1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 2 SHERMAN DIVISION 3 TIMOTHY JACKSON, ) ) 4 Plaintiff, ) ) 5 vs. ) CASE NO. 4:21-CV-00033-ALM ) 6 LAURA WRIGHT, et al., ) ) 7 Defendants. ) 8 ******************************************************** 9 VIDEOTAPED ZOOM ORAL DEPOSITION OF 10 JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D. 11 September 27, 2024 12 (Reported Remotely) 13 ******************************************************** 14 VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, 15 Ph.D., produced as a witness at the instance of the 16 Plaintiff and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled 17 and -numbered cause on the 27th day of September, 2024, 18 from 9:13 a.m. to 12:35 p.m., before Kim D. Carrell, 19 Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of 20 Texas, reported remotely by computerized stenotype 21 machine at the University of North Texas System, 22 801 North Texas Boulevard, Gateway Suite #308, Denton, 23 Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24 and the provisions stated on the record or attached 25 hereto. 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 3 Mr. Michael Thad Allen ALLEN LAW, LLC 4 P.O. Box 404 Quaker Hill, CT 06375 5 Telephone: 860.772.4738 - Fax: 860.469.2783 E-mail: m.allen@allen-lawfirm.com 6 7 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: 8 Ms. Mary Quimby Assistant Attorney General 9 General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station 10 Austin, Texas 78711 Telephone: 512.463.2120 - Fax: 512.320.0667 11 E-mail: Mary.Quimby@oag.texas.gov 12 - and - 13 Mr. Renaldo Stowers (Appearing Live) University of North Texas System 14 Office of General Counsel 801 North Texas Boulevard 15 Denton, Texas 76201 Telephone: 940.565.2717 - Fax: 940.369.7026 16 E-mail: Renaldo.Stowers@untsystem.edu 17 18 ALSO PRESENT: Jason Warner, Videographer lvg.dallas@gmail.com 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 I N D E X PAGE 2 Appearances............................... 2 3 Stipulations.............................. 5 4 JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D. 5 Direct Examination by Mr. Allen........ 6 6 7 Corrections and Changes........................ 129 8 Reporter's Certificate......................... 131 9 EXHIBITS 10 NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED 11 Exhibit 1 Re-Notice of Taking Deposition........ 7 12 Exhibit 2 Email Chain Ending 8-3-20, Cowley to 13 Ishiyama, Request to Serve on Ad Hoc Review Panel 14 (UNT 002453 - 002454)................. 20 15 Exhibit 3 Ad Hoc Review Panel Report (Exhibit D) (JACKSON000208 - 000233).............. 23 16 Exhibit 4 COPE Guidelines: A Short Guide to 17 Ethical Editing for New Editors (UNT 003303 - 003314)................. 34 18 Exhibit 5 Theoria Title Page, List of Articles, 19 Directions to Contributors, Volume 26-2020............................... 43 20 Exhibit 6 Emails ending 10-14-20, Ishiyama to 21 Jackson, et al. RE: Talk With UNT Ad Hoc Journal Review Panel 22 (UNT 002634 - 002635)................. 50 23 Exhibit 7 Handwritten Notes, 9-16-20, Ad Hoc Journal Review Committee.............. 63 24 Exhibit 8 Potential Questions for Benjamin Brand 25 Chair of the Division of History, Theory & Ethnomusicology.............. 68 4 1 2 Exhibit 9 PLoS Medicine Article, What Should Be Done to Tackle Ghostwriting in 3 the Medical Literature............. 71 4 Exhibit 10 Walls Facebook Post (JACKSON 000234 - 000236).......... 81 5 Exhibit 11 Email Chain ending 9-30-20, Walls 6 to Ishiyama (UNT 002533)....................... 83 7 Exhibit 12 Jackson Materials for the 8 Committee (UNT 002645 - 002782).............. 99 9 Exhibit 13 Email, 10-2-20, Ishiyama to 10 TitleIX, et al. Reporting on an Incident 11 (UNT 003435).......................117 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 1 A G R E E M E N T S 2 DEPOSITION OF: JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D. 3 DATE: September 27, 2024 4 CAUSE NO. 4:21-CV-00033-ALM 5 THIS DEPOSITION SHALL BE TAKEN PURSUANT TO: 6 (X) Notice ( ) Agreement 7 ( ) Court Order ( ) Subpoena 8 (X) Rules of Federal Civil Procedure 9 10 ORIGINAL TO: 11 ( ) Witness (X) Witness's attorney (Ms. Quimby) 12 ( ) Producing attorney ( ) Signature waived 13 14 NUMBER OF DAYS FOR SIGNATURE 15 ( ) 20 days (X) 30 days 16 ( ) Other: 17 MISCELLANEOUS: 18 ( ) Any objection made by one party good for 19 all parties. 20 (X) An unsigned copy may be used at any trial, hearing, or arbitration proceedings. 21 22 23 24 25 6 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today is September 3 27th, 2024. The time is 9:13 a.m. We're on the record. 4 (Witness Sworn) 5 MR. ALLEN: Shall the attorneys state 6 their name for the record? 7 THE REPORTER: Yes. 8 MR. ALLEN: My name is Michael Thad 9 Allen for the Plaintiff, Timothy Jackson. 10 MS. QUIMBY: My name is Mary Quimby. 11 I'm an Assistant Attorney General with the Texas Attorney 12 General's Office. I represent the Defendants in this 13 matter and Dr. Ishiyama in this deposition. 14 MR. STOWERS: I'm Renaldo Stowers, Deputy 15 General Counsel for the University of North Texas System. 16 MR. ALLEN: I believe in attendance is 17 also my client, Timothy Jackson. At least I believe I 18 saw him pop into the Zoom. 19 JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D., 20 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 21 DIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. ALLEN: 23 Q. Good morning, Professor Ishiyama. 24 A. Good morning. 25 Q. Can you please state your full name for the 7 1 record. 2 A. John Toaru Ishiyama. 3 Q. Can you spell that just for the record, please. 4 A. J-O-H-N, middle name is Toaru, T-O-A-R-U, 5 last name, Ishiyama, I-S-H-I-Y-A-M-A. 6 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. From time to 7 time, I will be introducing exhibits, and I don't know 8 where the share button -- there, it must be down here. 9 There, it is. I'm going to mark for the record 10 Exhibit 1. 11 (Deposition Exhibit Number 1 marked.) 12 Q. Can you see this exhibit clearly, Professor 13 Ishiyama? 14 A. Yes, the top part. 15 Q. Okay. And I wanted to introduce some of the 16 rules of the road for a deposition. 17 One of them is just exactly what you just did. 18 If you need, at any point, to examine an exhibit, a 19 portion that I don't have on screen, given that this is 20 a virtual deposition, just ask. Obviously, no one wants 21 you to be answering questions about a deposition exhibit 22 that you can't see. 23 In this case, I'll scroll down. This is the 24 entirety of the text on page 1. And you'll see on page 2 25 are some signature blocks and so forth. 8 1 Have you had a chance to examine this exhibit? 2 A. Not closely. 3 Q. Would you like some additional time to examine 4 the exhibit? 5 A. Could you scroll down a bit? A bit further? 6 Yes, I've reviewed it. 7 Q. And I'll represent to you that there is no 8 further text or pages to this document. 9 Is it accurate to say that you appeared for 10 today's deposition in response to this document, 11 Exhibit 1? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. All right. I don't have any further questions 14 to ask you about that exhibit. 15 Some other rules of the road, so to speak. 16 If, from time to time, you don't understand a question 17 that I've asked, please feel free to interrupt me at 18 any time. Ask for clarification. That's perfectly 19 acceptable. Is that understood? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Likewise, if you do not ask for clarification 22 of a question, I will understand that you are 23 understanding the question as asked. Is that clear? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Is there anything that would interfere with 9 1 your ability to answer questions truthfully today, 2 Dr. Ishiyama? 3 A. No. But I would say that the audio is not 4 really great on this end. 5 Q. All right. So if, at any time, you can't hear 6 me or need me to speak up, I would ask you to just simply 7 interrupt me and tell me so. Can you do that for me? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Another thing we have to do during a deposition 10 is there are many verbal or nonverbal cues that we use in 11 everyday conversation that I want us to avoid in the 12 deposition, because it prevents the court reporter from 13 making a clean record. So if you could please answer 14 audibly things like yes or no instead of um-hum or 15 nodding your head, that is necessary for the court 16 reporter. Is that clear? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Thank you. From time to time, your attorney, 19 Mary Quimby, may object. That does not relieve you of 20 the obligation to answer a question that is before you, 21 with some few exceptions, which will be very clear. 22 For instance, attorney-client privilege. 23 In those cases, I have no doubt that Attorney 24 Quimbly -- Quimby, excuse me, will instruct you not to 25 answer. So like I said, it will be very clear. 10 1 Otherwise, you are required to answer the questions as 2 put to you notwithstanding any objection that your 3 attorney may make. Is that also clear? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Also, this was sort of something that has 6 already happened, I think. If, at any time, you need 7 a break, please feel free to ask. We can break in the 8 deposition at any time. However, I would ask that you 9 answer any question that is before you. Is that also 10 clear? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. Thank you. Have you ever been deposed 13 before, Professor Ishiyama? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. When were you deposed before? 16 A. When I was 17 years old. It involved a civil 17 case. I was involved in a car accident. 18 Q. Is it fair to say that was an ordinary tort? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Form. 20 A. I'm not sure what you mean by tort. 21 Q. Okay. Were you the plaintiff? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Were you a witness? 24 A. No. 25 Q. What was your role in that litigation? 11 1 A. The plaintiff was suing my family for an 2 accident that happened. But we -- yes, that was the 3 deposition. It was found in our favor, though. 4 Q. Okay. Besides this car accident litigation 5 when you were 17 years old, have you been in any other 6 depositions? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Can you explain what you have done to prepare 9 for today's deposition? 10 A. I have been asked to reread the report we 11 submitted. I've done so. 12 Q. Are you referring to the November 25, 2020 13 Ad Hoc Panel Report? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. I believe we'll get to that today. 16 Were there any other documents that you 17 consulted in preparation for your deposition today? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you talk to anyone in preparation for 20 your deposition today? 21 A. The attorneys and I spoke a few days ago 22 prior to this, but that's it. 23 Q. Okay. And I was going to say, I'm not -- I'm 24 going to ask you what you spoke to your attorneys about. 25 A. Um-hum. 12 1 Q. And you said that's it. So I assume you have 2 not spoken to any other person in preparation for your 3 deposition? 4 A. No, I have not. 5 Q. Did you talk to anyone else about your 6 deposition? 7 A. No, I have not. 8 Q. Okay. Approximately how long did you meet with 9 your attorneys? 10 A. I don't actually recall the actual amount of 11 time. It was on a Zoom or Teams. I think it was a 12 couple of hours. 13 Q. Okay. Thank you. I want to transition now to 14 talk about your career and publications and things that 15 have made up the substance of your academic career. 16 A. Um-hum. 17 Q. Can you briefly describe your educational 18 career? I mean, the degrees you've earned, the 19 institutions you've earned them at, and so forth, 20 starting with your undergraduate degree? 21 A. Um-hum. I have a BA in political science and 22 history from Bowling Green State University, a Master's 23 degree in Russian history from the University of 24 Michigan, and a Ph.D. in political science from Michigan 25 State University. 13 1 Q. When was the -- I think you may have said, but 2 can you remind me when you earned your Bachelor's of -- 3 did you say Bachelor's of Arts in Bowling Green? 4 A. Yes, that would be 1982. My Master's degree 5 from the University of Michigan was in 1985. And my 6 Ph.D. was completed in 1992 from Michigan State 7 University. 8 Q. Did you work between your completion of the 9 Bachelor's degree at Bowling Green and your Master's 10 degree -- 11 A. No. 12 Q. -- before you entered that program? 13 A. I worked simultaneously. 14 Q. What was your employment at that time? 15 A. I was a chef. 16 Q. Now, there seems to be very little time between 17 your Master's degree and the completion of your Ph.D. 18 Did you work between those two degrees? 19 A. Only simultaneously part-time. But actually, 20 my Master's was 1985. My Ph.D. was 1992. So seven years 21 passed. 22 Also, I did work as a professor at Truman 23 State University between 1990 and 1992. I had achieved 24 the all but dissertation status, and they had hired me. 25 And then subsequent to my finishing, they hired me 14 1 full-time. 2 Q. So that's going to be a good transition to the 3 next question I was going to ask. But before I do, are 4 there any other credentials or degrees you've earned 5 along the way since 1992? 6 A. No. 7 Q. And I was going to ask if you could describe 8 your professional career in academia: What jobs you've 9 held, what capacity, from, it looks like, 1990, when you 10 started working for Truman University to the present. 11 A. Yes. I was -- my first 18 years in my career, 12 from 1990 to 2008, I was an assistant, associate, and 13 full professor at Truman State University in 2008. I 14 came to the University of North Texas as a full professor 15 and have been here since. 16 Q. And do I understand you are a political 17 scientist also at the University of North Texas? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What is your title at the University of 20 North Texas today? 21 A. My official title is University Distinguished 22 Research Professor and Chair of the Department of 23 Political Science. 24 Q. When did you become the chair of the Department 25 of Political Science? 15 1 A. In 2022. 2 Q. So that was after the -- what I'll just call 3 the Schenker controversy that we are going to talk about 4 today. Would that be correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. In 2020, what was your position at the 7 University of North Texas? Were you a distinguished 8 university research professor at that time? 9 A. Yes, I was. 10 Q. When were you distinguished with that title? 11 A. I do not recall the exact year, but it's been 12 quite some time. I believe it was 2012, but I'm not 13 entirely sure about that date. It is on my curriculum 14 vitae, though. 15 Q. I understand. Is it safe to say you've been 16 a distinguished research professor for over ten years? 17 A. Yes, I think some of that would be accurate. 18 Q. Were you the chair of the department of 19 poli-sci before 2022 in any capacity at any time? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Okay. Have you had any other roles in the 22 administration at the University of North Texas? 23 A. Not at the university level. In my department, 24 I was a graduate -- the director of 25 graduate studies from 2019 until 2022. 16 1 Q. Have you worked with many graduate students 2 in your capacity as a full professor? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. How many graduate students have you produced in 5 terms of students who completed their Ph.D.s with you as 6 their primary dissertation advisor? 7 A. I have 14 completed Ph.D. dissertations. I 8 currently have six who I chair their committees. I have 9 served on over 30 committees in some capacity. In terms 10 of chairing the dissertations, it's 14. 11 Q. And have you been successful placing the Ph.D. 12 students that have completed their degrees under your 13 mentorship in jobs? 14 A. Yes. All but one who's currently on the 15 market. 16 Q. Very good. Within -- not to the exact number, 17 but within reason, how many publications do you have to 18 your credit, Professor Ishiyama? 19 A. Well, I have 10 books, 171 peer-reviewed 20 journal articles, and 39 peer-reviewed book chapters. 21 Q. Have you ever published articles that are not 22 peer reviewed? 23 A. No. I mean, I would not call them articles. 24 There have been research reports. There have been 25 summaries of conference proceedings, but I don't call 17 1 those articles. 2 Q. I'm sure you've published numerous book reviews 3 as well, right? 4 A. Yes, probably close to 70. 5 Q. So of the 171 articles you mentioned, all of 6 those are peer reviewed in academic journals? 7 A. Yes, they are. 8 Q. Have you been the editor of -- edited volumes? 9 A book essentially, edited volume? 10 A. Yes, I edited four edited volumes. 11 Q. And have you served as the editor of an 12 academic journal? 13 A. Yes, twice. 14 Q. Can you state the name of the journals you have 15 served as editor? 16 A. I was editor-in-chief of the American Political 17 Science Review, which is the leading journal 18 of our discipline, the most cited in the world, from 2012 19 until 2016. 20 From 2004 until 2012, I was editor-in-chief 21 and founding editor of the Journal of Political Science 22 Education, which is the second of the suite of journals 23 authored by the American Political Science Association. 24 I was also founding editor of that journal. 25 Q. So I think you said you started in 2004, so 18 1 it was founded in 2004? 2 A. Yes, it was. 3 Q. Okay. Well, let's start with the American 4 Political Science Review. Did I get that right? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. While you were the editor, did you ever publish 7 any articles that were not peer reviewed? 8 A. Never, no. And -- 9 Q. And when you were -- I'm sorry. Please go 10 ahead. 11 A. No. There was a time the APSR published book 12 reviews, but they stopped doing that in 2011. But in the 13 APSR, there were no non peer-reviewed articles. 14 Q. And what about the political science education 15 journal that you mentioned? 16 A. No. 17 Q. From 2004 to 2012, did you publish any articles 18 as the editor-in-chief, which were not peer reviewed? 19 A. No, none. 20 Q. Okay. So as you know, we are here to discuss 21 an academic journal that was published by the University 22 of North Texas Press called Journal of Schenkerian 23 Studies. And I wanted to ask you when you learned that 24 there was a controversy surrounding the Journal of 25 Schenkerian Studies. 19 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. Only after Provost Cowley told us. I had 3 been unaware before that. 4 Q. Have you had any collegial relationships in the 5 College of Music? 6 A. No. 7 Q. And you didn't hear about that controversy from 8 any media source? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Approximately when did you hear from Provost 11 Cowley that there was a controversy surrounding the 12 Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 13 A. In August of 2020. 14 Q. And can you summarize your understanding at 15 that time of what the controversy was about? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. I actually am not really sure what the 18 controversy was about. I had heard there was some 19 debate at their conference, there was some controversy 20 involving a scholar who gave a talk, and then there was 21 the Journal had published something that was criticized 22 heavily. But that's about all I knew. I don't make it 23 a point of following these kinds of debates in other 24 disciplines. 25 Q. I understand. How did Professor Cowley reach 20 1 out to you? 2 A. Provost Cowley sent a message. I don't now 3 recall if it was a phone message or an email, but asking 4 if we would serve on some committee. I was unsure. And 5 she would give us details once we met. But I don't 6 exactly recall how she communicated that, if it were -- 7 I believe it was an email, but I'm not entirely sure. 8 (Deposition Exhibit Number 2 marked.) 9 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I'm going to mark for 10 the record Exhibit 2. And I've just publish that to the 11 website here. 12 Q. Do you see that exhibit? 13 A. Yes. 14 MR. ALLEN: And I have to -- give me a 15 sec here. I'm trying to mark these as we go, so that I 16 do not lose track. 17 So this is an email from Jennifer Cowley, 18 Exhibit 2, dated August 3rd, 2020. It's to you, 19 Professor Ishiyama, as well as another recipient on 20 the cc line. 21 Does this help refresh your memory of when you 22 first learned about the committee you would serve on? 23 A. Yes. As I said, August 2020. And I wouldn't 24 definitely entirely recall, but it was an email, yes. 25 Q. And so this is the email where Provost Cowley 21 1 first reached out to you? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. And after Professor Cowley reached out 4 to you and the committee was formed, what was your -- 5 but before you starting doing your work, what was your 6 understanding of your task? 7 A. Our understanding, after meeting a few -- 8 some days after this email, was that we were to review 9 the processes, editorial processes, of the Journal of 10 Schenkerian Studies to see whether it comported with 11 the recommended best practices in journal publishing. 12 Q. All right. Was that -- did Provost Cowley 13 refer to that as the charge of the committee? 14 A. Yes, she did. 15 Q. Okay. And how did you -- how did she 16 communicate the charge of the committee to you? 17 A. She met with us in a face-to-face meeting, 18 and that is where she gave the committee the charge. 19 Q. Was that charge summarized or committed to 20 writing in any way? Let me strike that question. 21 Professor Ishiyama, can you explain if that 22 charge was committed to writing? 23 A. I believe it was. I think there was -- she had 24 written a follow-up to tell us what the charge was. And 25 it was, again, to review the processes employed with the 22 1 Journal and also specifically with Volume 12, if I 2 recall. 3 Q. Okay. Now, did she -- let me see if I 4 understood you correctly. Did you just -- did you 5 intend to say that she communicated to you the 6 processes that had been used by the Journal -- 7 A. No. 8 Q. -- or her understanding of them? 9 A. No. We -- 10 Q. I must have misunderstood. 11 A. She wanted a -- 12 Q. Can you state for the record -- yeah, go ahead. 13 I see. That was the subject of your review? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. And you nodded. Can you just state for 16 the record your answer? 17 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. Did people hear 18 him or is it -- we may not be able to hear you. 19 A. The answer is yes. 20 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Thank you, Professor 21 Ishiyama. 22 So I'm going to mark for the record Exhibit 3. 23 (Deposition Exhibit Number 3 marked.) 24 Q. I'm just going to state for the record, 25 Professor Ishiyama, this has some text along the top 23 1 line. Those are stamps that are placed on the document 2 by the United States District Court for the Eastern 3 District of Texas. They were not added by either your 4 counsel or by me. And this is -- this has to do with 5 the way the document has already been used in court. 6 But just in interest of fairness, I just 7 wanted to show you that, so you didn't think there was 8 something that I was hiding from you. Is that fair? 9 Here is the title page. Is this the Ad Hoc 10 Review Panel Report of November 25th, 2020, that you 11 mentioned in the introductory phase of our deposition? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Were you the author of this report? 14 MS. QUIMBY: I think there's something -- 15 MR. ALLEN: I cannot hear him. 16 Professor Ishiyama, I don't know what's going 17 on, but I can't hear you. 18 THE WITNESS: Shall I repeat my answer 19 then? 20 MR. ALLEN: Now, I can hear you. 21 Q. Yes. Can you repeat your answer for the 22 record? 23 A. This doc -- and the answer was no. This 24 document was collectively written by the committee as a 25 whole. We all contributed to it. I don't think it's 24 1 accurate to say I'm the author. 2 Q. Okay. Were you the -- did you draft the 3 first rough draft? 4 A. No, I actually did not. Matthew Truelove took 5 the first draft, although it evolved over time because 6 the committee reviewed it again and again and again, so 7 it's quite different from the first draft. But Matthew 8 Lemberger-Truelove took the first draft. 9 Q. Okay. What was your role on the committee? 10 Did you have a specific title or a specific role? 11 A. No. In fact, I would say that I had asked 12 the provost not to make me chair, because that would be a 13 condition of my service. I had no official role on the 14 committee other than being a part of it. 15 Q. Who was the chair of the committee, if there 16 was one? 17 A. There was no chair of the committee. 18 Q. Let me -- I'm just going to skip through the 19 document right now. We'll have a chance to come back 20 to it. I'm not going to ask you to review it in its 21 entirety at this time. I want to skip to some of the 22 exhibits that were included in the Ad Hoc Panel Report, 23 Exhibit 3, that are attached to the end. Here's the 24 exhibits designation page. Do you remember that being a 25 part of the Ad Hoc Panel Report? 25 1 A. Yes, it was attached after we had completed and 2 submitted the report. 3 Q. And then the first exhibit is this email. Do 4 you see that on screen, Professor Ishiyama? 5 A. Yes. It's a bit small, but yes, I do see it. 6 Q. Would it help me -- excuse me. Would it help 7 you if I expanded it a little bit? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Is that easier to read? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So I just had a couple of brief questions. 12 You had mentioned there was a follow-up email concerning 13 the charge to the committee. You believe that the charge 14 was committed to writing in some form. And my question 15 for you, is this the email that committed the charge to 16 the panel in writing? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. I am not -- if this was the charge, but it 19 certainly includes the charge of what the committee was 20 supposed to do. 21 Q. Where does it include the charge? 22 A. The University of -- after -- in this 23 paragraph, I think that begins with, "The University has 24 appointed a five-member multidisciplinary panel. The 25 panel members, who are outside the College of Music, 26 1 will examine objectively the processes followed in the 2 conception and production of volume 12 of the Journal of 3 Schenkerian Studies. The panel will seek to understand 4 whether the standards of best practice in scholarly 5 publication were observed and will recommend strategy 6 to improve the editorial processes where warranted." 7 That would be the charge. 8 Q. Is it your testimony today that -- I'm 9 highlighting what I believe you just read. Did I 10 highlight that correctly? 11 A. Yes. And at the end of it, it said that a 12 report -- that we should submit a report, and the report 13 will be made public. That is, as I understand it, being 14 the charge to the committee. 15 Q. These two paragraphs, one above and one below, 16 that are also in italics, were those also part of the 17 charge? 18 A. I do not recall that. I -- we focused 19 exclusively on the paragraph that said what the committee 20 or the panel would be doing. 21 Q. Uh-huh. The -- and I should have asked this 22 first off. You do remember receiving this email on 23 August 5th, 2020, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What was your understanding of what this 27 1 email meant in the paragraph that starts off, "The 2 University of North Texas is committed to academic 3 freedom and the responsibility that goes along with 4 this freedom." 5 A. I don't actually -- we didn't interpret that. 6 I don't -- I'm not the one who wrote it, so I guess 7 Provost Cowley would be the better person to answer that. 8 But we were focused on the second paragraph. That was 9 the charge. The entire focus of our committee was on 10 the charge. 11 Q. So you didn't consider this part of the 12 obligations or duties of the ad hoc panel, this first 13 sentence that I just read. 14 "The University of North Texas is committed to 15 academic freedom and the responsibility that goes along 16 with this freedom." 17 A. That was not what the committee was charged 18 to determine. 19 Q. Okay. And does that go for the second sentence 20 here in that paragraph? 21 "This dedication is consistent with and 22 not in opposition to our commitment to diversity and 23 inclusion into the highest standards of scholarship 24 and professional ethics." 25 A. No. The committee did not consider that 28 1 because that was the statement made by the provost. 2 Again, we focused entirely on the charge of the 3 committee. 4 Q. Okay. And I think you've indicated what 5 the answer will be to this question, but I've just 6 highlighted the paragraph that follows what you've 7 identified as the charge to the committee that reads, 8 "The Journal of Schenkerian Studies has made many 9 contributions to the understanding of music theory, 10 to offer music theorists the opportunity to share and 11 defend diverse viewpoints under the most rigorous 12 academic standards and ethics." 13 Did I read that correctly? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And do I understand from your testimony that 16 this was also not considered by the panel as something 17 they were charged with investigating concerning the 18 Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 19 A. Yes, we did not consider this. 20 Q. Okay, thank you. So it is fair to say, and 21 correct me if I'm wrong, that you considered the charge 22 very narrow in scope? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. We considered the charge, the specific 25 instructions, the charge from the provost, which is 29 1 represented by the paragraph that I highlighted. 2 Q. And my question was, you considered that very 3 narrow in scope? 4 A. Yes. Very narrow, along with, as we 5 understood, this charge to be; that it was about 6 editorial processes. 7 Q. And do you recall my client, Timothy Jackson, 8 asking the panel about the scope of the investigation 9 being conducted by the ad hoc panel? 10 A. Yes, I do. And we had told him exactly what 11 I'm telling you. 12 Q. That the scope was narrow and it was confined 13 to this paragraph -- 14 A. Um-hum. 15 Q. -- that we just read? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. At any time, did the panel stray from 18 this narrow focus in its duties? Excuse me, strike that. 19 At any time, did the panel stray from this 20 narrow focus in carrying out its duties? 21 A. No. I was insistent on that. 22 Q. Thank you. Were you aware that the 23 investigation had already been announced in the 24 College of Music by Dean John Richmond? 25 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 30 1 A. No, I was not. And John Richmond did not 2 mention this to us when he testified before the 3 committee. 4 Q. Did you ask him? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you think that would be relevant to the 7 committee? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Were you aware that the College of Music had 10 put the fact that there would be an investigation of the 11 Journal of Schenkerian Studies up on the official website 12 of the College of Music? 13 A. No, I was not. 14 Q. Did you think that would be relevant to the 15 committee? 16 A. No, it would not be, given our charge. 17 Q. At some point, you referenced -- you, 18 meaning the committee in general, Professor Ishiyama, 19 the standards of COPE, C-O-P-E. Do you recognize that 20 acronym? 21 A. Yes. It stands for the Council on Publication 22 Ethics. 23 Q. Is it -- sorry. Just for clarification, is 24 it council or committee? 25 A. I believe -- I do not recall exactly what the C 31 1 stands for. It could be either. But we call it COPE. 2 Those of us who are editors call it COPE. 3 Q. Okay. And I don't mean to quibble. I just 4 want to make a clear record for the Court. 5 A. Um-hum. 6 Q. And what was your understanding of the standard 7 of COPE? 8 A. They have multiple standards. I'm not sure 9 which ones you would like me to refer to. 10 Q. Which ones were you applying when you analyzed 11 the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 12 A. COPE, among many things, says that the review 13 processes should be made public and available to those 14 who are submitting their articles and those who are 15 reviewing. COPE also has fairly strict guidelines 16 about self-publication and also what constitutes 17 adequate peer review. And they are particularly 18 mindful of self-publication by editors. They have 19 other things -- 20 Q. By self-publication -- sorry, go ahead. 21 A. They have other standards regarding anonymous 22 authors. And also, if something is not peer reviewed, 23 the requirement that there is some disclaimer that 24 publicly appears in that journal. But there are 25 multiple standards that COPE puts forward that we all 32 1 subscribe to. 2 Q. When you say, "we all," who are you referring 3 to? 4 A. At least all of the journal editors who were in 5 that room were familiar with COPE. I would -- and I 6 cannot speak to all editors in the world. But I would 7 suggest that the major publishers all abide by COPE. 8 Q. When did COPE come into being, if you know? 9 A. I do not recall. It has been around for 10 some time, but I could not tell you when it was founded. 11 Q. Do you recall Timothy Jackson asking about 12 the nature of the COPE standards that the panel was 13 applying? 14 A. I do not recall specifically, but I believe 15 he did ask about them. He appeared to be unaware what 16 those standards were. 17 Q. And what did you provide to him? 18 A. I gave -- we gave him the website and the 19 PDF document that outlined COPE standards for editors. 20 Q. Does COPE have a standard concerning how 21 contributors to a volume, an edition, a symposium, a 22 commentary should be invited? 23 A. No, it doesn't have that as its editorial 24 process. It does, however, have requirements about the 25 review and especially peer review. 33 1 Q. Um-hum. Let's start with peer review. What do 2 you understand as -- because you have to understand, the 3 jury is probably not familiar with what academics mean by 4 peer review. So could you just explain what a journal 5 editor means by peer review? 6 A. Well, there are multiple forms of peer 7 review. I can speak to the ones of the journal that I 8 edited. It's called double-blind peer review, meaning 9 that the author nor the reviewer knows the identity of 10 the other. Minimally, we applied at least two reviews 11 of every article. And oftentimes, more. 12 Q. And there's been some confusion among 13 witnesses, understandably so, that double-blind means 14 only two people. But if there were three reviewers, it 15 would be triple-blind. But I understand what you're 16 saying is the double refers to the fact that both the 17 reviewer and the author are not permitted to know the 18 identity of the other to facilitate an impartial review. 19 Is that a fair summary of double-blind peer review? 20 A. Yes, it is. 21 Q. Did you do any survey of other journals in the 22 music theory field to determine whether it was common 23 practice in music theory not to subject some articles to 24 peer review? 25 A. No, we did not. We were asked to -- in our 34 1 estimation and our experience, whether we thought that 2 best practices were being followed, that did not extend 3 to us conducting a survey. 4 MR. ALLEN: I'm going to mark for the 5 record -- am I up to Exhibit 4, Madam Court Reporter? 6 THE REPORTER: Yes. 7 (Deposition Exhibit Number 4 marked.) 8 Q. So I've marked as Exhibit 4 for the record a 9 document which is called COPE Guidelines: A short guide 10 to ethical editing for new editors. 11 Did I read that correctly, Professor Ishiyama? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recognize this document? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Was this a document relied upon by the 16 committee to inform them of guidelines and practices, 17 standards of COPE? 18 A. I would have to look through it all again. 19 But yes, I believe so. 20 Q. Okay. And I was hoping we would find an answer 21 here to our committee versus council question, 22 but I don't see anything particularly. That's fine. 23 We will go to -- there's a section that's titled The 24 Peer-Review Process. 25 Do you see that? 35 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Does COPE require a sort of one-size-fits-all 3 peer-review process? 4 A. No. 5 Q. And, in fact, it says here -- 6 A. You asked me about my experience, so -- but no, 7 they do not. 8 Q. Yeah. Well, I also asked you about whether you 9 surveyed journals in the music theory area to determine 10 what peer review methods were used in that field, right? 11 A. No. We did not, because we did not think 12 that was relevant and part of the charge. 13 Q. Thank you. 14 A. The charge was that we viewed in our experience 15 whether best practices were being followed. 16 Q. Did you expect the music theory journal to 17 follow the best practices of a political science 18 journal? 19 A. I expect all journals to follow best practices 20 to guarantee a transparent review process that is with 21 integrity and that there is the -- that they follow 22 the guidelines of COPE, but also make sure that 23 self-publication is not one of those things. 24 Q. So here, under the peer-review process, 25 Number 8, it says, "Adopt a peer-review process 36 1 that is appropriate for your journal/field of work and 2 resources/systems available." 3 Did I read that correctly? 4 A. Yes. May I ask? The second line, the 5 clarification about the number of reviewers. So it does 6 suggest that reviewers should be used, and they should 7 be anonymous. 8 Q. What did you do to determine what peer-review 9 process was appropriate for the Journal of Schenkerian 10 Studies? 11 A. We were not asked to determine what is 12 appropriate, but what was inappropriate. And so given 13 our experience as editors, what standards we would apply 14 to evaluating whether those recommended standards were 15 followed, I don't believe they were. 16 Q. In your expertise as an editor, is it your view 17 that any academic journal that publishes an article 18 without peer review or without clearly -- let me strike 19 that and ask this in two parts. 20 Based on your experience as an editor and the 21 tasks you were asked to carry through as part of the ad 22 hoc panel -- 23 A. Um-hum. 24 Q. -- was it your view that an academic journal 25 that did not have a transparent process or peer review 37 1 was not appropriate for academic publication? 2 A. I would not make a blanket statement like that. 3 But if the journal is representing the publications as 4 peer-reviewed journal articles, then I certainly do think 5 they should follow some process of -- that is typical for 6 peer review. You know, many journals I know publish 7 other things other than peer-reviewed journal articles, 8 such as opinion editorial pieces or other items like book 9 reviews. But if they represent these as peer-reviewed 10 journal articles, they should be peer reviewed. 11 Q. Where did Timothy Jackson represent the 12 Symposium in Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian 13 Studies as peer reviewed, to your knowledge? 14 A. If it appeared in the journal, the suggestion 15 is that it was peer reviewed if the journal claimed it 16 was a peer-reviewed journal. Now, symposium are not 17 separate from that standard. 18 Q. So a journal that claims to be a peer-reviewed 19 journal, but publishes articles that are not peer 20 reviewed, without a transparent process, that would be 21 inappropriate in your view? 22 A. This they -- only if they did not clearly 23 indicate in the section of the journal that this was not 24 peer reviewed. 25 Q. And there's been some discussion in our -- 38 1 among our witnesses that we've deposed in this case that 2 just as you've said, Professor Ishiyama, there are 3 different kinds of review and so forth, unsurprising in 4 the academic field, I think. So I want to ask you a 5 question about one type of -- I'll just call it vetting 6 of publications that's come up. It's when a presentation 7 is submitted for consideration to a conference and 8 subsequently published in a journal. Is that a common 9 practice in academia? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. I do not know if it's common, but I have 12 heard of it, that the presidential addresses are 13 published in journals, but there's always a clear marker 14 saying that this has not been peer reviewed and was a 15 public presentation at a conference. 16 Q. And if that's not given, is that inappropriate 17 for such a publication? 18 A. I don't understand. Could you repeat the 19 question? I don't actually understand it. 20 Q. Sure, sure. And this is a great example of 21 asking for clarification, so thanks. 22 You just described several kinds of papers 23 that might be published in a journal, which were given 24 as conference presentations. Did I understand your 25 testimony right? 39 1 A. Well, I would have to say what I'm aware of 2 is that sometimes, presidential addresses, that if you're 3 president of an association, that it will be published in 4 a journal, but there's a clear indication in the journal 5 that this is a presidential address and stands different 6 from the other peer-reviewed articles that appear in the 7 journal. 8 Q. And if there is no such clear transparent 9 declaration, that's inappropriate, right? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. I -- well, inappropriate? I would say it's not 12 a best practice, clearly not a best practice. 13 Q. Well, and I guess you are now saying you can 14 identify things that are not best practice. And when 15 we talked about peer review concerning the Journal of 16 Schenkerian Studies, you said your task was to identify 17 what was inappropriate, right? So that's the source of 18 my question. Go ahead. 19 A. The charge didn't mention inappropriate. It 20 said whether or not the Journal followed best practices, 21 and we stuck to that. Whether or not it was appropriate, 22 I think, is not the question. The question is given our 23 experience, did the Journal follow best practices in 24 terms of publishing. 25 Q. Okay. So I'm asking you to clarify your 40 1 testimony then. Before, I asked you what you did to 2 find out what the appropriate processes for the Journal 3 of Schenkerian Studies were to peer review articles, 4 and you said that wasn't your task. Your task was to 5 determine what was inappropriate. Do you remember saying 6 that? 7 A. I do not recall. But we're sticking straight 8 to what the charge was, and I want to stick to that 9 charge. That's what we were asked to do. 10 Q. Okay. And you stuck to that charge in all 11 respects, right? 12 A. Yes, yes. 13 Q. So there's another kind of conference 14 proceedings that are published, at least among witnesses 15 that we've deposed have testified to, and I would like 16 to ask you about that. That's where people apply to a 17 conference committee or whatever to present at the 18 conference, and then subsequently, those papers are 19 published in a journal. 20 The process that's been described -- I'm just 21 going to represent this to you -- someone will submit 22 something like a 450-word précis, maybe a bibliography, 23 something of that nature, which explains the kind of 24 paper they want to give. That will be reviewed by a 25 conference program committee. It will be accepted. Then 41 1 a discussion will be had with an editor of a journal of 2 one kind or another, and the paper presented at the 3 conference will be worked up into a full-length article 4 and published. Are you familiar with that kind of review 5 process? 6 A. I am aware that these happen, but I think 7 that you are referring to conference proceedings, and 8 it's conference proceedings, which is the first part. 9 Whether or not they're published in a journal is subject 10 to peer review in the second part. So I think these 11 seem to be conflated. Conference proceedings are very 12 different than journal -- 13 Q. I'm not talking about publishing straight 14 up conference proceedings. So please understand, I'm 15 talking about where someone gets their paper in, presents 16 it. It's recruited by an editor for publication in a 17 journal, whether specialized or general. It doesn't 18 matter. Then that paper is published in the journal. 19 My question then is that does not count, 20 according to you, as peer review, correct? 21 A. No, that's incorrect. That is incorrect. 22 These -- from what I'm aware of, papers that are 23 recruited from a conference by an editor to appear in 24 a special issue still undergo peer review in my 25 experience on this several times. 42 1 Q. Okay. I'm sorry -- I'm sorry to interrupt, 2 Professor Ishiyama. And I try not to do that. But I 3 actually wasn't asking that, so I wanted to be more clear 4 and then give you a chance to answer. 5 What I mean is the second phase, what I think 6 you called the second phase -- there's the presentation 7 that's the first phase. Then there's a subsequent 8 publication in a journal where the presentation is 9 worked up into a longer piece and published. 10 At the second phase in the examples that we 11 have heard in deposition, there is no double-blind peer 12 review, but the article is published anyway in a journal. 13 And let me back up and ask, are you familiar with that 14 process? 15 A. No. Given my experience, no. 16 Q. Okay. And what I just described, a 17 précis reviewed by a program committee, then articles 18 subsequently published in a journal without double-blind 19 peer review, would you count that as a peer-reviewed 20 article? 21 A. By précis, you mean the same thing as a journal 22 article? Because there are many publications that are 23 not journal articles, that are summaries of something -- 24 Q. No. 25 A. -- or proceedings or recordings. 43 1 Q. No, not a summary. I'm going to describe the 2 exact situation. I am. 3 A. Hmm. 4 Q. Well, I'll tell you what. I'll make this a 5 little bit easier by giving a concrete example; is that 6 fair? 7 A. Certainly, yes. 8 (Deposition Exhibit Number 5 marked.) 9 MR. ALLEN: I'm going to mark for the 10 record as Exhibit 5 the title page of Volume 26, 2020, of 11 the journal published by the University of North Texas 12 Press, Theoria. This is also edited by a professor at 13 the University of North Texas named Frank Heidlberger. 14 And this is the title page of that volume. Do you see 15 the exhibit, Professor Ishiyama, Exhibit 5? 16 A. If that's the title page, I do see. 17 Q. And I'm just scrolling down. It does clearly 18 list an advisory board. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, yes. 20 Q. And that it's published by the University of 21 North Texas. We see that here at the bottom of the first 22 page, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, I'm just scrolling down for you to give 25 you -- all I have here is the title page. Obviously, I'm 44 1 not going to ask you in deposition time to read a full 2 journal article. But this is the title page of Theoria, 3 Historical Aspect of Music Theory, Volume 26, 2020, and 4 the title page includes articles, right? 5 A. Yes. That's what the title says. 6 Q. And I'm just -- and I know the entire journal 7 isn't here for your perusal. But do you see any clear 8 indication in the title page that any of these articles 9 have not been subjected to peer review? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. Can you -- can you scroll down, so I may see 12 the entire -- 13 Q. Yeah, there's not much left. See? 14 A. There is no note indicated, because this is 15 only an excerpt from a particular issue. There's nothing 16 in notes, no disclaimer, nothing else. It's hard for me 17 to determine just based upon -- 18 Q. Okay. To my knowledge -- to my knowledge, 19 there is not. But if there is, I'm sure your attorney, 20 Mary Quimby, will be able to point that out for the 21 Court. I'm going to ask you -- well, I think we can 22 agree, on this title page, there is no such designation, 23 correct? 24 A. Those designations don't necessarily appear on 25 the title page. Sometimes, they're in the second page. 45 1 Sometimes, they're in the note to that particular 2 article. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. But no, I don't see anything here. But I'll 5 trust that you've read it, so... 6 Q. Well, and maybe we will go back and read 7 it and educate ourselves. But I want to ask you some 8 questions about what you consider to be peer reviewed 9 and what you don't. 10 A. Um-hum. 11 Q. There's a Russian music theory panel listed 12 that starts on page 55 of this journal. Do you see that? 13 A. Yes, I do. 14 Q. And there's an article published by Ellen 15 Bakulina, who is a faculty member at the University of 16 North Texas and a colleague of Frank Heidlberger. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. The editor of this journal. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. There's Philip Ewell. There's been a 21 longer piece by Ellen Bakulina and then an article by 22 Christopher Segall. And I'm going to represent to you 23 that those were all part of this Russian music theory 24 panel. Okay? 25 A. Um-hum, yes. 46 1 Q. And testimony has indicated that these were 2 reviewed in exactly the way that I have informed you; 3 that there was an abstract or précis or whatever you want 4 to call it, a short description of what someone wanted 5 to give as a conference paper submitted to the program 6 committee of the SMT. Do you know what the SMT stands 7 for, just so we avoid confusion? 8 A. I believe it stands for the Society of Music 9 Theory. 10 Q. Correct. So in 2018, this was a panel 11 presented at the conference, an annual conference. 12 Afterwards, these articles were recruited to the 13 journal. They were built up from the conference papers 14 into longer articles. It looks like Philip Ewell's 15 article here is approximately 24 pages, 23 or 24 pages, 16 and published, but there was no double-blind peer review 17 before these articles appeared in the journal. 18 A. Um-hum, yes. 19 Q. Those are the -- those are the facts that I'm 20 summarizing to you. Now, my question, and I'm sorry for 21 being a bit long on that, is based on your expertise, 22 would you consider that peer review? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. Now, peer review is a review by peers in the 25 field. 47 1 Q. Correct. 2 A. I think what you are referring to is what we 3 call editor reviews, which are not the same standard as a 4 peer-reviewed article. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. These are generally reviewed by the editor 7 along with multiple others or several others on the 8 editorial board who review it. Now, I'm not sure if 9 that's what happened here. But that could happen, an 10 editor review process, but not necessarily a peer-review 11 process. 12 Q. If an editor held out these articles as, quote, 13 peer reviewed, in your view, would that be appropriate? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. Well, just like I don't want to say anything 16 about judgment of whether it's appropriate or not, but 17 it's not best practice. It really is not. If you want 18 to represent it as peer-reviewed, it's not. 19 Q. That's all I'm trying to get at. You wouldn't 20 consider articles published in the way that I've just 21 described to be fully peer-reviewed in the sense of 22 double-blind peer review that we've discussed, correct? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. That's true. And if it's represented as peer 25 reviewed, then that would be inaccurate. 48 1 Q. Okay. And just to sew up this line of 2 questioning, that would be true for any journal, any 3 academic journal, correct? 4 A. No. Some journals, they say -- they 5 represent themselves as peer reviewed. And they say 6 it's peer reviewed unless, if it is not, then it's 7 clearly indicated somewhere that it was either editor 8 reviewed or not reviewed at all. 9 Q. So that would -- the process we've just 10 described would not be best practice for a peer-reviewed 11 academic journal? 12 A. True. If they are representing the contents as 13 peer reviewed, this would not be best practice. 14 Q. Okay. Now, for the Symposium in Volume 12 15 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, is it your 16 understanding and your expertise, that if the call for 17 papers had clearly indicated that the Symposium would 18 not be peer reviewed, that would be best practice? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. I have not seen the call papers, but I couldn't 21 say. 22 Q. You've never seen the call for papers that 23 the Journal of Schenkerian Studies sent out to solicit 24 articles? 25 A. I do believe -- I do not recall seeing it. 49 1 But perhaps among the volume of materials we reviewed, 2 it was there. But I do not recall seeing, if we did, 3 that there was a specific thing that this would not be 4 peer reviewed. But again, this is four years ago. 5 Q. I'm not saying it did. I'm saying if it had, 6 that would be appropriate? 7 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 8 A. If it had -- may I ask for clarification? If 9 it had included a counterfactual, because it may not 10 have, if it had, would that be -- 11 Q. I'm not asking you that. Yeah, so it sounded 12 to me like your testimony was that journals should be 13 very clear about how they're reviewing or not reviewing 14 works. And as long as they do that and are aboveboard 15 and it's transparent, then that's best practice in the 16 academic journal industry, for lack of a better word. 17 A. Yes, I would -- I would think so, yes. But it 18 should be included in the journal itself. 19 Q. Right. And that -- to make sure which 20 papers -- is it a fair analogy to say the customer, 21 namely, the reader, needs to know what they're getting? 22 A. It should be transparent, yes. 23 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I want to mark for 24 the record Exhibit 6. 25 (Deposition Exhibit Number 6 marked.) 50 1 Q. Can you see this email, Professor Ishiyama, 2 that I'm marking as Exhibit 6 for the record? It's from 3 you, John Ishiyama, to Timothy Jackson, with what I take 4 to be the members of the ad hoc panel on the CC line as 5 well as an attorney named Renaldo Stowers who's in the 6 room with you, and myself, Michael Allen. 7 Did I read that correctly? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you recognize this email? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And it's October 4th -- excuse me, 12 October 14th, 2020, right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Now, I hope you'll bear with me. And I'm going 15 to do something which I confess to you drives me crazy 16 when people scroll through documents in front of my eyes. 17 It makes me cross-eyed. But I'm going to have to do it 18 to bring you down to the previous message. It's 19 in the nature of emails that they go from backwards 20 forwards. And you see Timothy Jackson emailed you on 21 Wednesday, October 14th, in the email at the bottom of 22 this page? 23 A. There is another -- at the bottom, there's one 24 that says October 13th. Are you referring to one that's 25 not on bottom, but above it? That one there. 51 1 Q. Yeah. Now, I'm happy to give you -- this is 2 the whole email string. If you want to review it all, 3 I'm not trying to hide it from you. 4 A. Um-hum. 5 Q. But I'm not going to be asking you questions 6 about this. Of course, your attorney can come back 7 around and ask questions about it if she so chooses. 8 A. Um-hum. 9 Q. So I just want to take you back up here. I 10 mean, is it fair to say these are emails conducted in 11 the ordinary course of business of the ad hoc panel as 12 you understood it? 13 A. In communication and response to Dr. Jackson, 14 yes. 15 Q. Yeah. And of course, you were the one who 16 received this email and maintained it in your email, 17 correct? 18 A. Yes, I did. 19 Q. And this was just the ordinary kinds of emails 20 you would be exchanging on a regular basis with people 21 you were interviewing and other members of the committee, 22 right? 23 A. As far as it pertains to the committee's work, 24 yes. 25 Q. Thank you. So here, Timothy Jackson, I'm just 52 1 talking about this email which I've highlighted for you, 2 Wednesday, October 14th, 2020, he asks, "Thanks for this, 3 John" -- referring to a previous email. "I have looked 4 at the COPE website, and they seem to have quite a few 5 policy statements mostly geared to coping with research 6 fraud and plagiarism issues. Are there specific policies 7 of COPE that the ad hoc committee thinks are relevant 8 here? I hope the panel is also prepared to discuss how 9 to maintain the integrity of an academic journal in 10 the face of widespread calls for censorship and the 11 repression of unpopular viewpoints. Will the panel be 12 addressing that? Thanks, Tim." 13 Did I read that correctly into the record? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that you then 16 answered by explaining the nature of COPE to Tim in that 17 first numbered paragraph, numeral 1? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you linked the website of the COPE, 20 right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And then consistent with your -- 23 A. It also has the PDF. It also has the PDF. 24 Q. Is that where that PDF that we marked as the 25 previous Exhibit Number 4 came from? 53 1 A. Yes, as far as I recall. 2 Q. Is that the PDF you are referring to or a 3 different one? 4 A. Yes, this one. 5 Q. Exhibit 4? Is that yes? 6 MR. ALLEN: Did I not hear that, Kim? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Thank you. And could you read paragraph 2 into 9 the record, which I think you've testified to before, but 10 I would just like you to read this answer 11 to Timothy Jackson's question about academic freedom 12 into the record for us. 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. Can I ask for a clarification? Paragraph 2 15 does not refer to academic freedom at all. 16 Q. Did you see here that Timothy asked the 17 question, Timothy Jackson, "I hope the panel is also 18 prepared to discuss how to maintain the integrity of 19 an academic journal in the face of widespread calls for 20 censorship and the repression of unpopular viewpoints. 21 Will the panel be addressing that?" 22 And you've already testified that I read that 23 correctly. Am I mistaken, that paragraph 2 of your 24 response to Timothy's email, Timothy Jackson's email, 25 did not respond to that question? 54 1 A. No, it did respond to the question. You asked 2 me if it included a mention of academic freedom, and it 3 does not. It was in response, saying clearly that the 4 answer is no. 5 "The panel's charge is narrow, to only 6 investigate the journal's editorial processes including 7 management, peer review, and other processes related to 8 journal production. The focus of our questions will only 9 be on these issues. You are free to add information that 10 you believe the panel should know after we have had the 11 opportunity to ask our questions." 12 Q. Okay. And I believe you've already answered my 13 question. That was your response to Timothy's question, 14 whether you would be investigating the infringement of 15 his academic freedom? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. Again, our charge was very narrow, and we stuck 18 to it. 19 Q. Okay. And I'm just trying to build the record 20 of the documents that establish what you were doing in 21 the ad hoc committee. And I know that was consistent 22 with your previous testimony. So this is simply part of 23 the process, Professor Ishiyama. 24 A. Um-hum, okay. 25 Q. I wasn't -- I wasn't suggesting that you were 55 1 misrepresenting something here. 2 MS. QUIMBY: Can we take a break? It's 3 been about an hour. 4 MR. ALLEN: You know, I had not been 5 aware of that, and I've just been charging through. 6 And that's fine. Shall we go off the record? 7 MS. QUIMBY: Yes. 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 9 10:21. 10 (Recess taken) 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:37. 12 We're on the record. 13 Q. Thank you, Professor Ishiyama. I want to go 14 back to Exhibit 3, which is the Ad Hoc Panel Report, and 15 I wanted to ask you another question about the charge 16 that you testified to earlier in Exhibit 3. 17 In the charge that you read into the record, 18 you were instructed to examine objectively the processes 19 followed in the conception and production of Volume 12 20 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Can you explain for the Court what you 23 understood as an objective investigation? 24 A. Well, given the charge, it was to evaluate the 25 processes that were listed by the Journal in terms of 56 1 editing Volume 12. In light of our experience as editor, 2 that we should only focus on the charge, which was to 3 investigate the processes, and not the influence by other 4 things related to the production of Volume 12. 5 Q. And is it objective, in your understanding of 6 research or investigations, to ignore exculpatory 7 evidence? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. I think objectively means that you view the 10 evidence without prejudice, without preconceived notions. 11 That's how I understand objectively. 12 Q. So my question was, is it objective to ignore 13 exculpatory evidence? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. I don't think that is how I would define 16 objective. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. It may not be best research practice; but 19 that's not, in my view, how you define objective. 20 Q. Is it acceptable in an objective investigation 21 to ignore exculpatory evidence? 22 A. Again, it's not related to objectivity. It may 23 not be good research practice. That would be perhaps 24 mentioned in the peer-review process. But in terms of 25 objectivity, I take that to mean that you do not consider 57 1 things outside of the charge that might influence and 2 prejudice your decision. 3 Q. Would considering exculpatory evidence 4 prejudice your decision? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. That's not what we mean by objectivity. 7 Q. Well, I wasn't asking you about that. I was 8 asking you about the statement you just made about not 9 considering anything that would prejudice your decision. 10 I believe you said something to that effect, right? 11 A. But I said that was for peer-review processes. 12 That's not good research effort. But your question was 13 about objectivity, and I answered that. 14 Q. Okay. And I'm following up with a question 15 about your methods of conducting the investigation in the 16 ad hock panel. 17 A. Um-hum. 18 Q. Would you consider it best practices for the ad 19 hoc panel to ignore exculpatory evidence? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. I do not believe we ignored such evidence. 22 But no, I don't think we ignored such evidence. 23 Q. And you would not consider that best practices 24 if evidence was ignored? 25 A. We were not asked about best practices about 58 1 how we did the review process. We were asked to judge 2 the best practices of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies. 3 Q. I understand that. I'm asking you. So could 4 you answer the question as asked? 5 A. I'm not sure of the question. 6 MR. ALLEN: Madam Court Reporter, could 7 you read the previous question back to the witness? 8 Q. BY THE REPORTER: 9 QUESTION: Would you consider it best 10 practices for the ad hoc panel to ignore 11 exculpatory evidence? 12 A. If we did that. I don't not think that is what 13 happened. 14 Q. Right. That's not my question. I understand 15 that you deny that happened. My question is would that 16 be best practice -- 17 A. You are asking me what I believe is best 18 practice. I don't -- I don't think I should venture 19 an opinion about that. I told you that research 20 practices, we do not ignore evidence. But you are 21 asking specifically about the activities of the panel, 22 and I think I've answered that. 23 Q. No, I think you have not. I think you have not 24 answered whether it would be best practice for a panel 25 such as your ad hoc panel to ignore exculpatory evidence. 59 1 We can agree, can we not, Professor 2 Ishiyama -- 3 A. We did not. 4 Q. Can we agree that the ad hoc panel should not 5 ignore exculpatory evidence? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. No, I don't agree to that because we did not do 8 that. I'm very narrow in terms of what we did, not 9 speculate on whether or not something happened. 10 Q. I'm not asking you to speculate. I'm asking 11 you to tell me precisely for the record your methods. 12 A. Are you asking for my opinion, sir? 13 Q. I'm asking for your understanding of what 14 your task was. If you want to characterize that as your 15 opinion, that's fine with me. Your understanding of your 16 task as a member of the ad hoc panel was that it would 17 be -- it would not be best practice to ignore exculpatory 18 evidence. Can we agree on that? 19 A. But the charge -- your question started with 20 objectivity. 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. Not best practice. I'm not sure how they're 23 related. 24 Q. You brought up best practice, sir. So that's 25 why I was asking you that question. 60 1 A. Well, that's beyond the scope of the charge. 2 Q. Well, I'm not asking you only about the scope 3 of the charge. I'm asking you about your approach of the 4 investigation in the ad hoc panel. 5 A. We considered all of the evidence objectively, 6 meaning that without prejudice and without preconceived 7 notion, that's how we proceeded. 8 Q. Okay. Did you invite Timothy Jackson in 9 advance to respond to the investigation report that you 10 eventually produced? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. We asked him to testify. We did not ask him to 13 respond to the report. That was not part of our charge. 14 Q. Were you aware that Timothy Jackson did respond 15 to the report? 16 A. He did send us a message. The committee 17 reviewed it and determined that this evidence actually 18 did not affect our assessment of the general review 19 processes, which was our focus. 20 Q. What evidence are you referring to? 21 A. Well, the fact that there was nothing 22 produced that demonstrated what the review process was. 23 Dr. Jackson had sent us a large group of emails, which 24 we surveyed carefully, and could not determine what the 25 review process was for Volume 12. 61 1 Also, that there was self-publication by the 2 editor with no clear evidence that there were special 3 precautions to prevent a conflict of interest and that 4 the head made a decision regarding publication of an 5 anonymous contributor, but we didn't focus too much on 6 that because that does happen as long as there's some 7 message or information provided in the journal that 8 there's a reason why they're doing -- the editor's doing 9 that. That did not appear. So that's what we were 10 looking at. 11 Q. Are you referring to the -- I'm just trying to 12 figure out what documents you are referring to, and I 13 think we'll get to these. But are you referring to an 14 email Timothy Jackson sent you with attachments in 15 advance of his interview or shortly after his interview 16 in the midst of the investigation, or -- and this is the 17 question about the response -- are you referring to 18 documents sent to you after the investigation was 19 complete? 20 A. You know, I don't -- I'm not -- I don't recall 21 four years ago exactly the sequence. I do know that 22 Dr. Jackson had sent us something that was a body of 23 emails that he said would outline the review process. 24 We did review that, and there was no evidence that 25 indicated that there was a clear review process. So I'm 62 1 referring partially to that. I cannot recall in what 2 sequence those appeared. 3 Q. Okay. Hopefully, we'll clear this up later. 4 I think I know which documents you are referring to. And 5 when we come to those, hopefully, we can clear that up. 6 I want to return to the COPE principles, if 7 I could for a moment. I believe you did say you 8 interviewed the individuals at the University of North 9 Texas who were responsible for operating the University 10 of North Texas Press? 11 A. Yes. I don't recall their names right now, but 12 yes. 13 Q. Was one named Chrisman, if that helps you 14 recall? 15 A. I did not hear the name. Could you repeat it? 16 One was named who? 17 Q. Chrisman. Chrisman. C-H -- 18 A. I don't recall that name. 19 Q. Okay, that's fine. Were COPE principles 20 required by the University of North Texas Press? 21 A. I am not aware if they have. Requirement is 22 not what COPE recommends. It's best practices that they 23 seek editors to pursue. I'm unaware of what the 24 University of North Texas requires. 25 Q. You do know that the University of North Texas 63 1 published the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, right? 2 A. That, I do know, yes. 3 (Deposition Exhibit Number 7 marked.) 4 MR. ALLEN: Let me -- sorry. I'm going 5 to mark for the record as Exhibit 7 a document that is 6 dated in handwriting September 16, 2020 and Journal 7 Review #2. 8 Q. And I'm going to represent to you, Professor 9 Ishiyama, that to the best of my knowledge, these are 10 notes of a Professor Wallach who was on the program -- 11 excuse me, the ad hoc committee. Do you recognize the 12 handwriting by any chance? 13 A. No, I do not. 14 Q. Did members of the ad hoc panel share their 15 notes with each other? 16 A. No. We actually discussed in our meetings our 17 points. We did not share the notes. 18 Q. Okay. So what we have here are one individual 19 on the panel's notes. And I want to ask you a few 20 questions to see if you recall the things that are 21 recorded in these contemporaneous notes being discussed 22 by the ad hoc panel. I'm obviously not trying to 23 attribute this to you, just so we're clear. It does 24 refer to Ron Chrisman here and Karen DeVinney. 25 Do you see that at the top? 64 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Does that help refresh your memory as to who 3 the individuals were who were operating the University of 4 North Texas Press? 5 A. Yes, it does. I had misheard you say before 6 Christmas, but Chrisman sounds more familiar. 7 Q. Okay. Understandable. Just real quick, 8 something I know is probably not within the purview of 9 your investigation or at least at the Center, but there's 10 a note here that after one year, there should be or there 11 was a free online upon access in the library. Do you 12 remember the UNT Press discussing how the University 13 Press made the Journal available to the public in this 14 way? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. No, I don't. But they were talking about their 17 production processes may be part of it. 18 Q. You don't have any reason to believe this was 19 not accurate? 20 A. No. But I can't be sure, because these are not 21 my notes. 22 Q. I understand, sir. 23 A. And I -- they talked a lot about production. 24 MR. ALLEN: Now, unfortunately, I can't 25 refer to Bates numbers here, Attorney Quimby. But I'm 65 1 turning to page 3, I believe, of the PDF. 2 Q. There's a number of circled numbers, and 3 I'm going to draw your attention, if I may, Professor 4 Ishiyama, to number 3. 5 A. Um-hum. 6 Q. It appears that there is some discussion of the 7 committee on publication ethics noted here. See? 8 A. Um-hum, yes. 9 Q. And it says, "Did not put in contract. Do that 10 in the future." 11 Did I read that correctly? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you remember discussing that the contracts 14 with the journals that were published by the University 15 of North Texas Press did not have COPE principles in 16 their contracts? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. I recall that Ron Chrisman did talk about the 19 production process and mentioned that COPE principles 20 should be in future activities of the UNT Press. 21 However, you know, being part of a contract is 22 not normally the case with most journals. Rather, these 23 are best practices that editors should pursue. And I 24 think the fact that it was not in the contract is not 25 that unusual for most journals, although journals do 66 1 abide by the guidelines that they wish to be reputable. 2 Q. And did you find any evidence that the Journal 3 of Schenkerian Studies as not reputable, sir? 4 A. If you -- if, in evaluating again, not the 5 journal, but the processes that were used, did not 6 comport to best practices in journal editing. 7 Q. Did you have any evidence that that affected 8 the reputation of the articles published by the Journal 9 of Schenkerian Studies? 10 A. We were not asked to evaluate the reputation of 11 the Journal, nor the articles that appeared, only on the 12 processes used. 13 Q. Well, that's not my question. I just asked in 14 the course of your investigation, did any evidence come 15 forward that indicated that the articles published in the 16 Journal of Schenkerian Studies were not esteemed in the 17 field? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. No. 20 Q. Back to what appears to be the people who ran 21 in the press statements to the ad hoc panel, it also 22 records that what they had discussed, COPE principles not 23 really being in the contracts, but maybe should be in the 24 future, how the contracts were structured. It appears 25 that Ron Chrisman said this is the standard practice for 67 1 the press at that time, right? Do you remember him 2 saying that? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. That specific statement, I don't recall. But 5 he may have. 6 Q. Okay. There's also mention of another journal 7 in the College of Music. Did you remember talking about 8 that with the University of North Texas Press? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. I do not recall that specific statement. But 11 since he was talking about the operations of the press, 12 he may have mentioned it. 13 Q. You don't have any reason to believe that's not 14 Theoria, the title page we examined previously, right? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. I would not know. 17 Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge of whether the 18 University of North Texas Press now requires COPE 19 principles for the journals it publishes? 20 A. No. Again, our focus was only on producing the 21 report. I have not followed things since. 22 Q. Okay. And you didn't think it was your 23 obligation to compare the Journal of Schenkerian Studies 24 to the practices of a journal like Theoria in the same 25 department, in the same field, right? 68 1 A. No. We were asked to evaluate using our 2 experiences objectively, the practices of the Journal 3 of Schenkerian Studies. 4 MR. ALLEN: I'm going to mark for the 5 record as Exhibit 8 another set of notes from your ad hoc 6 panel. 7 (Deposition Exhibit Number 8 marked.) 8 Q. Do you see -- I'll just state for the record 9 this begins UNT 003301. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And I'll just ask if you know whose notes these 12 are. 13 A. I believe these were the sort of list of 14 questions that we came up with. And in order to pursue 15 our interviews, we had collectively wrote this. And then 16 I believe I typed it up and circulated it. 17 Q. Okay. And it seems like under these questions 18 for Ron Chrisman and Karen DeVinney, there are some typed 19 in notes here. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you see those? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And so my question for you is, do you know what 24 these notes represent? 25 A. I would have to look at them carefully. 69 1 Q. Can I ask you to read this block right here? 2 A. Notes from -- okay. 3 "Notes from the Committee on Publication 4 Ethics. Although UNT Press may not be part of COPE, they 5 should abide by these standards, especially these two -- 6 the first relates to 'anonymous' authorship and the 7 second deals with editors publishing in their own 8 journals." 9 And then there's a quote. 10 "'Journals should adopt and promote an 11 authorship policy that is appropriate to the field of 12 research. Your procedures should encourage appropriate 13 authorship attribution and discourage guest and ghost 14 authorships. These will vary from journal to journal 15 but might include: 16 1) requiring statements of each individual’s 17 contribution to the research and publication. 18 • Use checklists to prevent ghost authorship, 19 See for example, PLoS journals. 20 • Requiring all authors to sign an authorship 21 declaration. 22 • Including all authors in communications, 23 acknowledging receipt of a submission, not just the 24 corresponding author. 25 • Clearly specifying authorship criteria in 70 1 the Instructions to Authors.'" 2 Q. Okay. And just to ask you again, now that 3 you've read it, do you recall writing that, or was that 4 one of the other ad hoc panel members? 5 A. I do not recall. It may have been me, but I 6 cannot recall. These are spontaneous notes, so I do not 7 know, and they're typed. 8 Q. I understand. What is ghost authorship? 9 A. Ghost authorship is something that PLoS uses to 10 identify anonymous ownership, meaning they use a 11 pseudonym instead of their real name, or even saying 12 anonymous. That would be ghost authorship. 13 Q. What is PLoS, P-L-O-S? 14 A. I do not recall what the acronym stands for, 15 but it is a journal that is published open access in 16 Europe. And they have developed guidelines on ghost 17 authorship that COPE recommended consulting, so as an 18 example. 19 Q. And your understanding of ghost authorship was 20 that it's a form of anonymous publication, like, say, I 21 don't know, for lack of a better analogy, adopting some 22 kind of pseudonym on social media or some such thing? 23 A. Yes, that's accurate. I would consider that 24 a form -- a form of ghost authorship. 25 Q. And I'm just going to represent to you that 71 1 if you click on this link, and we can do that if you 2 want, and I'll ask your attorney to verify that with you. 3 I'm just going to represent that the following document 4 is accessible at that website URL. And I'm going to mark 5 it as Exhibit 9 for the record. 6 (Deposition Exhibit Number 9 marked.) 7 MS. QUIMBY: I meant to ask this before 8 we got started again. Are you able to send the documents 9 in the chat, so that the witness is able to better access 10 them? 11 MR. ALLEN: I hadn't thought of that, 12 but that is a great idea. 13 MS. QUIMBY: It may prevent the 14 scrolling. 15 MR. ALLEN: I think I can just plop 16 them in there, and thanks for that suggestion. 17 As your attorney indicated, I'm putting this 18 in the chat, Professor Ishiyama. It should have arrived. 19 It's a rather large document. 20 THE WITNESS: Can we open it in the chat 21 or -- 22 MS. QUIMBY: I believe you may have to 23 download it, and then open it as opposed to what I just 24 said. 25 THE WITNESS: May we go off the record? 72 1 MR. ALLEN: Please. 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 3 11:00. 4 (Recess taken) 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 6 11:04. 7 Q. Okay. Professor Ishiyama, I just had a -- 8 and sorry the document is so large. But I just had a 9 question on the first page. 10 A. Um-hum. 11 Q. A series of questions. Can you read the 12 title of this article into the record? 13 A. Yeah. What Should Be Done To Tackle 14 Ghostwriting In The Medical Literature. 15 Q. Is it your understanding, as a member of the ad 16 hoc panel, that there was significant differences between 17 medical literature and articles published in music 18 theory, such as in the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Well, are you referring to this particular 22 article or -- 23 Q. Well, in general, what you know of medical 24 publications or scientific publications. For example, 25 let me ask you a specific example. Is it your 73 1 understanding that it's common in medical or 2 scientific journals to publish with multiple authors? 3 A. I can't say for sure. But you know, because 4 it's not my field. 5 Q. Sure. 6 A. But I understand that that is common. 7 Q. And did you understand from your experience 8 investigating the Journal for Schenkerian Studies that 9 most authors single author their articles in music 10 theory, at least in the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. I don't know about that. 13 Q. That's not something the ad hoc panel 14 considered? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. No. 17 Q. And I think your attorney is raising a good 18 objection, so I'm going to rephrase the question just for 19 the purpose of the records and get a clean answer, and 20 we'll move on. 21 So the ad hoc panel did not consider the 22 differences between multi-authored articles and science 23 and a single authored article -- single author articles 24 in music theory to be relevant to its investigation? 25 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 74 1 A. No. That was not relevant to our charge. 2 Q. Okay. So I also wanted to draw your attention 3 to the definition of ghostwriting that's on the first 4 page of this article. 5 A. Um-hum. 6 Q. And see if that helps clarify what that meant 7 to the ad hoc panel. I just have highlighted briefly two 8 sentences that I'm going to read into the introductory 9 paragraph, which is in bold. 10 "Ghost writing occurs when someone makes 11 substantial contributions to a manuscript without 12 attribution or disclosure." 13 Did I read that correctly? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And then out of this article, on the top of the 16 second column to the right, the lead sentence says, 17 "Ghost authorship exists when someone as made substantial 18 contributions to writing a manuscript and this role is 19 not mentioned in the manuscript itself." 20 Did I read that right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Is that really what you understood as anonymous 23 publication? 24 A. No. But part of it was also misappropriation 25 of authorship. Anonymous is not necessarily the 75 1 appropriation of authorship. And COPE used this link 2 as an example, not exclusively for the entire world, but 3 this would be an example of how you might tackle the 4 issue of ghostwriting. Ghostwriting, as you pointed out, 5 deals with misappropriation of authorship, including 6 having a senior scholar taking credit for something 7 someone else wrote. We took it as very broadly. 8 Q. Like a graduate student writes something, and 9 the senior scholar, perhaps the dissertation advisor or 10 something, appro -- (Zoom audio distortion) -- as their 11 then work? 12 A. I would think that's what this article deals 13 with. Yes, I think that's what this article is referring 14 to, although there are other forms of misappropriation. 15 Q. And that's not so much anonymous publishing, 16 I think you would agree, as it is bordering on 17 plagiarism or research misconduct, right? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. I think -- I think misappropriation can take a 20 variety of forms. Anonymous publishing is, you know -- 21 as I mentioned in the report, does happen. 22 Q. Sure. But my follow-up question and the last 23 question on this was did you find any evidence in your 24 investigation that there was ghost publishing, this kind 25 of misappropriation that we've just discussed on the 76 1 first page of this article? 2 A. Not in terms -- not in terms of how this was 3 defined. But again, it was the link that was provided 4 for informational purposes. We did not use this 5 particular definition that is used here to assess the 6 use of anonymous authorship. 7 Q. Okay. But you still found it relevant 8 to refer to standards for medical publications when 9 evaluating the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, correct? 10 A. Well, there's a link provided by COPE that here 11 are some suggestions to consider, as an example. 12 Q. And this was the one that was on that link 13 page, correct? 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. Okay. I am getting back to the famous -- no. 16 Where was my exhibit here? I want to get back to the 17 Ad Hoc Panel Report and have us go through some of the 18 substance of it, Professor Ishiyama. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And then we may be able to get through this by 21 your 12:00 and hopefully finish. I don't know, but I'm 22 going to try to do that. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. And that was Exhibit 3. Okay. So let me ask 25 you, before we go into the substance of the Ad Hoc Panel 77 1 Report -- 2 A. Excuse me. Is this -- what I'm seeing is not 3 the Ad Hoc Panel Report. 4 Q. I'm sorry. It actually is. That was way back 5 to Exhibit 1, which we were talking about. See? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Again, this is a perfect example of 8 interrupting me if you need clarification. Thank you. 9 I wanted to ask if the ad hoc panel 10 interviewed the graduate student editor, Levi Walls? 11 A. Yes, we did. 12 Q. And about graduate student editorships, is 13 that, in and of itself, inappropriate? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. It depends on the journal. 16 Q. What does it depend on? 17 A. Well, if it is a student journal, I'm 18 familiar with those, we've had experiences of having 19 graduate students being the lead editor. But these often 20 only publish student publications, like other graduate 21 students, other universities, or other undergraduates. 22 Generally speaking, it's not the case that I'm aware of 23 that a journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles 24 from senior scholars is edited by a student. 25 Q. And did you find that to be concealed by the 78 1 Journal in any way? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. On the webpage, no. But it seemed strange that 4 an editor, a graduate student, would be making 5 the sole decisions about whether or not it should be 6 published when the submissions were largely from 7 non-graduate students or senior scholars. 8 Q. And did my client, Timothy Jackson, ever give 9 you an explanation for why the Journal of Schenkerian 10 Studies had been edited by graduate students? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. He said that was the tradition. And there was 13 no reason to question that tradition, but we found it 14 odd. 15 Q. Did you find that it had compromised the 16 quality of articles in the Journal? 17 A. We didn't assess the quality of articles in the 18 Journal, but we did not think it was best practice since, 19 I think as we indicated in the report, the editors, or 20 the most recent ones, were students of 21 Dr. Jackson's. 22 Q. And why was that a problem? 23 A. Because it doesn't allow for independence of 24 action on the editors in charge of making decisions on 25 publications. It is an odd arrangement. 79 1 Q. And when you interviewed Levi Walls -- I 2 suppose his pronunciation is Levi Walls, I believe, one 3 witness said. What did he say to the ad hoc panel? 4 A. Well, I don't recall his entire testimony, 5 but his -- he did talk about this sense of an unequal 6 relationship between the editor, which included Benjamin 7 Graf as well, and the editorial advisory board. The 8 editorial advisory board, if not the editorial board, 9 included Dr. Jackson and his colleague, Dr. Slottow. 10 Levi Walls, I believe, said that he felt uncomfortable 11 because he did not have the independence to make 12 judgments and that these were largely -- especially 13 regarding the Volume 4, these decisions were not made by 14 him as editor. And Benjamin Graf also supported that 15 assessment of a sort of unequal distribution of power 16 among the editorial advisory board, meaning Dr. Jackson 17 and Dr. Slottow, and then the editors. 18 Q. Just a point of clarification, I believe you 19 misspoke and said Volume 4. Did you mean Volume 12? 20 A. I mean Volume 12. Yeah, sorry. 21 Q. Yeah. Just -- just for the record. 22 I think the Ad Hoc Panel Report used the word 23 or phrase "power differential." 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. Levi Walls, were you aware that Levi 80 1 Walls had published a public apology on July 27th about 2 his role in the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 3 A. He -- he mentioned it in his testimony. We did 4 not read that. 5 Q. That was not read? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Were you aware that it was in the packet of 8 documents that had been provided by Timothy Jackson? 9 A. I think -- well, if you are referring to the 10 apology, he did mention that in his testimony. But it 11 had to do -- we had understood it was an apology for 12 what was produced. And that he, as editor, felt some 13 responsibility because on paper, he is the 14 decision-maker. 15 Q. Sure. 16 A. We were not interested in the content of the 17 journal, only the processes used. We didn't pay a great 18 deal of attention to that. 19 (Deposition Exhibit Number 10 marked.) 20 MR. ALLEN: I'm going to mark as 21 Exhibit 10 for the record a Facebook post by Levi Walls 22 dated July 27th, 2020. 23 Q. And this may be very short, Professor Ishiyama, 24 because I'm just going to ask you if you ever recall 25 seeing this in any form, whether in the -- on Facebook or 81 1 in a printout or some sort of screen shot, do you recall 2 seeing this? I'm happy to allow you to read it. It goes 3 on for some three pages. 4 A. I don't recall, because I usually don't follow 5 Facebook, so I couldn't say that. It may have been in 6 the packet of materials that Levi submitted, but I can't 7 be sure. If you give me a moment, I can read it. 8 Q. Why don't you read the first two paragraphs 9 there, and then give me an assessment of whether you had 10 read it as part of the investigation, if you know? 11 A. These seem to be introductory paragraphs as 12 opposed to more substantive information. I think I'd 13 probably need to read the rest, too. 14 Q. Can I fast-forward to page 2, and you can read 15 that or -- 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't -- of course, maybe this 18 is easier. I just plopped it in the -- I just plopped it 19 in the chat for your review there as well. 20 A. Um-hum. Now, was the question do I recognize 21 this or any content or part of it? 22 Q. My question is if you remember reviewing 23 this Facebook apology that Levi Walls had published on 24 July 27th, 2020, which was directly before your panel 25 in early August, and if that was part of the 82 1 investigation. 2 A. I think we were aware of it. But as I 3 indicated, much of it related to the content of the 4 Journal issue. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. We were not interested in the content of the 7 journal issue, only the process that was followed. 8 Q. I see. He does discuss certain things 9 related to the process, however, does he not? 10 A. Yes, he did. 11 Q. He says, "I have no control over the content of 12 the journal." 13 Right? 14 A. That demonstrated the power asymmetry that we 15 had mentioned in the report. And also, the passage that 16 Dr. Jackson is the one who made decisions, not Levi, or 17 Ben Graf before him. 18 Q. And here, this second page that you had 19 perused, he said he gave comments to one author -- 20 A. Um-hum. 21 Q. -- including that they seemed to devalue other 22 fields of study and that they cherrypicked information to 23 make Schenker appear in a better light, and that they 24 confused cultural appropriation with egalitarianism. 25 Doesn't that bear on the process for 83 1 publication? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. That was his -- that was his evaluation of the 4 review process. And he did testify. Much of this, he 5 repeated -- 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. -- in his testimony to us, so... 8 Q. Okay, good. That's -- you were aware of it, as 9 you said. 10 MR. ALLEN: Let me see if I can find the 11 exhibit. I'm going to mark for the record Exhibit 11. 12 (Deposition Exhibit Number 11 marked.) 13 Q. This is an email from Levi Walls to you, 14 Professor Ishiyama, on September 30th, 2020. 15 A. Um-hum. 16 Q. It's in rather fine print. Just so you know, 17 there's not much more to this. It's UNT 2533. It looks 18 like you're setting up a Zoom meeting with Mr. Walls at 19 2:15 of that day. And it looks like he sent this to you 20 around that time, at least judging from the time stamp of 21 14:24. 22 Did I read that correctly? 23 A. Can you scroll down again, so I can look at the 24 date and time of the previous one? 25 Q. Sure. 84 1 A. Okay. 2:43. We would like to meet with you. 2 And then if you can scroll back for a moment. And that 3 is military time at 2:24; is that correct? Oh. 4 September 24th and then September 30th. Yes, okay. 5 Q. So it looks like -- 6 A. So it was afterwards. 7 Q. Okay, good. That was going to be my question. 8 Did you receive this before or after the meeting. 9 A. Um-hum. 10 Q. And so he's -- he's basically -- well, have you 11 had a chance to review this before I ask you questions 12 about it? 13 A. Well, no, I have not reviewed it. He did send 14 it to me. I recall that. And I do recall that much of 15 it was just a repeat of what he apparently had said in 16 his Facebook post. But you know, this is how we became 17 aware of it. And he felt like he needed to follow up on 18 our meeting. 19 Q. Right. And he said, "I have no control over 20 the content of the journal." 21 Right? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection. 23 A. I believe -- I'm not recalling exactly his 24 words, but I think he did seem to suggest that, yes. 25 Q. See that, what I've just highlighted? 85 1 A. Yes. I don't recall him specifically saying it 2 to us in our testimony, but he did seem to indicate that 3 he had little control over the content. 4 Q. Did -- sorry, go ahead. 5 A. Even as editor. 6 Q. He also said he was -- it was an extremely 7 shameful position to be the editor at the Journal of 8 Schenkerian Studies? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. He may have. I do not recall. But it's his 11 testimony and it appears here in writing, so... 12 Q. And you received this email, right? 13 A. Yes, although I don't recall specifically 14 word for word what the email said, but... 15 Q. He also went on to give some concrete examples. 16 For instance here, let's just read this, which I'm going 17 to highlight briefly for the purpose of our testimony. 18 "For the first few months, the job seemed fine 19 as I got to work with three articles on various topics. 20 Typesetting and offering clarity related edits." 21 A. Um-hum. 22 Q. However, after Philip Ewell's SMT presentation, 23 Timothy Jackson decided that it was the responsibility of 24 the Journal to, quote, protect Schenkerian analysis. 25 "Although, after serious thought, I 86 1 essentially agreed with Ewell's talk. It was not up to 2 me what did or did not go into the journal. After seeing 3 some of the responses, I started to become incredibly 4 worried. I gave comments to one author, including 5 that they seemed to devalue other fields of study, that 6 they cherrypicked information to make Schenker appear 7 in a better light, and that they confused cultural 8 appropriation with egalitarianism. Shortly after, I was 9 told by Timothy Jackson (my superior in at least three 10 senses: A tenured faculty member who ran the journal and 11 also served as my academic advisor) that it was not my 12 job to censor people. After this, things continued to 13 go in a direction that I found to be disgusting." 14 Did I read that correctly? 15 A. Yes, you did. 16 Q. Did that implicate the processes by which the 17 journal was published? 18 A. Well, some of it did. Not -- much of 19 it had to do with the content. Again, which I have to 20 reiterate, we ignored the content of the articles and 21 what was being said. But the power differential between 22 Levi Walls who's officially the editor of the journal -- 23 Q. Sure. 24 A. -- and the actual process by which decisions 25 were made, that is -- that is something that we did 87 1 consider. 2 Q. Okay. And did you include that in the Ad Hoc 3 Panel Report? 4 A. Yes, the power differential is clearly 5 indicated as a problem with the journal. It has been a 6 problem for some time. 7 Q. And it caused him not to be able to assert his 8 own editorial views; is that correct? 9 A. That would be true. That's also something that 10 Dr. Graf said as well, the previous editor. 11 Q. And now, I know you didn't, as you say 12 apparently, address the content of the journal. That 13 was a matter of indifference to you, I suppose. But he 14 also says here that he thought he essentially agreed with 15 Philip Ewell's talk. 16 A. That may be true. I do not know what Philip 17 Ewell's talk was about, nor did -- not did most all of 18 our committee -- I think our committee members didn't 19 know either. 20 Q. I'm not imputing -- I'm not imputing to your 21 knowledge of -- in fact, you've testified that the 22 knowledge of the actual controversy was a matter of 23 indifference to the panel, right? 24 A. Yes, absolutely. 25 Q. I think you -- so you've already stated that, I 88 1 think, more than once. So I understand that's your 2 testimony. 3 A. Um-hum. 4 Q. But here, this witness, a very key witness, can 5 we agree, the student editor of the journal? 6 A. I would say a witness, not a key witness. 7 We had multiple bits of evidence, multiple pieces of 8 evidence that we considered. 9 Q. Oh, I don't deny that. But he's -- 10 A. I would not say he's the key witness. 11 Q. He was an important witness. Would you 12 disagree? 13 A. I would say he is a witness. 14 Q. Just a witness among others, right? 15 A. Among others, yes. 16 Q. That's your testimony today? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And he's telling you, as a member of the ad hoc 19 panel, that he essentially agreed with Philip Ewell's 20 talk, and he relates how this complicated his work as 21 the editor of the journal, right? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. I cannot infer that was his meeting, but that 24 was irrelevant to us. 25 Q. It's certainly part of an editor's task to 89 1 shepherd the content of articles, so that they address 2 the purpose of a journal, its field, topics, ideas in a 3 field, things of that nature, correct? 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. Could you repeat that? I'm not exactly 6 sure -- 7 Q. Sure. Let me -- let me draw an analogy. 8 Is it true, sir, that you can separate content 9 from the procedures of editorship so cleanly as you seem 10 to imply? For instance, when you were the editor of the 11 poli-science journals, political science journals, if 12 someone had sent in an article in sociology, would you 13 have exercised content control over those kinds of 14 submissions? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. If it did fit the mission of our journal, 17 editors do do that. But it has to be the mission of 18 the journal. 19 Q. And so isn't it fair to say that Levi Walls' 20 preoccupation with content and the procedures for 21 critiquing authors' work, asking them to make changes, 22 isn't that the ordinary, day in and day out workaday 23 work of a journal editor? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. Well, I can't speak for all of the -- you're 90 1 asking about my experience? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. No, I think that -- 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. -- this rejects if it's inappropriate for 6 our journal, meaning it does not fit the mission of the 7 journal, or if it's essentially a very poorly written 8 piece that would not stand peer review. 9 Q. Right. 10 A. That's not about content. 11 Q. It could be rejected at the gate, so to speak. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I'm going to back to Exhibit 3, the ad hoc 14 panel. 15 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. Attorney Quimby, 16 I realized that I failed to push send. I not only have 17 to drop it into the chat, but now, I'm going to push 18 send. Sorry about that. 19 Q. I just sent the Exhibit 3, the Ad Hoc Panel 20 Report, over. 21 A. Okay. 22 Q. Now, this is -- I'm forwarding -- I'm 23 fast-forwarding to a section of the Ad Hoc Panel Report 24 which begins with this heading: The Editorial and Review 25 Processes Employed for Volume 12. 91 1 Do you remember that this section was drafted 2 as part of the Ad Hoc Panel Report of November 25, 2020? 3 A. Yes, it was. 4 Q. And just scrolling through, you have a 5 subsection: Editorial and Review Processes, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And then this section, before it closes and 8 moves on to the publication and anonymously authored 9 contribution, relates a relatively peculiar episode. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Can you read the two paragraphs that begin, 12 "Levi Walls informed the panel," through the end of this 13 subsection? 14 A. "Levi Walls informed the panel that he read 15 each piece, but had multiple concerns, as the editor, 16 about proceeding with several of the contributions. He 17 said he shared these concerns with Dr. Benjamin Brand 18 (the Division Head of MHTE) and Dr. Graf, and then 19 directly with Dr. Jackson. However, he said these 20 concerns were dismissed by Dr. Jackson." 21 "Mr. Walls reported to the panel that he 22 raised concerns to Dr. Jackson about the content of the 23 pieces as well as the quality of writing in February 24 2020. He stated that after raising concern, he was taken 25 into Dr. Jackson’s car, where Dr. Jackson told him that 92 1 it was not his 'job to censor people' and was told not to 2 do it again. He said Dr. Jackson informed him that since 3 these were senior scholars, their reputations were enough 4 to vet them. Dr. Graf confirmed that Levi Walls shared 5 information about his encounter with Dr. Jackson around 6 the time of its occurrence. This was followed by the 7 final decision, made by Dr. Jackson (according to both 8 Dr. Graf and Mr. Walls) to proceed with the publication 9 of several of the pieces without substantial 10 modifications." 11 Q. And so this touches on both consent and 12 editorial practices. And I was just wondering what your 13 understanding was at the time of what he was being asked 14 to censor or not censor. What was this issue of 15 censorship about? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. I do not know what Dr. Jackson meant, censored. 18 Q. Well, what was -- what was your understanding 19 of what student editor Levi Walls was bringing to 20 Dr. Jackson for clarification about what should be 21 censored or not censored? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. I do not -- I do not know. Again -- 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. -- I think this was entirely on process. 93 1 Q. I see. 2 A. Not on content. 3 Q. And I've always been puzzled by this section, 4 Professor Ishiyama, because is it ever the job of an 5 editor of a journal to censor people? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. Again, it could depend on what you mean by 8 censor. 9 Q. Well, you put it in your report, so that's 10 why I'm asking you. 11 A. Well, no. This is a quote. It's in the 12 report, but it's a quote from what Dr. Jackson was 13 reported to say. 14 Q. Sure. 15 A. I don't think we need -- I would ask perhaps 16 the plaintiff to define that. 17 Q. Well, they had a chance to depose Professor 18 Jackson. But again, we're talking about the Ad Hoc Panel 19 Report. And I'm asking -- 20 A. Okay. This is a quote. Again, this is a 21 quote. 22 Q. Oh, I understand. It's a quote that you placed 23 in the Ad Hoc Panel Report, right? 24 A. As dutifully reflecting what the testimony 25 said. 94 1 Q. Of Levi Walls. 2 A. Of Levi Walls, yes. 3 Q. And now, I want to ask a follow-up question. 4 In your experience and expertise as an 5 academic editor of journals, can you identify a context 6 in which it's appropriate for an editor to censor people? 7 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 8 A. I don't think -- it depends on what you mean by 9 censor. If you mean the job is to edit and marshal the 10 peer-review process, then yes, that is the responsibility 11 of the editor. But censorship is not something we 12 consider. 13 Q. Is it -- is it appropriate for an academic 14 editor to censor for viewpoints? 15 A. I'm not going to venture an opinion. I would, 16 myself, not do that. I don't think censorship is part of 17 the discussion. Rather, it's the editor's job to make 18 sure the pear-review process had integrity. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. That it is peer reviewed. 21 Q. And not to short-circuit the peer-review 22 process by telling an author that they may or may not 23 express a certain view? 24 A. Well, I mean, it depends. If this is -- 25 if the argument is that these pieces were edited -- 95 1 editorial review, then the editor does have the 2 responsibility to review a piece. But I don't understand 3 the status of these articles, if they were peer reviewed 4 or if they were editor reviewed. It seems confusing. 5 Q. I understand. Sure, I understand. Although 6 you were given an extensive packet of e-mails that were, 7 more or less, comprehensive, detailing the communications 8 between the editorial staff that led to the publication 9 of these articles, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I'm going to represent to you, because you've 12 said the content of the publication didn't matter to you 13 supposedly. 14 A. It did not. 15 Q. There was a paper delivered by this public 16 intellectual music theory professor from New York named 17 Philip Ewell. He gave a plenary presentation at the 18 Society for Music Theory that was very well received, but 19 nonetheless, controversial. Then the call for papers 20 went out for the Journal of Schenkerian Studies for 21 soliciting responses to this article -- or excuse me, to 22 this presentation at this Society for Music Theory. The 23 papers that were published in Volume 12 in the Symposium 24 were roughly split between people who were pro-Ewell and 25 people who were anti-Ewell. 96 1 Do you have any information to suggest that 2 my summary to you is wrong in any way? 3 A. I have no idea what the content of the journal 4 was. 5 Q. Okay, good. 6 A. I don't even know if some were pro. I have not 7 read a single piece. I'm not even sure what Philip Ewell 8 said, as I've said before. 9 Q. So you didn't read a single one of the 10 contributions in Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian 11 Studies? 12 A. No, no. 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection. 14 Renaldo, please. I think I'm having a -- on 15 my end, I'm having freezing. Is that mine freezing? I 16 can see myself kind of jump around on the screen. I just 17 want to kind sure my objections were heard. I don't know 18 that I was able to get them in because of the -- 19 MR. ALLEN: I'm seeing you freezing, too, 20 Mary. So I know what you mean. If you want to -- I 21 don't know. Was it to form? Now, she's totally frozen. 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Do you want to go off 23 the record? 24 MR. ALLEN: Sure. 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 97 1 11:39. 2 (Recess taken) 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:48. 4 We're on the record. 5 Q. I think we were here. Thanks for your 6 patience, Professor Ishiyama. I'm trying to share again 7 Exhibit Number 3. I believe we were here, right? And we 8 were talking about the car story? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. Just about Professor Graf and his 11 role in editing the journal, how did you understand 12 Professor Graf's role in your investigation? 13 A. Professor Graf, who had been a graduate student 14 editor prior to getting his Ph.D. and then being 15 appointed lecturer in the department, was the editor up 16 until Volume 12. And he was also part of the editing of 17 the three articles that appeared in the volume that had 18 nothing to do with the -- whatever it is -- Symposium. 19 Q. Um-hum. 20 A. And then Levi Walls took -- was responsible for 21 the remaining articles that appeared in the Symposium. 22 Q. And did you understand from Professor Graf that 23 he had also suffered from what you called a power 24 differential and had sort of no sort of authority to 25 discuss or do the normal work of editing with the 98 1 journal? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. Dr. Graf had mentioned the power differential. 4 And he said that it was problematic, as I recall. I 5 would not know if suffering was the word he used, but he 6 did mention that as part of an issue. 7 Q. Did he say words to the effect that he felt 8 he couldn't say no? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. I do not recall if he said those words. But he 11 did feel that there was some asymmetry in terms of 12 decisions about editing journal articles. 13 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Well, let me take 14 this down and put it in the chat. I think is what I 15 want. Let me introduce the next exhibit. Are we on 16 Exhibit 12 for the record? 17 THE REPORTER: Yes. 18 (Deposition Exhibit Number 12 marked.) 19 Q. I've marked an exhibit as Exhibit 12, Professor 20 Ishiyama. And I'm going to also try to put it in the 21 chat here for your counsel. 22 This is -- Exhibit 12 is an email from Timothy 23 Jackson to you, Professor Ishiyama, as well as the other 24 members of the ad hoc panel, on October 17, 2020. 25 Did I read that right? 99 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And he purports to attach letters and 3 documents. 4 Do you see that? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you remember getting this email? 7 A. No, I do not. I mean, we probably did receive 8 it. It's a fairly short message, and attachments, but I 9 do not recall specifically getting it. But I do believe 10 we did. 11 Q. And the attachments are -- it looks like 12 someone named Chaouat -- I don't even want to attempt 13 to pronounce that name. I'm looking at the first 14 attachment. 15 The second attachment is Editorial Process of 16 JSS Volume 12 condensed. 17 There's a Revised Levi Walls Documentation, 18 October 4th, 2020, document. 19 And letter to UNT committee. 20 Do you remember receiving attachments that 21 are described in that attachment line? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. I don't specifically recall. But the -- it was 24 sent to us, and I'm sure we read it. 25 Q. Now, I'm not trying to catch you out. You said 100 1 this is a short message, but I just wanted to call your 2 attention to the fact that it's actually a very, very, 3 very long message because the attachments are so long. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So again, I'm not trying to hoodwink you there, 6 but there is a large number of documents. And do you 7 remember looking through these documents? 8 A. I do recall the email chain, which was 9 purportedly to document the review process for Journal 10 Volume 12. I do recall that we went through this fairly 11 carefully, including using text analysis, looking for 12 mentions of the term "commentary," which is something 13 that Dr. Jackson said this was. But yes, we do look at 14 this. 15 Q. Is the -- is the Journal of Schenkerian 16 Studies, Volume 12, did it publish those articles that 17 were at the center of the controversy as, quote, 18 commentaries? 19 A. I do not recall. I remember that the journal 20 itself indicated that it was a Symposium. That, we knew. 21 Q. Now, I just want to call your attention briefly 22 to a few emails between professor -- excuse me, Levi 23 Walls, the student editor of the Journal or the oncoming 24 student editor, and Professor Timothy Jackson 25 at the inception of the Symposium that was eventually 101 1 published in Volume 12. I'm going to call your attention 2 to UNT page 2705. And my question is, how will I 3 navigate there. Here we go. I've -- these are 4 represented by Professor Jackson as emails between him 5 and Mr. Walls. 6 A. Um-hum. 7 Q. Do you see those in Exhibit 12? 8 A. Are you -- there are two of them. 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. One is November 15th, 2019, at 10:40 a.m. 11 And then there's one above that says "to me." 12 Q. Yes, and do you see, this is by Levi. 13 A. Yeah, yeah. Yes. 14 Q. Here -- well, I'll ask you to -- and this is 15 also by Mr. Walls. Can I ask you just to read these two 16 emails? 17 A. Would you like me to start with the top one and 18 then move down? 19 Q. It seems that that is first in time, so let's 20 go with that. 21 A. Okay. 22 "Dear Dr. Jackson. Hope you are well! When 23 would you like to get together to talk about Bach? 24 Unfortunately, I haven't had any time devoted to Berlioz 25 lately, as I've been swamped with classes and private 102 1 teaching. But I would be happy to discuss the Passion 2 in more detail. Of course, you've dedicated considerably 3 more time to it than I have, but I can surely follow you 4 and share any thoughts/questions! At the moment, I can’t 5 leave Denton Thursday through Sunday because my wife 6 takes the car to work all day. But I can travel Monday 7 through Wednesday, or meet on campus any day." 8 The second email, also entitled "to me" from 9 November 15th, 2019 at 10:40 a.m. 10 It says, "I would also be very interested in 11 discussing a particular Schenker paper from SMT. You've 12 likely heard about it, as it caused quite a stir. I was 13 very ambivalent about it because it suggested that 14 analysis that utilizes levels of hierarchy is inherently 15 racist, which strikes me as naive. Reinhold --" 16 Q. You can stop reading there. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. So the paper he's referring to is the paper 19 by Philip Ewell delivered at SMT, which in the email 20 we examined that he sent to the ad hoc panel here, 21 Exhibit 11 -- 22 A. Um-hum. 23 Q. -- he declared that he essentially agreed with. 24 Do you remember him saying that to the ad hoc panel in 25 that email? 102 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. I do recall him recounting that, yes. 3 Q. And here, he says it strikes him as naive, 4 correct? In Exhibit 12, on UNT page 02705? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. Let me examine. Naive. Where -- okay, 7 "Which strikes me as naive." 8 Yes, I see that. 9 Q. Thank you. Now, of course, this wouldn't 10 have been considered relevant by the ad hoc panel, 11 that he seemed to be misrepresenting a paper that he 12 essentially agreed with. But in internal correspondence 13 within the journal, he characterized the same paper as 14 naive. 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. Is there a question? Was there a question? 17 I didn't hear it. 18 Q. Yes. This -- this kind of information would 19 not have been considered relevant by the panel, the ad 20 hoc panel, right? 21 A. No, no. 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. Okay. That's all I need to know. 24 There's another email. This one, a few days 25 later, on November 18th, 2020 -- excuse me. This is 103 1 2019. And I'm just going to represent to you that this 2 is within days of the presentation of Professor Philip 3 Ewell's paper at the Society for Music Theory, which was 4 a plenary talk, which kicked off this entire controversy. 5 And here, he says that "The paper's willful 6 ignorance of Schenker's Jewish identity is indeed deeply 7 troubling. That seems to mark it as implicitly 8 antisemitic at the very least." 9 Did I read that correctly? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And in your view, is that consistent with 13 someone who essentially agrees with a paper, that they 14 declare it's implicitly antisemitic? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. We did not consider this. It was beyond the 17 scope of our investigation. 18 Q. Okay. This was considered irrelevant, right? 19 A. Yes, it was. 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 Q. He also says here, "But his" -- meaning Ewell's 22 -- "claim that the entire theoretical world view, and by 23 extension, those who helped spread it, is racist becomes 24 very problematic when we consider the intimate connection 25 between Schenkerian analysis and the Jewish identity." 104 1 This observation was also irrelevant to the 2 ad hoc panel, right? 3 A. Yes. 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 Q. Skipping down, next, we have a November 19th, 6 2019 email in which Timothy Jackson raises the issue. 7 "For the first time, it occurred to me that 8 it might be appropriate for the journal to solicit 9 responses." 10 Did I read that correctly? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Let me ask you a few questions about 13 solicitation. Is it appropriate for editors of 14 peer-reviewed journals to solicit submissions of 15 articles? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. Yes, but not responses to -- I mean, I don't 18 know about appropriate. But this is generally we solicit 19 contributions for special issues. That is common. 20 Q. Okay. I'm just going to skip down. Here's 21 another -- in red, another email from Levi Walls 22 November 19. November 19, 2019. 23 He says, "Dear Dr. Jackson, I agree that a 24 response in the JSS would be very appropriate. It would 25 be nice to have it for the upcoming issue, although it 105 1 is very forthcoming (around mid-December). A response in 2 issue 13 would, of course, be quite late. Did you have 3 any particular Schenkerians in mind?" 4 Did I read that correctly? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And I have a question about what you've 7 characterized as a, quote, power differential, that 8 apparently you believe, if I read the Ad Hoc Panel Report 9 correctly, infected the relationship between Professor 10 Jackson and Levi Walls. Given the give and take between 11 these two music theorists, one, the professor, the other, 12 the student editor, does this indicate that Mr. Walls had 13 no control? Is it consistent with what he said in his 14 email to you that he had no control? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. I think it is indicative of the power 17 differential in the sense that Mr. Walls, even if he did 18 object, would not have expressed it to his dissertation 19 advisor. That is the power differential. 20 Q. So that -- so he was either concealing things 21 from Professor Jackson -- well, let me ask this in two 22 parts. 23 You believe it's possible that the power 24 differential caused him to conceal things from Professor 25 Jackson? 106 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. I don't know about concealing, but he may not 3 have sought to antagonize Dr. Jackson. 4 Q. And in that -- if that same -- or let me strike 5 that, please. 6 Did you consider whether there was a power 7 differential that prompted Levi Walls to change his 8 story on July 27th of 2020? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. I can't speculate on that. But the fact 11 that this power differential existed between a graduate 12 student and his dissertation advisor, that affected 13 Dr. Graf as well. 14 Q. Did you ever -- sorry. 15 A. So I can't say what it caused him to do. 16 Q. So do you recall reading any messages from Levi 17 Walls in which he was concerned about the future of his 18 career when the Journal of Schenkerian Studies was 19 attacked by almost the entire Society for Music Theory? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. I don't specifically recall. I do recall that 22 there was something to that effect, but I cannot quote 23 you when or where. But there definitely was some concern 24 expressed by this. 25 Q. And was that prompted by a fear -- in your 107 1 understanding, would that have been prompted by a fear 2 that he would have been retaliated against in some way by 3 Professor Jackson? 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. I cannot say that he used the term 6 "retaliation," but I think there was some -- he did use 7 the term "pressure." Both he and Dr. Graf used to term 8 "pressure." 9 Q. But the only pressure they identified was the 10 pressure supposedly exerted by Dr. Jackson, right? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. That, I cannot say. I think that Mr. Walls did 13 mention feeling discomfort as to the controversy, 14 although we did not consider the, you know, substance 15 of the controversy. 16 Q. Oh, of course. You didn't consider whether the 17 scholars who were objecting to the publication of 18 the Journal of Schenkerian Studies and Volume 12 might 19 have been put -- might be putting pressure on Levi Walls? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. We -- we don't know. We had no evidence to 22 that effect. 23 Q. And that's fine. And this correspondence 24 in Exhibit 12, which we've just read on UNT page 2709, 25 that was also irrelevant to the ad hoc panel's 108 1 investigation? 2 A. Yes. 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 Q. Thank you. Was evidence that Levi Walls was 5 lying about the episode in the car that you summarized in 6 the Ad Hoc Panel Report, would that have been relevant to 7 the ad hoc panel? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. In a bit, although it did demonstrate the power 10 differential. But there was other things that we 11 considered for that. And also, it was minor compared 12 to the other problems we had pointed out with JSS. 13 Q. And for you, in that room when you 14 interviewed -- I guess it was a Zoom room when you 15 interviewed -- 16 A. It was a Zoom, yes. 17 Q. -- Professor Walls -- I mean, Levi Walls. Was 18 there a power differential between you and Mr. Walls? 19 A. I have no control over Mr. Walls' future. I 20 would say not. I'm not on his committee. I'm not in 21 his field. I don't review his work. I'm not his 22 dissertation chair, so I do not believe he felt a power 23 differential. 24 Q. You don't -- you don't believe there was 25 a power differential between you, a distinguished 109 1 university research professor, and a graduate student, 2 Levi Walls? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. No, I do not. 7 Q. And that was not considered relevant in your ad 8 hoc panel investigation? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. No, it was not. 11 Q. Is there a power differential between 12 Mr. Walls and Dean John Richmond of the College of 13 Music? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. I cannot answer that. I do not know. 16 Q. You don't know if there's a power differential 17 between the dean of a College of Music and a graduate 18 student within the College of Music? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. I can't speculate. But I would imagine if the 21 dean had control over funding and other sources that he 22 depended on, perhaps so. But I cannot testify to that. 23 I do not know their relationship. 24 Q. Can you testify to whether there was an 25 inherent power differential between the division head of 110 1 MHTE, Benjamin Brand, and a graduate student within MHTE, 2 Levi Walls? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. I do not know for sure since I'm not familiar 5 with their relationship. But again, the same answer as 6 it applied to the dean. If the division head had some 7 influence over funding or other things, perhaps so. But 8 the division head is not the student dissertation chair. 9 Q. I didn't suggest he was. I was just asking 10 about whether or not there was a power differential, 11 right? And you're saying you don't -- you can't really 12 speak to that? 13 A. No. Yes. 14 Q. Again, in this packet of information you got 15 from Timothy Jackson, let's see. One last question on 16 this, and I think we will be done with this packet. 17 I'm going to call your attention to UNT 2663. 18 Do you see how this has Call For Papers here? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And again, we had talked about the call for 21 papers that was sent out by the Journal of Schenkerian 22 Studies earlier. And you had testified, I believe, that 23 you could no longer remember whether you had or had not 24 read it, right? 25 A. This was part -- this is part of the big 111 1 collection of emails that Dr. Jackson sent to us? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. We did review this. 4 Q. Okay. So you recall reviewing the call for 5 papers? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. Yes, although not in great detail, but we did 8 review this. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. Especially that referred not to the substance, 11 but only the process. 12 Q. I understand. And did you understand it was 13 sent to a server list in which members of the Society for 14 Music Theory all had access? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. We did not consider that, but it does appear so 17 on the heading. 18 Q. And one of the allegations, just flipping back 19 over to -- I believe it was Exhibit 3, is it not? The 20 Ad Hoc Panel Report? No, wait. Yes, it is. 21 I'm running through it to the exhibit that was 22 the UNT faculty statement. Do you see this in the ad hoc 23 panel report, which you attached as Exhibit 4 to that 24 report? 25 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 112 1 A. Yes, I see it. 2 Q. And here, it says, "He" -- meaning Philip Ewell 3 -- "was not afforded the opportunity to respond 4 in print." 5 Did I read that correctly? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And so I'm flipping back over to our 8 Exhibit 12, the call for papers. Isn't that a false 9 statement if Philip Ewell received the call for papers? 10 Was there anything about that, that didn't invite him to 11 respond? 12 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 13 A. I don't believe so. Because generally, when 14 you have a response or rejoinder, the off-beat person is 15 directly invited by the editor, not in the general call 16 to the society. 17 Q. So you're saying it was not best practice to do 18 it that way, right? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. I didn't hear the question. Could you repeat 21 that? You broke up. 22 Q. Yeah, sorry. I'm just trying to summarize. 23 Your testimony is that it was not best practice to send 24 out a call for papers rather than a direct invitation? 25 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 113 1 A. We did not say that one substituted for the 2 other. But generally, what we had said is the invitation 3 should go to the author, and there should be author 4 specific an opportunity for a rejoinder. 5 Q. Okay. And -- but it's not true, what the 6 faculty statement says, that Philip Ewell was not 7 afforded an opportunity to respond in print, was it? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. I can't testify to that. But I think they 10 meant he was not directly contacted by the editor. 11 Q. But they didn't write that in their faculty 12 statement that you attached as an exhibit to the Ad Hoc 13 Panel Report, did they? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. I cannot surmise that -- what their intention 16 was and how they expressed it, but... 17 Q. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about 18 them not writing that -- the statement is very factual 19 and clearcut. 20 They write in Exhibit 3 in the UNT faculty 21 statement, "The fact that he was not afforded the 22 opportunity to respond." 23 Right? They say, "He was not afforded the 24 opportunity to respond," right? 25 A. Yes. 114 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 Q. That's not qualified by saying he was not 3 offered the opportunity to respond in print by engraved 4 invitation, by direct solicitation, by direct invitation. 5 It doesn't have anything to do -- it doesn't say anything 6 about that, does it? 7 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 8 A. Well, apparently, it doesn't. But I -- again, 9 best practice would be that the editor directly invites 10 the person who's going to author the rejoinder. And that 11 a general call to the society is really not -- it's a 12 poor substitute. 13 Q. Okay. And you knew from your interviews and 14 perusal of the records given to you by Timothy Jackson 15 that the Journal had nothing against inviting Professor 16 Ewell to respond to Volume 12, right? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. Had nothing against it. I think we did find 19 actually that they did not invite directly Professor 20 Ewell. 21 Q. Do you remember discussing that they had 22 entertained the possibility of inviting Professor Ewell 23 to contribute to the next volume, so that he could 24 address the responses? 25 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 115 1 A. I recall in our interviews, Professor Slottow 2 had mentioned that. Yes, I do remember that. 3 Q. Okay, okay. I'm going to pull these down 4 for a sec. 5 Just one more thing, if you don't mind. I 6 know it's past 12:00. But I believe I can get to one 7 last thing, Professor Ishiyama, and we will be done. Do 8 you mind -- do you mind going forward with that, or do 9 you want a break? 10 A. No, we can -- we can go forward with it. 11 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I'm going to mark for 12 the record Exhibit 13. 13 (Deposition Exhibit Number 13 marked.) 14 Q. And I'm going to plop it in the chat as well. 15 Now, I've got to get my share thing going on. 16 This is an email from UNT's records disclosed 17 to us, I believe, from your file. 18 A. Um-hum. 19 Q. Given the page number, UNT 3435. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And do you remember drafting this email, 22 Professor Ishiyama? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What was the purpose of this email? 25 A. Professor Bakulina, in an unsolicited way, had 116 1 an event that happened. We are required by law to report 2 this. 3 Q. What is "this"? 4 A. And that it happened. 5 Q. Can you describe "this" for the record, what 6 you mean by that? 7 A. This event that she shared with us, which had 8 to deal with some instances of unethical behavior towards 9 her as the email indicates. She recounted that to us in 10 our interview with her, and we are required by law to 11 report this. So I dutifully did that. 12 Q. So she recounted that Timothy Jackson had made 13 her feel, quote, uncomfortable on several occasions. Is 14 that it? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And I'll get to the second part in a second. 17 All right. Is there a rule or policy against 18 making a colleague feel uncomfortable? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. That, I cannot say. But we are required for 21 any report related to these matters to report it to the 22 Title IX Coordinator. That is required. It's been very 23 clear to us that we are required to do that. 24 Q. And what is the unethical behavior towards her 25 that you were reporting? 117 1 A. I do not recall exactly. She discussed some 2 things. We told her that we would have to report this to 3 the Title IX Coordinator and she continued. I do not 4 know the -- I don't recall the details. 5 Q. And there were also, supposedly in 2016, 6 which would have been four years before this time, 7 inappropriate questions and comments about her health. 8 Is that what it says here? 9 A. I recall she did say something to that effect. 10 I do not remember the details. 11 Q. What makes a question or comment about 12 someone's health, quote, inappropriate? 13 A. I do not know. But that was her claim. And 14 we're required by law to report it. 15 Q. What law are you referring to? 16 A. I do not -- that, I cannot quote. But we have 17 been told as faculty members, that if there are reports 18 of any kind of harassment, that we need to report that, 19 and we're required to report it. That was -- that was 20 shared with me. I cannot tell you the exact. 21 Q. How did you interpret -- so you interpret 22 anytime someone makes comments that makes someone feel 23 uncomfortable as harassment? Is that your testimony? 24 A. No. We interpreted her report to us. We just 25 said she made a report to us. We're required to report 118 1 it. We do not judge what the content is. That is not 2 our place. It would be the Title IX Coordinator. 3 Q. And I guess it's supposedly harassment where 4 you have a reporting that it was discussed with her the 5 confidential proceedings about her interview for the 6 position she currently held at that time? 7 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 8 Q. Is that what you understood you were reporting? 9 A. We are reporting what she related to us after 10 we told her that it would have to be shared with the 11 Title IX Coordinator. We're compelled by law to do so. 12 Q. And yet you can't name the law that compels you 13 to report the time -- 14 A. I'm not a lawyer, sir. 15 Q. Can I -- can I -- 16 A. So I do not know. 17 Q. You're going to have to let me finish my 18 question. 19 A. Well, I'm -- 20 Q. I'm trying not to speak over you, and I'd just 21 appreciate that you let me finish. 22 A. Certainly. 23 Q. So you can't name the law which required you to 24 report someone feeling, quote, uncomfortable? 25 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 119 1 A. No, I cannot. I cannot specifically cite the 2 law. But we were told, and in our training, that we 3 would have to deal with this -- deal with this directly. 4 My colleagues all understood it that way, too. 5 Q. Oh, I'm sure they did. This was signed. 6 Well, it's not signed by all of them. It's signed by 7 you or at least in the signature block. But it's cc'd 8 to all of them, correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. So they were all behind reporting Timothy 11 Jackson for making someone feel uncomfortable? 12 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 13 A. As she related to us, the words she used. 14 Q. Is it that -- the woman that made this 15 reportable to the Title IX Coordinator? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. No. This was related to us, and we had to 18 report it. 19 Q. Okay. So when Ellen Bakulina signed a 20 petition, which we've already reviewed, which endorsed 21 the call for action of graduate students who were calling 22 for Timothy Jackson to be fired, don't you think that 23 made Timothy Jackson feel uncomfortable? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. I would not know. 120 1 Q. That never occurred to you to ask? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. No, it would not. It was irrelevant to our 4 investigation. We were compelled, again, to report this 5 by law. Even though I can't cite the law, that is what 6 had been communicated to us by the University. 7 Q. If it -- is it just because someone tells you 8 something, you are required to report? Is that your 9 understanding? 10 A. That is our understanding. We do not make 11 judgments about the content. 12 Q. Are you not required to report it if 13 something comes to your attention -- 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 Q. -- whether they tell you it or not, that you 16 learn of something? You're not required to report it if 17 you learn of something? Only when someone tells you 18 something, even if it be secondhand? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. I think it depends. If it's specifically 21 directed to us to report it -- 22 Q. Sure. 23 A. -- then we don't really go through hearsay or 24 other things, I mean, or rumors. This is something that 25 we did because she was aware that we would have to do 121 1 this, and we did. 2 Q. Did she ask you to report it? 3 A. We told her we had to. 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 Q. Did she ask you to report it? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. No, but we said we had to. 8 Q. And you have described repeatedly that the 9 scope of your investigation was very narrow, focused on 10 the publication and review in the Journal, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. But when someone reports vague feelings 13 of discomfort, you reported that to the Title IX 14 Coordinator, so that Timothy Jackson faced a Title IX 15 complaint, correct? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. Yes, as we were required again -- 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. -- by law. 20 Q. Sure. You don't feel you were required by law 21 to report threats of retaliation against Timothy Jackson 22 for violation of his First Amendment rights, did you? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. That was beyond the scope of our investigation. 25 We only did this because Professor Bakulina told us 122 1 directly. 2 Q. And Timothy Jackson told you directly that 3 he was facing threats of retaliation of his First 4 Amendment rights, did he not? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. Which was irrelevant to our investigation 7 again. 8 Q. And the First Amendment of law -- okay, sorry. 9 I over-spoke. Go ahead. 10 A. Yeah. That was irrelevant to our 11 investigation. Title IX, I think, and I cannot be sure, 12 but it's specific to these kinds of issues of harassment 13 and sexual harassment. We have no -- there's nothing 14 that talks about threats because of First Amendment 15 freedom. I do not know the law specifically, but that's 16 what we were told. 17 Q. You do know the First Amendment is a law of the 18 United States, right? 19 A. Absolutely. It is part of the First Amendment 20 of the Constitution. 21 Q. And you did know that there was an academic 22 freedom policy at the University of North Texas? 23 A. Yes, was. 24 Q. Timothy Jackson did complain to you that his 25 rights under that policy were being violated, right? 123 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. But that was irrelevant to our investigation. 3 It was only on process. You know, if he had written to 4 us and said, that complaint would not be going to the 5 Title IX Coordinator. 6 Q. You also were aware that he was being 7 threatened with adverse employment actions by the 8 graduate students and by his faculty colleagues, right? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. Yes. But that's not -- we didn't pay any 11 attention to that. We actually ignored all of it. 12 Q. I'm just trying to get a sense of how the ad 13 hoc panel worked. So all of those -- all of those 14 things which we've named -- First Amendment retaliation, 15 violation of the academic freedom policy, the harassment 16 of Timothy Jackson by calling for him to be fired, and 17 so forth, all of that was not relevant to the panel, 18 correct? 19 A. Yes, not relevant. 20 Q. But when there was a complaint that could be 21 filed against Timothy Jackson, that was required by law. 22 That's your testimony? 23 A. That was our understanding of the five members 24 of the panel. 25 MR. ALLEN: Okay, okay. It's about -- 124 1 can we go off the record, please? 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 3 12:25. 4 (Recess taken) 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:30. 6 We're on the record. 7 Q. Thank you, Professor Ishiyama. I just have one 8 last short series of questions. At least that 9 is my intention, that they be short. I'm going to call 10 your attention back to Exhibit 9, which was introduced 11 into the record. Do you remember looking at the title 12 page and table of contents of Volume 26 of Theoria from 13 2020? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And don't let me mischaracterize your 16 testimony, but I believe you testified that there might 17 be a representation somewhere in the journal of the 18 methods of review of the articles or things of that 19 nature, right? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 Q. Other than on the title page? 22 A. There might be. I do not know. I mean, there 23 should be something. 24 Q. So in the intervening time, we were able to 25 find the page where the review processes of the Journal 125 1 were discussed, and that's what I would like to ask you a 2 few questions about. 3 A. Okay. 4 MR. ALLEN: So I've taken the liberty of 5 adding a third page to Exhibit 5. Hold on. I think I'm 6 getting mixed up. I want to correct the record. I 7 believe I was referring to the past exhibit by its 8 wrong identification number. 9 I'm discussing Exhibit 5. Theoria, Volume 26, 10 2020, for the record. I'm just skipping down. I've 11 taken the liberty of adding the third page to this 12 exhibit, which formerly had only two pages. And this is 13 the appendix, page 157, which has the Theoria journal's 14 Directions to Contributors. And I'm not asking you to 15 verify that. I want your opinion as an expert and member 16 of the ad hoc panel about this in the journal of Theoria. 17 Q. It represents that review articles of books 18 related to the history of music -- it refers to "review 19 articles of books related to the history of music theory 20 and analysis." 21 Right? 22 A. Yes. 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 Q. And panel -- panel presentations to a 25 conference that was simply published as expanded 126 1 articles in a journal would not count as review 2 articles typically, right? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. I think it would depend on how they defined it. 5 Q. What is a review article typically understood 6 as in a scholarly journal? 7 A. Well, again, I can only speak to my field -- 8 Q. Sure. 9 A. -- and the field of the other five people on 10 the committee. But review articles are often collections 11 of books that are reviewed, often critically by an 12 author, and to reveal the state of the art in the field. 13 Q. Right. And if we skip back to the title page, 14 which I'm going to -- just by the titles. And I know 15 you are not a music theorist or a student of Russian 16 music. But did these titles suggest to you as an 17 experienced academic who's been an editor of political 18 science journals and other academic publications, that 19 these are review articles? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. I couldn't say until I read them, so it's 22 hard to determine just based on the title. 23 Q. So here, it also says, "All submissions will be 24 peer reviewed for their scholarly quality, clarity, and 25 originality. Only high level professional research 127 1 materials will be considered. Ph.D. candidates and 2 junior faculty in the related disciplines are 3 particularly encouraged to submit articles." 4 Did I read that correctly? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Would that lead you to believe that Theoria, 7 the other journal published in the College of Music under 8 the umbrella of the University of North Texas Press, 9 would subject all of its articles to peer review? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. That would be -- that's the statement they 12 make, so I don't know if they did. 13 But they say, "All submissions will be peer 14 reviewed." 15 Q. And that doesn't suggest that there's a 16 separate kind of track for publishing papers that were 17 expanded into articles after a professional conference, 18 does it? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. Well, so it suggests that those submissions 21 also be peer-reviewed. 22 Q. Okay. And would you understand the peer-review 23 process to be double-blind? The double-blind peer-review 24 process we discussed earlier? 25 A. It is the standard. 128 1 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I'm going to pass the 2 witness, Mary. 3 MS. QUIMBY: I'll reserve my questions 4 for trial. 5 MR. ALLEN: Thank you, Professor 6 Ishiyama. 7 (No deletions.) 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 9 12:35. 10 (Proceedings concluded at 12:35 p.m.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 1 CHANGES AND SIGNATURE 2 WITNESS: JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D. 3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 4 PAGE/LINE CHANGE REASON 5 _____________________________________________________ 6 _____________________________________________________ 7 _____________________________________________________ 8 _____________________________________________________ 9 _____________________________________________________ 10 _____________________________________________________ 11 _____________________________________________________ 12 _____________________________________________________ 13 _____________________________________________________ 14 _____________________________________________________ 15 _____________________________________________________ 16 _____________________________________________________ 17 _____________________________________________________ 18 _____________________________________________________ 19 _____________________________________________________ 20 _____________________________________________________ 21 _____________________________________________________ 22 _____________________________________________________ 23 _____________________________________________________ 24 _____________________________________________________ 25 _____________________________________________________ 130 1 _____________________________________________________ 2 _____________________________________________________ 3 I, JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D., have read the 4 foregoing deposition and hereby affix my signature that 5 same is true and correct, except as noted above. 6 7 8 ____________________________ JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D. 9 10 THE STATE OF ________________) 11 COUNTY OF ___________________) 12 Before me, __________________________, on this day personally appeared JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D., known to 13 me or proved to me on the oath of _______________________ or through ______________________________ (description of 14 identity card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and 15 acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same for the purpose and consideration therein expressed. 16 Given under my hand and seal of office on this 17 _______ day of __________________, ________. 18 19 _____________________________ 20 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF ________________ 21 22 My Commission Expires: ___________ 23 24 25 131 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 2 SHERMAN DIVISION 3 TIMOTHY JACKSON, ) ) 4 Plaintiff, ) ) 5 vs. ) CASE NO. 4:21-CV-00033-ALM ) 6 LAURA WRIGHT, et al., ) ) 7 Defendants. ) 8 __________________________________________ 9 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION OF 10 ORAL DEPOSITION OF JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D. 11 September 27, 2024 12 ___________________________________________ 13 I, KIM D. CARRELL, a Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 in and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the 15 following: 16 That the witness, JOHN TOARU ISHIYAMA, Ph.D., was 17 duly sworn and that the transcript of the oral deposition 18 is a true record of the testimony given by the witness; 19 That the deposition transcript was duly submitted 20 on October 28, 2024, to Ms. Mary Quimby, for examination, 21 signature, and return to me by November 27, 2024; 22 That pursuant to the information given to the 23 deposition officer at the time said testimony was taken, 24 the following includes all partes of record and the 25 amount of time used by each party at the time of the 132 1 deposition; 2 Mr. Michael Thad Allen - 02 HRS: 47 MIN Attorney for the Plaintiff 3 Ms. Mary Quimby - 00 HRS: 00 MIN 4 Attorney for the Defendants 5 I further certify that I am neither counsel for, 6 related to, nor employed by any of the parties or 7 attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was 8 taken, and further that I am not financially or 9 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action. 10 Certified to by me on this 28th day of October, 11 2024. 12 13 _______________________________ 14 Kim D. Carrell, CSR NO. 1184 Date of Expiration: 7-31-26 15 JULIA WHALEY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 16 2012 Vista Crest Drive Carrollton, Texas 75007-1640 17 214-668-5578/Fax 972-236-6666 Firm Registration No. 436 18 Certification Expires 10-31-26 Notary Comm. Expires 12-1-25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25