There is an old saying among lawyers: when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when the law and the facts aren’t on your side, pound your fist on the table louder than the other guy.
It is unclear whether David Schwartz, former Webster University student, has the law or the facts on his side. What is clear is that Schwartz is planning on pounding his fist on the table very, very loudly.
When The Journal learned last week that Schwartz filed suit against the school, we weren’t surprised. When we began to read the details, we found a few eyebrow-raisers.
Schwartz alleges in his suit that the university unfairly terminated him from the MA counseling program for “lacking empathy.” Schwartz complained this was the first time he had received anything less than sterling reviews. Schwartz’s suit asks for more than $1 million in damages for “significant losses in the form of delayed pursuit of education.”
If Schwartz is telling the truth, this is an issue of concern. No student should be informed that they are being terminated from a program without the proper opportunity to correct damaging or incorrect practices.
But it doesn’t end there. Schwartz claims that his termination was based on a letter written anonymously to the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Schwartz’s letter complained of a romantic relationship between a professor in his department and the program director of the MA counseling program. Schwartz claims it was after his letter that his reviews became poor and he was terminated from the program.
A few days later, when the story of the lawsuit broke in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Schwartz made another fist-pounding announcement. Schwartz’s plan was to hold an open workshop on empathy at the St. Louis Zoo, outside the polar bear exhibit. Schwartz chose an empty, exhibit. The zoo’s polar bear, Hope, died in 2009. Empathy abound, Schwartz hoped that others might share his sadness for the lost creature.
Schwartz was counting on a little fist pounding in the court of public opinion. Sadly, zoo officials informed Schwartz’s attorney the event was against policy and would have to be canceled. His attorney, Albert Watkins, gave a statement on the cancellation.
“My client was extremely empathetic to the potential for interfering with the ‘zoo visitor experience’ and elected to cancel what was expected to be a very lightly attended workshop. Perhaps the exercise proved to be the workshop itself?”
If Schwartz was terminated because he complained about his teachers, then the facts are on his side. If Schwartz was terminated because his teachers failed to provide him with an equal opportunity to learn, the law is on his side.
But if Schwartz was terminated because he failed to take proper steps, learn proper tools and involve himself fully in the process, then he is just a guy pounding his fist on the table.
Share this post
Something tells me that Schwartz is telling the truth. How is it that the department chair and her apparent cronies keep things so tight-fisted that he felt he had nowhere else to turn? Maybe if they encouraged student participation rather than punish whistle-blowing, he might have been able to speak his mind about the apparently incompetent professor. As for learning skills, does that mean that Webster’s counseling department doesn’t enforce skills in each and every class? That’s truly frightening. Even if Schwartz might’ve been awful, I wouldn’t want to go to any counselor who graduated from Webster. They’re apparently doing something very wrong.
It takes a distinct brand of courage to stand up to academia. Naturally, the facts and the legal issues require intense scrutiny, but I have witnessed too many cases in which students or faculty are dismissed capriciously not to suspect that this could be a genuine case of abuse of power. I wonder if what this individual experienced is not an isolated incident, given what I know about Webster. All over the world we see people rising up against injustice and risking their lives. I salute this student who was willing to put himself under the public microscope and be vocal. For far too long too many of us have remained silent.
The Webster Journal and David Schwartz sure make me laugh. How come there’s no interview arranged with Al Watkins? You’d think Albert would want to get in the media spotlight again or put Schwartz out there for more publicity. There’s not much mention of Stacy Henning’s relationships or reactions from other counseling students either. So much for investigative journalism. Thanks for the chuckle!
Methinks Webster’s gonna need to wrap their hands from all that poundin’!
Comments are closed.