Complaint Filed With University of Wisconsin

April 13, 2007
CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL

Dean Kenneth B. Davis, Jr.
University of Wisconson Law Building
975 Bascom Mall
Room 5211A
Madison, WI 53706-1399

Re: Chapter 9 Statement

Dear Honorable Dean Davis:

I am writing you on behalf of my clients regarding the following Chapter 9 statement requesting administrative procedure to resolve the events occurring on and after February 15th, 2007, within Professor Kaplan’s Legal Process Class.

1) My clients are law students at the UW Law School. During the Spring 2007 semester, they were all enrolled in Legal Process with Professor Leonard Kaplan.

2) My clients are filing this complaint about 1) Professor Kaplan’s statements during his February 15th lecture and 2) for his behavior during a February 20th meeting with my clients.

3) Attached for your review, is a letter documenting the students’ recollection of Professor Kaplan’s statements which was delivered to Dean Davis. Also attached, is a post event transcript of the subsequent meeting with my clients.

4) My clients are prepared to give, under oath, the same statements within the informal transcripts if necessary.

5) My clients, as future attorneys, shall be stewards and defenders of the Constitutions of Wisconsin and the United States. Incumbent in this is the responsibility to ensure that the basic rights and fundamental equality afforded to all human beings in the Bill of Rights shall be defended at all costs and will not be swept aside or be violated under the guise of academic freedom.

6) My clients are fully committed to resolving their concerns through the University’s administrative procedures as outlined in Chapter 9 and if necessary, Chapter 36.

7) My clients’ concerns stem from the classroom statements made on February 15th which Professor Kaplan did not deny when they were discussed at length in the meeting on February 20th, 2007. In fact, Professor Kaplan referenced his statements on several occasions during the meeting. This is contrary to his public statement made two weeks after the classroom incident.

8) Professor Kaplan’s statements were patently offensive regardless of intent. My clients have always assumed that Professor Kaplan’s intent was not malicious.

9) Professor Kaplan’s offensive and inaccurate statements about the Hmong community in Wisconsin served little academic purpose. Instead of dispelling myths and stereotypes, Professor Kaplan propagated and reinforced them. The students were not challenged regarding their views of the Hmong community in Wisconsin, as Professor Kaplan only made these comments after ascertaining that no one in the class was familiar with the Hmong people. Professor Kaplan also failed to provide other examples of cultural clash, other racial stereotypes or other examples of racial imbalances in his lecture on legal formalism.

10) Professor Kaplan’s offensive and inaccurate statements regarding the Hmong community in Wisconsin are particularly harmful because Professor Kaplan is in a position to greatly influence the perception of the students in his class. This is especially true as Professor Kaplan made these statements after determining that there was no one familiar with the Hmong community in his classroom. Thus, these statements would be taken at face value.

11) Professor Kaplan’s inaccurate statements made in class referring to the Hmong community were only substantiated by his anecdotal beliefs. Not once during the February 15th lecture did Professor Kaplan cite a study or published work to support his presentation of these purported facts. In applying a higher burden to his students than to himself, Professor Kaplan demanded my clients provide sources and citations. My clients then organized a forum with twice-nominated Nobel Peace Prize candidate, Dr. Jane Hamilton-Merritt, to satisfy Professor Kaplan’s request and to prove the inaccuracy of his classroom statements. Professor Kaplan failed to attend after confirming in writing that he would be present at the forum.

12) At the advice of the Law School Administration, my clients met with Professor Kaplan on February 20th, 2007. This meeting lasted for over two hours. A concerned law school administrator eventually checked in on the progress of this unusually long meeting and overheard parts of the meeting.

13) Professor Kaplan did not address my clients’ concerns during the course of the meeting.

14) Rather, Professor Kaplan conducted himself in a threatening, patronizing and unprofessional manner. He rose from his seat, raised his voice, threateningly leaned towards the students and pounded his fist on the table. Professor Kaplan chose to conduct himself in this manner despite the fact that at many points in the meeting one or more of my clients was visibly shaking and in tears.

15) Professor Kaplan’s hostile conduct clearly harmed my clients’ trust in the University of Wisconsin and the UW Law School.

16) My clients are entitled to a learning environment in which they are not subjected to hostility for defending their beliefs, cultural heritage and desire for a truly diverse academic classroom environment.

17) The incident has already resulted in multiple retaliations against my clients including hate emails and personal verbal attacks. Furthermore, various professors have denounced the students in both local and national media forums. Other professors have also made disparaging remarks in the classroom regarding this situation.

18) My clients have made numerous attempts to resolve this issue with Professor Kaplan, including meeting with Professor Kaplan, meeting with his colleagues, and eventually requesting third party mediation. Professor Kaplan and his attorney have failed to adequately respond to these attempts.

19) My clients’ primary interest is to create a safe educational environment which has been damaged as a result of Professor Kaplan’s statements and subsequent course of conduct. My clients are also concerned with the harm caused to the Hmong community and others affected by Professor Kaplan statements and conduct.

20) My clients wish Professor Kaplan to acknowledge the fact that his statements were offensive and an inaccurate description of Hmong people in Wisconsin as well as across the United States. Additionally, Professor Kaplan must understand that regardless of his intent, that such statements have had a detrimental affect and will continue to have a harmful impact on all Hmong people, unless his statements are publicly corrected.

21) My clients’ objective is not to ruin the UW Law School’s reputation. It does not serve their interests or that of their colleagues to damage the Law School’s reputation.

22) My clients have always protected the Law School’s reputation by not discussing the incident in detail, either in recounting the classroom incident on February 15th, 2007 or the subsequent meeting on February 20th, 2007.

23) As stated, my clients are committed to resolving these concerns through the University’s internal administrative procedures. However, the resolution of this conflict must satisfy the greater community demand for accountability as well. See attached letter from various members, WABA, NAPABA-MN chapter, SEARAC.
In closing, please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions or comments.

Best Regards,

Attorney at Law