LAW OFFICE OF KAREN D.

HURVITZ
34 TANGLEWOOD DRIVE
CONCORD, MA 01742
(617) 513-3365

January 10, 2020

Dear Deans,

I am writing out of frustration at your failure to address the very serious violations of the
University of Massachusetts Amherst Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment, And
Related Interpersonal Violence, which I have brought to your attention in my very
detailed letters to you of 12/13/19, 12/17/19, and 12/31/19, and to which you have failed
entirely to respond. In fact, the only correspondence I have received from you is a
retaliatory Notice of Inquiry regarding a complaint that is, incomprehensibly, directed
against Louis, who has been the target of the behavior on which the complaint is based.

According to the terms of the University of Massachusetts Amherst Policy Against

Discrimination, Harassment, And Related Interpersonal Violence, [hereinafter “the Non-
Discrimination Policy” the University prohibits discrimination on the basis of, inter alia,
race, religion, creed, and political belief or affiliation. (Section I, fn. 1.) The Non-
Discrimination policy states:

Any member of the campus community, guest, or visitor who acts to deny,
deprive or limit the educational, employment, residential and/or social access,
benefits, and/or opportunities of any member of the campus community on the
basis of their actual or perceived membership in the protected classes listed above
will be in violation of this policy. . . . University students and employees who
violate this Policy may face discipline up to and including expulsion or
termination. When brought to the attention of the University, the University will
take actions appropriately to respond to, stop, remedy, and prevent the
reoccurrence of any such discrimination.

The Non-Discrimination Policy also defines prohibited harassment as a violation:

Harassment is conduct by a person or persons against another person or persons

based upon their legally protected class that adversely has the effect of:
i. unreasonably interfering with a person or person’s employment, educational
benefits, academic grades or opportunities, or participation in University
programs or activities; or

HURVITZLAW@COMCAST.NET
 ii. unreasonably interfering with a person or person’s work or academic
performance; or
iii. creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or academic environment.

Section IV.B

The Non-Discrimination policy further forbids and defines complicity as “any act taken
with the purpose of aiding, facilitating, promoting or encouraging the commission of an
act of Prohibited Conduct by another person.”

As described in my letters of 12/13/19, 12/17/19, and 12/31/19, Beth Peller, Anna-Claire

Simpson, and Tyler Alan engaged in the above prohibited conduct toward Louis Shenker.

According to the Non-Discrimination Policy, reports of prohibited conduct “where the

Responding Party is faculty or staff should be promptly reported to the Equal
Opportunity Office (EO). Reports of Prohibited Conduct where the Responding Party is a
graduate or undergraduate student should be promptly reported to the Dean of Students
Office.” Accordingly, I have filed complaints with the Dean of Students Office on Louis’
behalf against them. However, the University has failed to follow its own very clear
procedures about addressing these complaints.

The University’s Grievance Procedures state:

The grievance process is intended to investigate and where possible resolve

complaints of alleged discrimination, complicity, or retaliation against prospective
employees, employees, prospective students, and students involved at the
Amherst campus . . . [and] to ensure that the EO Office will conduct a thorough
and impartial investigation of all allegations of discrimination, complicity or
retaliation.

According to the Grievance Procedures:

The Office will acknowledge receipt of each complaint within 5 working days
from the time the complaint is received. The complainant will be called in for an
interview within 15 working days.
c. At the interview the complainant(s) is informed of the steps to be taken to
resolve the specific complaint; the complainant then reviews the charge for
accuracy; and signs the initiation of complaint form.
d. The charge is served on the respondent and the vice chancellor or executive
officer of the respondent's unit in which this alleged act of discrimination is said
to have occurred within 20 working days from the initial receipt of the complaint.
e. Data and documents from the parties, and rebuttal statements from the
respondent are to be submitted to the EO Office within 20 working days from the
date the charge is served.
Sections B.1.b-c

HURVITZLAW@COMCAST.NET
None of these detailed and well-defined terms, according to which the University
obligated itself to proceed in enforcing its clear and unequivocal Non-Discrimination
Policy, have been followed by the University with regard to Louis Shenker. As you may
be aware, I recently voluntarily dismissed a contract claim in Suffolk Superior Court
against UMass Amherst brought by students which was based on conduct arising out of
the first BDS event during the 2018-2019 academic year because, when I dismissed the
claim, it seemed that the University was prepared to assist in fighting the harassment and
discrimination created by the BDS movement, its faculty advocates, and its student
enforcers like Beth Peller against pro-Israel Jews on campus. (See attached Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal and reasons stated therein).

I am disappointed to learn that that is no longer the case. In light of the rapidly
deteriorating circumstances, I am prepared to refile that case, and, in addition, to add
more counts to it. In that case, the students wanted to proceed anonymously because they
were afraid of the repercussions that would follow from their standing up against the
hostile behavior being directed against them. The judge in that case took their concerns
lightly and demanded that they proceed under their names. Louis Shenker was one of
those students. It is quite obvious by the subsequent events that the students’ concerns
were justified: Louis has been targeted by a vicious hate campaign, supported by
perjured affidavits filed in court, and organized by the students against whom I have filed
the complaints – with the intent and result of his being driven off campus and deprived of
his education. You have let this expulsion take place without intervention.

Accordingly, I am prepared to add Title VI claims against the University to a renewed

lawsuit; and, in the alternative, to file a Title VI complaint with the U.S. Department of
Education Office of Civil Rights. You certainly must be aware of the many complaints
now being filed as a result of President Trump’s salutary, and unfortunately necessary,
Executive Order on anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in education. You have treated Louis
in a disparate manner because of his race; you have permitted student groups to retaliate
against him because of protected activity; and you have failed to take action in spite of
detailed complaints by which you were made aware of these violations of law.

Very truly yours,

Karen Hurvitz

cc: Ilya Feoktistov, Esq.

Louis Shenker

HURVITZLAW@COMCAST.NET
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT

SUFFOLK, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

C. A. No. 1984CV01308

JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, and JOHN DOE 3,

Plaintiffs
v
ROBERT J. MANNING, R. NORMAN PETERS, MARY L.
BURNS, ROBERT EPSTEIN, DAVID G. FUBINI, MARIA
D. FURMAN, STEPHEN R. KARAM, MICHAEL V.
O’BRIEN, KERRI E. OSTERHAUS-HOULE, IMARI K.
PARIS JEFFRIES, JAMES A. PEYSER, ELIZABETH D.
SCHEIBEL, HENRY M. THOMAS, STEVEN A. TOLMAN,
VICTOR WOOLRIDGE, CHARLES F. WU, NOREEN C.
OKWARA, SILAVONG PHIMMASONE, MARY L.
BURNS, BRIAN J. MADIGAN, KATHERINE E.
MALLETT, JIYA NAIR, SARA TARIQ, EACH IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MASSACHUSETTS; MARTY MEEHAN, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS; KUMBLE R.
SUBBASWAMY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
AMHERST
Defendants

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs hereby file this Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a).

Although no reasons for this dismissal need be stated, Plaintiffs wish the court to know that their

reasons for their dismissal is the order in this case that they may not proceed pseudonymously,

and they fear that what happened to a student on campus who protested at an anti-Israel event

will happen to them; they are afraid of being vilified, terrified, and driven off campus. See
https://loomered.com/2019/11/13/exclusive-jewish-student-harassed-at-linda-sarsour-event-at-

amherst-for-protesting-anti-semitism/ and https://itsgoingdown.org/amherst-ma-flyers-out-

campus-groyper-troll/. Moreover, the University is working to support these students and they

wish to pursue that course of action rather than this one.

Plaintiffs
By Counsel,

Karen D. Hurvitz, BBO #245720

Law Office of Karen D. Hurvitz
34 Tanglewood Drive
Concord, MA 01742
(617)513-3365
HurvitzLaw@comcast.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on counsel for
Defendants by emailing a copy to DBarton@Umass.edu and to Proposed Intervenors by emailing a copy
to rweber@weberlaw.com this 6th of December, 2019.

Karen Hurvitz