S/he explained that the
language did not sound like the Respondent, and there were some facts stated in the post that
were contrary to what the Respondent had told him/her a short time earlier.

Witness 9

Witness 9 was interviewed because the Respondent reported that Witness 9 told the Respondent
about the Complainant’s comments about this matter at the SPSA conference, and thus observed
the Respondent’s reaction to learning about them.

Witness 9 stated that s/he was present during the Complainant’s comments at the SPSA
conference. S/he said that the Complainant did not identify the Respondent by name during the
panel presentation but used identifying details which allowed Witness 9 to understand that the
Complainant was referring to the Respondent. Witness 9 said that after the panel s/he went to get
lunch and ran into the Respondent, pulled him aside, and told him what the Complainant had just

11
alleged. Witness 9 said that the Respondent appeared shocked. Witness 9 said that initially, the
Respondent did not know who Witness 9 was referring to because he knew the Complainant by
her prior last name and not by her current last name. Witness 9 said that he clarified by using the
Complainant’s birth given name and the Respondent then knew who she was. Witness 9 said that
the Respondent’s jaw was open and he was shaking his head, and did not seem to know what the
Complainant had been referring to in her comments. Witness 9 said that the Respondent did not
comment at that time on the veracity of the Complainant’s comments, but at some point over the
next few days he told Witness 9, “That story was fiction.”

When asked whether s/he was present at Ashley’s one the night of the alleged incident, Witness
9 said that s/he would bet money s/he was, but has no recollection.

Witness 9 said that s/he has had no interaction with the Complainant other than observing her
panel presentation at the SPSA conference.

Witness 9 said that s/he is not aware of other concerns involving the Respondent, except the
Complainant’s and those published in new media related to the Complainant’s concerns.

Other Concerns
Concerns Involving Witness 1

Witness 1

Witness 1 was interviewed because the Complainant identified her each as potentially having
concerns regarding the Respondent that may relate to ICPSR.

Witness 1 reported that the Respondent and Witness 1 engaged in a sexual relationship between
1990-1991 and 1993. Witness 1 reported that this relationship started, ended, and primarily took
place at another educational institution where Witness 1 was a graduate student and the
Respondent was a faculty member and, eventually, on her dissertation committee. Witness 1
reported that during this time, there were two summers (1991 and 1992) during which she and
the Respondent both participated in the ICPSR Summer Program, she as a student and the
Respondent as an instructor. She said that during both summers, while she and the Respondent
continued the ongoing relationship, she enrolled for independent study credits at the University
of South Carolina related to her ICPSR courses, with the Respondent overseeing her credits at
the University of South Carolina related to the coursework she completed through ICPSR. She
said that during the 1992 summer, she also enrolled in the Respondent’s scaling course at
ICPSR, so he was responsible for her grade both at ICPSR and at the University of South
Carolina.

12
Other information related to Witness 1 that was provided by Witness 1, the Respondent, or other
witnesses, is not described here since Witness 1’s concerns are not at issue in this investigation.

Concerns Involving Witness 3

Witness 3 contacted OIE related to concerns which have no connection to ICPSR or otherwise to
the University of Michigan; however, she indicated that they may be relevant to the
Complainant’s allegations. Based on the information related to Witness 3’s concerns, as
collectively provided to OIE by Witness 3, other witnesses, and the Respondent, it is determined
that such information would not be appropriately considered relevant evidence regarding the
Complainant’s allegations. Thus, other information related to Witness 3 that was provided by
Witness 3, the Respondent, or other witnesses, is not described here.

Other Relevant Witness Comments

Witness 10 was interviewed because s/he made contact with OIE during this investigation and
indicated s/he may have concerns, or potentially relevant information about concerns, regarding
the Respondent. Though s/he indicated that that s/he wished to provide information about her
experience working in ICPSR as information be considered in assessing the Complainant’s
concerns, Witness 10’s concerns relate to the Respondent’s alleged response to a matter
involving a third party in 2010. As such, the majority of the information that Witness 10
provided is not relevant to the Complainant’s allegations. Witness 10 said, however, that she has
not experienced sexual harassment by the Respondent. When asked whether she ever observed
any indications that the Respondent may be pursuing or engaging in sexual relationships with
any students, Witness 10 said, “Of course not.”

Other Evidence6
Interviews of Recent Students
As described above, OIE determined that it would be appropriate to contact recent students in
ICPSR to learn whether there may be additional, more recent concerns regarding the
Respondent. OIE interviewed ten students, primarily women, who took the Respondent’s course
at ICPSR between 2015 and 2017. OIE also interviewed ten other students, primarily women,
who had taken other courses in ICPSR during the same time frame. None of these twenty
students raised or reported any concerns regarding the Respondent.

6
In addition to his response to the allegations, the Respondent also provided documents related to a polygraph he
said he took related to these allegations. OIE does not consider the results of polygraph tests, and advised the
Respondent in advance that the documents would not be considered as evidence in this investigation. The
Respondent provided them nonetheless, but they have not been considered. The Respondent also provided copies of
documents which relate to Witness 1 and do not directly relate to the Complainant.

13
 Relevant Disciplinary History

I contacted Dr. Margaret Levenstein, Director, ICPSR, who confirmed that ICPSR has not
received any other reports of concerns of sexual harassment by the Respondent.

14