REPORT TO THE

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY COUNSEL OF OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY

CONCERNING COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

AGAINST FORMER OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY
VISITING PROFESSOR BLAKE BAILEY, THE UNIVERSITY’S
RESPONSE TO THOSE COMPLAINTS, AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE MAY 26, 2021
STATEMENT TO THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT

By: NIXON PEABODY LLP

Date: November 30, 2021

 Table of Contents

Page
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
A. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ..................................................... 2
1. Case Law ..................................................................................................... 3
2. Regulations ................................................................................................. 4
3. Relevant Administrative Guidance ............................................................. 5
B. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .............................................................. 10
C. Virginia Human Rights Act .................................................................................. 12
D. The Clery Act and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act ............... 13
E. Old Dominion University Policies ........................................................................ 14
1. Policies Concerning Sexual Harassment .................................................. 14
2. Policies Concerning Sexual Assault ......................................................... 18
3. Policy Concerning Stalking ...................................................................... 21
F. Relevant Parties .................................................................................................... 22
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 24
A. Allegations against Blake Bailey .......................................................................... 24
B. Reporting of the Allegations and ODU’s Response ............................................. 25
1. Professor Bridget Anderson ...................................................................... 26
2. Graduate Students ..................................................................................... 28
3. OIED and the Title IX Coordinator .......................................................... 29
C. Violations of ODU Policies, Title VII, and Title IX............................................. 30
1. Individual Employees’ Obligations to Report Allegations of Sexual
Harassment ................................................................................................ 30
2. ODU’s Response to Allegations of Sexual Harassment ........................... 33
D. Drafting of the May 26, 2021, Statement ............................................................. 34
INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 37
A. Scope of the Investigation ..................................................................................... 37
B. Interviews Conducted ........................................................................................... 37
C. Materials Reviewed .............................................................................................. 40
FACTUAL SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 41
A. Allegations against Blake Bailey .......................................................................... 42
1. Bailey and Professor Bridget Anderson .................................................... 42
2. Bailey and Graduate Students ................................................................... 59
3. Bailey’s interaction with a visiting writer in October 2011 ...................... 61
B. Reports of Bailey’s Actions and ODU’s Response .............................................. 63
1. Professor Bridget Anderson ...................................................................... 63

i
 Table of Contents (continued)

Page
2. Graduate Students ..................................................................................... 73
3. The Visiting Writer ................................................................................... 76
4. OIED and the Title IX Coordinator .......................................................... 77
C. The May 26, 2021, Statement to The Virginian-Pilot .......................................... 84
1. The Virginian-Pilot Inquiry and Retention of Outside Counsel ............... 84
2. ODU Legal Department’s Investigation ................................................... 86
3. Drafting and Editing of the May 26, 2021, Statement .............................. 88
4. The Virginian-Pilot June 10, 2021, Article and ODU’s Response ........... 90
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 92

ii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Federal Cases

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education,

526 U.S. 629 (1999) ............................................................................................................................... 3

Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District,

524 U.S. 274 (1998) ............................................................................................................................... 3

McIntyre-Handy v. W. Telemarketing Corp.,

97 F. Supp. 2d 718 (E.D. Va. 2000) ..................................................................................................... 12

Preston v. Comm. of Va. ex. rel. New River Cmty Coll.,

31 F.3d 203 (4th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................................................. 4, 11

Federal Statutes

20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) (the “Clery Act”) ........................................................................................................ 13

20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (“Title IX”) .................................................................................................................. 2

20 U.S.C. § 1682 ........................................................................................................................................... 4

42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”) .................................................................................................................. 10

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) ............................................................................................................................... 11

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)........................................................................................................................... 12

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act .................................................................................... 13, 41

State Statutes

Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-522 ............................................................................................................................ 12

Va. Code Ann. §§ 2.2-3900(B), 2.2-3901, & 2.2-3905(B), Virginia Human Rights Act ........................... 12

Regulations

29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)................................................................................................................................ 11

29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d) ............................................................................................................................... 12

45 C.F.R. § 86.8 ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Other Authorities

ODU Sexual Assault Policy (2008 revision) .............................................................................................. 18

iii
ODU Sexual Misconduct Policy (2011 revision) ....................................................................................... 19

ODU Sexual Harassment Policy (1997 revision) ....................................................................................... 14

ODU Sexual Harassment Policy (2011 revision) ....................................................................................... 16

ODU Stalking Policy (2011 revision) ......................................................................................................... 21

Title IX and Sexual Harassment: Private Rights of Action, Administrative Enforcement,

and Proposed Regulations, Cong. Research Serv. (Apr. 12, 2019), available at
https://crsreports.congress.gov; ............................................................................................................ 10

U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School

Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties (Jan. 2001), available at
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/sexhar00.html ................................................... passim

U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Dear Colleague Letter (Apr. 4, 2011), available at

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf .................................... passim

iv
 INTRODUCTION

Multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, as detailed in a June 2021 news article in The

Virginian-Pilot (“The Pilot”), have been raised against former Old Dominion University (“ODU”

or the “University”) professor Blake Bailey (“Bailey”) as a result of his time at the University

from 2010 to 2016. This report examines those allegations, what, if anything, was reported to

ODU, and whether ODU’s response was appropriate under relevant law and ODU policies.

An independent review of the facts and circumstances reveals two substantiated

allegations of sexual misconduct by Bailey: (1) in April 2010, Bailey grabbed ODU Linguistics

Professor Bridget Anderson (“Professor Anderson”) on her unclothed vaginal area, without her

consent, in a hot tub during a Creative Writing outing in Sandbridge, Virginia, and (2) in October

2010, Bailey engaged in unwanted physical touching and attention toward a graduate student at a

bar near ODU’s campus.

Other allegations concerning Bailey’s actions toward Professor Anderson, a visiting

writer, and a second graduate student were investigated, as well. However, varying witness

recollections exist concerning these additional events, and some witnesses with direct knowledge

declined to meet with us, including the visiting writer and the graduate student from 2014. Given

the passage of time—approximately seven to eleven years ago, depending on the allegation—and

the lack of contemporaneous documents to confirm the recollections of witnesses, we were

unable to make definitive findings regarding these additional allegations.

We also conclude, while Bailey was still a professor at ODU, concerns over his behavior

involving Professor Anderson and graduate students were brought to the attention of ODU

faculty and administrators and, in some instances, those concerns were not escalated to the ODU

Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity (“OIED”). However, due to the limitations of the
factual record we reviewed, we cannot definitively state that there were any violations of Title

VII, Title IX, or other applicable law or policy in the response of ODU administrators.

This report further examines the role of the ODU legal department and administration in

the drafting and editing of the statement provided to The Pilot by the law firm of Kaufman &

Canoles, P.C., on May 26, 2021 (the “Statement”). The Statement, ultimately published by The

Pilot in full, was aggressive and dismissive toward the alleged complainants in both tone and

substance, and was in some instances, factually untrue. We discuss in detail the role of particular

ODU officials in the drafting and editing of the Statement, notably former University Counsel

Earl Nance, Senior Associate University Counsel James Wright, Vice President for

Administration and Finance Gregory DuBois, and former ODU President John Broderick.

BACKGROUND

A. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) prohibits any educational

program or activity receiving federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded

from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any education program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance.1

Title IX’s protections apply to both students and employees. The statute does not

specifically mention sexual harassment or sexual assault as constituting discrimination “on the

basis of sex,” but courts and federal agencies recognize that unwanted conduct of a sexual nature

can deny or limit, on the basis of sex, a person’s ability to participate in or receive benefits,

services, or opportunities from a school’s program. Title IX has consistently been interpreted to

1
20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

2
apply to sexual harassment through private rights of action and administrative enforcement by

the federal agencies that provide funding to educational programs.

1. Case Law

Title IX does not define sexual harassment or delineate the circumstances under which a

school or educational program may be liable for such conduct; instead, the standard for such

liability has been supplied by the courts. The Supreme Court first addressed institutional

responsibility for actionable sexual harassment under Title IX in Gebser v. Lago Vista

Independent School District.2 In Gebser, the Court held that an educational institution may be

liable for faculty-on-student harassment only when an “appropriate person” has actual

knowledge of such alleged conduct, and the institution’s response to those allegations is so

deficient that it amounts to “deliberate indifference.”3 An “appropriate person,” under Gebser, is

“an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute

corrective measures on the recipient’s behalf.”4 Gebser explicitly rejected the theory that an

institution would be vicariously liable for such harassment.

The institution’s conduct, rather than the harassment itself, was also the touchstone of

institutional liability in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education,5 decided the following

year. Davis expanded on Gebser’s deliberate-indifference standard and explained that this “high

standard” requires that the institution’s conduct causes a student to undergo harassment or makes

the student more vulnerable to it.6 The Court clarified that an institution’s response to allegations

of harassment amounts to deliberate indifference only if it is “clearly unreasonable in light of the

2
524 U.S. 274 (1998).
3
Id. at 289-90.
4
Id. at 290.
5
526 U.S. 629 (1999).
6
Id. at 643-45.

3
known circumstances.”7 Conversely, an institution is not liable under Title IX when its response

to allegations of sexual harassment is merely not reasonable.

Federal circuit courts have split regarding Title IX application to employment

relationships. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that an

employee may bring a claim of gender discrimination under Title IX.8

2. Regulations

In addition to enforcement through an implied private right of action, Title IX is also

enforced by federal agencies that provide funding to educational programs, principally the

United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Title 20 U.S.C. § 1682

authorizes and directs federal departments and agencies empowered to extend federal financial

assistance to any education program or activity to effectuate the provisions of Title IX “by

issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with

achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection

with which the action is taken.” Pursuant to this authority, the Department of Education has

established regulations under Title IX.

Regulations issued in 1975, which remained in effect during the relevant time period, did

not specifically address sexual harassment or sexual assault as forms of sex discrimination, but

provided, among other things, for each institution to designate a responsible employee to

coordinate its Title IX compliance efforts, and to “adopt and publish grievance procedures

providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any

action” discriminating based on sex.9 Subsequent regulations specifically addressing sexual

7
Id. at 648 (emphasis added).
8
Preston v. Comm. of Va. ex. rel. New River Cmty Coll., 31 F.3d 203, 205-06 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that a separate
right of employment discrimination exists under Title IX).
9
45 C.F.R. § 86.8.

4
harassment and sexual assault did not take effect until August 14, 2020, well after the relevant

time period.

3. Relevant Administrative Guidance

Although Gebser and Davis (and lower courts’ subsequent interpretations and

applications of them) supply the standards for institutional liability under Title IX, they do not

define the scope of an institution’s responsibilities under Title IX in the administrative-

enforcement context. In that regard, OCR has issued a series of guidance documents setting forth

its interpretation of Title IX with respect to sexual harassment, which has differed at times from

the judicial analysis for liability under Title IX outlined in Gebser, Davis, and others. These

guidance documents have evolved over time and previous guidance documents have been

rescinded with changing presidential administrations. Such guidance does not carry the force of

law; however, it is critical to the Title IX enforcement regime. The following discusses guidance

in effect from 2010 through 2016.10

a. 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance

OCR’s 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance on the Harassment of Students by

School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties11 (the “2001 Guidance”) outlined the

compliance standards OCR uses for enforcing and investigating violations of Title IX in the

context of sexual harassment, which it defined as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.”12 It

10
OCR withdrew the 2011 DCL and 2014 Q&A (discussed below) in September 2017 pending the development and
implementation of new Title IX regulations. Following this withdrawal, the Department of Education continued to
rely on the 2001 Guidance.
11
See Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students
by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties (Jan. 2001), available at
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.pdf.
12
Id. at 2.

5
explicitly did not address sexual harassment of employees, but noted that such conduct “may be

prohibited by Title IX.”13

The 2001 Guidance underscored that Title IX compliance requires institutions to adopt

grievance procedures that provide prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of sexual

harassment.14 Generally, educational institutions must respond to sexual harassment with

“prompt and effective action calculated to end the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and, as

appropriate, remedy its effects.”15 If the “school, upon notice of the harassment, responds by

taking prompt and effective action to end the harassment and prevent its recurrence, the school

has carried out its responsibility under the Title IX regulations.”16

For purposes of determining whether harassment triggers a school’s responsibilities under

or violates Title IX, the 2001 Guidance recognized a distinction between quid pro quo

harassment (which is automatically considered harassment that limits or denies a student’s ability

to participate in or benefit from the school’s program)17 and hostile-environment harassment

(which requires a fact-specific evaluation of all circumstances relevant to the situation).18 Where

a teacher or employee commits harassment, the extent of the institution’s responsibilities

depends on whether the harassment occurred within “the context of the employee’s provision of

aid, benefits, or services to students” (i.e., in the context of their job responsibilities).19 If it did,

and the harassment limits or denies a student’s ability to benefit from or participate in an

educational program, then the institution must address the discriminatory conduct under the 2001

13
Id. at 24 n.1.
14
Id. at 19.
15
Id. at iii.
16
Id. at 12.
17
Id. at 5.
18
Id. at 5-7.
19
Id. at 10.

6
Guidance and stop the behavior, prevent its recurrence, and remedy the effects of harassment for

the victim.20

Even when employees commit harassment outside the scope of their job, the institution

has a duty to stop the harassment and prevent its recurrence if it has notice of the behavior.21

OCR deemed an institution to have notice of a sexually hostile environment if a “responsible

employee” “knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known” of the harassment,

regardless of whether the complainant uses the appropriate grievance procedures to complain of

the harassment.22 A responsible employee, according to the 2001 Guidance, is “any employee

who has the authority to take action to redress the harassment, who has the duty to report to

appropriate school officials sexual harassment or any other misconduct by students or

employees, or an individual who a student could reasonably believe has this authority or

responsibility.”23 The concept of a “responsible employee” is thus broader than that of the

“appropriate person” described in Gebser as relevant to determining institutional responsive

obligations: “even if a responsible employee does not have the authority to address the

discrimination and take corrective action, he or she does have the obligation to report it to

appropriate school officials.”24 An institution with notice of alleged sexual harassment “should

take immediate and appropriate steps to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred and

take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end any harassment, eliminate a hostile

environment if one has been created, and prevent harassment from occurring again.”25

20
Id.
21
Id. at 11-12.
22
Id. at 13.
23
Id.
24
Id. at 34 n.74.
25
Id. at 15.

7
 The 2001 Guidance set forth factors used to evaluate hostile-environment sexual

harassment, which factors include the severity and frequency of the conduct and the identity of

relationship between the alleged harasser and the subject of the harassment, among others.26 It

explained that “[t]he more severe the conduct, the less the need to show a repetitive series of

incidents,” and specifically cited “attempts to grab any student’s genital area” as sufficiently

severe to create a hostile environment even if the conduct is not persistent.27 With respect to the

identities of the alleged harasser and victim, the 2001 Guidance noted that, “due to the power a

professor or teacher has over a student, sexually based conduct by that person toward a student is

more likely to create a hostile environment than similar conduct by another student.”28

Under the 2001 Guidance, an institution on notice of conduct that may constitute a

sexually hostile environment does not violate Title IX if it takes prompt and effective action to

stop the harassment and prevent its recurrence.29 However, schools cannot take such action or

ensure that the educational environment is free from discrimination “without determining if

sexual harassment complaints have merit.”30 To make sure that schools have the information

they need to evaluate and address such complaints, the 2001 Guidance stressed that institutions

should train their employees to identify harassment and ensure that all responsible employees

understand that they are obligated to report sexual harassment to appropriate school officials. 31

b. 2011 Dear Colleague Letter

On April 4, 2011, OCR issued a Dear Colleague Letter (the “2011 DCL”) to supplement

its 2001 Guidance. The 2011 DCL focused particularly on sexual violence (defined as “physical

26
Id. at 5-6.
27
Id. at 6.
28
Id. at 7.
29
Id. at 12.
30
Id. at 35 n.86.
31
Id. at 13.

8
sexual acts perpetrated against a person’s will or where a person is incapable of giving consent

due to the victim’s use of drugs or alcohol”) and confirmed that Title IX’s requirements

pertaining to sexual harassment also cover sexual violence.32 This focus reflected the Department

of Education’s concern that sexual violence affects students’ ability to feel safe in their school

and thereby their opportunity to benefit fully from the school’s programs and activities.33

The 2011 DCL focused on institutions’ obligations under Title IX with respect to peer-to-

peer harassment, rather than harassment by a teacher.34 Among other things, it outlined elements

of an institution’s grievance procedures that OCR deemed critical to providing “prompt and

equitable resolution of sexual harassment complaints.”35 Perhaps most notably, the 2011 DCL

stated that, “in order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards,

the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard.”36 This represented the first

guidance to impose an evidentiary standard on schools’ investigations and left many institutions

scrambling to review and update their policies and procedures to account for this and other new

requirements discussed in the 2011 DCL.

The 2011 DCL stated that “[s]chools may have an obligation to respond to student-on-

student sexual harassment that initially occurred off school grounds, outside a school’s education

program or activity.”37 Accordingly, the school must process a student’s complaint in accordance

with its established procedures regardless of where the conduct occurred, and consider any

continuing effects of the off-campus conduct when evaluating whether there is a hostile

32
Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Dear Colleague Letter (Apr. 4, 2011), available at
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf at 1.
33
Id. at 2.
34
See Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Dear Colleague Letter (Apr. 4, 2011), available at
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf.
35
Id. at 9.
36
Id. at 10-11.
37
Id. at 4.

9
environment on campus.38 The 2011 DCL did not specifically address whether the same

principles apply to off-campus conduct by employees, and elsewhere noted that schools’

obligations in responding to sexual harassment committed by employees “may be different from

those described in this letter.”39 The letter referred readers to the 2001 Guidance for more

information about employee harassment of students.40

c. 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence

In response to institutional struggles to interpret and implement the 2011 DCL, OCR

issued Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence on April 29, 2014 (the “2014

Q&A”). The 2014 Q&A clarified aspects of institutions’ obligations to investigate allegations of

sexual harassment and to use appropriate interim measures to protect complainants while

investigations are pending. It “further specified in detail the requirements of Title IX with respect

to the responsibilities of a school’s Title IX Coordinator (the employee required by regulation to

coordinate a school’s compliance with Title IX), the elements expected in a school’s written

grievance procedures for responding to complaints of sexual violence, and which individuals

qualify as responsible employees who are required to report allegations of sexual violence to a

school’s Title IX Coordinator.”41

B. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”), prohibits

discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and

national origin.42 It also prohibits retaliation against applicants or employees because they

38
Id.
39
Id. at 2 n.8.
40
Id.
41
Jared P. Cole & Christine J. Back, Title IX and Sexual Harassment: Private Rights of Action, Administrative
Enforcement, and Proposed Regulations, Cong. Research Serv. (Apr. 12, 2019), available at
https://crsreports.congress.gov; see 2014 Q&A at 10-18.
42
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

10
opposed sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII, filed a charge of sex discrimination under

Title VII, or participated in an investigation or proceeding related to a claim of sex

discrimination under Title VII.43 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has

held that an employee of an educational institution subject to Title IX may pursue claims for sex

discrimination under both Title VII and Title IX.44

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is charged with

administrative enforcement of Title VII. EEOC regulations confirm that harassment on the basis

of sex is a violation of Title VII, and describes what conduct constitutes sexual harassment—

generally divided into the categories of quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment—

as follows:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other

verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual
harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either
explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s
employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an
individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting
such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working
environment.45
Employer vicarious liability for harassment by employees generally depends on whether

the harasser was acting as the agent of the employer under basic agency principles. Under the

EEOC regulations, an employer may also be responsible for acts of sexual harassment between

coworkers “where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have

43
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
44
Preston v. Com. of Va. ex rel. New River Cmty. Coll., 31 F.3d at 205-06.
45
29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a) (emphasis added).

11
known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective

action.”46

A claimant alleging discrimination under Title VII must file a timely charge with the

EEOC.47 Generally, charges must be filed within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged

unlawful employment practice, but Subsection 706(e) of Title VII extends the charge-filing

period from 180 to 300 days if three conditions are present: (1) the jurisdiction has “a State or

local law prohibiting the unlawful employment practice alleged” in the charge, (2) the

jurisdiction has “a State or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such

practice[,]” and (3) the charging party has “initially instituted proceedings with [that] State or

local agency.”48 Virginia has the requisite state law and enforcement agency to qualify as such a

“deferral state” under Title VII.

C. Virginia Human Rights Act

The Virginia Human Rights Act (“VHRA”) prohibits unlawful discrimination in

employment based on sex, among other protected characteristics.49 An aggrieved employee must

file a complaint with the Virginia Office of the Attorney General, Division of Human Rights

(“DHR”), which enforces the VHRA, within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory event.50

Because DHR is a “deferral agency” under Title VII, charges filed with either DHR or the EEOC

are considered “dual filed” with both agencies.51

46
29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d).
47
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).
48
Id.
49
Va. Code Ann. §§ 2.2-3900(B), 2.2-3901, & 2.2-3905(B).
50
Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-522.
51
McIntyre-Handy v. W. Telemarketing Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 718, 724-28 (E.D. Va. 2000).

12
 D. The Clery Act and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

Section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (“HEA”),52 otherwise

known as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics

Act (the “Clery Act”), requires institutions of higher education to comply with certain campus

safety and security related requirements as a condition of their participation in financial aid

programs under Title IV of the HEA. The Clery Act requires institutions to file annual security

reports that include statistics for various criminal offenses, including forcible and non-forcible

sex offenses and aggravated assault. It also requires institutions to inform students of procedures

complainants should follow, including to whom offenses should be reported.

In 2013, President Obama signed the Campus SAVE Act to amend the Clery Act as part

of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (“VAWA”). VAWA amended the Clery

Act to require institutions to compile and report statistics of dating violence, domestic violence,

sexual assault, and stalking, in addition to the categories previously mandated under the Clery

Act, and to include certain policies, procedures, and programs pertaining to these incidents in

their annual security reports. VAWA requires institutions’ policies to include information on

victims’ option to (or not to) notify and seek assistance from law enforcement and campus

authorities, as well as their rights, and the institution’s responsibilities, regarding no-contact,

restraining, and protective orders.

VAWA also requires new students and new employees to be offered “primary prevention

and awareness programs” that promote awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, domestic violence,

dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, which training programs must include, among other

52
20 U.S.C. § 1092(f).

13
things, definitions of those offenses and the definition of consent, with reference to sexual

offenses, in the applicable jurisdiction.

E. Old Dominion University Policies

At all times relevant to this legal review, ODU has maintained institution-wide policies

intended to provide students and employees with an environment free of sexual harassment and

other forms of discriminatory conduct. For purposes of this review, the relevant ODU policies

are the 1997 Sexual Harassment Policy, 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy, 2008 Sexual Assault

Policy, 2011 Sexual Misconduct Policy, and 2011 Stalking Policy. The following is a discussion

of the key provisions of each policy.

1. Policies Concerning Sexual Harassment

a. 1997 Sexual Harassment Policy

During the entirety of 2010 through September 30, 2011, ODU’s then-operative sexual

harassment policy (the “1997 Sexual Harassment Policy”) denounced sexual harassment as

“reprehensible” and set forth policies and procedures intended to avoid and address sexual

harassment that might affect the learning and working environment at the University.53 The 1997

Sexual Harassment Policy defined “sexual harassment” as “unwelcomed and unsolicited conduct

of a sexual nature, physical or verbal, by a member of the university community” under certain

circumstances, including where “[s]uch conduct is known or should have been known to

interfere with such person’s work or academic performance, by creating an intimidating, hostile,

or offensive working or educational environment.”54 Such conduct might include, but was not

limited to, “uninvited physical contact or touching such as pinching or intentional brushing

53
Old Dominion University Policy # 6320, Sexual Harassment Policy (rev. May 1, 1997), at 1.
54
Id. at 2.

14
against the body.”55 For purposes of the policy, a “member of the university community” meant

a “student or employee, or an alumnus, alumna, or volunteer involved in any university

sponsored activity.”56

The 1997 Sexual Harassment Policy outlined procedures by which members of the ODU

community could make complaints of sexual harassment. According to the policy, the first step

was for “[a]ny individual in the university community who believes she or he has been the victim

of sexual harassment” to “contact the EO/AA director”—at the time, ReNee Dunman—“or a

member of the University Committee on Sexual Harassment,” within two years of the date of the

alleged harassment if the complainant was a student and within 120 days of the alleged

harassment for any other member of the university community.57

The complainant could then “elect an informal process” to resolve the complaint “without

the necessity of disciplinary action or of the more formal procedures for processing a complaint,”

or, alternatively, elect to file a formal complaint, which would trigger an investigation.58 The

1997 Sexual Harassment Policy allowed for complaints of sexual harassment to be pursued “in

accordance with the appropriate university complaint resolution procedure” depending on the

status of the complainant—e.g., student or faculty—and identified the relevant procedures and

contact persons.59

In the second step of the procedure outlined in the policy, the complainant could elect to

“proceed with the charge” before “the appropriate administrative tribunal,” and sanctions, if

55
Id.
56
Id.
57
Id. at 4.
58
Id.
59
Id. at 6.

15
appropriate, would be imposed “in accordance with applicable University disciplinary and

sanction procedures.”60

Although the 1997 Sexual Harassment Policy spoke broadly to the responsibilities of

members of the ODU community in connection with the policy, it did not set forth specific

obligations or procedures for persons other than complainants who became aware of possible

sexual harassment. Thus, the policy provided in general terms that “[i]t is the responsibility of

each member of university administrators and supervisors [sic] to assure that effective measures

are taken to implement the procedures outlined in this policy,” and that “[t]he University’s

EO/AA director must be advised of all complaints or reported incidents of sexual harassment.”61

The policy did not specify whether, or to what extent, particular members of the ODU

community were obligated to report possible instances of sexual harassment. Specifically, the

1997 Sexual Harassment Policy did not identify which members of the ODU community would

be considered “responsible employees” within the meaning of federal Title IX guidance, and thus

did not apprise those employees, or the broader ODU community, of precisely who was

obligated to report suspected harassment and under what circumstances.

b. 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy

ODU implemented a revised sexual harassment policy on September 30, 2011 (the “2011

Sexual Harassment Policy”) and in several respects, the 2011 policy was more expansive and

more detailed than the 1997 policy.62 The 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy’s definition of “sexual

harassment” was substantially similar to its definition under the 1997 Policy; however, the

revised definition focused on the “purpose or effect” of the harasser’s conduct rather than

60
Id. at 5-6.
61
Id.
62
Old Dominion University Policy # 6320, Sexual Harassment Policy (rev. Sept. 30, 2011).

16
whether the harasser knew or should have known that the conduct would interfere with another

person’s work or education.63 The revised policy also recognized that conduct that interferes with

participation in extracurricular activities, as well as conduct that interferes with work or

academic performance, may constitute prohibited sexual harassment.64 In addition to its more

expansive definition of “sexual harassment,” the 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy also broadened

its applicability to “all employees, students, volunteers, employees of affiliated organizations,

and visitors to the institution,” including “guests, uninvited guests[,] and all other persons located

on property[] owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the University.”65

The 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy set forth more detailed procedures concerning

reporting and addressing sexual harassment than the 1997 policy. The revised policy encouraged

any member of the University community who believed that he or she had been the victim of

sexual harassment to contact the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity (“OIED”),

whereupon the accuser could elect to follow either the informal complaint procedure or formal

complaint procedure outlined by the policy.66 Even if the accuser elected the informal process,

the 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy authorized OIED to “determine that because of the

seriousness of the allegations the informal process is inappropriate and instead inform the

accuser that the formal complaint procedure will be utilized.”67 Under the 2011 Sexual

Harassment Policy, a faculty complainant who wished to submit a formal complaint of sexual

harassment could proceed under either the university’s Sexual Harassment Policy’s Formal

Complaint Procedure through OIED or the Faculty Grievance Procedure.68

63
Id. at 1-2 (emphasis added); compare with 1997 Sexual Harassment Policy at 2.
64
2011 Sexual Harassment Policy at 1-2.
65
Id. at 2.
66
Id. at 2-3.
67
Id. at 3.
68
Id. at 3-4.

17
 The 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy was also more specific than the previous policy with

respect to the responsibilities of administrators, supervisors, and faculty in reporting and

responding to sexual harassment. Under the 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy, such persons, “and

others who are performing instructional or academic advising duties[,] have an added

responsibility of reporting any claim or concern of sexual harassment to the OIED.”69 Although

the 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy did not specifically identify such individuals as “responsible

employees” within the meaning of federal Title IX guidance, elaborate on the circumstances

under which their reporting obligations would be triggered, or identify reporting options

available to administrators and faculty members who received a disclosure, the policy generally

established the requirement that such persons bring any “concern” about sexual harassment to

the OIED’s attention.70

2. Policies Concerning Sexual Assault

a. 2008 Sexual Assault Policy

Although sexual assault arguably falls within the definition of “sexual harassment” set

forth in both the 1997 and 2011 Sexual Harassment Policies, ODU also maintained separate

sexual assault policies during the relevant time period. The University’s Sexual Assault Policy

dated September 2, 2008 (the “2008 Sexual Assault Policy”) defined “sexual assault” as “rape,

forcible sodomy, sexual penetration with an inanimate object, fondling or touching of an

unwilling person’s intimate parts (genitalia, groin, breast or buttocks, covered or uncovered),

[whether committed through] the use of force, the threat of force, by intimidation, or not

forcibly/against the person’s will, such as when the victim is incapable of giving consent due to

69
Id. at 3.
70
Id.

18
the substantiated use of alcohol or drugs or for other verified reasons.”71 Under the 2008 Sexual

Assault Policy, “[a] sexual assault of any University student, faculty or staff member which

occurs either on or off campus and is perpetrated by another student, faculty or staff member will

be adjudicated by using the disciplinary process appropriate to the alleged assailant.”72

The 2008 Sexual Assault Policy identified several avenues for reporting incidents of

sexual assault, including “contacting the Dean of Students and Chief Student Affairs Officer, a

residence hall staff member, the Women’s Center, Counseling Services, Student Health Services

or the Department of Public Safety,” each of which had personnel trained to handle such reports.

The policy also required “any staff or faculty member [who] receive[d] a report of sexual

assault” to report it (anonymously, if the victim requested) to the Sexual Assault Free

Environment (“SAFE”) Program Coordinator in ODU’s Women’s Center within 24 hours by

completing and submitting a Sexual Assault Incident Report (“SAIR”) form. The 2008 Sexual

Assault Policy designated the Dean of Students and Chief Student Affairs Officer as having

responsibility for the policy.

b. 2011 Sexual Misconduct Policy

On October 2, 2011, ODU’s sexual assault policy was superseded by a more expansive

Sexual Misconduct Policy (the “2011 Sexual Misconduct Policy”). That policy defined “sexual

misconduct” to encompass any “[n]on-consensual sexual activity . . . occurring on or off

campus,” including, but not limited to, “[a]ny sexual intercourse . . . and any intentional sexual

touching, however slight, with any object by a person upon another person.”73 Consent, under the

71
Old Dominion University Policy # 4600, Sexual Assault Policy (rev. Sept. 2, 2008).
72
Id.
73
Old Dominion University Policy # 4600, Sexual Misconduct Policy (rev. Oct. 2, 2011), at 1.

19
2011 Sexual Misconduct Policy, required “[a] voluntary and positive affirmation that all parties

involved want to engage in sexual activity[;]” consent was to be “active and not passive.”74

The 2011 Sexual Misconduct Policy stated that “[s]exual contact with another person

without consent and/or with coercion is prohibited and will not be tolerated from any member of

the University community or visitors to the campus.”75 Similar to ODU’s 2011 Sexual

Harassment Policy, its terms applied to “all employees, students, volunteers, employees of

affiliated organizations[,] and visitors to the institution,” including “guests, uninvited guests and

all other persons located on property[] owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the

University.”76

The 2011 Sexual Misconduct Policy set forth certain “Additional Procedures for

Employees Who Are Victims of Sexual Misconduct,” who were invited to file a report with the

ODU Police Department or other police department in the employee’s jurisdiction, or to make a

report to the OIED, the Department of Human Resources, or a supervisor.77 It also established

the following reporting requirements for a broader class of employees, but a narrower category

of reports, than the 2008 policy: “When any University employee, including a student employee,

receives a report of sexual assault involving a student,” the employee was required to submit a

SAIR to the Women’s Center within 24 hours.78 Notwithstanding that broad prescription, the

2011 Sexual Misconduct Policy cautioned complainants that “[s]ome offices on campus may

maintain complete confidentiality” when in receipt of reports of sexual misconduct while others

“are required to take action when an individual reports his/her victimization to them.” Thus,

74
Id.
75
Id. at 2.
76
Id.
77
Id. at 4.
78
Id. (emphasis added).

20
complainants were encouraged to consult a “University Confidentiality Chart” to determine the

“degree[] of confidentiality” applicable to disclosures to various offices on campus.79 The policy

listed the Dean of Students, Employee Relations Manager for Human Resources, and Assistant

Vice President for Undergraduate Studies as the responsible officers for students, classified/wage

employees and AP faculty, and faculty, respectively.

3. Policy Concerning Stalking

ODU also maintained a policy to “prohibit stalking, outline the procedures for reporting

and adjudicating stalking, and provide information on support services and resources for victims

of stalking,” whether or not related to sexual harassment or sex-based discrimination. The

version of the policy in effect as of August 26, 2011 (the “2011 Stalking Policy”) defined

“stalking” as “[c]onduct, occurring on more than one occasion, that is directed at another person

or persons with the intent to place, or that an individual reasonably should know the conduct

places, that other person in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury to

that person or to that other person’s family.”80 The 2011 Stalking Policy applied to “all

employees, students, [and] volunteers[;]” however, “[r]eporting requirements, adjudication and

disciplinary actions will depend on who is involved as the alleged victim and stalker.” If the

alleged stalker was an employee, the alleged victim (student or employee) should report the

incident to the OIED, which would notify the appropriate office of the allegations for disposition

in accordance with the appropriate policy depending on the accused employee’s classification. 81

The 2011 Stalking Policy also identified support services available to victims of stalking.82

79
Id.
80
Id.
81
Id. at 2-3.
82
See id. at 3.

21
 F. Relevant Parties

Old Dominion University (“ODU”): ODU is a public research institution located in

Norfolk, Virginia. Founded in 1930, ODU has a total enrollment of more than 24,000 students in

seven academic colleges and three schools, including the College of Arts & Letters, which

houses the English Department.

Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity (“OIED”): The mission of the OIED is to

provide leadership and support on matters relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusiveness

for all members of the ODU community. The staff provides guidance, support and delivery of

programming, services and educational initiatives to ODU faculty, staff, and students to support

diversity, inclusiveness, equal access, equitable treatment, cultural understanding and the

prevention of prohibited discrimination and harassment. ODU has designated the director of

OIED as the Title IX coordinator. As such, OIED is responsible for monitoring compliance with

Title IX regulations, including complaints of sexual harassment, sexual violence and sexual

assault. During the relevant time period, the director of OIED and Title IX Coordinator was

ReNee Dunman.

Blake Bailey (“Bailey”): Bailey is an author who served as a writer-in-residence in the

ODU English Department in the spring of 2010, and as the Mina Hohenberg Darden endowed

Chair of Creative Writing (the “Darden Chair”), an untenured annual position, from fall 2010

through spring 2016.

University Counsel (“ODU Legal”): University Counsel is the in-house legal department

for ODU. Attorneys who serve as University Counsel are Assistant Attorneys General for the

Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“OAG”), and they are

assigned to a particular university. During the relevant time period, ODU Legal consisted of

University Counsel Earl Nance and Senior Associate University Counsel James Wright.

22
 ODU was fully cooperative throughout this investigation. All requests for documents and

responses to written questions were given immediate attention, and responses were received in a

timely manner.

This Report begins with an Executive Summary of key findings, followed by an

Investigation section outlining the scope of our investigation and methods used, a Factual

Summary of key facts and evidence, and a Conclusion.

No constraints were placed on our work beyond those imposed by the terms of our

engagement letter, nor were any efforts made to influence the outcome of our investigation. The

findings set forth in this report are our own.

23
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Many of the underlying facts concerning allegations of sexual misconduct against former

ODU professor Blake Bailey (“Bailey”) are unable to be definitively established, due to a lack of

documentation and physical evidence, the significant passage of time, and divergent

recollections. However, we do find that Bailey grabbed Professor Anderson’s vaginal area

without her consent in April 2010 and engaged in unwanted physical touching and attention

toward a graduate student in October 2010. And, that certain ODU faculty and administrators

became aware of these incidents.

Similarly, much of what may or may not have been reported to ODU regarding these

allegations and the actions taken in response also cannot be fully documented by our

investigation. ODU administrators were notified of Bailey’s conduct and an investigation was

conducted in 2012, during which the Title IX Coordinator interviewed Professor Anderson and

another faculty member, and met with Bailey directly. However, it is unclear what, if any,

additional steps were taken, and Bailey remained on campus for four more years.

That is not the case concerning the facts and circumstances surrounding the ODU

Statement to The Pilot on May 26, 2021. The evidence is clear that senior members of the ODU

administration were intimately involved in the University’s response to The Pilot’s inquiry. The

Statement to The Pilot was ill-conceived, insensitive to complainants and witnesses, and

inaccurate regarding certain facts, causing harm to the University and its community.

In our opinion, the factual record supports the following:

A. Allegations against Blake Bailey

In the June 10, 2021, Virginian-Pilot article, Blake Bailey was an ODU star. Faculty and

students say he abused and harassed women for years (the “Article”), it is alleged that Bailey

engaged in multiple acts of sexual misconduct at ODU from 2010 through 2014. The allegations

24
include multiple incidents involving ODU Professor Bridget Anderson, including an April 2010

hot tub incident, where Bailey grabbed Professor Anderson’s vaginal area, unwanted sexual

comments made to Professor Anderson in a bar in 2010, a threat to rape Professor Anderson in

April 2011, an attempt to kiss Professor Anderson without her consent in summer 2011, and an

incident in the English Department mailroom in 2012, during which Professor Anderson claims

that she had to use a knife to defend herself against Bailey; harassment of a graduate student at a

bar in October 2010; unwanted kissing of a visiting writer in October 2011; and harassment of

another graduate student in 2014.

The facts and evidence lead us to conclude that Bailey grabbed Professor Anderson’s

vaginal area in a hot tub without her consent, at a beach house in Sandbridge, Virginia, in April

2010. We are unable to fully substantiate any of the other alleged incidents involving Bailey and

Professor Anderson.

The facts and evidence also lead us to conclude that, in October 2010, Bailey engaged in

unwanted physical touching and attention toward a graduate student at a bar near ODU’s

campus.

We received conflicting reports concerning Bailey’s alleged sexual misconduct toward

two remaining women, a visiting writing (in October 2011) and a second graduate student (in

2014). Because the complainants failed to respond to our repeated inquiries, we could not

substantiate the allegations that Bailey harassed the visiting writer and kissed her without her

consent in October 2011, and harassed the second graduate student in 2014.

B. Reporting of the Allegations and ODU’s Response

Between 2010 and 2012, reports of Bailey’s alleged inappropriate behavior toward

women were made to multiple ODU faculty and administrators, including the Title IX

Coordinator.

25
 1. Professor Bridget Anderson

According to Professor Anderson’s account, she reported her concerns regarding Bailey

to ODU English Department administrators on multiple occasions from 2010 through 2012. She

first reported issues with Bailey following the April 2010 unwanted touching incident. Professor

Anderson claims to have immediately reported Bailey’s actions in the hot tub to (now deceased)

then-Chair of the English Department Jeff Richards (“Richards”). She did not ask for or expect

anything to be done, but wanted others to know what had happened. Richards told her he would

meet with then-incoming Dean Charles Wilson (“Wilson”) and tell him what had happened. A

week later, Professor Anderson states that Richards told her that Wilson said he would have

English Professor Michael Pearson (“Pearson”) talk to Bailey about his behavior.

Professor Anderson also claims to have directly reported the incident to Dr. Dana Heller

(“Heller”) when she became Chair of the English Department in September 2010, as well as,

Wilson in October 2010.

Following the alleged rape threat in 2011, Professor Anderson states that she reported the

threat, along with Bailey’s earlier misconduct in 2010, to Heller. Professor Anderson says she

went to Heller first, who referred her to Wilson. According to Professor Anderson, Heller stated

she would speak to Pearson about Bailey’s conduct. Professor Anderson recounts both Heller

and Wilson responded that nothing could be done because it was off campus.

Professor Anderson also told us that following the alleged attempted kiss in the summer

of 2011, she spoke with Heller within a week of the incident, and told her the entire story.

During the same meeting, Professor Anderson says she also reported an incident with Bailey that

had happened at a bar called “Bardo’s” in 2010, where Bailey allegedly made sexually

26
inappropriate comments to her. According to Professor Anderson, Heller told her she would talk

to Wilson.

Professor Anderson states that she then met with Wilson in his office and told him the

series of incidents involving Bailey, including the hot tub, Bardo’s, and the attempted kiss.

Professor Anderson states that Wilson was sympathetic but judgmental about the hot tub

incident, asking her if she took any personal responsibility. Professor Anderson states that she

told Wilson that she wanted to speak to then-Title IX Coordinator ReNee Dunman (“Dunman”)

because the attempted kiss happened on campus. Professor Anderson states that Wilson

specifically told her not to go to Dunman, that he wanted to deal with it within the college.

Wilson told Professor Anderson he would have Pearson speak to Bailey.

Professor Anderson states that she met with Heller and Wilson again, separately,

following an incident where Professor Anderson believed Bailey was harassing her at a public

lecture she gave in November 2011. She reported Bailey’s conduct as “stalking,” which they

disputed. Professor Anderson states that she suggested to Wilson that a report be made to

Dunman and Wilson, again, told her not to do so. Anderson says both administrators told her

Bailey’s conduct involved free speech and was not sexual, and that he had a right to attend the

lecture. Ultimately, Professor Anderson did not report the lecture incident to Dunman.

Following the lecture incident, Professor Anderson did not report any other incidents

involving Bailey. Specifically, the mailroom incident, during which she claims to have defended

herself with a knife. However, according to Professor Anderson, someone else reported the

incident because shortly after it happened, she was summoned to a meeting with Wilson and

Bailey concerning the matter.

27
 Both Wilson and Bailey deny that such meeting ever occurred, and Bailey denies the

knife incident, altogether. Moreover, Wilson states that he never spoke to Professor Anderson or

anyone about Bailey’s conduct, and never received any reports concerning inappropriate

behavior by Bailey toward Professor Anderson. Heller does not recall specific discussions with

Professor Anderson concerning Bailey, but states that she ultimately encouraged Professor

Anderson to report her concerns directly to Dunman, which Professor Anderson did.

It is noteworthy that during the relevant time period, Professor Anderson served on a

University committee, with Dunman, that had the responsibility of reviewing existing ODU

sexual misconduct policies and improving them. By her own account, Anderson played a

primary role in drafting the 2011 Sexual Misconduct Policy.

2. Graduate Students

In October 2010, the graduate student who was the subject of Bailey’s unwanted physical

touching and attention at a bar, reported the incident to an ODU adjunct professor. After

speaking with the professor, the graduate student reported the incident to Heller. Heller asked the

student if she wanted to file an official complaint, which she declined to do. Evidence suggests a

primary reason for the student’s decision not to file a complaint was a representation to her that

Heller would recommend that Bailey’s annual appointment not be renewed.

Heller did not recall meeting with the graduate student. However, she stated that she was

inclined to believe the student’s account that the two of them spoke. Heller did recall reporting

the bar incident to Wilson, who requested that Heller meet with Bailey. Heller subsequently met

with Bailey in her office to discuss his behavior toward women. Heller did not have any

additional discussions with either Bailey or the graduate student concerning the incident, and she

took no further action.

28
 Also in the fall of 2010, Luisa Igloria (“Igloria”), then-Director of the MFA Program,

reached out to the graduate student to check on her because she had heard about the bar incident.

Igloria asked the student if she was okay. The graduate student responded that she was okay, and

stated that everything was taken care of. Igloria took no further action.

Approximately one year later, on October 12, 2011, graduate student Valarie Clark (“Ms.

Clark”) spoke with Igloria regarding her concerns with Bailey’s behavior, after witnessing his

interactions with a visiting writer on October 7, 2011. Ms. Clark told Igloria that Bailey

“repeatedly physically separated [the visiting writer] from everyone else, including dragging her

down several blocks when we tried to leave the party.”83 In addition to the incident with the

visiting writer, Ms. Clark also mentioned the bar incident with the other graduate student. Prior

to Ms. Clark’s conversation with Igloria, graduate student Tara Burke (“Ms. Burke”) informally

told Igloria that Bailey was a “problem,” without providing any specific details. Igloria

encouraged the students to speak directly to the department chair because she believed it was the

complainant’s decision to file a complaint. She considered the complaints “anecdotal” in nature,

and took no further action

3. OIED and the Title IX Coordinator

In May 2012, ODU’s Assistant Vice President for Institutional Equity and Diversity and

Title IX Coordinator ReNee Dunman (“Dunman”), since retired, commenced an official

investigation of Bailey. Because nearly every official record of the investigation no longer exists,

and Dunman herself could not recall, we do not know precisely what prompted Dunman’s

investigation. However, the evidence leads us to conclude that it was likely the result of a report

Heller made to Dunman concerning Bailey’s actions toward Professor Anderson.

83
Ms. Clark email to Ms. Burke, October 12, 2011, 6:51 pm.

29
 During the course of the investigation, Dunman spoke with Professor Anderson at least

twice, possibly three times, concerning her interactions with Bailey. Professor Anderson states

that she told Dunman everything except the knife incident. Dunman also spoke with retired ODU

professor Stephanie Sugioka (“Sugioka”), who Professor Anderson had spoken to about her

problems with Bailey. There is no record of OIED interviewing anyone else regarding Bailey.

There is a single document in OIED’s records concerning Bailey. The document is dated

July 18, 2012, and appears to be Dunman’s prep notes for a meeting with Bailey concerning his

behavior. Dunman does not specifically recall meeting with Bailey; however, she assumes, based

on the notes, that such a meeting occurred.

There is no record of any additional follow-up with Bailey or any actions taken against

him by ODU as a result of the allegations involving Professor Anderson, the graduate student, or

anyone else.

C. Violations of ODU Policies, Title VII, and Title IX

1. Individual Employees’ Obligations to Report Allegations of Sexual

Harassment

Given the vague and conflicting accounts of what various individuals reported

concerning Bailey’s alleged sexual misconduct to ODU faculty, staff, or administrators, we

cannot state at this time that any of those reports clearly established a violation of Title VII, Title

IX, or other applicable law or policy.

The determination of whether particular conduct is unlawful under the anti-discrimination

statutes is best made contemporaneously by individuals with the appropriate training, experience,

and specialized knowledge to assess the allegations and investigate and evaluate the

circumstances surrounding them so that appropriate responsive action, if necessary, can be taken.

At ODU, these functions reside primarily within the OIED. Obviously, OIED could not have

30
evaluated or investigated allegations it never received, even if the University would be charged

with constructive knowledge of those concerns or reports because they were known to

supervisors, “responsible employees” (as that concept was developed under federal Title IX

guidance), or “appropriate persons” (under the Gebser standard for attributing knowledge to the

institution). Accordingly, individual employees’ reporting obligations were essential to ensuring

compliance with federal law and effectuating ODU’s policies.

Under Title VII, an employer is responsible for addressing a hostile work environment

created by a co-worker of the complaining party, if the employer knew or should have known of

the sexual harassment. Under Title IX guidance in effect during the relevant time period,

responsible employees were expected to promptly disclose concerns and reports of potential

harassment to appropriate University officials. However, at the University level, in ODU’s 1997

Sexual Harassment Policy—which originated prior to the Title IX 2001 Guidance that

highlighted the role of responsible employees, but remained in effect at the time of the 2010

Sandbridge gathering and its immediate aftermath—that obligation was not clearly published.

Thus, although that policy emphasized the role of “university administrators and supervisors” in

implementing ODU’s procedures with respect to sexual harassment, it did not clearly articulate

reporting requirements expected of those individuals or any others.84

ODU’s 2011 Sexual Harassment Policy, in contrast, imposed reporting obligations

broadly, effectively treating all administrators, supervisors, faculty, and other persons with

instructional or academic advising duties as responsible employees. Therefore, as of September

84
Although the 2008 Sexual Assault Policy required staff or faculty who received a report of a sexual assault to
promptly report it to the Women’s Center, such a report does not seem calculated to apprise the University for
purposes of triggering a response under Title IX, especially if the Women’s Center was a confidential resource.

31
30, 2011, the policy’s effective date, such persons who received a report of potential sexual

harassment were required to escalate the report to OIED.

Based on our review of the facts, at least some allegations concerning Bailey’s conduct

were escalated to OIED as required, which prompted an OIED investigation during the spring

and summer of 2012. Certain allegations raised by Professor Anderson were reported to OIED,

most likely by Heller. Reports of alleged inappropriate conduct toward a graduate student by

Bailey were made to OIED, as well.

However, not all concerns regarding Bailey’s apparent patterns of conduct were reported

to OIED by individuals who became aware of them. For example, Igloria never reported

concerns raised to her by graduate students to OIED. The evidence also supports the conclusion

that Heller received a complaint from the graduate student who was harassed by Bailey at a bar

in October 2010 and she did not escalate the complaint to OIED. However, Heller states that she

informed Wilson of the bar incident and she spoke with Bailey directly about his actions toward

women. Heller also asked the graduate student if she wanted to file a formal complaint, which

she declined to do.

As a matter of best practices, such concerns should have been escalated to OIED for

evaluation and, if warranted, investigated and appropriate responsive action taken. Even if the

individuals who became aware of those concerns did not believe that anti-discrimination laws or

policies were implicated; even if the concerns did not, in fact, implicate those laws or policies,

OIED needed to be informed of those concerns to ensure that ODU investigated and responded

appropriately, especially in light of the totality of the allegations concerning Bailey’s conduct

toward women at ODU.

32
 2. ODU’s Response to Allegations of Sexual Harassment

ODU was at least constructively aware of alleged improper conduct by Bailey during a

significant period of his employment at the University. Even if the alleged conduct did not

constitute unlawful harassment or sex-based discrimination, we conclude that such concerns

warranted responsive action by the University to address them and prevent harassment or sex-

based discrimination. Under Title VII obligations, then-applicable Title IX guidance, and ODU

policy, such action likely should have involved OIED.

There is no dispute that ODU was made aware of Professor Anderson’s allegation that

Bailey grabbed her vaginal area in a hot tub in an offensive, nonconsensual manner. Under both

Title VII and Title IX, a single instance of sexual assault, as was described by Professor

Anderson, may be sufficient to create a hostile work environment based on sex and deny a

person equal access to an educational program or activity. Here, analysis under both laws is

complicated by the circumstances of the hot tub incident, which occurred off-campus (which fact

alone does not place it outside the scope of the relevant laws) and in connection with a gathering

that was not clearly connected to a work environment or an educational program.

Regardless of whether the hot tub incident falls within the scope of Title VII, Title IX, or

any other law or policy, Bailey’s act was nonconsensual and clearly inappropriate, and should

have triggered a more careful consideration of his conduct. Against that backdrop, ODU should

have viewed any additional reports concerning Bailey with heightened scrutiny. And, ODU did

become aware of other reports, learning of alleged inappropriate conduct by Bailey toward at

least one graduate student. It is not clear that the severity of the conduct reported regarding each

incident, in isolation, rose to the level of harassment in violation of any applicable law or policy.

However, in light of Professor Anderson’s allegations concerning the hot tub incident, those

reports ought to have raised significant concerns regarding Bailey.

33
 A review of the facts leads to the conclusion that ODU had actual or constructive notice

of several concerns regarding Bailey’s actions toward women, and that the University appears to

have addressed them, at least to some extent, with Bailey directly. In 2012, OIED conducted an

investigation concerning Bailey’s actions. As part of the investigation, Dunman spoke with

Bailey concerning his actions toward women. Other than the meeting with Bailey and interviews

of Professor Anderson and Sugioka, it is unclear what else the investigation entailed. As such,

we cannot definitively state whether the University’s response was appropriate or not under

applicable laws and policies.

Following the investigation, it is unclear what, if any, corrective or monitoring actions

ODU took thereafter, and Bailey’s employment with the University was renewed for several

years. We cannot conclude, on the limited evidence available, that further action was necessarily

required as a matter of law. However, we believe that further and ongoing action was seemingly

justified as a matter of policy and prudence.

D. Drafting of the May 26, 2021, Statement

The drafting and editing process of the May 26, 2021, Statement (the “Statement”) to The

Pilot was led by ODU Legal and Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. Prior to publishing the Article, The

Pilot contacted ODU requesting comment on the topic of Bailey and sexual misconduct during

his time at ODU. Former ODU President John Broderick (“Broderick”), in consultation with

Vice President for Administration and Finance Gregory DuBois (“DuBois”), decided that ODU

should respond to The Pilot’s request. ODU’s response was spearheaded by University Counsel

Earl Nance (“Nance”) and Senior University Counsel James Wright (“Wright”), with full

guidance from and consultation with Broderick and DuBois. Due to restrictions on ODU Legal’s

ability to communicate with the press, as well as specific allegations raised by The Pilot

concerning Wright, it was decided that outside counsel would be retained to communicate with

34
The Pilot. Nance recommended Kaufman & Canoles and they were retained with the OAG’s

approval.

Nance and Wright conducted a limited internal investigation by interviewing current and

former ODU faculty and staff regarding the alleged incidents. Notes from the witness interviews

were provided to counsel at Kaufman & Canoles, who in turn, drafted the Statement. It was

agreed among ODU Legal, DuBois, Broderick, and Kaufman & Canoles that the purpose of the

information provided to The Pilot was to deter them from publishing the story. To that end, they

intended the response to be aggressive in both tone and substance.

The Pilot request for comment was received on May 20, 2021, and Kaufman & Canoles

submitted the Statement to The Pilot on ODU’s behalf on May 26, 2021. In that short time

period, interviews were conducted, and the Statement was drafted and edited. Nance led all of

the interviews, except for one, which was led by Wright. Due to concerns that contacting her

could be viewed as coercive or retaliatory, a conscious decision was made to not interview

Professor Anderson. As for the other complainants, former University Counsel Earl Nance

reported, “they ran out of time.”

DuBois and Broderick were regularly updated as ODU Legal conducted interviews and

Kaufman & Canoles crafted a response. Once the initial statement draft was complete, Kaufman

& Canoles sent the document to Nance and Wright. Nance shared the document with Sylvia

Jones (“Jones”) and Deborah Love (“Love”), his superiors at the OAG. Nance also shared the

document with Broderick and DuBois. Love did not edit the Statement. It also appears from the

evidence that DuBois did not edit the Statement. Both Nance and Wright edited the Statement

before it was finalized. Jones provided minor grammatical edits, but nothing substantive.

Although the evidence is not definitive on this point, it is likely that Broderick edited a hard copy

35
of the Statement, as well. We can definitively state that Broderick reviewed the Statement and

approved it before Kaufman & Canoles sent it to The Pilot.

As notable as the individuals who were involved in the drafting of the Statement, equally

notable is the glaring absence in the drafting process of Assistant Vice President for Strategic

Communication and Marketing Giovanna Genard, current Title IX Coordinator Arianna Wright,

any OIED staff, or any ODU female administrators or staff.

36
 INVESTIGATION

A. Scope of the Investigation

Pursuant to the scope of work outlined in the engagement letter, dated August 12, 2021,

and the accompanying directive from the Office of the Attorney General, our investigation was

limited to a legal review of ODU’s actions relating to allegations against former professor

Bailey, from the start of his employment at ODU in 2010 through the present, and an evaluation

of whether ODU’s intake, handling, and response to any and all complaints made against

Bailey complied with ODU policies and procedures, Title IX, Title VII, and the Clery Act

(as amended by VAWA).

The scope of engagement also includes a review of ODU’s May 2021 engagement with

outside counsel to conduct an investigation concerning the Bailey complaints and the

development, review, and/or release of position/media statements for the same matter, as well as

the identification by name and role of each ODU representative who interacted with prior outside

counsel and/or were involved in the drafting or editing of any position/media statements.

Nixon Peabody was not granted subpoena power pursuant to this authority. As such we

did not have the power to compel any person to appear for an interview, or respond to our

questions and requests for documents.

B. Interviews Conducted

Nixon Peabody interviewed 24 individuals during the course of this investigation, some

more than once. Interviews were conducted virtually, primarily by Zoom or Webex, with a

handful conducted by telephone. Most interviews lasted two to three hours; however, a few were

as short as twenty minutes. Professor Anderson’s interviews are particularly notable, as she was

interviewed for more than ten hours over the course of four separate days and she provided us

37
with numerous journal entries, emails, and other related materials. We also had follow up

discussions with Professor Anderson by email.

All interviews were attended by two Nixon Peabody attorneys, except for the interviews

of Professor Anderson, which were attended by three attorneys. Notes were taken of all

interviews and official interview reports were written. Interviews were not recorded by audio or

video. Written questions were also submitted to three individuals and ODU in order to gain

additional information. The first interview took place on September 3, 2021, and the last

interview took place on November 19, 2021.

Interviews were conducted of current and former ODU faculty and staff, including the

former ODU president, former dean of the College of Arts & Letters, current associate dean of

the College of Arts & Letters, current and former chairs of the English Department, and current

and former directors of the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity, who also serves as Title

IX director. Interviews were also conducted of former English Department graduate students.

There are three notable exceptions to the list of interviewees. Two of the alleged

complainants, the visiting writer and the graduate student from 2014, did not respond to our

multiple requests to be interviewed. The third notable exception is Bailey. Bailey, through

counsel, declined our invitation to be interviewed. However, he did submit, through counsel, a

one-page response to a list of 105 written questions posed to him. Bailey did not respond to

specific questions; instead, he issued a blanket statement that the allegations are untrue. Bailey

also denied any inappropriate interactions with ODU students and he labeled the allegations by

Professor Anderson as false, specifically referencing the falsity of allegations that he attempted

to kiss her in her office, harassed her at a faculty meeting, cornered her in a mailroom where she

38
was forced to defend herself with a knife, threatened to rape her, and that there was a meeting

with Dean Charles Wilson to discuss her complaints against Bailey.

With no authority to compel these individuals to appear for an interview, or to subpoena

materials to be produced by them, we were left without recourse. Without the ability to evaluate

allegations from the other complainants directly, it was particularly difficult to determine the

veracity of what was alleged to have occurred between those two individuals and Bailey.

It is also important to note that some witnesses, even those who ultimately spoke with us,

were hesitant to cooperate with our investigation. Some key witnesses only agreed to speak with

us after repeated efforts by our team to convince them to do so. Other key witnesses declined to

be interviewed or never responded, altogether.

As typical in such investigations, we also found some witnesses to be less forthcoming

than others. In particular, former ODU President John Broderick (‘Broderick”) was the least

forthcoming of any of the witnesses interviewed. During his two interview sessions, Broderick

repeatedly responded to questions with “I do not recall,” although the focus of the questions were

events from May and June 2021. Moreover, The Pilot Article was such a significant event for the

ODU community and happened so close in time to Broderick’s planned retirement, it strains

credulity that Broderick would fail to recall so many details only four months later.

More concerning, was Broderick’s claimed lack of knowledge regarding the May 26,

2021 Statement. In his initial interview, Broderick was adamant that he never saw the Statement

until it was printed in The Pilot Article. He was asked this point multiple times and his answer

remained the same. However, Broderick’s claim is contradicted by an email on May 26, 2021,

from Broderick, that includes a letter in which he directly quotes from the Statement.85 When

85
See Broderick email to Nance and DuBois, May 26, 2012, 1:20 pm.

39
confronted with this email in his second interview, Broderick attempted to explain away the

falsehood by stating that those were quotes from the outside law firm’s “report” and he did not

view the “report” as a statement; that he was not sure that he ever saw the full “report” and he

likely just asked University Counsel to provide him with those particular sections; and, if he was

provided with the full “report,” he probably just skimmed it and never actually read the entire

document.

ODU was responding to a press inquiry concerning serious allegations of sexual

misconduct by a former professor. It is not credible that the then-president would be aware of the

situation, involved in the response, and choose to only skim over the written response or not see

it at all before it was sent. Not only did Broderick demonstrate an excessive lack of recall and the

ability to convey falsehoods, he was also defensive, even combative at times, when responding

to questions, especially in his second interview.

C. Materials Reviewed

During the course of our investigation, we reviewed more than 35,900 pages of

documents, records, emails, journal entries, and other materials from ODU and individual

witnesses. It is important to note that the amount of responsive records provided by ODU was

impacted by the University’s records-retention policy, which limits retention of many of the

records responsive to our review to three years, after which time records are purged. There is no

way to know how many responsive documents, if any, no longer exist as a result of this policy.

Materials were provided to Nixon Peabody by uploading materials to a secure link or

emailing requested materials directly to one of the assigned attorneys. Subsequently, materials

were uploaded to the document review platform Relativity for review and analysis. At all times,

access was restricted to the Nixon Peabody investigation team and internal IT staff specifically

assigned to assist in this matter.

40
 We reviewed news articles, press releases, and media coverage related to Bailey and Old

Dominion University.

We also researched and reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and policies, including

Title IX, Title VII, The Clery Act, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, the

Virginia Human Resources Act, and relevant sections of ODU policies and handbooks.

These materials were referenced to better understand the legal responsibility of ODU in

handling allegations of sexual misconduct, as well as the policies and procedures employed by

the University. The applicable statutes, policies, and procedures guided our analysis of the

appropriateness of ODU’s actions regarding Bailey.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

The allegations of sexual misconduct against Bailey span 2010 through 2014.

Contemporaneous records, emails, and similar documentation are sparse. Additionally, memories

of events approximately ten years ago are faded and strained, and various witness accounts

diverge significantly. We also take into account the fact that we conducted interviews subsequent

to a significant amount of media coverage of the events in question, much of which most of the

witnesses had been exposed to. We recognize this may have impacted certain witness

recollections. However, we are able to definitively find that Bailey grabbed Professor

Anderson’s vaginal area in a hot tub, in April 2010, without her consent. We also find that Bailey

inappropriately grabbed and followed a graduate student at a bar, in October 2010.

Furthermore, various reports of Bailey’s inappropriate behavior were made to ODU

faculty and administrators between 2010 and 2012.

Lastly, the evidence supports the finding that members of ODU’s senior leadership,

including University Counsel Earl Nance and former ODU President John Broderick, were

directly involved in the May 26, 2021, Statement to The Pilot.

41
 The following is not intended to be a full recitation of all related facts and circumstances.

Rather, it is a summary of the key facts and circumstances relevant to our review and findings.

A. Allegations against Blake Bailey

Professor Anderson raises multiple allegations of sexual misconduct by Bailey between

2010 and 2012. Additional allegations of sexual misconduct by Bailey between 2010 and 2014

involving graduate students and a visiting writer are also raised, either by the alleged

complainant directly or by an alleged eyewitness. The details of these allegations are discussed

below.

1. Bailey and Professor Bridget Anderson

Dr. Bridget Anderson (“Professor Anderson”) is a tenured Associate Professor of

English, whose specialization is Linguistics. Witnesses describe her as “brilliant” and

“passionate.” One witness, in particular, stated that “some might perceive her as eccentric, but

she’s sharp as a tack, she’s funny, total open book.”

We found Professor Anderson animated and engaging. She had a very specific and vivid

recollection of the details and conversations concerning Bailey, despite the passage of time.

Professor Anderson’s recollections were aided in some instances by personal journal entries.

Professor Anderson was fully cooperative and forthcoming throughout the investigation. During

our interviews, Professor Anderson was frequently emotional and in tears when discussing

Bailey, and the reactions that she perceived various faculty members and administrators had to

her disclosures about him.

Some details of events involving Bailey that Professor Anderson recounted to us varied

among our interviews with her, particularly the details of the Sandbridge 2011 Creative Writing

gathering, and some details did not match the report of other witnesses. We discuss below the

significant events Professor Anderson reported concerning her interactions with Bailey, the

42
recollections of other witnesses concerning those events, and related materials we were able to

identify during our investigation.

a. Sandbridge 2010 hot tub incident

In April 2010, the ODU graduate program for Creative Writing hosted a weekend event

at a beach house in Sandbridge, Virginia, for professors and their significant others (“Sandbridge

2010”). Graduate students were typically invited to attend on the Saturday of the weekend for

music, food, and socializing. Bailey, who had been selected as the Darden endowed chair for the

upcoming 2010–11 school year, was invited to attend, and did so.

Professor Anderson recounted that she attended Sandbridge 2010 because her then-close

friend, ODU Professor John McManus (“McManus”), asked her to attend. He also invited

Professor Kevin Moberly (“Moberly”). Professor Anderson and Moberly arrived at

approximately 4 p.m. on Saturday, April 24th. Students arrived later in the day for a cookout.

Professor Anderson states that faculty and students were drinking alcohol. She had a few

drinks and refrained from drinking more as alcohol causes her migraines. According to Professor

Anderson, she was not intoxicated, remembers everything about the evening, and remained in

total control of her faculties. Following dinner, individuals began singing karaoke, and Professor

Anderson sang Appalachian ballads, at which time, she noticed Bailey “leering” at her.

Professor Anderson states that at approximately 11 pm, she, McManus, and Moberly

entered a hot tub that was located on a deck outside the house. She and Moberly were not as

intoxicated as McManus. They were clothed in bathing suits and talking when McManus

recounted “a tradition of the creative writers taking suits off underwater and playing truth game.”

He described the game as one in which they would ask a series of questions of each other, and

while they were vulnerable and unclothed, they had to answer the questions truthfully. Moberly

disrobed and Professor Anderson did, as well. They all remained covered by water and it was

43
dark outside. Although Bailey had retired to his room with his wife, he suddenly appeared and

got in the hot tub. They had been in the hot tub for approximately 20 minutes when Bailey

showed up.

Professor Anderson states that they discussed the question McManus had posed, and he

introduced her and Moberly to Bailey. Within five minutes of the introduction, “out of nowhere,”

Bailey grabbed Professor Anderson’s vaginal area. She jumped up and yelled “he grabbed my

cooter,” and Bailey wrapped his arms around her from behind and jerked her forcefully toward

his lap. Professor Anderson started struggling and Moberly stood up, separated her from Bailey,

and a struggle ensued between Moberly and Bailey. During the course of the struggle, Bailey

broke a whiskey bottle causing glass to fall into the hot tub. Moberly then stepped on the broken

glass cutting his foot. Professor Anderson demanded an explanation from Bailey about why he

had grabbed her, and he responded, “because of your ballad singing and your hip to breast ratio.”

Professor Anderson states that she immediately left the hot tub, followed by Moberly,

who had a significant cut on his foot, which created a trail of blood in the house. She was

sobbing, humiliated, and fearful that Bailey would come to her room. Accordingly, Professor

Anderson locked the bedroom door and asked Moberly to stay the night with her. After

retrieving bandages for the cut on his foot, Moberly spent the night on the floor next to her bed.

Professor Anderson states that she never went to the beach with Bailey that day, either before or

after the hot tub incident.

According to Professor Anderson, the following day, she got up around 6 am and

encountered Professor Sheri Reynolds (“Reynolds”) cleaning up glass and blood in the house.

Professor Anderson and Moberly told Reynolds what had happened the night before, specifically

that Bailey had grabbed her in the hot tub. After the others had arisen, they all went to breakfast

44
together. Professor Anderson went to breakfast with the group; however, she did not speak to

Bailey and sat at the far end of a large table away from him and his wife. At the end of the

breakfast, Bailey asked Moberly, “Are we good?” and Moberly did not respond.

Professor Anderson shared the following journal entry from April 24, 2010, regarding

Sandbridge 2010:

omg what started out as a fun evening turned into a shit show … .
The new Darden chair was there & was leering @ me while I sang
ballads. had a look on his face, Later, John told me he’s Blake
Bailey. some Biographer & wanted to introduce me. B- No. He
leered @ me when I was singing. John – surprises me that you would
prejudge like that. He’s nice. B – I know leering when I see it. It
turned out I had good instincts. Later, much later, after grad students
left & it was late, after 10:30. Maybe 10:45 or so, John, me, Kevin
got in a hot tub. We had been in for a while when out of the blue
Blake Bailey came & got in. sat by me. But not right upon me. John
introduced him to me & Kevin & w/in moments after that, he
grabbed my cooter. latched right on. One fluid motion. I did not
realize what had happened @ first. Screamed – He grabbed my
cooter! & sprang up. Blake Bailey grabbed my arms & pulled me on
his lap! & I struggled away totally freaked out, & KM was in BB’s
face, pushing him on his shoulder & screaming What are you
doing?! Later I demanded to know why me & BB said86

We interviewed Moberly and McManus regarding their recollection of the events.

Moberly recalled the events somewhat differently. His recollection was that he attended

Sandbridge 2010 at Professor Anderson’s invitation. While there, he learned that others in the

house had been naked in the hot tub the evening before and remembers McManus describing it

as a ritual. He, Professor Anderson, and McManus entered the hot tub sometime between 11 pm

and midnight and disrobed. Bailey joined them in the hot tub approximately 20 minutes later and

was also naked. All of them had been drinking alcohol, and the three men were intoxicated.

Moberly recalls leaving the hot tub at some point to retrieve towels and more beer, and

86
The entry is cut off at this point. Professor Anderson states that she ended the entry there and must have been
interrupted while writing.

45
encountering Professor Michael Pearson (“Pearson”) inside the house. At some point, they all

left the hot tub unclothed, went to the beach, splashed around in the water, and returned to the

hot tub. Moberly has a clear recollection of going to the beach because he fell on his face and the

others teased him about it. Moberly believes he cut his foot on the beach.

Moberly states that after going to the beach, the group returned to the hot tub and shortly

thereafter, Professor Anderson jumped up and exclaimed “OMG you grabbed my cooter.” Bailey

grabbed Professor Anderson and pulled her back down, and she got really upset. At that point,

Moberly intervened and separated the two, grappling with Bailey. Bailey said something to the

effect that it was Professor Anderson “singing those folk ballads, it was your hip to breast ratio.”

Professor Anderson was immediately upset and the atmosphere in the hot tub changed. Moberly

and Professor Anderson later began kissing, then left the hot tub to retire to their room. They had

been in the hot tub for approximately an hour and a half.

According to Moberly, once in the room, he and Professor Anderson did not discuss the

incident with Bailey further. He states that he stayed in the room with Professor Anderson as

previously planned, not due to her fear of Bailey. Moberly did not recall suffering any significant

injury to his foot and said it did not require bandages, but the following morning, he learned that

Reynolds was cleaning up blood. The hot tub incident was not discussed with anyone the

following day. Moberly went to breakfast with Professor Anderson, McManus, Bailey, and

Bailey’s wife. As they were leaving, Bailey asked him if things were alright between them.

McManus confirms that Professor Anderson and Moberly arrived together. Everyone was

drinking alcohol and McManus stated he was intoxicated, but recalls the evening pretty well.

McManus entered the hot tub with Professor Anderson and Moberly, and Bailey joined them

shortly afterward. At some point, they all were naked. He recalled being in the hot tub for a long

46
time, during which the group got out, went into the ocean, and returned. At some point,

McManus heard Professor Anderson say “Blake grabbed my cooter” in a shocked voice. She

asked McManus and Moberly if they had seen it—they had not. They had a conversation about

the word “cooter” and the conversation then moved on to something else. He did not remember

anyone dwelling on what happened for long.

McManus recalls that the “grabbing” incident happened early during their time in the hot

tub. He did not recall Moberly acting in response, or any struggle between Moberly and Bailey,

but could not say for certain that it did not happen. What he did clearly recall was that it was not

an evening-ending incident after which Professor Anderson angrily left the hot tub. He states,

rather, they remained in the hot tub for some time afterward. The evening came to an end when

they realized how late it was—he was certain it was at least 3 a.m. The next morning, McManus,

Professor Anderson, Moberly, and Bailey ate brunch at a nearby restaurant. He did not observe

hostility between Professor Anderson and Bailey during breakfast.

Other faculty in attendance at Sandbridge 2010 overnight reported that they were aware

that Professor Anderson, Moberly, McManus, and Bailey were in the hot tub late into the

evening. Some witnesses observed the group in the hot tub having what appeared to be a party,

and saw Professor Anderson floating naked in the middle of the hot tub. She beckoned them to

join and they declined. Professor Janet Peery (“Peery”) recalled that, while they were

discussing how shocked they were about what they had seen in the hot tub, Moberly entered

and requested a Band-Aid because he had fallen down while walking on the beach. None of the

individuals who attended Sandbridge 2010 recalled Professor Anderson complaining about the

hot tub “grabbing” incident the following morning.

47
 Both McManus and Moberly state unequivocally that Professor Anderson was completely

surprised by Bailey grabbing her vaginal area, and that it was not invited or consensual as had been

claimed in ODU’s statement to The Pilot.87 Nearly all witnesses in attendance that evening recall

that Bailey was drinking heavily. When questioned through counsel, Bailey did not specifically

deny, as he did other allegations, that he grabbed Professor Anderson in the hot tub at Sandbridge

2010.

b. 2010–11 academic year/bar incident

Professor Anderson described one specific incident with Bailey, during fall 2010, at a bar

named “Bardo’s,” where she went one evening with McManus and Pearson. According to

Professor Anderson, Bailey showed up and tried to sit next to her. After approximately ten

minutes, Bailey said “if [she] gave in, he’d leave [her] alone.” He stated that he was “obsessed

with sleeping with her.” He used the words “compulsion” and “itch,” as in an itch he needed to

scratch. Professor Anderson responded “never, you better leave me alone and stop targeting me.”

Bailey told her she should be honored and flattered by his attention. Professor Anderson told him

to stay away and she would never forgive him for the assault.

Professor Anderson provided a journal entry, dated September 15, 2010, in which she

wrote:

Worked with David on Schev until nearly 8pm! & then I met John
McManus & Mike Pearson for a drink. Cooter Grabber showed up!
How could JM or MP tip him off?! Who did? He said if I would just
give in and have sex w/ him that he would leave me alone. But that
he would not stop until he gets what he wants. Predator!
McManus stated that approximately once a semester, he would go to Bardo’s with

Bailey, and that Pearson, his wife, and Peery, would sometimes go as well. McManus did not

McManus categorically denied telling ODU counsel that Professor Anderson “gave every indication of happiness
87

and excitement” when Bailey grabbed her and said their record that he had made such a statement was outrageous.

48
recall ever being there with Professor Anderson and Bailey together, although he could not

definitively say it did not happen. He also did not recall Bailey telling Professor Anderson that

he would leave her alone if she just gave in and slept with him. Pearson does not recall being at

Bardo’s with Professor Anderson and Bailey, but states that it is possible. He states that he never

heard Bailey make comments of the type described by Professor Anderson.

c. Sandbridge 2011

On the weekend of April 14-17, 2011, the ODU Creative Writing Program again reserved

a beach house in Sandbridge, Virginia. Professor Anderson recalled that on Friday, April 15,

2011, she traveled to the beach house with McManus. Professor Anderson stated she only agreed

to return because McManus promised that Bailey would not attend.

According to Professor Anderson, she and McManus were first to arrive at the house and

they went for a walk on the beach. Approximately 20–30 minutes later, Bailey arrived and found

them. From the moment Bailey showed up, he was furious and hostile to her. He immediately

started an argument with Professor Anderson. In an angry tone, Bailey stated he was “pissed”

because the administrative assistants knew about their issues and she had turned them against

him. From there, “he went on to rage about a number of issues” including that she called him

“cooter grabber,” would not shut up about what happened, and she had complained to Heller.

They walked on the beach for approximately 20–30 minutes, then returned to the house.

Professor Anderson states that for a couple of hours, Bailey “alternated between being

hostile and pissed,” and saying something sexually suggestive to her. He started drinking alcohol

right away and became more and more hateful. They sat at the kitchen table and Bailey said if he

could figure out a way to rape Professor Anderson and get away with it, he would. In response,

Professor Anderson recited her home address and said, if he had a suicide wish, he could come

by and break through her fence. Bailey then spoke about drugging and restraining her. This all

49
happened in the presence of McManus, who responded by screaming at the top of his lungs,

“stop, just stop.” Professor Anderson recalled that Bailey stopped after McManus became upset.

When asked about an entry in her journal concerning Sandbridge 2011 that referenced

Bailey getting into bed with her and McManus, which she failed to mention in her initial account

of the weekend, Professor Anderson added that when she went to her room, McManus came with

her to comfort her. After a while, Bailey entered the room and threw himself on the bed, putting

his arms around Professor Anderson and McManus, acting playful. Eventually, they got him out

of the bed and out of the room. Professor Anderson states that was the last she dealt with him

until the following day. Professor Anderson recalls that Bailey was intoxicated and McManus

had been drinking, but was not intoxicated. She denied drinking alcohol at all that day. Professor

Anderson states unequivocally that she spent no time alone with Bailey without McManus being

present.

During our first interview of Professor Anderson, she stated that the following day, the

others arrived at the house and she told them what Bailey had said to her. She gathered the group

in the living room and told them that Bailey had found them on the beach, was mad at her, and

had said he would rape her if he could get away with it. Professor Anderson stated that she was

done with Bailey and the gathering. She then left and went home early Saturday afternoon.

Professor Anderson provided the following journal entry, dated April 16, 2011:

Sandbridge, OMFG! The vile cooter grabber showed up last night

& it was only supposed to be me & John. He alternated between
being what John called “sexually aggressive” & enraged. He hates
it that I call him Cooter Grabber. He is angry I have not given in to
him. He was also angry that I “turned the office staff against (him),”
which I did not. I don’t even know what he’s talking about. He was
drinking whiskey. I hate him. He actually said – I’d rape you if I
could get away with it. If I could figure out a way to get away w/ it.
But your mouth. To that end I said, I told him my address & said if
u make good on your threat, you’ll not live thru [crossout] it. I acted

50
 tough. But, he scares me. He gets this look on his face. Tonight
before supper, I’m leaving this afternoon sometime, leaving. I
cannot stay another night in the same house as CG, not tonight or
ever again … .”

The following day, April 17, 2011,88 Professor Anderson’s journal entry states, in part, “I

cannot believe Blake put the moves on me again! & did not want to take no for an answer!

Sitting @ table talking & apologizing. ‘I want to fuck you,’ Blake said.”89

During a subsequent interview with Professor Anderson, in which we sought to clarify

some of her journal entries, she described the events of the second day at Sandbridge 2011

differently, as follows. Professor Anderson and McManus left the house early to go hiking. She

learned that Bailey was trying to find them. She knew that early Saturday morning, he went out

to get a newspaper and coffee. Professor Anderson states that interaction with Bailey that

Saturday morning was awkward and tense, and she just wanted to leave.

Professor Anderson identified two additional journal entries as references to Sandbridge

2011. She stated that a journal entry several months later, dated February 28, 2012, discusses a

dinner discussion with McManus and two other close friends. The entry states, in part:

overheard [former ODU professor] Tim talk under his breath to

John. She’s a magnet for that. Younger & attractive. I think this was
abt. Blake – Sandbridget. I did not realize until recently that the
creative writers left stressed. That the Piersons vowed never to go to
“the beach house” w/ Blake again. & I know John/Baby E was
stressed. The [crossout] 1st night = Demon Blake & Baby E’s
scream (trumpet?). “STOP IT!” & that did stop it & Day 2 – Night
2 – BB got in bed w/ us and put his arms around me and it took –
what? 10 mins? to get him out. I don’t make this stuff up! John – on
the way back from the Piersons – did you notice how nobody ever
brought up Blake? B: I hate Blake, and he’s stressful. That pretty
much sums it up … .

88
The entry is dated April 17, 2010, but Professor Anderson states that was in error – the year was 2011.
89
During our multiple interviews of her, Professor Anderson had not reported that Bailey said this phrase. When
later asked to explain this journal entry, she reported that this was a comment Bailey made at the kitchen table.

51
Professor Anderson said that “Sandbridgets” was a term McManus would call her in relation to

their visits to Sandbridge. Conversely, McManus said he had never heard the term before. We

noted to Anderson that this journal entry states that Bailey got into bed and put his arms around

her “Day 2 – Night 2,” but Anderson said this was an error as she only stayed at Sandbridge

2011 one overnight with Bailey in the house, and left the following day.

The second journal entry contained a reference to a “drug store” that Professor Anderson

had not mentioned during our interviews. That entry, dated April 22, 2021, captures Anderson’s

reaction to the publication in the New York Times of allegations against Bailey involving sexual

abuse against former students. The entry reads, in part:

… 2 completely credible rape allegations. The description of one of

them was downright CHILLING in terms of his predator pattern.
The worst of it, kept to self. I am triggered. omg. it’s so wrong.
[crossout] There should be a record of him @ that drug store out
there, if drug stores save that. I would think they do. It is worse than
people know, except CG himself! [crossout] He knows. But I
handled him.

Because Professor Anderson had not mentioned anything about a drug store during our

interviews, we followed up with her for an explanation. She responded in writing as follows:

I am referencing part of one of Blake Bailey’s rape threats. He told

me the Saturday of Sandbridge 2011 (SB 2) that when he had went
out to get coffee and a New York Times, that he had also gone to a
drug store (I do not know which one, but it would have been in
Sandbridge) and gotten a “Plan B” to keep on hand for if he was
ever able to rape me. I do not like thinking or talking about this
detail. It totally freaked me out. When he told me that, I believed
him. I thought it showed pre-meditation and that it was a Plan B
“rape kit.” That’s what I thought at the time. That said, he did not
SHOW me a Plan B, and he might have just been trying to scare me.
But it was such a specific and creepy concrete detail-- and the way
he said it-- I believed him. He did not know I would be leaving
Sandbridge early, when he was out buying coffee, a NYT, and (if he
was telling the truth) a rape kit-- but I always wondered if it might
be possible to track down a record of it, if he did buy that at a
pharmacy. Back then (in 2011), I am pretty sure Plan B had to be

52
 purchased from the actual pharmacist (not just from an aisle in the
pharmacy). This is not something I like to think about, or discuss,
but it was such a creepy detail-- it scared the crap out of me. If he
was being truthful, it shows pre-meditation combined with
opportunism, which is what made me wonder (when the NYT article
came out about his other victims) about whether it might be possible
to track down a record of it from the pharmacy. Like I said, I don't
know if he was being truthful or not--only he knows. But if he really
had purchased a Plan B rape kit, there ought to be a record of that at
the pharmacy, I would think. His claim that he had purchased one
along with a NYT and coffee creeped me out for a number of reasons:
1. He did not know my birth control status, but was planning in
advance (if he was being truthful). 2. If he raped me, would he have
forced me to swallow a Plan B pill? 3. His rape threats were scaring
the crap out of me. Fortunately, I left Sandbrige 2 before he was able
to make good on his threat. I truly believe, to this day, that
something horrible would have happened that Saturday night if I had
not left. My room had a lock on the door, but I had barely slept
Friday night (Blake had passed out from whiskey downstairs & my
room was upstairs) because I was worried that the lock might be
easy to pick with a credit card etc. I was vigilant all night and hardly
slept. But I left Saturday & went back home-- even though there
were dangerous tornadoes in the region that evening! I did not have
any problem getting home, but I did risk my life given that there was
severe weather, and a tornado was reported in Walters (I don’t recall
that it actually touched down), which is less than 10 miles from my
house. And there was a reported tornado in Windsor, which is also
not far from my house. There were severe weather advisories about
dangerous storms-- which I typically would NEVER drive in, but I
was determined to get home, and was able to with no problem (thank
God).

McManus’ recollection of the Sandbridge 2011 encounter involving Professor Anderson

and Bailey varied in some critical respects. Initially, McManus also stated that he and Professor

Anderson arrived at Sandbridge on Friday, where they were later joined by Bailey, and that she

left the following day. McManus demonstrated a vague recollection of being in the house two

evenings with Professor Anderson, but ultimately settled on the belief it was only one

overnight—Friday to Saturday.

53
 After we interviewed him, we asked McManus to provide us with any photographs of

Professor Anderson and/or Bailey from Sandbridge 2011.90 Those photographs contained

metadata setting the date and time, and included the following:

Thursday, April 14, 2011

6:36 pm two photos of Professor Anderson and Bailey walking adjacent to each other on
the beach.
6:56 pm Professor Anderson and Bailey on the beach, facing the camera and smiling. In
this photo, Bailey has his arm around Professor Anderson and they are in a side embrace.
McManus stated these photos were taken on the beach during a walk that he, Professor

Anderson, and Bailey took about an hour before sunset. In the first two photos, Professor

Anderson is holding a wine glass containing a clear liquid and Bailey is also holding a drink.

Friday, April 15, 2011

11:21 am Professor Anderson on a deck facing the ocean, with two others (not Bailey).

12:02 pm Professor Anderson on the beach, facing the camera and smiling.

5:33 pm Professor Anderson seated on a couch with a wine glass in hand, smiling toward
the camera.
9:38 pm Professor Anderson seated on the bottom of a bunk bed, looking at her cell
phone.
Upon review of these photos, McManus indicated that they establish that he and

Professor Anderson arrived on Thursday, April 14th (later joined by Bailey), and stayed

overnight. However, he now believes that Professor Anderson also stayed overnight on Friday,

April 15th, as well. All witnesses, including Professor Anderson, agree that she left the beach

house on Saturday, April 16th. Professor Anderson stated that she has no journal entries for

Thursday, April 14th, or Friday, April 15th.

90
McManus noted that, although the photographs are authentic, he does not intend to suggest that Professor
Anderson’s account is somehow untruthful.

54
 Regarding the events of Thursday, April 14th, McManus recalled walking on the beach

with Professor Anderson and Bailey, and Professor Anderson and Bailey were both drinking

alcohol. McManus was no longer drinking alcohol, and did not have any. He did not recall any

argument between Professor Anderson and Bailey at the beach. Rather, they returned to the

beach house and McManus was preparing dinner, with Professor Anderson and Bailey nearby.

Suddenly, he heard Professor Anderson and Bailey screaming at each other. He did not know

what they were screaming about, but it was a very angry argument. McManus tried to calm down

the situation, told them to stop shouting at each other, and shouted “stop!” Both Professor

Anderson and Bailey seemed stunned and stopped arguing. Then, it calmed down and they were

all laughing again. They all had dinner and McManus went to bed at approximately 9:30 pm

because he planned to rise early for a long bike ride. Professor Anderson and Bailey were still

awake when he went to bed.

McManus stated the argument concerned Professor Anderson calling Bailey “cooter

grabber” in the office and turning the secretaries against him. However, McManus had no

recollection that the discussion included Bailey telling Professor Anderson that he would rape

her if he could get away with it, Bailey drugging or restraining Professor Anderson, or Professor

Anderson providing her address to Bailey and stating that he should come over if he had a

suicide wish.

McManus did not recall Bailey entering the room where he and Professor Anderson were

laying on a bed, getting in the bed, and putting his arms around them. Instead, he recalled that the

following day, while he and Professor Anderson were walking on the beach, she told him that

Bailey had done that to her. He said Professor Anderson described how persistently Bailey

wanted to have sex with her the night before, and that she had said no. McManus also stated that

55
Professor Anderson told him that she had told Bailey that he did not have a condom and she

knew she was fertile; if they had sex, she would get pregnant; and if she had a girl, she would

name her Bailey Bailey and if she had a boy, she would name him Blake Bailey, Jr. She told

McManus that Bailey only backed off after the line about naming the child. McManus recalled

that Professor Anderson left Sandbridge earlier than she had planned, stating that she needed to

get home to care for her animals.

Peery, who also attended Sandbridge 2011, reports that months after Sandbridge 2011,

Bailey contacted her because he had been summoned to speak to Dunman and he did not know

why. In speculating about the reason, he stated that he had sex with Professor Anderson at

Sandbridge 2011, and that Professor Anderson made the remark about what she would name the

child if she got pregnant. Bailey then told Peery that after having sex with Professor Anderson at

Sandbridge 2011, he got the morning-after-pill the following morning. Peery recalled Bailey

going to the pharmacy that morning and returning with the New York Times, and that there was

“strain” between Bailey and Professor Anderson that morning. Peery, and another faculty

member who was present, recalled that Professor Anderson left the night before the rest of the

group, right before Bailey’s wife was scheduled to arrive, and that she had increasingly become

agitated about her dogs being left alone.

d. Summer 2011 attempted kiss

Professor Anderson reports that the next incident involving Bailey happened at the end of

June or early July of 2011. She was on campus moving to a new office, and was unpacking

boxes in her new office with the assistance of then-English Department Receptionist Linda Hero

(“Hero”). Bailey ran into her office, grabbed her in his arms and tried to kiss her. As she

struggled to resist him and clamped her mouth down, Bailey pried her mouth open with his hand

56
and continued to try to kiss her. Bailey then ran off, and Hero proceeded to question Professor

Anderson about what she had just observed.

Professor Anderson initially reported to us that at the time of the attempted kiss, Hero

told Heller what she had witnessed. However, in a subsequent interview, Professor Anderson

stated she does not know whether anyone ever spoke to Hero about the incident, and she never

followed up with Hero to ask. Professor Anderson provided no personal journal entries regarding

this particular incident.

Hero denied ever seeing Bailey grab or attempt to kiss Professor Anderson. She further

denied ever seeing the two of them alone together, including in Professor Anderson’s office, and

reported that any interactions she observed between them consisted of “just normal business

routine.”

e. November 2011 Professor Anderson lecture

Professor Anderson reported that the next time Bailey harassed her was on November 22,

2011, during a public lecture she gave at ODU’s intercultural center. The lecture included

discussion of the use of a Native-American themed mascot at the College of William & Mary.

Bailey, who had taught at William & Mary prior to ODU, attended the lecture. According to

Professor Anderson, he “menaced” her during the question and answer period. Professor

Anderson states that Bailey attacked the premise of the lecture stating that he was part Cherokee

and if he did not think a certain mascot was offensive, then it was not. Professor Anderson “was

frozen,” and felt certain Bailey was “trolling” her. She believed he was stalking her.

f. April 2012 mailroom knife incident

Professor Anderson reported a final significant encounter with Bailey that she alleged

took place in April 2012. Professor Anderson’s account is as follows. She attended the spring

meeting of the English Department in the ninth floor conference room. She sat down, and Bailey

57
entered and sat in the chair beside her. Professor Anderson twice moved seats, and both times

Bailey moved and sat beside her. After ten minutes, Bailey reached over and tried to put his hand

on Professor Anderson’s knee. She was humiliated and left the room. Professor Anderson ran

down the stairs to her office and then went to the mailroom on the fifth floor to check her

mailbox before going home.

Professor Anderson states that Bailey followed her and entered the mailroom behind her.

He backed her into the corner and grabbed her arm. Bailey did not say anything, but had “this

look on his face.” Professor Anderson states she reached into her pocketbook and grabbed a

pocket knife that she carried for protection.91 Professor Anderson opened the knife and put it to

Bailey’s throat. Bailey then dropped her arm. Professor Anderson told Bailey, “If you ever maul,

molest me, put hands on me again, try to scare me that you’re going to rape or hurt me, I will slit

you from ear to ear, let you bleed out, put your blood on me like war paint.”

Professor Anderson states that she then saw former Professor Sarah Appleton

(“Appleton”) standing “horrified” at the entrance to the mailroom. Professor Anderson began

crying and went to the bathroom. She then returned to her office for her belongings and left

campus.

During our investigation, we made repeated efforts to speak to Appleton, including

submitting written questions by email, specifically asking whether she had seen or heard what

91
Professor Anderson reports that in the spring of 2012, she told Heller that she felt unsafe on campus and would
begin carrying a knife for protection. According to Professor Anderson, she showed the knife to Heller and provided
her with a document about the legal rights to carry a knife in Virginia, which Heller placed in Anderson’s personnel
file. We requested all department and personnel files for Professor Anderson and no document concerning the
carrying of a knife was ever located. Heller reported that she does not recall Professor Anderson telling her that she
intended to carry a knife for protection, and that Professor Anderson never showed her a knife.

58
happened between Bailey and Professor Anderson in the mailroom. Appleton refused to speak

with us or respond to our written questions.92

In his written response to our questions, Bailey, through counsel, specifically states that

the mailroom knife incident is false.

2. Bailey and Graduate Students

a. Unwanted attention at a bar in October 2010

In October 2010, Erin Kiley (“Ms. Kiley”) was an adjunct professor and graduate student

in the Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing program (the “MFA Program”) at ODU. One

evening, during an off-campus social gathering at a local bar, Ms. Kiley encountered Bailey on

the dance floor. According to Ms. Kiley, she was dancing with friends when Bailey approached

her and attempted to dance with her. Ms. Kiley did not want to dance with Bailey, but her

attempts to move away from him were futile. Bailey grabbed Ms. Kiley’s arms and continued

tightening his grip. Ultimately, Ms. Kiley was able to free herself from Bailey by dropping her

weight and whirling around, in what she described as a self-defense technique. Ms. Kiley was

scared and she immediately fled to the restroom to collect her thoughts. When she exited the

restroom, Bailey was standing immediately outside the restroom door waiting for her. At that

time, a friend of Ms. Kiley’s came over and distracted Bailey while Ms. Kiley left the bar and

drove home.

Ms. Kiley also recalls a conversation she had with Bailey concerning what happened at

the bar. During this conversation, Ms. Kiley told Bailey that his actions made her uncomfortable.

92
In an apparent reference to Appleton, Part 2 of The Pilot Article regarding Bailey, dated June 16, 2021, reports that
the professor was just outside the mailroom and heard Professor Anderson say, “You come any closer, I’m going to
hurt you,” but did not look inside.

59
Bailey replied that he was sorry Ms. Kiley was misinterpreting his behavior, but she needed to

stop talking to people about the bar incident because he has a family and this could “ruin” him.

Messages exchanged between Ms. Kiley and former ODU Professor Jaclyn Ocumpaugh

(“Ocumpaugh”) in late October 2010 serve as a contemporaneous record of Ms. Kiley’s

recollection of the bar incident. The incident is also corroborated by three individuals who

witnessed Bailey’s interactions with Ms. Kiley at the bar. ODU Professor Peery witnessed Bailey

approach Ms. Kiley on the dance floor and touch her arm. She also saw Ms. Kiley rip her arm

away from Bailey and walk away. ODU graduate student Tara Burke (“Ms. Burke”) saw Bailey

put his hand on Ms. Kiley. Lastly, ODU graduate student Valarie Clark (“Ms. Clark”) saw

Bailey seated close to Ms. Kiley at the bar with his arm draped around her, touching her arm and

hair. Ms. Clark described Bailey’s demeanor as “overly familiar,” and Ms. Kiley as appearing

“distinctly uncomfortable.” Subsequently, Ms. Kiley approached the group of people Ms. Clark

was with, and someone raised the fact that Bailey appeared to have been in Ms. Kiley’s personal

space. Ms. Kiley whispered in response, “He wouldn’t let me leave.” Ms. Clark also saw Bailey

waiting outside the restroom and when Ms. Kiley exited, he tried to prevent her from walking

away.

b. Inappropriate comments/behavior toward a student in Bailey’s

own class in 2014

We make no factual findings concerning the ODU graduate student who allegedly

experienced inappropriate comments and advances at the hands of Bailey in the spring of 2014.

This alleged complainant declined to speak with us; therefore, we are aware of her allegations

only through the The Pilot Article. The only witness who was able to provide minimal first-hand

information of the graduate student’s allegations was Ms. Burke. Ms. Burke recalls the graduate

student mentioning that she had uncomfortable conversations with Bailey in his office and, on

60
one occasion, he closed the door to his office, which made her unsure of his intentions. Also

regarding these specific allegations, Peery, who was on the graduate student’s thesis defense

panel with Bailey and another professor, stated that she did not observe anything untoward

between Bailey and the graduate student. Given the foregoing, we are unable to either confirm or

refute the graduate student’s allegations.

3. Bailey’s interaction with a visiting writer in October 2011

We also make no factual findings concerning Bailey’s interactions with an ODU Writer-

in-Residence at an October 2011 party. On the evening of October 7, 2011, Bailey hosted a

Literary Festival (“LitFest”)93 party at his house where members of the ODU English

Department were in attendance, including the fall 2011 Writer-in-Residence (“visiting writer”),

Ms. Burke, and Ms. Clark. Ms. Burke and Ms. Clark witnessed Bailey’s interactions with the

visiting writer that night, and are the primary sources of information on this topic, as the visiting

writer did not respond to our multiple requests for an interview.

During the party, Ms. Burke witnessed Bailey flirting with the visiting writer, including

putting his hand on her shoulder and pulling her hair back and talking in her ear. However, Ms.

Burke was not able to tell whether the visiting writer was bothered by Bailey doing these things.

Earlier in the week, the visiting writer asked Ms. Burke and Ms. Clark for their opinions as to

whether Bailey had been hitting on her. During that conversation, the visiting writer told Ms.

Burke and Ms. Clark that she might call on them in the future to rescue her if she encounters an

uncomfortable situation with Bailey. Ms. Clark did not witness her and Bailey’s interactions over

the course of the party because she was primarily engaged in another conversation. However, the

93
The ODU Literary Festival is a yearly event the Creative Writing Program hosts that typically takes place over the
course of several days, the week before the fall break in October. It features readings throughout the day by faculty
and guest writers, and other literary events.

61
visiting writer later told Ms. Clark that Bailey and other faculty members were aggressively

“flirty” with her at the party.

According to both Ms. Burke and Ms. Clark, when they left the party with the visiting

writer and walked outside to Ms. Clark’s car, Bailey appeared, grabbed the visiting writer’s hand

or arm, and forcefully walked her down the road. Ms. Burke did not perceive Bailey to be angry,

and she says that he was not aggressively dragging the visiting writer down the street. Bailey told

the visiting writer that he had to tell her something, but she was saying goodbye and trying to

leave. Bailey took the visiting writer far enough down the street that Ms. Burke and Ms. Clark

could not see or hear what was going on between them, and they remained there for several

minutes. When Bailey and the visiting writer returned, the visiting writer appeared very subdued.

Ms. Burke described the visiting writer as upset and shaking.

Ms. Clark then drove the visiting writer back to her hotel, where the visiting writer, who

is married, told Ms. Clark that, when Bailey took her down the road, he kissed her without her

permission.

According to Ms. Clark, the visiting writer wrote about the incident with Bailey in a

memoir, though she does not provide names. Pearson read the visiting writer’s memoir, came

across a passage describing a relationship she had when she was a visiting professor, and

interpreted it as a reference to Bailey. Pearson was aware that Bailey and the visiting writer had

intimate dinners together, and he did not see anything non-consensual in their interactions.

Peery also read the visiting writer’s memoir and picked up on a character she believed to

be Bailey. Subsequently, Bailey told Peery of his affair with the visiting writer. According to

Peery, Bailey and the visiting writer had at least a year-long, long-distance, sexual relationship.

62
 In light of the foregoing disparate accounts, our investigation was not able to confirm

whether or not the interactions between Bailey and the visiting writer occurred as alleged, or

whether any interactions between them were consensual or non-consensual.

B. Reports of Bailey’s Actions and ODU’s Response

Between 2010 and 2012, reports of Bailey’s alleged inappropriate behavior toward

women were made to multiple ODU faculty and administrators, including the Title IX

Coordinator. The following is a description of those reports and ODU’s response.

1. Professor Bridget Anderson

Professor Anderson stated that she persistently reported her allegations about Bailey to

numerous ODU English Department administrators between 2010 and 2012. As soon as she

returned to campus, following Sandbridge 2010, she and Moberly reported Bailey’s action in the

hot tub to her (now deceased) then-Chair of the English Department Jeffrey Richards

(“Richards”). She did not ask for or expect anything to be done, but wanted others to know what

had happened.

According to Professor Anderson, she and Moberly met in Richards’ office, and she

became so upset that Richards suggested they go for ice cream across the street so the office

manager would not hear. Richards told her that he would meet with Charles Wilson (“Wilson”),

the incoming dean of the College of Arts & Letters, and tell him what had happened. A week

later, Richards told her that Wilson said he would have Pearson, the then-most senior male in the

Creative Writing program, talk to Bailey to make sure he understood that nothing like this was

going to happen again. Professor Anderson also told other faculty members what had happened

to make sure the community knew about Bailey. As an act of resistance, she began to call Bailey

“cooter grabber.”

63
 Several ODU witnesses we spoke with recalled that Professor Anderson frequently

repeated the story about Bailey grabbing her in the hot tub. Faculty members also heard

Professor Anderson referring to Bailey as “cooter grabber.” Every witness we spoke with who

heard Professor Anderson make these references stated that people believed she was recounting

what had happened in a joking manner. Some witnesses stated they never had the impression

Professor Anderson was recounting the hot tub “grabbing” as sexual assault; although, they now

realize that she may very well have experienced it in that manner.

Moberly states that he never reported what happened in the hot tub to anyone on campus.

He believed it was a one-time thing and they had all been drinking. Moberly does recall Richards

taking him and Professor Anderson to get ice cream the week following Sandbridge 2010, but

states that the hot tub incident was not discussed.

Professor Anderson reported to us that when Dr. Dana Heller (“Heller”) became Chair of

the English Department (in September 2010), she met with Heller to tell her about the hot tub

incident with Bailey at Sandbridge 2010. Professor Anderson provided a journal entry dated

Tuesday, September 13, [2010], that reflects a “mtg. w/ Dana. It was brief.” The journal entry

states, in part:

– Said Mike would talk to C.G.

– Said everything would be alright.
– Said she would talk to Charles.
– Said she’s keeping an eye on the situ.
– Said he has issues. issues from his past. A Brother that died.

Professor Anderson reports that she also spoke to Wilson after he became dean to warn

him about Bailey. Her journals contain an entry for October 6, 2010, which she believes reflects

the discussion she had with Wilson. The journal entry states:

Lit Fest week means have to be extra vigilant in avoiding Cooter

Grabber. I spoke w/ Charles Wilson yesterday. Made sure he knew

64
 about Vile CG still not leaving me alone. The initial grab was bad
enough, but I never know when he is going to appear to surface &
every time I run into him he is a menace. He has told me a few times,
if I’ll just give in, he’ll leave me alone. He can burn in hell just like
Andrew Jackson How About “NEVER,” CG? Does “never” work
for you? What is wrong w/ him? Why does John tolerate him?
Charles said he’ll get Mike Pearson to talk to him. That’s what Dana
said too. Why am I being plagued by a predator? I only refer to him
as Cooter Grabber. vile predator. Entitled. sees women as shiny
objects. He grabbed the exact wrong cooter. @ least Charles talked
to me. We had a good talk….

Professor Anderson states that in reporting to Heller and Wilson what Bailey had done in

the hot tub, she was not trying to get him fired. She only wanted her department chair and dean

to be aware.

Professor Anderson states that when she returned to campus following Sandbridge 2011,

she did not report Bailey’s threat to rape her to anyone in writing. Instead, she “added it to [her]

narrative” about him that she recounted to administrators. She states that she specifically

reported the rape threat, along with his earlier misconduct in 2010, to Heller. Professor Anderson

states she went to Heller, who referred her to Wilson. According to Professor Anderson, Heller

further told her that she would speak to Pearson about Bailey’s conduct.

According to Professor Anderson, both Heller and Wilson “seemed flustered” with her

report concerning Bailey’s conduct. They told her “it’s impossible to get stuff done for off

campus stuff that’s not mandatory for you to attend.” They were clear that she had to take

responsibility for who she spent time with off campus. Professor Anderson accepted this

explanation, and did not think she could “get [Bailey] for things that happened off campus.”

Professor Anderson stated that she never complained to Human Resources (“HR”)

because she was following her “chain of command” by reporting to Wilson. Professor Anderson

65
further stated that she did not complain to ReNee Dunman (“Dunman”) because Wilson told her

he did not want it to leave the College of Arts & Letters.

Following Bailey’s attempted kiss, Professor Anderson told us that she sought out Heller

within a week of the incident, and told her the entire story from the start. When she spoke with

Heller, Professor Anderson says she also reported the incident with Bailey that had happened at

Bardo’s in 2010. According to Professor Anderson, Heller told her she would talk to Wilson

about the forced kiss incident, and stated in reference to Bailey’s actions, “maybe he was just

being friendly.” Professor Anderson states that Heller later told her she reported the incidents to

Wilson, and that Professor Anderson should speak with him as well.

Professor Anderson states that within a week of meeting with Heller, she met with

Wilson in his office and told him the series of incidents involving Bailey, including the hot tub,

Bardo’s, and the attempted kiss in her office. Professor Anderson states that Wilson was

sympathetic but judgmental about the hot tub incident, asking her if she took responsibility for

her own choices. Professor Anderson states that she told Wilson that she wanted to speak to

Dunman because the attempted kiss happened on campus. Professor Anderson states that Wilson

specifically told her not to go to Dunman, that he wanted to deal with it within the College of

Arts & Letters. Professor Anderson listened to him because he was the head of her college.

Wilson’s response was that he would have Pearson speak to Bailey.

Professor Anderson reports that she also spoke to Pearson herself about being told he was

supposed to deal with Bailey, but could not recall when. She further states that Heller told her

that she had spoken to Pearson about Bailey’s conduct. Pearson denies Professor Anderson ever

complained to him about Bailey, or that anyone, including Wilson and Heller, ever spoke to him

about Bailey’s behavior. Moreover, he never spoke to Bailey about the subject.

66
 According to Professor Anderson, following the encounter with Bailey at her lecture

concerning Native American mascots, she met with Heller and Wilson, separately, to complain.

She reported Bailey’s conduct at the lecture as “stalking,” a label both administrators disputed.

Professor Anderson again suggested to Wilson that a report be made to Dunman because Pearson

had not made any traction with Bailey, and Wilson told her not to speak to Dunman. Professor

Anderson says both administrators told her Bailey’s conduct involved a free speech issue and

was not sexual, and that he had a right to attend the lecture. When asked why she did not go to

Dunman herself to report his conduct as “stalking,” Professor Anderson stated she was not

“totally committed to that interpretation” of Bailey’s actions at the lecture.

Professor Anderson stated, unlike other incidents involving Bailey which she reported,

she had no intention of reporting the mailroom incident because she feared possible criminal

charges for her use of a knife. She hoped Bailey would be so embarrassed that he would not

report her. However, according to Anderson, someone did report the incident because shortly

thereafter, in April 2012, she was summoned to a meeting on the topic in Wilson’s office.

According to Professor Anderson, when she arrived, Bailey was already in Wilson’s

office. During the meeting, Wilson told Professor Anderson that Janet Katz (“Katz”), Associate

Dean of the College of Arts & Letters, was helping him decide how to deal with this episode

because he did not know what to do. Wilson asked Professor Anderson what she had to say for

herself. She responded that it was self-defense and Bailey had chased her out of the faculty

meeting. She said they should look into the fact that he followed her three times in the meeting,

cornered her in the mailroom, and grabbed her. Professor Anderson also reported that Bailey had

put his hand on her leg during the faculty meeting.

67
 According to Professor Anderson, Wilson responded by stating that he didn’t know what

to do and he was getting additional input from Katz. Wilson told Professor Anderson that Katz

thought she needed anger management-type counseling from the Women’s Center. At some

point, Katz came in and gave Professor Anderson a card with the name Joann Bautti from the

Women’s Center, and told her they were insisting that she set up a counseling appointment.

Professor Anderson challenged that Bailey was not being asked to go to counseling. Bailey said

nothing during the entire meeting and was never asked to explain his conduct. Professor

Anderson provided no personal journal entries discussing the mailroom incident or the meeting

she says followed with Wilson and Bailey.

Professor Anderson states that, due to the knife incident, she attended counseling with

Joann Bautti (“Bautti”) at the Women’s Center on at least three occasions. According to

Professor Anderson, Bautti stated she was required to fill out a report after the sessions to show

administrators her progress. Professor Anderson reported that Heller subsequently showed her a

two-page form with paragraphs Bautti had completed that was maintained in Anderson’s file in

the English Department Chair’s office.

We interviewed Bautti, who currently serves as the director of student affairs at Eastern

Virginia Medical School. Bautti did not recall Professor Anderson, nor did she recall any faculty

or staff member ever seeking counseling services as a victim. However, Bautti did caution that

her lack of recall was not dispositive because she saw hundreds of victims and survivors in her

time at ODU and does not remember all of them. Bautti also stated that she did not provide anger

management counseling, as it is not her area of expertise. She stated that the Women’s Center

primarily served students and would not have treated a faculty member who was required to

attend counseling by their department because the Center’s services were completely voluntary.

68
Bautti had no recollection of an ODU dean ever requiring someone to see her, nor did she ever

hear about an incident in which a faculty member pulled a knife on someone.

We also interviewed the current and former English Department administrators to whom

Professor Anderson claimed to have reported her allegations concerning Bailey. Their responses

to Anderson’s claims are as follows.

Dr. Charles Wilson

Dr. Charles Wilson (“Wilson”) served as Dean of the College of Arts & Letters

beginning in the 2010–11 academic year and throughout the period of time Bailey served as the

Darden Chair at ODU. Wilson denied ever speaking to Professor Anderson or anyone about

Bailey’s conduct, including Bailey himself. He had no recollection of speaking to Professor

Anderson at LitFest and specifically denied that Anderson ever used the term “cooter grabber”

with him, told him about Bailey making comments to her in a bar, reported Bailey trying to kiss

her in her office, or complained about Bailey’s conduct at a lecture regarding mascots. He also

was never told that Bailey put his hand on Professor Anderson’s leg during a faculty meeting or

that she later pulled a knife on him in the mailroom.

Wilson did not recall ever hearing about an incident in a hot tub involving Professor

Anderson and Bailey until he read about it in The Pilot, and said that also was the first time he

learned about an alleged incident involving a knife. He denied that Heller told him about any

incidents involving Bailey or Professor Anderson. Wilson specifically denied ever saying he

would have Pearson speak to Bailey. He stated he never would have done so as it would be

inappropriate to ask a peer to speak to another colleague about such topics and such

conversations would not take place without the department chair or dean being involved. Wilson

vehemently denied forbidding Professor Anderson from going to Dunman with a complaint or

69
saying that he wanted to deal with the allegations within the college, and indicated that he

regularly sought assistance from administrators outside the college when warranted.

Wilson said he has no recollection of ever meeting with Professor Anderson in his office

alone, and states that she was never in his office the six years he served as dean. He stated that it

was his practice to handle issues involving faculty members through the chair of the respective

department. The only time he would see a faculty member alone was if there was an issue with

the faculty’s chair; otherwise, the chair would be in the room.

Wilson also told us that he never met with Bailey alone in his office. However, when we

asked him to search his electronic calendar which contained appointments back through 2010 for

“Bailey” he located a single thirty-minute entry, dated January 18, 2011, regarding “a

candidate,” which Wilson believed must have pertained to a discussion with Bailey about

renewal of Bailey’s position for the following year. A search of “Anderson” returned no results.

Wilson said he never met with Bailey and Professor Anderson together in his office, and neither

he nor Katz required Professor Anderson to attend counseling. He never asked any faculty

member to attend counseling. He stated, and Katz confirmed, that Katz worked with

undergraduate students, not faculty, unless faculty specifically sought her out for assistance on

their own.

We also asked Wilson to search his electronic calendar for the date of October 5, 2010.

Wilson saw no entry for a meeting with Professor Anderson, but reported that it was LitFest

week and there was a 6 pm reception in the Music Department and at 7:30 pm, Bailey was the

featured presenter of a literary reading, an event Wilson probably attended. Wilson had no

70
recollection of speaking to Professor Anderson about Bailey at this event, and he reiterated that

he never spoke with Professor Anderson about Bailey.94

Associate Dean Janet Katz

Associate Dean of the College of Arts & Letters Janet Katz (“Katz”) has served at ODU

for 41 years. Katz told us that no issues involving Professor Anderson and Bailey ever came to

her attention, and she never discussed either person with Wilson. She does not recall ever having

a conversation about these matters, and she never sent Professor Anderson to counseling or

discussed doing so with Wilson. Katz states she has never sent a faculty member to counseling.

Katz reported that she is as certain as she can be that she never met with Bailey or Professor

Anderson about each other, and never discussed these issues with either. She did not learn about

any incidents between Professor Anderson and Bailey until she read about them in the news.

Dr. Dana Heller

Dr. Dana Heller (“Heller”) served at ODU for 28 years, including two terms as Chair of

the English Department, between 2010 and 2016. Heller currently serves as Dean of the College

of Arts & Sciences at Eastern Michigan University. Heller reported that Professor Anderson

raised issues with her about other faculty members but “just like in a normal way, people grouse,

saying so and so is driving me nuts.” Heller did not recall a time when Professor Anderson

wanted to take action against another member of the department. Heller stated Professor

Anderson’s complaints to her were “just normal venting,” and Heller did not remember any

conflicts Professor Anderson had with another faculty member that was out of the ordinary.

Regarding Professor Anderson’s specific alleged complaints involving Bailey, Heller said

she heard about the hot tub incident before becoming chair because it was a “scandal.” She also

Wilson keeps a “faculty problems” electronic file, where he recorded issues with faculty members. He reviewed it
94

during our interview and did not find any documents related to Professor Anderson or Bailey.

71
remembers hearing, possibly from Professor Anderson, about Bailey’s conduct at Professor

Anderson’s speech on Native American mascots. Finally, Heller recalled being aware of an

incident involving Professor Anderson using a knife against Bailey. She did not believe

Professor Anderson was the source of the report about the knife directly, but rather she believed

Professor Anderson told other faculty about it, stating she had to protect herself. Heller did not

recall ever hearing that Professor Anderson had been ordered to attend counseling and did not

know that could be done.

Heller stated that she “would imagine” that Professor Anderson spoke to Wilson about

Bailey, but did not have any details about such discussions taking place. She recalls speaking

with Wilson herself about Bailey and the pattern of behavior that was developing around him.

Heller believes she also “must have talked to Janet [Katz] about it,” but again did not remember

any specifics about when or how many times these conversations took place.

Heller states her concern about Bailey was that there seemed to be a pattern developing

with him that usually involved a party, alcohol, and inappropriate behavior toward women.

Heller stated that Wilson was aware of this concern and, although she could not recall whether

he specifically expressed it, her impression was that Wilson wanted to try to keep it within the

college.

Heller did not remember whether Wilson ever told her that he would ask Pearson to

speak with Bailey, but stated that Wilson followed the rules and, for that reason, it made sense

that if not Pearson, Wilson would tell the then-director of the MFA Program Luisa Igloria to

speak with Bailey. Heller did not recall Wilson ever specifically telling Professor Anderson that

she could not go to Dunman to complain about Bailey. To the contrary, Heller stated that many

people told Professor Anderson to file a formal complaint against Bailey, but she “seemed to

72
want to manage it herself.” As discussed below, the evidence supports that Heller reported

Professor Anderson’s concerns about Bailey to Dunman, and encouraged a then-reluctant

Professor Anderson to speak with Dunman directly.

2. Graduate Students

The reports and responses summarized below pertain to Bailey’s conduct toward Ms.

Kiley in October 2010 at an off-campus bar. Our investigation did not uncover any reports made

to ODU faculty or administrators by or about the graduate student whom Bailey allegedly

harassed in 2014.

a. Fall 2010

Ms. Kiley first reported Bailey’s unwanted advances at the bar to Professor Jaclyn

Ocumpaugh (“Ocumpaugh”) the same night as the incident. Ms. Kiley shared an office with

Ocumpaugh and when Ms. Kiley left the bar, she went to the office. Ocumpaugh, who was

working late that night, listened as Ms. Kiley cried and recounted Bailey’s inappropriate

behavior toward her. Ocumpaugh then shared with Ms. Kiley what she had heard about the hot

tub incident involving Bailey and Professor Anderson. Ocumpaugh encouraged Ms. Kiley to

report Bailey to Heller, and she helped Ms. Kiley draft an email to Heller requesting a meeting.

During Ms. Kiley’s meeting with Heller, Heller responded that she had heard about the

incident from others, as well. According to Ms. Kiley, Heller told her that she would talk to

Bailey and that she would not renew his one-year contract. Heller asked Ms. Kiley if she wanted

to file an official complaint, which she declined to do, in part because of Heller’s statement that

Bailey would not be rehired.

Ms. Kiley’s memory of her reporting of the Bailey incident is supported by

contemporaneous messages between Ms. Kiley and Ocumpaugh, in which Ms. Kiley wrote in

reference to Bailey: “I don’t feel the need to take further actions against him. I just wanted to be

73
sure the university knows his number to prevent future problems;” and “University officials are

aware of the situation and ‘taking it seriously.’ That’s enough for me.”95 At the time these

messages were exchanged, Ms. Kiley had already spoken with Heller and Igloria about the

incident, and Ocumpaugh had shared Ms. Kiley’s allegations with other ODU faculty.

Heller did not recall meeting with Ms. Kiley; however, she could not say for certain that

it did not occur. Heller said that she told ODU Legal as much, and that the Kaufman & Canoles

Statement indicating that she recalls having never spoken to Ms. Kiley is inaccurate. Heller

added that after she read the June 2021 Article in The Pilot, she was inclined to believe Ms.

Kiley’s account that the two of them spoke. Heller specifically referenced a line from the Article,

“Heller told her it was good that the incident was so public because that meant she wouldn’t have

to tell Bailey that the graduate student was the one who reported it,”96 and said that when she

read this, she thought it was exactly the kind of thing she would have said.

Heller recalls reporting the bar incident to Wilson and Wilson requesting that Heller meet

with Bailey. Heller says that she and Bailey met in her office to discuss his pattern of behavior

toward women, and she referenced the hot tub incident with Professor Anderson, as well as the

bar incident with Ms. Kiley. Heller also reminded Bailey that his position was not tenured and

that he could be removed at any time. Bailey apologized for any awkwardness and proceeded to

provide his perspective on the bar incident. He told Heller that he and Ms. Kiley were having a

social conversation when Ms. Kiley became very agitated and left quickly to go to the restroom.

Bailey was concerned for Ms. Kiley’s well-being, so he stood outside the restroom and, when

95
Facebook Messenger messages exchanged between Professor Ocumpaugh and Ms. Kiley, October 25, 2010,
beginning at 8:02 pm.
96
The Virginian-Pilot, Blake Bailey was an ODU star. Faculty and students say he abused and harassed women for
years, June 10, 2021, available at https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-bailey-odu-20210610-
cuzrop4ibrh55daovoqk43rluy-htmlstory.html.

74
she came out, asked her if she was okay. Bailey noticed then that Ms. Kiley was upset and

wanted him to back off, which surprised him. Heller did not have any additional discussions with

either Bailey or Ms. Kiley on these topics.

Also in the fall of 2010, Luisa Igloria (“Igloria”), then-Director of the MFA Program,

reached out to Ms. Kiley because she had heard about the bar incident. Ms. Kiley recalls Igloria

asking if she was okay. Ms. Kiley responded that she was okay, and told Igloria that everything

was taken care of. Ms. Kiley gave this response because she was under the impression that ODU

would decline to renew Bailey’s contract. Igloria provided a similar account of their

conversation, stating that Ms. Kiley said she was upset, but fine, and that Ms. Kiley did not

provide details about the situation.

When asked why she did not escalate the issues she heard about Bailey’s behavior

through appropriate channels, Igloria said it was her understanding at the time that it was the

complainant’s choice to file a formal complaint or not. Igloria did not feel that it was her place to

report a grievance to upper administration unless the grieving party wished to do so. In fact, in a

June 2021 email to Sheri Reynolds (“Reynolds”), current Chair of the English Department,

Igloria wrote she “felt like [her] hands were tied.”97 Igloria was clear that she did not consider

the allegations she heard regarding Bailey’s behavior to be allegations of sexual assault.

b. Fall 2011

On October 12, 2011, Ms. Clark, one of the graduate students who witnessed the bar

incident, spoke with Igloria regarding her concerns with Bailey’s behavior. Ms. Clark was

prompted to do so after witnessing the interaction between Bailey and the visiting writer on

October 7, 2011. According to Ms. Clark, Igloria told Ms. Clark that Ms. Kiley reported the bar

97
Igloria email to Reynolds, June 17, 2021, 2:22 pm.

75
incident when it happened, which led Heller to speak with Bailey and give him a warning. Ms.

Clark memorialized this and other salient points from her conversation with Igloria in a same-

day email to Ms. Burke, the other graduate student who witnessed the bar incident. Igloria does

not recall telling Ms. Clark this information, and she stated that she was not aware of whether

Ms. Kiley went forward with a complaint against Bailey. Igloria does not recall any specific

details of her conversation with Ms. Clark, though she does remember Ms. Clark and Ms. Burke

raising concerns about Bailey being flirtatious with students.

This is consistent with Ms. Burke’s account that prior to Ms. Clark’s meeting with

Igloria, Ms. Burke raised general complaints with Igloria about Bailey’s behavior. Ms. Burke

told Igloria that Bailey was a “problem,” but her comments were made in the course of informal

conversations because she did not want to provide specific details. Ultimately, Igloria felt the

complaints she received from students were “anecdotal” in nature and did not rise to the level of

a reportable sexual assault.

3. The Visiting Writer

During the same October 12, 2011 conversations with Igloria concerning Ms. Kiley, Ms.

Clark and Ms. Burke, separately, also spoke with Igloria about the incident with the visiting

writer. The visiting writer did not want either of them to report what occurred, so they were both

circumspect in what they reported to Igloria. According to an email Ms. Burke wrote to Ms.

Clark after meeting with Igloria, Igloria asked her directly about the incident with the visiting

writer “because [Igloria] was already noticing and observing some crude Blake behavior.”98 Ms.

Burke wrote in her email that she told Igloria “a few things without saying too much or being

specific and also emphasized that the author requested her story [be] kept quiet.”99

98
Ms. Burke email to Ms. Clark, October 12, 2011, 8:48 pm
99
Id.

76
 Ms. Clark stated she met with Igloria because she viewed Bailey as having a problem

respecting women’s boundaries. In a contemporaneous email to Ms. Burke, Ms. Clark wrote that

she did not tell Igloria about Bailey kissing the visiting writer, but she did report that Bailey

“repeatedly physically separated [the visiting writer] from everyone else, including dragging her

down several blocks when we tried to leave the party.”100 Igloria does not recall Ms. Clark telling

her this, but she noted that this conversation would have happened a long time ago, indicating

that it would be difficult to remember specifics. Igloria noted that she uniformly tells students

that if they have concerns of a serious nature that they feel need to be addressed, they should

escalate their complaints to upper administration. Igloria feels that the MFA Program Director

does not have a lot of power and that it would not be her place to act on a student complaint;

rather, it would be up to the complainant to officially file a report if he or she wishes to do so.

4. OIED and the Title IX Coordinator

In May 2012, ODU’s Assistant Vice President for Institutional Equity and Diversity and

Title IX Coordinator ReNee Dunman (“Dunman”) commenced an investigation regarding

Bailey’s conduct toward women. Witness interviews and Professor Anderson’s journal entries

lead us to conclude that Dunman likely became involved after being notified of Bailey’s conduct

by Heller. The complaint concerned Bailey’s actions toward Professor Anderson, and originated

with then-ODU professor Stephanie Sugioka (“Sugioka”), who informed Heller, who then

notified Dunman.

According to Sugioka, in the fall of 2011, Professor Anderson spoke to her about Bailey.

Professor Anderson reported to Sugioka that Bailey had groped her and he would not stop.

Professor Anderson further told Sugioka that she had threatened Bailey with a knife, but he still

100
Ms. Clark email to Ms. Burke, October 12, 2011, 6:51 pm.

77
would not leave her alone. Sugioka’s understanding was that the incidents happened at various

social gatherings, maybe a bar or someone’s home, and included an incident at a retreat in

Sandbridge. Sugioka did not recall where Anderson said the knife incident happened, but did not

believe it was on campus because she would have remembered that detail. The nature of the

threats Professor Anderson reported were not violent, but of the nature “you’re not going to get

rid of me—I’m going to be here.” Professor Anderson told Sugioka that Bailey’s behavior

happened over a period of several weeks and months.

Sugioka believed the English Department Chair should be informed of the situation.

According to Sugioka, Professor Anderson told her she could make a report to Heller. However,

Professor Anderson did not want her name to be used beyond the discussion with Heller.

Professor Anderson informed Sugioka she had previously told Heller about Bailey’s conduct, but

only after requesting that it not leave Heller’s office.

Sugioka told Heller what Professor Anderson had said about Bailey.101 Sugioka got the

impression that Heller had previously heard about these issues from Professor Anderson, but

Heller did not know the full details. Sugioka believes Heller contacted Dunman, who in turn,

contacted Sugioka shortly after Sugioka had spoken to Heller. Sugioka then spoke with Dunman,

at length. Sugioka did not use Professor Anderson’s name, but had the impression Dunman knew

who she was discussing.

Heller told us that she encouraged Professor Anderson to speak to Dunman as part of

Dunman’s investigation because Professor Anderson was very angry at Bailey, kept calling him

out in public about the hot tub incident, and it was a source of tension. Heller also told us that she

Sugioka’s report was based entirely on what Professor Anderson told her. Sugioka states her sole observation of
101

any interaction between Professor Anderson and Bailey was at Professor Anderson’s mascot lecture, during which
Bailey made a comment she deemed derogatory and argumentative.

78
believes she referred Professor Anderson to Dunman because she could sense Wilson’s reticence

concerning the issue.

Professor Anderson provided a journal entry, dated May 8, 2012, that she stated are notes

from her phone call with Heller about participating in Dunman’s investigation. According to the

notes, Heller told Professor Anderson that Sugioka had gone to Dunman and that Dunman

wanted “to get a sense of [the] pattern,” to which Professor Anderson replied “OMG.” The notes

further reflect that Heller told Professor Anderson that her name would not be used, and no one

would know that she had come forward. The notes reflect that Heller asked Professor Anderson

to have a “strictly confidential information conversation” with Dunman and “tell her what

happened.”

According to the notes, Heller told Professor Anderson nothing would probably come of

Dunman’s inquiry. Professor Anderson’s notes also state that Heller said she had told Dunman

about the hot tub incident and she urged Professor Anderson, as a faculty member, to speak up.

Professor Anderson states that after speaking with Heller, she had a discussion with

Dunman by telephone. Professor Anderson’s journal contains a May 8, 2012, entry she described

as notes of her initial discussion with Dunman. Dunman is recorded in Professor Anderson’s

notes as being supportive. Dunman recommended that Professor Anderson go to “the Women’s

Center” to talk it through. She provided a name (“Julie”) and number of a counselor to help

Professor Anderson—who reported being “kind of traumatized.” An additional journal entry

from the same date states the following:

Joanne—she may be more helpful. B taking too much

responsibil[ity]. tomorrow morning Women’s Center Webb Center
1st floor not atypical u don’t need to take responsibil[ity] all
confidential 9am Joanne.

79
 In a subsequent undated journal entry, Professor Anderson writes about seeing “Joann

yesterday” at the “Women’s Center.” There are also two additional journal entries, dated May

16, 2012, and June 4, 2012, that reference “Joanne” and the “Women’s Center.” Professor

Anderson is adamant that she attended counseling sessions because she was required to do so by

Katz and Wilson following the mailroom knife incident. However, the evidence supports the

conclusion that Professor Anderson voluntarily attended counseling at the Women’s Center after

being referred there by Dunman.

Professor Anderson reports meeting with Dunman three times in her office and her

conference room, and having “numerous phone calls.” She told Dunman “everything except the

knife incident . . ., including that [Wilson] had discouraged me in going to her with complaints.”

Professor Anderson also told us that she reviewed journal entries with Dunman.

Professor Anderson further reported that Dunman called and gave her an update right

after Dunman interviewed Bailey. According to Professor Anderson, Dunman told her that she

had concluded the interview phase of her investigation, had “all kinds of disturbing information,”

and was going to recommend that he be terminated. Dunman also said that Bailey’s termination

would have to be approved by ODU Legal, but Bailey was such a liability to the University that

she could not imagine it would not be approved.

Professor Anderson reported that not long after this call, she received another call from

Dunman during which Dunman reported that she “met with [ODU] Legal, and Legal is going to

treat it as one incident and for that reason you just give a warning.” According to Professor

Anderson, Dunman said ODU Legal, specifically James Wright, had asked her to pass along to

Anderson not to talk to anyone about the allegations.

80
 ReNee Dunman

ReNee Dunman (“Dunman”) served as ODU’s Assistant Vice President for Institutional

Equity and Diversity for over 25 years, including the time period during which Bailey worked at

ODU. Dunman also served as ODU’s Title IX coordinator for 23 years.

Dunman explained that there was a single record concerning her investigation that

remains in OIED’s files, the Bailey meeting prep notes, dated July 18, 2012. Concerning Bailey

and Professor Anderson, Dunman could not recall the source of the initial report, and she did not

believe the complaints against Bailey ever rose to the level of a “formal complaint” requiring

specified procedures.

Dunman recalled speaking with Professor Anderson more than once. Some details about

Professor Anderson’s complaint stood out because they were unique—namely, that the incident

took place in a hot tub. Professor Anderson reported that she was in the hot tub with two guys,

one of whom was her best friend. Bailey joined them and tried to slip himself under her or tried

to touch her, but Dunman could not remember the details. Dunman stated that Professor

Anderson never mentioned being naked in the hot tub. Dunman recalled that when Professor

Anderson responded to whatever the overture from Bailey was, her response was not

“extraordinary”—her friend interjected and said something like “you’re drunk, get out of here.”

And, Professor Anderson said that was the end of it. Professor Anderson never mentioned

anything about a knife incident.

Dunman recalled that Professor Anderson “was fairly broken, very upset about it.”

Professor Anderson wanted anonymity and was mostly concerned others would learn she

reported Bailey. She did not want him fired and did not want the responsibility for that, which

Dunman said was typical in cases involving employee reports against other employees.

81
 Dunman described a disconnect between how upset, emotional, and fearful Professor

Anderson was and the fact that she was okay with “just tell him to leave me alone” as a

resolution. Dunman’s understanding was that, after the touch in the hot tub, nothing else

happened concerning Bailey. According to Dunman, Professor Anderson described the hot tub

incident as if she had handled it. However, it did not make a whole lot of sense to Dunman that

Professor Anderson had seemingly handled the matter but seemed so broken up about it.

Dunman said that there would have been some form of follow-up with Professor

Anderson after their meeting, but she could not recall what it was. OIED had a relationship with

the counseling center, so for someone in Professor Anderson’s emotional state, Dunman said, she

would have referred her or offered to walk her over. Although ODU generally did not provide

counseling services to their employees, they would to someone in the emotional state Professor

Anderson was in. Dunman did not recall whether she spoke with Professor Anderson after their

meeting, but she believed that she did follow up with her at the conclusion of the investigation,

as was her typical practice.

Dunman remembered meeting with Wilson and telling him that there should be no more

retreats like Sandbridge. Each year, Dunman met with the deans to discuss the past year and

complaints from their respective college, OIED’s concerns and recommendations, and any

community members to keep an eye on. Dunman was not sure whether she told Wilson that

retreats like Sandbridge should not be happening as part of one of those yearly sit-downs or in a

separate, more immediate conversation. Dunman also could not recall whether she had flagged

Bailey as someone “to keep an eye on.” Although she did not specifically recall discussing

Bailey with Wilson, Dunman was clear that she “wouldn’t have had a case like this and not

talked to the dean.”

82
 Dunman recalled a second report, which she believed followed Professor Anderson’s,

concerning Bailey and a graduate student. Dunman did not recall whether the second report came

from the graduate student directly or someone else, but believed it came from a professor.

Dunman did not remember the substance of the report, only that it involved inappropriate

comments. Dunman said that the second report was how OIED was “able to align the facts and

conclude that there was an issue” with Bailey.

Dunman could not remember specifically speaking with Bailey but said, “I know I met

with him,” because she prepared the above-referenced prep notes for the meeting, which she

authenticated. The prep notes refer to “setting professional boundaries for relationships with

female students as well as colleagues,” “extending invitations for personal meetings outside of

professor-student relationship,” and “use of sexual innuendos with female students and faculty—

whether on or off campus.”102 Dunman stated that the specific topics referenced in the prep notes

are not generic; rather, they would have been specifically developed as appropriate topic areas to

discuss with Bailey given that he was alleged to have made inappropriate comments to students.

Dunman also indicated that the prep notes for the Bailey meeting focused on the issues

concerning the graduate student rather than Professor Anderson, as Dunman observed that

Professor Anderson seemed to have “handled” the hot tub incident and they respected her agency

in that regard.

Dunman denied telling Professor Anderson that she recommended that Bailey be fired.

She states that she was disturbed to read that allegation and “would never, ever tell any

complainant that degree of detail about any case. And, it didn’t happen! Not procedurally, not as

a modus operandi . . . that doesn’t even make sense to me.” Dunman states that she would never

Dunman’s Blake Bailey Meeting Notes, July 18, 2012, at p. 1.

102

83
violate personnel policy to give details, and that in any event, ODU Legal would not directly

overrule her recommendation. But, Dunman observed, she could give advice to someone in the

chain of command of the faculty, and if they did not want to take that advice, they could call

ODU Legal or HR and say “what are my other options,” and they would respond in kind.

Dunman told us, and said that she also told ODU Legal in connection with The Pilot

review, that she likely would have recommended Bailey’s non-renewal under the circumstances.

In this case, Bailey was a restricted employee; whenever a restricted employee is involved in

anything remotely related to sexual harassment or assault, OIED recommends not renewing the

contract.

C. The May 26, 2021, Statement to The Virginian-Pilot

In May 2021, a reporter with The Virginian-Pilot (“The Pilot”) reached out to ODU

requesting comment concerning allegations of sexual misconduct raised in research being

conducted for an article on Bailey. In response to The Pilot’s inquiry, ODU University Counsel

(“ODU Legal”) sought and received approval from the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”)

to engage Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., as outside counsel regarding the matter. What followed was

a mini internal investigation conducted by ODU Legal and a statement issued to The Pilot on

ODU’s behalf by Kaufman & Canoles on May 26, 2021 (the “Statement”). The Statement was

widely viewed as aggressive and victim-blaming, a characterization we find to be accurate. The

following recounts the key facts and circumstances leading up to the issuance of the Statement to

The Pilot.

1. The Virginian-Pilot Inquiry and Retention of Outside Counsel

The Pilot contacted ODU concerning Bailey on April 28, 2021, in a Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”) request. The FOIA request was emailed to Assistant Vice President

for Strategic Communication and Marketing Giovanna Genard (“Genard”), OIED, and others.

84
The Pilot requested any records concerning “all reports of abuse, assault or harassment involving

Blake Bailey” and other related materials.103 ODU conducted a search of its records and the only

responsive document located was one page of notes, dated July 18, 2012, from OIED that

appeared to have been prepared in anticipation of a meeting with Bailey concerning his behavior

toward women. Ultimately, ODU determined that the document was exempt from FOIA as a

personnel record and it was not disclosed to The Pilot.

On May 20, 2021, The Pilot contacted ODU stating that it was preparing to run a story

stating that Bailey had committed multiple acts of sexual misconduct toward women while at

ODU. The message was emailed to Genard and Senior Associate University Counsel James

Wright (“Wright”) and asked whether ODU, Wright, or then-ODU President John Broderick

(“Broderick”), since retired, had a response to the allegations or the list of specific questions The

Pilot included in the message.104 The email gave a response deadline of noon, Wednesday, May

26, 2021.105

Upon receiving The Pilot email, Genard and Wright notified University Counsel Earl

Nance (“Nance”) the same day, who then discussed the matter with Wright. Nance, in turn,

notified ODU Vice President for Administration and Finance Gregory DuBois (“DuBois”). It

was Nance’s initial recommendation to not respond to The Pilot’s inquiry. Nance further advised

that, if they did respond, they should request additional time to do so and it would have to be

through someone else because OAG policy precluded Nance and Wright from interacting with

the press. Nance also notified ODU’s Title IX Coordinator Ariana Wright, as well as his

103
The Pilot FOIA request email, April 28, 2021, 10:36 am.
104
The Pilot email, May 20, 2021, 12:27 pm.
105
Id.

85
superiors at the OAG, Section Chief Deborah Love (“Love”) and Deputy Attorney General

Sylvia Jones (“Jones”), concerning this matter.

The following day, DuBois reached out to Broderick, who was on vacation in Florida, by

telephone to notify him of The Pilot request for comment. Broderick’s response was that the

University should respond and that they should do so without requesting additional time. Once

advised by DuBois that Broderick wanted to respond, Nance recommended that outside counsel

be retained to interact with The Pilot. The recommendation to retain outside counsel was made

due to the OAG restricting ODU Legal’s interactions with the press, as well as the fact that The

Pilot inquiry specifically referenced Wright’s actions. ODU Legal had previously used Kaufman

& Canoles for employment-related matters and Nance recommended that they be retained.

DuBois agreed with the recommendation to retain outside counsel.

Approval for Kaufman & Canoles to be retained as outside counsel in this matter was

requested by ODU, and the OAG granted that request. Attorneys Burt Whitt and John Bredehoft

of Kaufman & Canoles’ labor and employment practice were responsible for the engagement.

2. ODU Legal Department’s Investigation

It was determined that ODU Legal would investigate the matter by conducting

interviews, report the information to Kaufman & Canoles, and Kaufman & Canoles would

communicate with The Pilot. Collectively, ODU Legal and DuBois, in consultation with

Kaufman & Canoles, made the decision to not interview Professor Anderson out of concern that

it would be viewed as retaliatory. Whether or not to interview the other complainants was not

discussed. Ultimately, the other complainants were not interviewed because ODU wanted to

meet the May 26th deadline and ODU Legal ran out of time, not because of any conscious

decision to avoid doing so.

86
 ODU Legal proceeded to interview current and former ODU faculty and administrators,

including members of the English Department, deans, department chairs, and Title IX

coordinators. ODU Legal made the determination as to whom should be interviewed. Interviews

were conducted over telephone by Nance and Wright. Typically, Nance would ask all of the

questions. However, Wright did question one interviewee alone, due to Nance’s unavailability.

ODU Legal also received a few written witness accounts by email. Interview notes were emailed

to Kaufman & Canoles updating them on witness accounts and the progress of the investigation.

Nance also regularly updated DuBois regarding witness interviews and the progress of the

investigation. DuBois, in turn, updated Broderick by telephone on a daily basis. Broderick did

not return from his vacation until May 25th.

The consensus between ODU Legal, Dubois, Broderick, and Kaufman & Canoles was

that the information gained in the internal investigation, which contradicted the facts alleged in

The Pilot email, would be shared with The Pilot in a manner that would hopefully deter them

from running the story. Or, at least lead The Pilot to reevaluate the premise of the story that

Bailey had committed multiple acts of sexual misconduct and ODU did nothing in response.

ODU Legal, DuBois, and Broderick all stated that it was never their intention that the

Statement become public, only that it be strong enough to dissuade The Pilot from running a

story that depicted ODU in such a negative light. However, upon receiving the Statement from

Kaufman & Canoles on May 26, 2021, The Pilot informed Kaufman & Canoles and ODU’s

Genard by email that they intended to include the “full statement” with the story. 106 Kaufman &

Canoles then notified Nance and Wright,107 and Nance notified Broderick and DuBois, cc’ing

106
See Gary Harki email to John Bredehoft and Giovanna Genard, May 26, 2021, 2:32 pm.
107
See John Bredehoft email to Nance and Wright, May 26, 2021, 2:38 pm.

87
Genard and his superiors at the OAG, Jones and Love.108 A full two weeks prior to the story

being published and the Statement becoming public, ODU knew of The Pilot’s intention to

publish the Statement and took no steps to prevent it.

3. Drafting and Editing of the May 26, 2021, Statement

Based on the information gathered through ODU Legal’s limited internal investigation,

Kaufman & Canoles drafted a position statement in response to The Pilot email. Neither ODU

Legal nor anyone within the ODU administration specifically requested Kaufman & Canoles

draft a statement on ODU’s behalf. That decision was made solely by Kaufman & Canoles. The

guidance from ODU administration was that they wanted to respond to The Pilot; they did not

dictate the form that response should take.

On May 25, 2021, Kaufman & Canoles shared a draft of the Statement with Nance and

Wright.109 Nance provided comments and edits to Kaufman & Canoles via email.110 After

receiving the draft, Wright discussed particular facts attributed to former Title IX Coordinator

Dunman with Dunman by telephone. Based on that conversation, Wright made a few edits in

conformance with the information conveyed by Dunman.

That same day, Nance also emailed a draft of the Statement to his superiors at the OAG,

Love and Jones.111 Jones reviewed the Statement and submitted minor grammatical edits by

email.112 Love did not respond to Nance’s email. Neither Jones nor Love dictated the substance

of the Statement. However, they also did not counsel Nance that it should not be submitted to

The Pilot.

108
See Nance email to Broderick and DuBois, May 26, 2021, 6:41 pm.
109
Kaufman & Canoles email with draft Statement, May 25, 2021, 5:27 pm.
110
Nance Response email with feedback on draft Statement, May 26, 2021, 12:29 am.
111
Nance email to Love and Jones with draft Statement, May 25, 2021, 2:14 pm.
112
Jones email to Nance with edits to Statement, May 25, 2021, 4:38 pm.

88
 Nance then shared the draft Statement with Broderick and DuBois during an in-person

meeting the afternoon of May 25, 2021. During this meeting, Nance summarized the

investigation conducted by ODU Legal and provided a hard copy of the draft Statement for

review, comment, and approval. DuBois reviewed the Statement but did not provide any edits.

According to Nance, Broderick reviewed the Statement after the meeting and provided

handwritten comments and edits.

Another meeting was held among Nance, Wright, and Harry Minium (“Minium”), a

former Pilot reporter who currently works in ODU’s Strategic Communications office writing

articles for the athletic department. During this meeting, Minium reviewed the Statement, made a

few suggestions, and provided his general input about The Pilot reporter who was writing the

Article.

Once Nance obtained final approval from Broderick, he informed Kaufman & Canoles

that they could move forward with finalizing the Statement. Before contacting Kaufman &

Canoles to notify them that the Statement could be sent to The Pilot, Nance specifically received

approval to do so from Broderick and DuBois, as was the normal course of business in such

sensitive matters. Kaufman & Canoles then finalized the Statement and emailed it to The Pilot on

May 26, 2021.113

Broderick initially claimed to have not seen the Statement until it was printed in The Pilot

on June 10, 2021. However, this claim is directly contradicted by a May 26, 2021, email from

Broderick to Nance and DuBois, in which Broderick forwarded a draft letter for their review and

comment.114 In the letter, Broderick directly quotes from the Statement, demonstrating his

awareness of its existence and content. When confronted with this email, Broderick surmised

113
Kaufman & Canoles email to Pilot with Statement, May 26, 2021, 11:24 am.
114
See Broderick email to Nance and DuBois May 26, 2021, 1:20 pm.

89
that perhaps he only received those particular paragraphs from University Counsel and never saw

the entire Statement; or, if he did see the entire Statement, he only skimmed over it and never

read the entire document in detail.

In what he characterized as an effort to maintain attorney-client privilege, Nance did not

share the draft Statement with current Title IX Coordinator Ariana Wright or anyone else at

OIED. In fact, neither OIED nor Assistant VP for Strategic Communications Genard were

consulted during the drafting or editing of the Statement.

4. The Virginian-Pilot June 10, 2021, Article and ODU’s Response

On June 10, 2021, The Pilot Article, Blake Bailey was an ODU star. Faculty and

students say he abused and harassed women for years (the “Article”), was published detailing

allegations of sexual misconduct against Bailey. The Article included a redacted full copy of

ODU’s May 26, 2021, Statement. Almost immediately upon release of the Article, the

administration began receiving an influx of negative responses from the University community.

Many individuals, especially those within the English Department, voiced disappointment via

email directly to Broderick and the administration. English Department Chair Sheri Reynolds

also received multiple emails from outraged faculty members. In response to the Statement and

the Article, a number of faculty members within the English Department created a petition in

support of ODU survivors of sexual misconduct, assault, and harassment. Ultimately, a letter,

together with the petition, was sent to Broderick suggesting a list of four things the University

should do in response to the Article.

In response, Broderick convened a meeting among certain ODU administrators and ODU

Legal to discuss a public response to The Pilot Article. The following individuals attended this

meeting: (1) Broderick, (2) Nance, (3) Genard, (4) DuBois, (5) Karen Meir (ODU Community

Relations), and (6) an unnamed individual from a crisis management firm. These individuals,
90
along with September Sanderlin, VP for Human Resources (“Sanderlin”), and Provost Austin

Agho (“Agho”) were involved in the drafting of a response to the Article.

Prior to the meeting convened by Broderick, on June 10, 2021, Wright had reached out to

Kaufman & Canoles at the request of Broderick for them to draft a short response statement for

ODU to publish if the administration received further inquiries.115 Kaufman & Canoles

immediately drafted a response statement and shared it with Nance and Wright on June 11,

2021.116 The response statement was first edited by Wright and it was further revised by

Broderick and DuBois.117 Nance and Phillip Walzer (ODU employee and former reporter for The

Pilot) also reviewed the statement and provided input.118

On June 14, 2021, Broderick sent an email to the ODU community responding to the

Article.119 In the email, Broderick apologized to the victims, indicated that a transparent and

independent investigation had been conducted, and stated that ODU was establishing a task force

to review and address concerns raised in the petition “in support of ODU survivors of sexual

misconduct, assault and harassment.”120

Subsequently, on June 24, 2021, Broderick sent a follow-up email to the ODU

community reassuring the community that ODU was taking appropriate steps to investigate the

matter and to enhance ODU’s reporting mechanisms for sexual misconduct.121 Prior to this

follow-up email being sent, it was reviewed by Broderick’s staff, including Nance, DuBois, and

Genard.

115
Wright email to Kaufman & Canoles regarding response to the Article, June 10, 2021, 11:41 am.
116
Kaufman & Canoles emails with draft Response Statement, June 11, 2021, 11:34 am and 3:16 pm.
117
Wright email to Kaufman & Canoles regarding Revised Privileged Draft Statement, June 11, 2021, 4:15 pm.
118
Nance email to Kaufman & Canoles with revisions, June 13, 2021, 1:32 am; Walzer email to Nance with
revisions, June 13, 2021, 6:15 pm.
119
Broderick email to Monarch Community, June 14, 2021, 5:36 pm.
120
Id.
121
Broderick email to Monarch Community, June 24, 2021, 8:32 pm.

91
 CONCLUSION

Sexual misconduct of any kind is a serious issue across college campuses. Unfortunately,

Old Dominion University is not exempt from this problem. It is essential that complainants be

treated with respect and such matters be handled with appropriate care. We are cognizant of the

ever-changing legal landscape concerning sexual misconduct and institutions of higher learning.

And, we also recognize the difficulty in conducting a factual review of events which took place

long ago. Although there may have been no clear violation of Title VII, Title IX, or any other

applicable law or policy, best practices dictate that ODU should have done more to address the

Bailey allegations at the time.

The most concerning aspect of our review is the involvement of former ODU senior

administration officials in the editing and approval of the insensitive May 26, 2021, Statement to

The Pilot concerning the Bailey allegations. The Statement blamed complainants, instead of

providing the care and support they deserve. The Statement also made ODU appear indifferent to

the issues of sexual misconduct, and caused unnecessary damage to the University community.

The current ODU administration has taken the important steps of identifying shortfalls

and correcting mistakes. ODU should continue down this path to ensure the ODU campus is an

environment free from sexual misconduct and discrimination. The administration should also

continue to strive to ensure every member of the ODU community is aware of their rights and

responsibilities regarding allegations of sexual misconduct.

92