Rachel Gain 5/19/21 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2 SHERMAN DIVISION 3 TIMOTHY JACKSON, ) ) 4 Plaintiff, ) ) 5 v. ) CASE NO. ) 4:21-cv-00033-ALM 6 LAURA WRIGHT, et al, ) ) 7 Defendants. ) ) 8 9 10 ----------------------------------- 11 ORAL DEPOSITION OF 12 RACHEL GAIN 13 MAY 19, 2021 14 ----------------------------------- 15 16 17 ORAL DEPOSITION OF RACHEL GAIN, produced as a 18 witness at the instance of the Plaintiff, and duly 19 sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause 20 on May 19, 2021, from 1:06 p.m. to 2:49 p.m., before 21 Nita G. Cullen, CSR in and for the State of Texas, 22 reported by machine shorthand, at the Law Offices of 23 Cutler Smith, 12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1450, in the City 24 of Dallas, County of Dallas, State of Texas, pursuant to 25 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 4 MR. MICHAEL THAD ALLEN MS. SAMANTHA HARRIS 5 ALLEN LAW, LLC P.O. Box 404 6 Quaker Hill, Connecticut 06375 860.772.4738 7 860.469.2783 Fax m.allen@allen-lawfirm.com 8 9 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: 10 MR. MATT BOHUSLAV ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 11 GENERAL LITIGATION DIVISION ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 12 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 13 matthew.bohuslav@oag.texas.gov 14 AND 15 MR. RENALDO STOWERS SENIOR ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL 16 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS SYSTEM OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 17 940.565.2717 renaldo.stowers@untsystem.edu 18 19 ALSO PRESENT: 20 MR. TIMOTHY JACKSON 21 22 23 24 25 Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 3 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 Appearances.......................................... 2 4 Stipulations......................................... 4 5 RACHEL GAIN 6 Examination by Ms. Harris........................ 4 7 8 Reporter's Certificate................................60 9 10 11 EXHIBITS 12 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 13 Exhibit 35 Notice of Taking Deposition............ 9 14 Exhibit 36 Text Messages - Vivek Virani and Rachel Gain............................ 9 15 Exhibit 37 Microsoft Teams conversation...........22 16 Exhibit 38 News from SEM: General News, Statement 17 of UNT Faculty on Journal of Schenkerian Studies ...................22 18 Exhibit 39 Twitter Messages.......................51 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 RACHEL GAIN, 3 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 4 EXAMINATION 5 BY MS. HARRIS: 6 Q. Okay. Hi, my name is Samantha Harris. I'm one 7 of the attorneys for Dr. Jackson, along with my partner. 8 And have you ever been deposed before? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. So, it's just going to be a 11 conversation, but it is part of the Court record, that's 12 why she's taking these -- you know, these notes. And 13 so, this is testimony that will be part of the case. If 14 at any time anything I'm asking you isn't clear or you 15 need me to clarify or repeat the question, just ask. 16 Your attorney may object from time to time. 17 MS. HARRIS: Are we going to stipulate, 18 you know, the same things that we have in the previous 19 depositions, that objections except as to form 20 objections will be reserved for the time of trial. 21 MR. BOHUSLAV: Yes. 22 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Okay. So, he will object, and 23 that objection will go on the record, but it doesn't 24 change your obligation to answer the question. So, when 25 he objects, it doesn't mean, you know, that you're not Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 5 1 going to answer, it just means that that objection will 2 be noted, and the Judge can decide what to do with it. 3 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 4 Q. So, we'll just start with some background 5 questions. Is there anything that would prevent you 6 from giving truthful testimony here today? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Are you on any medications, or do you have any 9 medical conditions that could potentially interfere with 10 your ability to give truthful testimony? 11 A. Not that I know of, no. 12 Q. Okay. So, just tell me a little bit about your 13 background. Obviously, now, you're a graduate student 14 at UNT, right? 15 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 16 Q. And what, specifically, are you studying? 17 A. I'm studying music theory. 18 Q. Music theory. Okay. Prior to that, where did 19 you go to college? 20 A. I did my undergraduate mostly at the University 21 of Birmingham, with one year at the University of 22 Ottawa, and I did a master's degree in music theory at 23 the University of Western Ontario. 24 Q. Okay. Now, you said you're studying music 25 theory here at the University of North Texas? Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 6 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. What year of the program are you in? 3 A. I just finished my second year. 4 Q. Okay. So, you're in the theory department. 5 Have you met Dr. Jackson before? 6 A. We've been in the same room, I've smiled at him 7 in hallways, but that's the extent of our interactions. 8 Q. Okay. So, would you say your interactions with 9 him have been pleasant or -- 10 A. I've had no response from him, so I wouldn't 11 use the word "pleasant". I'd say absence, really. 12 Q. Okay. When did you first learn about the 13 controversy over Volume 12 of the -- I'm going to say 14 the Journal of Schenkerian Studies. If I call it the 15 JSS here on out, will that be clear? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And you know what? I see you nodded and said 18 "yes", and that reminds me of one thing I should have 19 said at the beginning of the deposition, is because this 20 is all going on the record, even if it's just a "yes" or 21 "no" answer, always say "yes" or "no", rather than just 22 nodding, which you didn't do, you said "yes", but it 23 made me think of it. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. So, when did you first learn of the controversy Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 7 1 with Volume 12 of the JSS? 2 A. It was, I think, on the Friday evening, which I 3 believe was the 25th of July, 2020. 4 Q. Okay. And how did you hear about it, first? 5 A. On Twitter, people were posting their opinions 6 on it and screen shots of the passages that they were 7 offended by. 8 Q. Okay. Have you read Volume 12 of the JSS? 9 A. I've read most of it. 10 Q. Most of it. Okay. Have you read Dr. Jackson's 11 article? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And have you listened to Dr. Ewell's 14 talk, the talk that prompted -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. So, when you said people were tweeting 17 about it, do you remember who specifically was tweeting 18 that you noticed? 19 A. Quite a lot of people. One person comes to 20 mind that I can definitely say did. The first name's 21 Devon. I can't remember the entirety of their surname, 22 but it begins with "C-H". Something like Chalamu or 23 Chalamo (Phonetic). 24 Q. And is that someone who was also a student at 25 UNT? Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 8 1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. So, these were people from outside of 3 the university. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you know how they learned about the 6 controversy? 7 A. Some of them had a copy of the journal and had 8 read it, and others had seen the journal -- the excerpts 9 that had been sent to them. 10 Q. Okay. And when did you first read Dr. 11 Jackson's article? 12 A. I read the excerpts at the time, and within the 13 next day or two, I read the article. 14 Q. Okay. All right. Terrific. So, you know, I 15 meant to do this before we did the background, but I'm 16 going to just -- so, I'm going to be introducing some 17 documents throughout. They're going to be marked as 18 exhibits. 19 So, any document that I'm going to ask you 20 about, I will give you a copy of to familiarize yourself 21 with it. And the first thing I just want to give you a 22 copy of, and I believe this will be 35, I think, because 23 we're continuing to number the exhibits from previous 24 depositions. 25 This is just the Notice of Deposition that Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 9 1 you received, and I just want you to confirm that, you 2 know, you are, in fact, here today in response to this, 3 in order to give testimony in this case. 4 A. Yeah. 5 (DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 35 MARKED.) 6 Q. (By Ms. Harris) All right. Then, the next 7 document I want to introduce is Exhibit 36, is your 8 tweet where you shared a statement on behalf of -- oh, 9 yes. 10 (DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 36 MARKED.) 11 MR. BOHUSLAV: Do you happen to have an 12 extra copy? 13 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Where you shared these 14 statements. So, is this, in fact, your tweet, to 15 confirm that this is your tweet from July 27th sharing 16 this statement on behalf of graduate students? 17 A. I mean, the tweets you put in front of me are 18 Dr. Virani's tweets. 19 Q. Well, but the one that he re-tweeted. 20 A. The one that he shares is my tweet. 21 Q. Okay. And so -- and how many Twitter followers 22 do you have, do you know? 23 A. I mean, do you want the number that I have now, 24 or that I had at the time? 25 Q. If you remember what you had at the time. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 10 1 A. A few hundred. I would have to estimate that 2 it would be somewhere between maybe 300 and 600, but 3 that is an estimate. 4 Q. And how many do you have, now? 5 A. Now, I believe I have approximately 1,100. 6 Q. Okay. So you gained a lot of followers after 7 this. Had you read -- on the 27th, when you tweeted 8 this out, had you read Dr. Jackson's article at that 9 point? 10 A. I believe I had. 11 Q. You believe you had. 12 A. To the best of my memory. 13 Q. Okay. And so, now, I want to share with you, 14 and this is marked as Exhibit 3 because it's already 15 been introduced into the record, this statement. And is 16 this -- I want to verify with you that this is the 17 version of the statement that you tweeted out on the 18 27th, because there was a later version, as well, which 19 I'll show you when we get to it. 20 A. Are you able to show me my own tweets, so I can 21 compare this? 22 Q. We don't have a copy, because your Twitter is 23 private, so we only have the tweets that were produced 24 to us, and it was in the form of a re-tweet. So, no, I 25 don't, I just have that re-tweet. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 11 1 A. I would need the copy of what I tweeted in 2 order to compare and say with absolute certainty that 3 the two versions are the same. 4 Q. Can you confirm that you have seen this version 5 of the statement, which is the draft that was attached 6 to the ad hoc panel's report on the incident? 7 A. I couldn't say with absolute certainty that 8 this is word for word the version I've seen. I wasn't 9 aware that there was supposedly more than one version, 10 but I've probably seen this before. It looks familiar, 11 but there's a lot of words on that page. 12 Q. Okay. Do you -- you know, you mentioned the 13 tweet that you sent. Did you produce that tweet to your 14 counsel as part of the document production? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Yes. Okay. I don't believe that was in the 17 production we received from UNT of her documents, but I 18 guess we will move on, then. 19 Okay. So, I am going to -- so, are you 20 aware -- are you familiar with the ad hoc panel report 21 that was issued about the JSS incident? 22 A. I'm familiar with it. I'm aware of it. 23 Q. So, this document was attached as Exhibit 3 to 24 that ad hoc panel report. Do you have any reason to 25 believe that the ad hoc panel had an erroneous version Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 12 1 of the statement that was put out by the graduate 2 students over social media? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. So, is it all right, then, if I ask you 5 some questions about this document? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. So, do you recall who authored it? How 8 it came to be? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. Can you tell me about that process? 11 A. Originally, five of us drafted an original 12 version, and then it was some kind of Cloud document 13 that could be edited, so additional students came and 14 added their opinions. And in the process, there may 15 have been a re-drafting. 16 Q. Okay. Who were the -- besides yourself, who 17 were the original -- the four other people who 18 originally worked on the statement? 19 A. It was myself, Brian Anderson, Elizabeth 20 Durrant, Salvador Hernandez and -- who did I already 21 say? 22 Q. Brian Anderson, Salvador Hernandez. 23 A. Elizabeth Durrant and -- sorry, I do know the 24 names, just -- 25 Q. Okay. That's okay. We can come back to it, if Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 13 1 you recall, you let me know. And what was the process 2 for developing this? Did you meet over Zoom? Did you 3 sort of all go into a Cloud document, as you say? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You met over Zoom? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And you had a document -- and you had it open 8 in the Cloud and were making edits? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. And how was it decided that you would be 11 the one to share it over social media? 12 A. The first -- at first, Peter said he could do 13 it, as the president of GAMuT, then somebody said, this 14 isn't a GAMuT thing so not necessarily you. I said it 15 should be a theorist. 16 Q. And just to clarify, GAMut is the -- 17 A. The Graduate Association of Musicologists and 18 Theorists. 19 Q. Okay. So, you said that you said it should be 20 a theorist? 21 A. I said it should be a theorist, and I think 22 somebody said, maybe it should be Rachel, as I was vice 23 president of GAMuT and within the student society, 24 supposedly the highest ranking theorist, plus, I had a 25 Twitter account dedicated to academia. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 14 1 Q. Okay. Were there other theorists involved in 2 developing this statement? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Who were they? 5 A. I believe Bryan Stevens was one of the editors. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. And -- sorry, I'm trying to remember who's a 8 theorist and who's a musicologist in our division. 9 Right this second, he's the only name that comes to 10 mind, but there may have been more theorists. 11 Q. Okay. There may have been more theorists, you 12 said? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. And did you share it on any platforms 15 other than Twitter? 16 A. I don't think I did, unless I perhaps linked a 17 link to that perhaps in a Facebook message or an e-mail. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. I'm not certain. 20 Q. Okay. When you were producing documents to 21 counsel for this deposition, did you look through 22 Facebook and e-mail and other relevant platforms to see 23 if you had anything responsive? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. So, the petition opposes the platforming Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 15 1 of, quote, "racist sentiments in JSS Volume 12." Can 2 you tell me, specifically, what sentiments you believe 3 were racist in the volume? 4 A. Yes. There were a few. I think, primarily, 5 the racist stereotype that because Dr. Ewell is black, 6 he is probably anti-Semitic, as well. There is also the 7 extended footnote about how hip hop is misogynistic, 8 despite having relevance to the paper. There may have 9 been something else, but without the document in front 10 of me, I wouldn't be able to say. 11 Q. Okay. And how would you define "racist"? 12 A. I think there's a lot of definitions which are 13 equally valid. One would be believing that one group is 14 superior over another or that people have 15 characteristics based on their race and that the 16 characteristics of one race might be better than the 17 characteristics of another race, and there's also 18 systemic racism. 19 Q. And how would you define "systemic racism"? 20 A. Systemic racism would be the structures the 21 privileged white people have over people of color. 22 Q. And you mentioned that one of the things that 23 was racist was a statement that there is misogyny in hip 24 hop music. Do you believe that there is misogyny in hip 25 hop music? Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 16 1 A. I believe there's misogyny in a lot of music. 2 Q. Okay. But do you believe there's misogyny in 3 hip hop music? 4 A. I'd have to listen to some hip hop music to 5 tell you, but it seems likely. 6 Q. Okay. So, you've never listened to hip hop 7 music? 8 A. I have, but I'm very bad at interpreting lyrics 9 when I listen to songs. 10 Q. So, to the best of your knowledge, you have 11 never heard any hip hop lyrics that you would deem 12 misogynistic? 13 A. I probably have, but I can't recall specific 14 examples. 15 Q. Okay. And do you believe that Ewell's 16 criticisms of Heinrich Schenker could have been 17 motivated by anti-Semitism? 18 A. No. 19 Q. No. Okay. And what's the basis for that 20 belief? 21 A. I don't believe that Ewell is anti-Semitic, and 22 I believe that the criticisms that he made don't refer 23 or rest on the race of Heinrich Schenker. 24 Q. So, you don't necessarily believe that 25 criticizing someone who happens to be a member of a Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 17 1 specific group indicates a prejudice against that group. 2 A. Could you repeat the question, please? 3 Q. So, what you're saying is, you know, the fact 4 that Philip Ewell was criticizing Heinrich Schenker, who 5 is Jewish, does not imply that his criticism was 6 motivated by anti-Semitism. 7 A. I think, in his case, it did not, but sometimes 8 people will make criticisms of a person in a group that 9 are based on racist stereotypes and racism. 10 Q. And how would you distinguish that? You know, 11 if a white person were to criticize the paper of a black 12 person, would you assume that to be motivated by racism? 13 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection, compound. 14 A. I think it depends on case by case basis. 15 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Okay. And so, what led you to 16 believe, specifically, that Dr. Jackson's criticism of 17 Ewell's paper was based on racism? 18 A. Because made ad hominem attacks the -- 19 stereotyped the beliefs that on paper Dr. Jackson seems 20 to believe that Dr. Ewell had based solely on his race. 21 Q. Say that again. I'm sorry. 22 A. Which part? 23 Q. Oh, he made criticisms that seemed to -- or can 24 you read that back to me? 25 (THE RECORD WAS READ BACK.) Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 18 1 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Can you rephrase that? I 2 don't think I understand what you meant by that. 3 A. Yes. Because there is a section of what Dr. 4 Jackson published in which his sole accusation and his 5 sole piece of evidence for Dr. Ewell being an 6 anti-Semite is that he is black. 7 Q. Okay. Thank you. So, do you believe that all 8 racist speech should be censored? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. So, what do you -- where do you draw 11 that line? Because, obviously, you know, this petition, 12 as we'll discuss, calls for the -- you know, the journal 13 to be -- the article to be retracted. What do you 14 believe justifies censorship? 15 A. I reject to that characterization. We 16 specifically did not ask for it to be retracted. 17 Q. Okay. All right. So, the first thing you did 18 ask for here was that the university publicly condemn 19 the issue and release it freely online to the public, 20 yes? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. And the reason you cited for that was a 23 lack of peer review, publication of an anonymous 24 response, and a lack of rigor, yes? 25 A. Yes. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 19 1 Q. But what you asked for was that the university 2 release an apology for its content. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. So, I'm just a little bit confused there 5 because, you know, if you were upset about the 6 procedure, why did you ask for an apology, not for the 7 procedure but for the content? 8 A. Because it was the content that was offensive, 9 not the procedure. 10 Q. Okay. So, is it fair to say that if you hadn't 11 been upset by the content of the issue, you would not 12 have issued a condemnation of the process? 13 A. I don't think we'd known about the process or 14 asked about it. In general, we don't care about what 15 happens at the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, if there 16 isn't a reason given to us to care about it. 17 Q. Okay. So, would it be fair to say, then, that 18 your main issue with Volume 12 of the JSS was the 19 content and not the process? 20 A. No, I'd say it was both. 21 Q. Okay. But you just said that it was the 22 content that -- 23 MR. HARRIS: Can you repeat back to me -- 24 when I asked -- you were upset about the procedure, but 25 you wanted an apology for the content. Could you read Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 20 1 me back that answer? 2 (THE RECORD WAS READ BACK.) 3 Q. (By Ms. Harris) So, you said it was the 4 content that was offensive, not the procedure, but it's 5 not fair to characterize that as saying that your 6 primary issue was with the content? 7 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection, vague. You can 8 answer. 9 A. Like I said, the content of the journal was 10 offensive, but that doesn't mean that the rest -- the 11 process was not problematic or flawed or other 12 adjectives. I mean -- 13 Q. Okay. So, if the process had not been 14 concerning to you, would you have wanted there to be any 15 disciplinary action taken because of the content? 16 A. I'd have to speculate. I mean, I don't know. 17 That situation did not arise. 18 Q. Okay. You also want the journal released 19 freely online to the public, because you expressed in 20 this petition a concern that the JSS leadership was 21 going to hide the issue. Did you have any concrete 22 reason to believe they were looking to hide the issue? 23 A. That's a mischaracterization. I don't believe 24 we said the JSS leadership were going to hide it, to the 25 best of my memory. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 21 1 Q. Hang on. Let me just pull up this document. 2 A. You'd have to show me where I said that. 3 Q. Okay. So, under No. 1, where it says, 4 "Publicly condemn the issue and release it freely online 5 to the public. We believe that all contributors should 6 be held fully accountable for their comments, which must 7 not be hidden for the sake of the self-preservation of 8 any involved party." So, I'm asking, what was your 9 basis for concern that this was going to be hidden from 10 the public? 11 A. I rejected the characterization that the JSS 12 leadership would try to hide it, but I think it's highly 13 possible that anybody at UNT, at any level, might not 14 want this to be public, if they were ashamed by it. 15 Q. So, who specifically were you concerned was 16 going to try to hide it? 17 A. We didn't have a specific person in mind. Just 18 any interested parties. 19 Q. Okay. So, another thing that you believed here 20 is problematic is the fact that the issue included an 21 anonymous response, yes? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Why do you believe publishing an anonymous 24 response is so problematic? 25 A. Several reasons. Firstly, it's not done in Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 22 1 academia. The whole point of academic discourse is that 2 you should be able to respond to it, and you should be 3 able to know who you're responding to. Secondly, if 4 everybody published things anonymously, there would be 5 no accountability. And I don't think -- if you're not 6 willing to put your name to something, then you 7 shouldn't be publishing it. 8 Q. Okay. Do you think there's any legitimate 9 reason that someone might want to publish something 10 anonymously? 11 A. There might be a legitimate reason, but I don't 12 think that that's a good reason necessarily. Just 13 because they don't want to publish it doesn't mean that 14 the people in charge of publishing should accept that 15 reason. 16 Q. Okay. I have two exhibits that I would like to 17 introduce as, I believe, 37 and 38. Is that where we 18 are? 19 COURT REPORTER: Yes. 20 (DEPOSITION EXHIBITS 37 AND 38 MARKED.) 21 Q. (By Mr. Harris) Okay. So, this is Exhibit 37. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. So, is this a chat from a Microsoft Teams 24 meeting that you participated in on July 30th, 2020? 25 A. It's not a chat, it's a post with comments, but Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 23 1 otherwise, yes. 2 Q. Okay. So, is this a discussion about how the 3 names of the graduate students should be listed in the 4 letter that was going to go to Dean Richmond? 5 A. Would you be able to show me what these 6 comments are in response to, in order for me to answer 7 that question? 8 Q. I mean, it says here, "Jessica Stearns. I 9 think the names should just be alphabetical. I don't 10 think the e-mail itself needs to say much, just tell him 11 that you've attached a letter on behalf of the graduate 12 students." 13 A. Could you repeat your initial question? 14 Q. Was this a discussion of how the graduate 15 students' names should be listed on the e-mail that went 16 to Dean Richmond on July 30th? 17 A. Is that the date that the e-mail went to -- 18 Q. Yes. Yes. And I do have that exhibit. 19 A. Could I see it, please? 20 Q. Yes. I can introduce it. At the time -- I 21 guess this will now be Exhibit 38. There's only one 22 copy of this in the file. I think it's already been 23 introduced elsewhere. I think you used it in the last 24 one, which I only have this one copy. Oh, yes. I think 25 you're right. So this, I believe, has already been Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 24 1 introduced as an exhibit. Let's see here. Oh, this is 2 it here. Okay. So, this is actually Exhibit 34. I'm 3 sorry, Kohanski 107. Here you go. 4 A. Thank you. 5 Q. So, this is the e-mail to Dean Richmond on 6 July 30th that this exhibit that I just introduced is 7 referring to. So, here, people asked about redacting 8 the names, if the letter is going to be circulated 9 beyond Dean Richmond, and you suggest saying, maybe 10 just, quote, "we ask that you not share these names in 11 order to protect those who signed." 12 So, why was it that you didn't want the 13 names of the people, the graduate students who signed 14 this letter to appear, if it were circulated beyond Dean 15 Richmond? 16 A. People were afraid of retaliation from Dr. 17 Jackson. 18 Q. Okay. And do you think it's possible that 19 someone who was publishing perhaps an unpopular opinion 20 in a journal might also wish to be anonymous -- 21 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection -- sorry. 22 Q. (By Ms. Harris) -- for fear of retaliation? 23 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection, calls for 24 speculation. 25 A. Could you repeat the question, please? Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 25 1 Q. (By Ms. Harris) I asked whether -- you know, 2 you said that you were suggesting that the signatories 3 of this letter's names be kept anonymous, if it were 4 given beyond Dean Richmond, and you stated fear of 5 retaliation as a rationale for wanting to be kept 6 anonymous. And I'm asking whether you think that 7 someone publishing a response critical of, you know, of 8 someone else in a journal might also fear retaliation? 9 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection, calls for 10 speculation. 11 A. I don't think those are equivalent situations. 12 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Okay. Can you explain why 13 not? 14 A. Because when you're publishing something in a 15 journal, you're posting that into the public eye, 16 whereas this was some graduate students who did not 17 want -- who are in an institution which had power 18 structures and power dynamics, not a public statement, 19 an e-mail to the dean. 20 Q. Okay. So, you're saying -- it's your position 21 that it's legitimate for the graduate students signing 22 their name to a letter denouncing someone else should be 23 kept anonymous, that that's legitimate. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. But that someone wishing to criticize another Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 26 1 scholar in a journal, should not be kept anonymous -- 2 should not be permitted to remain anonymous. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. All right. So, Point 2 of this, going 5 back to what says Exhibit 3 there, because it was 6 Exhibit 3 to the ad hoc panel report. This is the 7 petition. It talks about significant irregularities in 8 the editorial process. Can you explain what those 9 significant irregularities were? 10 A. Everything I have heard secondhand, so this is 11 what I've been told and my memory of what I've been 12 told. I was told that every single article that was 13 submitted was accepted, that the editor was not 14 permitted to edit the content of those, that Dr. Ewell 15 was not invited directly to respond. 16 He may have received an e-mail in the SMT 17 list that everybody received asking to respond to his 18 own plenary, but obviously that is not equivalent to an 19 invitation to respond to other people's responses. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. And there were probably some other things, too, 22 that don't come to mind right now. 23 Q. Okay. So, you only heard about these alleged 24 irregularities secondhand? 25 A. Yes. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 27 1 Q. Okay. So, you have no personal knowledge of 2 whether there were significant irregularities in the 3 editing and production of Volume 12 of the JSS. 4 A. Those things have, I believe, been proven -- 5 Q. Can you -- you're not answering my question. 6 A. I was about to. 7 Q. Okay. Go ahead. 8 A. I believe that all of those things have been 9 proven in the -- what was the name of the report? 10 Q. Okay. Then, let me ask you this question. At 11 the time that you tweeted this petition out under your 12 name, you had only secondhand knowledge -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. -- of the significant irregularities -- alleged 15 significant irregularities. Okay. Have you had any 16 experience editing an academic journal before? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Okay. Have you had any experience soliciting 19 articles for an academic journal? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Okay. Have you published in an academic 22 journal? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Have you reviewed symposia in other academic 25 journals? Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 28 1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. And do you know what the normal process 3 would be for putting together a symposium issue, like 4 Volume 12? 5 A. I have some knowledge. 6 Q. Some knowledge? Okay. Tell me what that 7 process would be. 8 A. You would put out a public call for papers. 9 You would receive some responses, and then you would 10 edit those and publish the ones that were academically 11 rigorous. 12 Q. Okay. I would like to -- I'm going to come 13 back to this, but I would like to introduce now as 14 exhibit -- sorry. Losing track of my papers here. I'm 15 looking, Mike, for the July 30th version of the 16 statement. 17 MR. ALLEN: Did you already give it over? 18 Q. (By Ms. Harris) I don't think so. Oh, yes, I 19 did. Yes, I did. So, what -- is it Exhibit 34? Yes. 20 Yes. Okay. So, looking at this Exhibit 34, the -- do 21 you have this? I think maybe it's under that paper. 22 Does that say Kohanski 00107? Yes. So, you said that 23 one of the -- well, on here it is. 24 MR. BOHUSLAV: Could you read the Bates 25 numbers for Exhibit 37, please, the range? Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 29 1 MS. HARRIS: It's Kohanski 00107 through 2 000110. 3 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Here. 4 A. Thank you. 5 Q. Can I have the other one? Okay. Thank you. 6 Okay. So, you had just said previously that one of the 7 problems with -- one of the alleged irregularities with 8 the production of this volume, right, was that all 9 papers had been accepted? 10 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 11 Q. Okay. So, I want to direct your attention to 12 Point 1, if you go to this Kohanski 000108, under "lack 13 of peer review", it says that the deadlines were 14 selectively enforced. What do you mean by, "the 15 deadlines were selectively enforced"? 16 A. I don't see that on here. 17 Q. Okay. Under Point 1, "lack of peer review," if 18 you look at the last sentence, it says, "the deadlines 19 were selectively enforced, which allowed more anti-Ewell 20 submissions to be accepted." 21 A. I don't have direct knowledge of that. 22 Q. Okay. So, you -- you signed your name to this, 23 yes? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. But you don't actually have direct Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 30 1 knowledge of whether there were deadlines that were 2 selectively enforced? 3 A. I have a vague memory of secondhand knowledge. 4 Q. Okay. Do you mean by this that there were pro- 5 Ewell papers that were turned away? 6 A. No. 7 Q. No. Okay. So, what do you mean by it? 8 A. I think it means what it says on the paper, 9 "which allowed more anti-Ewell submissions to be 10 accepted." 11 Q. So, that would mean that there were pro-Ewell 12 responses that came in after a deadline that were not 13 accepted? 14 A. No, logically, that doesn't follow. 15 Q. How so? 16 A. That makes the assumption that there were -- 17 there was the existence of pro-Ewell responses after the 18 deadline. 19 Q. Well, I'll come back to that. Okay. I want to 20 go back now to the first version of the statement that 21 you were looking at, the one that was attached to your 22 Twitter and that is marked as Exhibit 3 to the -- yeah. 23 There you go. 24 So, another thing that this document says 25 is that UNT is a, quote, "toxic culture with respect to Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 31 1 race, gender and other aspects of diversity." Is that 2 your position? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. And when you say, "other aspects of 5 diversity," what does that mean? 6 A. Other things that make people diverse; for 7 example, disability. 8 Q. Okay. So, tell me more about this. What do 9 you believe makes the toxic -- what do you believe makes 10 the culture toxic at UNT? 11 A. There's a lot of evidence that people of color 12 are treated differently to white people, for example. 13 Q. What type of evidence is that? 14 A. Encounters with police that have been recorded. 15 Q. Okay. So you're saying that UNT's police 16 department is -- there's a toxic culture among the UNT 17 police department? 18 A. Not necessarily, but that people have been 19 treated differently because of their race. 20 Q. Okay. Besides the police department, do you 21 have other examples you can point to of people being 22 treated differently because of their race? 23 A. Not directly, but, I mean, there definitely are 24 a lot that have been recorded and publicized. 25 Q. Okay. But you have no direct knowledge of any Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 32 1 of these. 2 A. I've probably experienced some, but they don't 3 come to mind immediately. 4 Q. Okay. And then, Point 4 of this document talks 5 about the need to hold everyone accountable for -- you 6 know, for the things that happened. 7 A. I don't have a Point 4. 8 Q. I'm sorry. Point 3. Point 3. That's my 9 fault. And it talks about investigating past bigoted 10 behaviors by faculty. What past bigoted behaviors does 11 this statement refer to? 12 A. I've heard secondhand evidence of a number of 13 incidents involving Dr. Jackson. 14 Q. Okay. Can you tell me about some of the 15 secondhand incidents you've heard about? 16 A. There are some students who are Korean who say 17 that they were -- I can't remember the exact word, 18 but -- sorry, let me think of the word. I can't think 19 of the -- an appropriate word to use. 20 Q. It's okay. Would it be fair to say that you 21 believe, based on things you've heard secondhand, that 22 Dr. Jackson is biased against Koreans? 23 A. I wouldn't put it in those words. 24 Q. What words would you put it in? 25 A. I would say that Korean people have had Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 33 1 negative experiences with him based on their race and 2 nationality. 3 Q. Okay. So, when this statement says, "past 4 bigoted behaviors," it's referring specifically to Dr. 5 Jackson's treatment of Koreans? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. Then, what is it referring to? 8 A. A lot of incidents experienced by a lot of 9 people. 10 Q. Okay. Such as what you mentioned, the incident 11 with some Korean students. What other incidents? 12 A. I've heard from an African -- well, I've heard 13 third-hand of an African-American student who was 14 treated poorly. 15 Q. Do you know in what way they were allegedly 16 treated poorly? 17 A. No. 18 Q. So, you've heard third-hand -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- that Dr. Jackson allegedly treated an 21 African-American student poorly, but you don't know how. 22 A. That's one example, but I believe those reports 23 are available. 24 Q. And going back to the Korean students, you 25 would not say that his treatment of Korean students Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 34 1 falls under the past bigoted behaviors? 2 A. I believe I found out about that incident after 3 this. So, this, specifically, does not refer to that, 4 but this is an incident that would fall under that 5 category. 6 Q. Okay. So, to the best of your knowledge, the 7 past bigoted behaviors referred to in this report, is a 8 third-hand report of an African-American student who was 9 treated poorly? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Can you tell me what it does refer to? 12 A. If you stop interrupting me, then yes, sorry. 13 MR. ALLEN: Let's take a break. 14 MS. HARRIS: Okay. Would you like a 15 break? 16 THE WITNESS: I guess. 17 MR. BOHUSLAV: Let's take a break. 18 (OFF THE RECORD FROM 1:50 TO 1:59 P.M.) 19 Q. (By Ms. Harris) So, we just want to sort of 20 circle back and close the loop on these -- the request 21 to investigate past bigoted behaviors by faculty. 22 You had mentioned that you had heard that 23 Dr. Jackson treated some Korean students poorly, but 24 that you had not heard about that at the time, so that 25 this is not -- that was not when you were endorsing the Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 35 1 statement part of what you meant? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. But that you had heard third-hand that 4 he once treated an African-American student poorly in an 5 unspecified way? 6 A. That was also after the fact. That was not 7 what I was referring to in this statement. 8 Q. Okay. So, what were you referring to in this 9 statement? 10 A. There have been allegations of sexist behavior, 11 for example. 12 Q. Okay. By Dr. Jackson, specifically? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Such as what? 15 A. There was an incident with Dr. Notley, I 16 believe, at -- this was before I was at UNT, so, again, 17 this is secondhand, and this is the best memory I have 18 of what I was told. At Dr. Graf's defense of his 19 dissertation proposal, a few professors disagreed with 20 part of the proposal, and of all the people that 21 disagreed, Dr. Jackson specifically verbally attacked 22 Dr. Notley, saying that she didn't understand -- it was 23 either music theory or music analysis that she didn't 24 understand, which seemed unfounded seeing as she taught 25 music theory at Yale. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 36 1 Q. Okay. And so you believe that this alleged 2 verbal attack was because she was a woman? 3 A. Well, he didn't attack any of the men in the 4 room who held the exact same belief. 5 Q. Okay. And, again, you heard about this 6 secondhand, you said? 7 A. Yes. From several people. 8 Q. From several people. So, when you were 9 endorsing this request for an investigation of past 10 bigoted behaviors, this is what you specifically were 11 thinking of? 12 A. That's one thing. 13 Q. Okay. What else? 14 A. There is the incident with Yiyi Gao, where I've 15 heard that allegedly Dr. Jackson told her that she had 16 to work for free over summer or he would dock her 17 grades. 18 Q. Okay. Do you believe that if a student did not 19 complete the work that they are supposed to complete 20 during the academic year, that it would be reasonable 21 for a faculty member to request that they complete that 22 work over the summer? 23 A. Well, that would go against the terms of her 24 international student visa. 25 Q. What are the terms of her international student Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 37 1 visa? 2 A. That you work 20 hours a week during term time, 3 and if she wasn't employed over the summer, she couldn't 4 do that work, I believe. I'm not entirely 100 percent 5 solid on all H1-B's requirements, but it seems like that 6 would be something that she couldn't do, seeing as we're 7 employed during a semester to do our work and not during 8 the summer. 9 Q. And what is it about, as for a dispute over the 10 completion of work, that you believe is bigoted? 11 A. Well, I don't -- that's not how I would 12 characterize that. 13 Q. Did you not just say that that was another 14 example of past bigoted behavior? 15 A. Well, I didn't say that it was a dispute over 16 the completion of work. That's not my words or -- 17 Q. All right. How would you characterize that, 18 then? 19 A. I'd characterize it as Yiyi was told that she 20 needed to work over summer for free and that Dr. Jackson 21 took credit for her work, is what I heard. 22 Q. Okay. Who have you heard that from? 23 A. Yiyi, Bryan Stevens, and David Falterman. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. "David" spelled like David. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 38 1 Q. Okay. Now, going back to this first iteration 2 of the graduate student statement, you also -- the 3 statement also says that "the actions of Dr. Jackson, 4 both past and present, are particularly racist and 5 unacceptable." 6 Now, you've spoken about some incidents 7 that you believe reflect sexism. Can you tell me what 8 past incidents, specifically, you believe were racist? 9 A. Well, Yiyi is Chinese, so that incident. 10 Q. Okay. So, you believe that because he had some 11 sort of issue with someone Chinese that that means that 12 it was racist? 13 A. I wouldn't characterize it like that. 14 Q. How would you characterize it? 15 A. Well, I don't know, specifically, if that 16 incident was racist, but it seems likely, given what 17 I've heard. And also, there have been the other past 18 racist incidents that I've mentioned. 19 Q. What have you heard that make its likely -- 20 that makes you believe it is likely that that incident 21 was racist? 22 A. I don't know how to put a finger on it. I 23 wouldn't like to speculate. 24 Q. I'd like you to speculate. 25 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection, calls for Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 39 1 speculation. 2 Q. (By Ms. Harris) There's no prohibition on 3 speculating. The Court may or may not decide to use it. 4 But since you are characterizing this incident as 5 racist, I would assume you have some reason for doing 6 so. I mean, you've clearly speculated in your own mind 7 and come to the conclusion that this was likely racist, 8 so I would like to understand your thinking. 9 A. I can't be certain that it's racist, but it 10 seems likely. 11 Q. Why does it seem likely? 12 A. Because he hasn't done this to people who are 13 white as much. 14 Q. So, are you aware of people who are white who 15 he has worked with who have had issues with him? 16 A. Yes, Dr. Jackson has -- Dr. Notley is white. 17 Q. Okay. So, what is your basis for believing 18 that he has not done this as frequently to people who 19 are white? 20 A. I'm not sure if that's what I said. 21 Q. Can you read back when I asked what makes 22 you -- the most recent time that I asked, "why do you 23 believe this was racist?" Where she said, "because he 24 hasn't done this to white people"? 25 (THE RECORD WAS READ BACK.) Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 40 1 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Yes. So I'm asking what's 2 your basis for that belief? 3 A. Well, based on the incidents that I've heard, 4 I've heard of a few white people and a large number of 5 people of color. 6 Q. Okay. So, a large number of people of color. 7 A. Larger. 8 Q. So, we have the one African-American student, 9 we have several Korean students, allegedly. 10 Incidentally, are you aware that Dr. Jackson's wife is 11 Korean? 12 A. I knew that she was Asian. I did not know, 13 specifically, that she is Korean. 14 Q. And are you aware that he has two children who 15 are half Korean? 16 A. No. 17 Q. So, we have the several Korean students, we 18 have one African-American student, and we have Yiyi. 19 What other incidents? You said a large number. 20 A. I said "larger". 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. Not "large". 23 Q. Okay. So, are those all of the incidents that 24 you are aware of? 25 A. Those are the ones that come to mind, and as is Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 41 1 hopefully evident, I'm not the only author of this 2 statement, and other people may have been aware of other 3 incidents. 4 Q. But you've endorsed this statement. 5 A. Yes, because I trust my colleagues. 6 Q. Okay. This document also refers to 7 whistleblowers. Who are the whistleblowers that this 8 document is referring to? 9 A. Levi Walls. 10 Q. Levi Walls. And it talks about the people who 11 failed to heed them. Who is it who allegedly failed to 12 heed the statements of the whistleblowers? 13 A. Dr. Brand. 14 Q. Dr. Brand. Okay. And when you say -- so, 15 whistleblowers, plural, refers only to Levi Walls? 16 A. Yes, I believe it's a general use of the term 17 in plural, not specifically saying that it's more than 18 one person. 19 Q. Okay. So, now, I would like to return back to 20 the second version of the graduate student statement, 21 the one that was sent to Dean Richmond on July 30th, and 22 which you should have -- yeah, there, as Exhibit 34. 23 A. Thank you. 24 Q. So, I noticed that a lot of the language in 25 this has been changed and sort of strengthened since the Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 42 1 July 27th version that you tweeted. So, how were those 2 changes made? 3 A. Well, it's a different statement. 4 Q. Okay. So, how was this statement prepared? 5 A. I believe, to the best of my memory, on another 6 Zoom call with a Cloud document. 7 Q. And were you a part of that Zoom call? 8 A. To the best of my memory, yes. 9 Q. Okay. Do you remember if there was one call or 10 more than one call? 11 A. I can't remember. 12 Q. Okay. So, this document refers to ad hominem 13 attacks on Philip Ewell. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can you give me some examples of what you 16 believe to be ad hominem attacks? 17 A. Same as anti-Semitic. 18 Q. Okay. And you -- am I correct that you said 19 before that you believe it was racist that Dr. Jackson 20 accused Philip Ewell of anti-Semitism because Philip 21 Ewell is black? 22 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection, misstates 23 testimony. 24 MS. HARRIS: Objection, what? 25 MR. BOHUSLAV: Misstates the testimony. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 43 1 A. I didn't say that. I said that it was because 2 it was based on a racist stereotype that black people 3 are anti-Semitic. 4 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Understood. So, that was -- 5 that's the ad hominem attack that you're referring to? 6 A. I believe so. 7 Q. Okay. You also -- this statement also 8 criticizes the fact that the call for papers gave a two- 9 week deadline for responses. What would be the normal 10 time for a -- length of time for responses in a 11 symposium like this? 12 A. I don't know, but I would assume longer than 13 two weeks, seeing as you'd have to write an article from 14 scratch and do all the research and writing and 15 finalizing it in a two-week period. 16 Q. Okay. So, you don't know, but you would 17 assume. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. And, again, going back to this question 20 of the deadlines being selectively enforced, I'd like to 21 know what this means. 22 A. That was something that my colleagues wrote, I 23 believe. 24 Q. Okay. So, do you have any knowledge of whether 25 or not deadlines were selectively enforced? Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 44 1 A. I could speculate based on a vague memory that 2 I have. 3 Q. Okay. Tell me. 4 A. I have a vague memory of someone telling me 5 that the anti-Ewell responses were allowed later than 6 the deadline. 7 Q. Okay. Do you remember who told you this? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Okay. This document also refers to "illicit 10 collaboration". Can you tell me what the graduate 11 students here, including yourself, meant by "illicit 12 collaboration"? 13 A. I did not write that sentence, I don't believe, 14 that doesn't sound like something I would write, but I 15 believe that it refers to the fact that the anti-Ewell 16 papers all cite to each other, and, therefore, they must 17 have been privy to what each other were writing. 18 Q. Okay. And would that be -- that would be, in 19 your view, illegitimate for academics to share papers 20 with one another prior to publication? 21 A. No, not at all, but I believe what my 22 colleagues are referring to here is probably the fact 23 that it only happens between people actually against Dr. 24 Ewell rather than for him. 25 Q. Okay. But you have no personal knowledge of Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 45 1 this. 2 A. No. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. Well, I've read the journal and seen that they 5 cite each other. 6 Q. Right. But at the time that you put your name 7 to this, you did not have any evidence of illicit 8 collaboration, other than what you had been told by your 9 fellow graduate students? 10 A. Everything I have is secondhand, so that is 11 probably an accurate characterization. 12 Q. Okay. Ewell -- were you aware that Ewell is 13 referred to in some of the pro-Ewell papers, that he's 14 cited? 15 A. That's different. 16 Q. How is that different? 17 A. Because you're supposed to cite things that 18 have previously been published or previous keynotes, 19 whereas this specifically refers to unpublished 20 citations. 21 Q. Okay. So, it's not proper to cite forthcoming 22 works? 23 A. It can be proper. 24 Q. What circumstances -- under what circumstances 25 is it proper? Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 46 1 A. For example, if Dr. Jackson had cited Ewell's 2 forthcoming article, that would have been proper. 3 Q. So, it's proper to cite someone you disagree 4 with, but not someone you agree with, is that -- 5 A. No. That's not what I'm saying. 6 Q. Okay. What are you saying here? 7 A. I'm saying that you can site forthcoming 8 things, but the way it has been characterized to me by 9 other people who have spoken to me about this issue, is 10 that the people writing against Dr. Ewell share their 11 papers with each other, but not with perhaps, I would 12 guess, the people writing pro-Ewell responses. 13 Q. And you believe that academics sharing their 14 papers with one another in advance of publication 15 constitutes illicit collaboration? 16 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection, asked and 17 answered. 18 A. No. 19 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Okay. This document also says 20 that Dr. Ewell was not notified about the forthcoming 21 symposium. 22 A. Where does it say that? 23 Q. "In stark contrast to this coordinated effort 24 by Dr. Jackson, et al, Dr. Ewell was neither notified 25 nor asked to respond." It's under "illicit Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 47 1 collaboration". 2 A. Yeah? Do you have a question? 3 Q. Well, I asked you, are you aware that it says 4 that Dr. Ewell was not notified? 5 A. I'm aware now that I have it in front of me, 6 and I've read it. 7 Q. Were you aware at the time that you signed your 8 name to it that it said that? 9 A. I mean, I've read the document, but my eyes may 10 have skimmed over a couple of words. I don't recall 11 reading that before now. 12 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Dr. Ewell was sent 13 the call for papers? 14 A. Well, everybody was sent the call for papers on 15 the list serve. 16 Q. Were you aware that Dr. Ewell was on the list 17 serve? 18 A. Yes, but also the list serve goes to a lot of 19 people -- people's junk e-mail, so I didn't know whether 20 he received it. 21 Q. So, when you endorsed this statement here that 22 Dr. Ewell was not notified, what you're saying was that 23 he was notified, but it may have gone to his junk mail? 24 A. Or, like I said, I don't remember reading those 25 words. I think, if I were to write the statement Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 48 1 myself, I may not have used that wording. 2 Q. Okay. This also says that Dr. Jackson has a, 3 quote, "history of racist, sexist and abusive behavior." 4 And that is -- let me find it for you. Let me just pull 5 this up on my computer. Okay. So under -- on the page 6 that's labeled Kohanski 000109, under the heading 7 "Calling for Dr. Jackson's Dismissal," it says he should 8 be removed from the faculty, and it says that he has a 9 history of racist, sexist and abusive behaviors in his 10 many capacities. So, what are his many capacities? 11 A. I would assume, seeing as these are not my 12 personal testimonies in here, I would assume that the 13 capacities probably refer to him as a teacher, as an 14 advisor, and as somebody in whatever capacity he may be 15 in at the Journal of Schenkerian Studies. That would be 16 my best guess. 17 Q. What is an example of abusive behavior that Dr. 18 Jackson has exhibited? 19 A. I would say telling a student to work for free. 20 Q. And this, again, is something that you heard 21 secondhand? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. This document also accuses Dr. Jackson 24 of extortion. Are you aware that extortion is a crime? 25 A. I'm not really up to date with U.S. laws, as a Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 49 1 recent immigrant. 2 Q. Okay. Is it your position that Timothy Jackson 3 committed a crime? 4 A. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. 5 Q. Okay. Do you agree that just -- you know, as a 6 recent immigrant, you are bound by the laws of the 7 United States? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Are you aware that falsely accusing someone of 10 a crime is defamation? 11 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection, calls for a 12 legal conclusion. 13 A. Will you repeat the question, please? 14 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Are you aware that falsely 15 accusing someone of a crime is defamation? 16 MR. BOHUSLAV: Objection, calls for a 17 legal opinion. 18 A. I'm not aware of that. 19 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Okay. Who did Dr. Jackson, in 20 your view, extort? 21 A. Where does it say "extort" on here? 22 Q. Under -- No. 3, under "Calling for Dr. 23 Jackson's Dismissal, extortion through grade 24 manipulation and threats to students' careers and 25 reputations." Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 50 1 A. Could you repeat the question, please? 2 Q. Who did Dr. Jackson allegedly extort? 3 A. I believe that refers to Yiyi Gao. 4 Q. Okay. And how did he extort her? 5 A. I've told you what I've heard secondhand. 6 That's the extent of my knowledge that I remember today. 7 Q. So, you believe that -- you believe that he 8 asked her to work for free, and you believe that asking 9 someone to work for free is extortion? 10 A. Well, the events as I heard them are that he 11 told her he'd dock her grades, if she did not. That is 12 what I've heard. 13 Q. And it says here that "he made threats to 14 someone's career and reputation." What threats did he 15 make, allegedly, to someone's career and reputation? 16 A. I don't recall what event that refers to. 17 Q. Okay. But your name is on this document. 18 A. Yes. And right now, I don't recall what that 19 referred to when we wrote this ten months ago. 20 Q. Okay. But you are on the record accusing Dr. 21 Jackson of extortion for reasons you don't remember at 22 this time. 23 A. Well, I told you it was Yiyi Gao. I believe 24 that's what that refers to. 25 MS. HARRIS: Okay. I would like now to Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 51 1 introduce another exhibit, and that is -- because we 2 have gone back to some exhibits, what number is this? 3 39? 4 COURT REPORTER: 38. 5 MS. HARRIS: 38. Okay. 6 Q. (By Ms. Harris) So, this is a statement of 7 UNT's faculty on the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, and 8 I would just like to ask you a little bit about what you 9 know about this document. 10 Do you know whether this was completely 11 initiated by the faculty or whether anyone from GAMuT 12 approached members of the faculty about issuing a 13 statement of support for the graduate students? 14 A. I don't have knowledge of that -- that I 15 recall, at least. 16 Q. So, you were never personally involved in 17 asking any faculty to support the graduate student 18 statement? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. As far as I can remember. 22 MS. HARRIS: Okay. I have one more 23 exhibit that I would like to introduce here, and that is 24 this, which I guess will be Exhibit 39? Is that right? 25 (DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 39 MARKED.) Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 52 1 Q. (By Ms. Harris) Do you recognize this Twitter 2 exchange? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Who is Samantha Bassler? 5 A. She is someone I know who is a music theorist. 6 Q. Okay. Now, here you say, "Jackson is a POS." 7 Can you explain to the Court what a POS is? 8 A. "POS" stands for "piece of shit". 9 Q. Okay. And you said here that you've made it 10 your life's mission to never even meet him, let alone 11 take a class with him. At what point did you decide 12 never to meet -- that it was your mission never to meet 13 Dr. Jackson? 14 A. It was a slight overexaggeration, but probably 15 when -- upon visiting UNT, before enrolling here, I was 16 warned very strongly to never take a class with him and 17 never allow him to have any level of power over me 18 because I'm a woman. 19 Q. Okay. Do you remember who told you that? 20 A. David Falterman. 21 Q. And why? Did he explain why? 22 A. Because he had seen enough evidence of women 23 being mistreated and being victims of a bad power 24 dynamic that he wanted to warn me in advance to not put 25 myself in that situation. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 53 1 Q. What do you mean by "the victims of a bad power 2 dynamic"? 3 A. I don't know, specifically, all of the events 4 he was referring to, but -- let me think. Could you 5 repeat the question? 6 Q. What do you mean when you say "victims of a bad 7 power dynamic"? 8 A. I think occasionally somebody has more power 9 than another person in an institution, for example, 10 graduate students have very little power, and tenured 11 professors have a lot of power. And if that professor 12 wishes to use that power dynamic, that can be at the 13 detriment of the graduate student. 14 Q. Okay. So, when you came to UNT, you had 15 already decided that you wanted nothing to do with Dr. 16 Jackson? 17 A. Well, I'd been warned by him, and also other 18 people, that I shouldn't. 19 Q. Okay. Who else? You had mentioned David 20 warned you. Who else warned you prior to your coming to 21 UNT? 22 A. I can't remember exactly. It was when I was at 23 an interview day at Indiana University, and I mentioned 24 I was planning on applying to UNT, and I was told not 25 to, based on Dr. Jackson's reputation. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 54 1 Q. Okay. If you've never met him or had a class 2 with him, how do you know he's a piece of shit? 3 A. Because I've heard a lot of stories from people 4 that I trust. 5 Q. Okay. These are people you know well? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So, at the time that David Falterman and these 8 other students said this, and you decided you never 9 wanted to meet Dr. Jackson, did you know those 10 individuals well? 11 A. Not at the time. I can't remember exactly who 12 told me at Indiana University, but one of the people it 13 possibly was, but not definitely, is someone I quite 14 know well. I don't remember if it was him or someone 15 else in the car at the time. 16 But since then, I've grown to know David 17 very well, and since then -- I mean, this statement of 18 events isn't necessarily as linear as it seems in the 19 exhibit. What exhibit number is this? 20 Q. This is now 39? Is that right? 21 A. My Twitter message is perhaps an over- 22 simplification of the timeline of events, as one might 23 expect in a casual conversation. But the number of 24 people telling me that increased, and the trust I had in 25 those people increased at the same time. Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 55 1 Q. All right. Is calling someone a piece of shit 2 ad hominem attack? 3 A. Could you define "ad hominem attack"? 4 Q. Well, I'd like to go back to the statement you 5 signed accusing Dr. Jackson of ad hominem attacks. How 6 did you -- how would you define "ad hominem attack" in 7 that document you endorsed? 8 A. I believe -- I don't know the legal definition, 9 off the top of my head. 10 Q. It's not a legal term. 11 A. Well, I don't know what -- what would count in 12 a Court of law, off the top of my head. 13 Q. No. This isn't -- this is not -- that's not 14 what I asked you. It's not a legal question. You 15 signed a document that said that Dr. Jackson had engaged 16 in ad hominem attacks. 17 MR. BOHUSLAV: I believe you're 18 interrupting her answer. 19 A. Presumably, it would have to be a dictionary 20 definition in a court of law is what I mean. 21 Q. (By Ms. Harris) That's not accurate. What I'm 22 asking you is -- 23 MR. BOHUSLAV: Can we take a break? 24 MS. HARRIS: Sure. 25 (OFF THE RECORD FROM 2:26 TO 2:44 P.M.) Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 56 1 (DR. JACKSON IS NOT PRESENT IN ROOM.) 2 Q. (By Ms. Harris) So, I'd like to go back to the 3 conversation we were having about this direct message 4 exchange you had. And I would like to know, in your 5 words, what you believe an ad hominem attack is. 6 A. I believe the definition is something along the 7 lines of an attack on a person's character. 8 Q. Okay. So, is calling someone a piece of shit 9 ad hominem attack? 10 A. That would follow. 11 Q. Okay. Would calling a black person, who you 12 did not know personally, a piece of shit be racist? 13 A. I think I'd need more context to answer that. 14 Q. Okay. So, at this point, we're basically done. 15 I would just sort of like to circle back and ask some 16 sort of closing questions about the different documents 17 we've been over. Particularly, the July 27th graduate 18 student statement, and the July 30th graduate student 19 statement. 20 So, we talked about the fact that these 21 petitions condemned the procedures used to publish 22 Volume 12 of the JSS, is that correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And you said today that you don't have 25 firsthand knowledge of those procedures, is that Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 57 1 correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. The petitions also refer to the past 4 bigoted behaviors of UNT faculty. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And you've testified today that you don't have 7 any firsthand knowledge of past bigoted behaviors by UNT 8 faculty. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. And this also referred to past racist 11 actions of Dr. Jackson, yes? 12 A. Could you show me where in the document it says 13 that? 14 Q. Sure. It's under -- it is the July 27th 15 petition that's marked Exhibit 3 at the top. Yeah. 16 That one. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. Says, "Dr. Jackson's actions, both past and 19 present, are racist and unacceptable." So, is it fair 20 to say that you don't have firsthand knowledge of any 21 past racist actions by Dr. Jackson? 22 A. Well, seeing as I've never been in the same -- 23 or I've never been in a conversation with him, that 24 would follow, yes. 25 Q. Okay. And in the July 30th version of the Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 58 1 statement, Dr. Jackson is accused of extortion, correct? 2 A. Where is this? 3 Q. It is on Kohanski 000109, No. 3 under "Calling 4 for Dr. Jackson's Dismissal. Extortion through grade 5 manipulation and threats to students' careers and 6 reputations." 7 A. It does say that. 8 Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that you have no 9 firsthand knowledge of any extortion by Dr. Jackson? 10 A. Yes. I wasn't in the country at the time. 11 Q. Okay. But you did sign your name to a 12 statement asking that Dr. Jackson be fired for all of 13 these reasons, yes? 14 A. Where does it say that he should be fired? 15 Q. "Calling for Dr. Jackson's Dismissal. Dr. 16 Jackson should be removed from the UNT faculty." 17 A. Yes. I signed a statement saying that it was 18 our opinion that he should be fired. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Or dismissed, in the words of the statement. 21 Q. Okay. And other than his article in the 22 journal, which you have said you've read, would it be 23 fair to say that you called for his termination with no 24 firsthand knowledge of any of the behaviors specified in 25 this petition? Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 59 1 A. Yes. 2 MS. HARRIS: Okay. Thanks. That's all. 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. 4 MS. HARRIS: Do you have any -- 5 MR. BOHUSLAV: No. We'll reserve 6 questions for time of trial. 7 (DEPOSITION ADJOURNED AT 2:49 P.M.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 60 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2 SHERMAN DIVISION 3 TIMOTHY JACKSON, ) ) 4 Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 5 v. ) ) 4:21-cv-00033-ALM 6 LAURA WRIGHT, et al, ) ) 7 Defendants. ) 8 9 ----------------------------------- 10 DEPOSITION CERTIFICATE 11 RACHEL GAIN 12 MAY 19, 2021 13 ----------------------------------- 14 15 I, Nita G. Cullen, Certified Shorthand 16 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, hereby certify 17 to the following: 18 That the witness, RACHEL GAIN, was duly sworn 19 by the officer and that the transcript of the oral 20 deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the 21 witness; 22 I further certify that pursuant to FRCP Rule 23 30(f)(1) that the signature of the deponent: 24 ___ was requested by the deponent or a 25 party before the completion of the deposition and is to Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com Rachel Gain 5/19/21 61 1 be returned within 30 days from date of receipt of the 2 transcript. If returned, the attached Changes and 3 Signature Page contains any changes and the reasons 4 therefor; 5 X was not requested by the deponent or a 6 party before the completion of the deposition. 7 I further certify that I am neither attorney or 8 counsel for, nor related to or employed by, any of the 9 parties or attorneys to the action in which this 10 deposition was taken. 11 Further, I am not a relative or employee of any 12 attorney of record in this case, nor am I financially 13 interested in the outcome of the action. 14 Subscribed and sworn to on this 15th day of 15 June, 2021. 16 17 _________________________________ NITA G. CULLEN, Texas CSR #1563 18 Expiration Date: 08-31-2022 JULIA WHALEY & ASSOCIATES 19 Firm Registration No. 436 2012 Vista Crest Drive 20 Carrollton, Texas 75007-1640 214.668.5578 21 22 23 24 25 Julia Whaley & Associates 214-668-5578 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com