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 ELLEN BAKULINA, PH.D. 11 October 16, 2024 12 (Reported Remotely). 13 14 ******************************************************** 15 VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF ELLEN BAKULINA, PH.D., 16 produced as a witness at the instance of the Plaintiff 17 and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and 18 numbered cause on the 16th day of October, 2024, 19 from 9:03 a.m. to 3:54 p.m., before Kim D. Carrell, 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of 21 Texas, reported remotely by computerized stenotype 22 machine at the physical location of the Witness, Ellen 23 Bakulina, Ph.D., in Montreal, Canada, pursuant to the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions 25 stated on the record or attached hereto. 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 3 Michael Thad Allen ALLEN LAW, LLC 4 P.O. Box 404 Quaker Hill, CT 06375 5 Telephone: 860.772.4738 Fax: 860.469.2783 6 E-mail: M.allen@allen-lawfirm.com 7 8 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: 9 Mary Quimby Assistant Attorney General 10 General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station 11 Austin, Texas 78711 Telephone: 512.463.2120 12 Fax: 512.320.0667 E-mail: Mary.Quimby@oag.texas.gov 13 14 - and - 15 Renaldo Stowers (Appearing Live) Cari Jacoby 16 University of North Texas System Office of General Counsel 17 801 North Texas Boulevard Denton, Texas 76201 18 Telephone: 940.565.2717 Fax: 940.369.7026 19 E-mail: Renaldo.Stowers@untsystem.edu cari.jacoby@untsystem.edu 20 21 ALSO PRESENT: 22 Timothy Jackson, Plaintiff 23 VIDEOGRAPHER: 24 Mr. Jason Warner Legal Video Group 25 lvg.dallas@gmail.com 214-598-5229 3 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE 3 Appearances.................................... 2 4 Stipulations................................... 5 5 ELLEN BAKULINA, PH.D. 6 Direct Examination by Mr. Allen........ 6 7 Reporter's Certificate......................... 227 8 EXHIBITS 9 NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED 10 Exhibit 1 Re-Notice of Taking Deposition..... 13 11 Exhibit 2 Bakulina CV (UNT 005258 - 005267).............. 14 12 Exhibit 3 Bakulina CV with Highlights 13 (UNT 005257 - 005267).............. 31 14 Exhibit 4 Title Page, List of Articles, Theoria, Volume 26, 2020........... 35 15 Exhibit 5 Excerpt from SMT Website, Oxford 16 University Press Academic, and Ewell Article...................... 45 17 Exhibit 6 Email, Not everyone was 18 enthusiastic about Ewell's talk (JACKS 086826)..................... 85 19 Exhibit 7 Email, Material for the Committee 20 (UNT 0002645 - 002782)............. 88 21 Exhibit 8 Email, 12-11-19, Jackson to Bakulina, et al. 22 (UNT 000563 - 000566)..............106 23 Exhibit 9 Email, 7-25-20, Slottow to Jackson, et al. 24 (UNT 000300 - 000303)..............137 25 4 1 Exhibit 10 Email Chain Ending Jackson to Cubero, et al. 2 (UNT 000304 - 000309)..............144 3 Exhibit 11 Letter, 7-29-20, Bakulina to Richmond 4 (UNT 000116 - 000309)..............150 5 Exhibit 12 Email, 7-29-20, Bakulina to Brand, et al. 6 (UNT 000488).......................158 7 Exhibit 13 Email, 7-31-20, Richmond to Music Faculty, et al. 8 (UNT 000568).......................160 9 Exhibit 14 Ad Hoc Review Panel Report (Exhibit D) 10 (JACKSON000208 - 000233)...........164 11 Exhibit 15 Email Chain, Re: Statement on JSS Issue 12 (UNT 000361 - 000363)..............175 13 Exhibit 16 Email Chain Re: Meeting with Journal Review Panel, Wed. 14 Sept. 16 (UNT 002509).......................186 15 Exhibit 17 Email Chain Re: Talk with the 16 UNT Ad Hoc Journal Review Panel (UNT 002555).......................196 17 Exhibit 18 Undated Letter, Bakulina to 18 Richmond (UNT 002559 - 002561)..............203 19 Exhibit 19 Email Chain Ending 5-17-21, 20 Brand to Cowley, et al. (UNT 005054 - 005055)..............208 21 22 23 24 25 5 1 A G R E E M E N T S 2 DEPOSITION OF: ELLEN BAKULINA, PH.D. 3 DATE: October 16, 2024 4 CAUSE NO. 4:21-CV-00033-ALM 5 6 THIS DEPOSITION SHALL BE TAKEN PURSUANT TO: 7 (X) Notice ( ) Agreement 8 ( ) Court Order ( ) Subpoena 9 (X) Rules of Federal Civil Procedure 10 11 ORIGINAL TO: 12 ( ) Witness (X) Witness's attorney (Mary Quimby) 13 ( ) Producing attorney ( ) Signature waived 14 15 16 NUMBER OF DAYS FOR SIGNATURE ( ) 20 days 17 (X) 30 days ( ) Other: 18 19 MISCELLANEOUS: 20 ( ) Any objection made by one party good for all parties. 21 ( ) An unsigned copy may be used at any trial, 22 hearing, or arbitration proceedings. 23 24 25 6 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today is Wednesday, 3 October 16th, 2024. The time is 9:03 a.m. We are on 4 the record. 5 ELLEN BAKULINA, Ph.D., 6 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 7 EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. ALLEN: 9 Q. Good morning, Professor Bakulina. Can I ask 10 you to state your name for the record, please? 11 A. My legal name is Olga Bakulina. That's the 12 name on my passport. 13 Q. Um-hum. 14 A. My publishing or professional name and social 15 name is Ellen, E-L-L-E-N, Bakulina. 16 Q. Thank you. Have you ever been deposed before, 17 Professor Bakulina? 18 A. No, I haven't. 19 Q. Okay. I just wanted to go over some of the 20 rules of the road. 21 A. Um-hum. 22 Q. As you probably understand, this is a very 23 formal conversation meant to create a record for the 24 Court. Therefore, we have to follow certain 25 conventions that are not usually followed in ordinary 7 1 conversations. 2 So, for example, if I can ask you to answer 3 audibly to every question. This is important for the 4 court reporter to take an accurate record. So things we 5 do all the time in ordinary conversations, like nodding 6 as you just did or saying um-hum and uh-huh, although 7 there's obviously nothing wrong with that, for the 8 purposes of the record today, I'm going to ask you to 9 answer audibly, so that an accurate record can be kept 10 by the court reporter. Is that clear? 11 A. Yes, it is. But I'm still going to nod just 12 because it's part of my behavior, not because I'm 13 replacing my verbal answer. 14 Q. There's obviously nothing wrong with nodding. 15 I just want you to answer audibly as I will try to as 16 well. 17 Likewise, we'll have to try not to talk over 18 each other or interrupt each other. If I can (audio 19 distortion), we'll try to do the same. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In addition, please feel free to interrupt me 22 at any time if you should need to clarify a question or 23 anything of that nature. I don't want you answering a 24 question that you are not clear about. So there will be 25 nothing held against you for doing so obviously; is that 8 1 clear? 2 A. Yes. I have a request, or maybe this is not 3 the right time to make a request. I'm not comfortable 4 sitting in front of a computer for too long or actually 5 sitting for too long. It's not necessarily the computer. 6 I need breaks. And I was told that it's okay to request 7 breaks. 8 Q. Um-hum. 9 A. Maybe, I don't know, if I could ask, I'm not 10 sure if 30 or 40 minutes would be okay. 11 Q. Let me get to that in a second, because I just 12 want to make clear if you don't ask for a clarification 13 of a question, I'm going to assume that you understood 14 the question as asked. Is that also clear? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And I was also going to say after that, that 17 feel free to request a break at any time. Obviously, we 18 want you to be able to testify truthfully today and not 19 be under any pressure or discomfort when you're answering 20 questions. The only rule as regards that is that you 21 must answer the question that is before you; is that 22 clear? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. There will be objections from time to time from 25 your attorney, Mary Quimby. That's also a normal part of 9 1 building a record for the Court. This does not relieve 2 you of the obligation to answer the question, however. 3 There are some few exceptions. Those will be very clear 4 if they come up. Usually, what happens in those cases, 5 which are not very common, for instance, issues of 6 attorney-client privilege, your attorney will instruct 7 you directly not to answer. 8 A. Okay, I understand. 9 Q. Thank you. Are you in the room alone today? 10 A. No. I'm with my cat. 11 Q. Okay. Your cat doesn't speak English, I 12 assume? 13 A. No, he does not. 14 Q. Possibly Russian? 15 A. Also doesn't. 16 Q. All right. So a few questions before we get 17 going. Is there anything, to your knowledge, that would 18 interfere with your ability to answer questions 19 truthfully today? 20 A. Not to my knowledge. There is nothing like 21 that. 22 Q. You are not on any medications that would 23 affect your clarity or memory? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Are you subject to any mental condition or 10 1 illness that would affect your ability to testify today? 2 A. No, I'm not. 3 Q. Thank you. Can you please explain for the 4 record what you did to prepare for today's deposition? 5 With one exception. If you've consulted with your 6 attorneys, I don't want to -- I don't want you to 7 answer what you've discussed with your attorneys. But 8 the fact that you may have discussed something with your 9 attorneys is not privileged, but your communications with 10 your attorneys is. So with that caveat, I want to ask 11 you to explain what you've done to prepare for today's 12 deposition. 13 A. I have reread the faculty letter, the letter 14 that the UNT faculty members signed, including myself. 15 I have reread the student letter, the letter that the 16 UNT graduate students in music theory ethnomusicology 17 signed. And I have reread parts of Volume 12 of JSS. 18 Q. Okay. Are there any other documents that you 19 read besides Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian 20 Studies, the student statement, and the faculty 21 statement? 22 A. Oh, yes. I have also looked at the Ad Hoc 23 Committee Report from 2020, yes. I looked at parts of 24 it. I didn't reread the whole thing. 25 Q. Did you read the whole thing when it was issued 11 1 in November of 2020? 2 A. To be honest, I don't recall. Probably. 3 Q. Okay. So in addition to those, I believe you 4 identified four documents or let's say categories of 5 documents. 6 A. Um-hum. 7 Q. Are there any other documents that you reviewed 8 in preparation for your deposition? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did you discuss your deposition today with your 11 attorneys? It's just a yes or no question. 12 A. Did I discuss today? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. Today, no. I haven't discussed anything today. 15 This is my first interview. 16 Q. No, no. I'm sorry. My question was unclear. 17 Did you discuss the deposition that you will 18 be giving today with your attorneys in preparation for 19 the deposition? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And approximately how long did you meet with 22 your attorneys? 23 A. I think it was maybe three hours and a half. 24 Q. Okay. Have you discussed -- excuse me, strike 25 that, please. 12 1 Have you discussed the deposition today with 2 anyone else besides your attorney? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Sorry. One second. Another thing we will be 5 doing today, Ms. Bakulina -- I'm sorry. I think I 6 mispronounced your name. Bakulina, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. We will be introducing exhibits from time to 9 time for you to examine and for me to ask you questions. 10 I'm going to introduce the first exhibit right now. 11 Another instruction as part of the deposition 12 is if you need time to review an exhibit, we're obviously 13 taking a virtual deposition today, so I can only show you 14 one page at a time. But if you want me to navigate, your 15 attorney, Mary Quimby, has suggested a process, which I 16 have found very convenient, which is I'm going to also 17 place the exhibit in the group chat for our Zoom meeting 18 over which this virtual deposition is taking place, so 19 you'll have access to the exhibit in that way as well, as 20 will your attorney. But if you need time to look at any 21 deposition, you want me to navigate to a separate place, 22 just tell me. Obviously, no one wants you to answer 23 questions by asking you about something you didn't see 24 or something of that nature. Okay? 25 A. Okay. 13 1 Q. So where is my -- here's the share button. 2 I'm going to mark for the record as Exhibit 1. 3 A. Um-hum. 4 (Deposition Exhibit Number 1 marked.) 5 MR. ALLEN: Let me -- I'm going to, one 6 second here. Let me take it back down, because I want to 7 put it in the group chat first. 8 Q. Okay. Are you able to see this exhibit, 9 Professor Bakulina? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you recognize this exhibit? 12 A. Yes, I got it in an email. 13 Q. Thank you. And it's captioned Re-Notice of 14 Taking Deposition, addressed to you, Ellen Bakulina, 15 correct? 16 A. Um-hum. 17 Q. And is it your understanding that you've 18 appeared today to give testimony in response to this 19 Re-Notice of Taking Deposition? 20 A. Yes, I understand that. 21 Q. So I have no further questions about this one. 22 And we'll put the exhibits to the side. They'll be kept 23 by the court reporter and will be collected as part of 24 your transcript. 25 A. Okay. 14 1 (Deposition Exhibit Number 2 marked.) 2 MR. ALLEN: I'm going to introduce for the 3 record a second exhibit. I'm marking Exhibit 2 for the 4 record as a document captioned Ellen Bakulina, Bakulina 5 CV. 6 Q. Do you see this document, Exhibit 2? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 2? 9 A. Yes, it's one of the versions of my CV. It's 10 probably not the current version because I haven't sent 11 the current version to anyone, but it's an old version. 12 Q. I understand. You'll see it's 10 pages. I 13 don't want to go through all of it for understandable 14 reasons, but we will go through some of it. Was this 15 document, your CV, marked as Exhibit 2, compiled by 16 you? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And is all of the information you listed in 19 your CV, in Exhibit 2, accurate to the best of your 20 knowledge? 21 A. Yes, definitely. 22 Q. Do you recall when approximately you composed 23 Exhibit 2? 24 A. No, because it depends on which publications I 25 listed, and I can't see them on this page. 15 1 Q. I'm scrolling down to page 2 -- 2 A. I see it. 3 Q. -- of Exhibit 2, and this is page -- 4 incidentally, do you see these little numbers in the 5 lower left-hand corner? 6 A. Yeah, this is enough, because page 2 gives 7 me enough. So this was compiled between January 2021 and 8 May 2022, because that's when I moved away from Texas, 9 and this still lists my Texas address. 10 Q. Okay. And we'll get to that in a second. 11 A. Um-hum. 12 Q. I was going to ask you if you still work at the 13 University of North Texas. 14 A. I do not. 15 Q. And could you explain -- the information listed 16 here from 2007 to present under the heading Employment on 17 page 1 of Exhibit 2 is accurate, is it 18 not? 19 A. Yes, it is. 20 Q. After the time you composed this CV, which 21 I believe you said was sometime in early 2021? 22 A. '21 or '22, because in '22, I was still in 23 Texas, yeah. 24 Q. Explain what happened next after 2022 and when. 25 A. I moved away permanently from Texas and the 16 1 United States in -- well, on June 1st of 2022, because 2 I got a job at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 3 Q. And that was the university where you completed 4 your bachelor's degree? 5 A. And master's, yes. 6 Q. And master's in 2010, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And then you went on to a Ph.D. in music theory 9 at the CUNY Graduate Center, correct? 10 A. Yes, CUNY. 11 Q. And your advisor was William Rothstein? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What's your position at McGill University? 14 Or let me scratch that question. 15 Can you tell me what position you were hired 16 to at McGill University in June of 2022? 17 A. Associate professor of music theory. 18 Q. And have you been promoted since that time? 19 A. No. 20 Q. You remain an associate professor at McGill? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. In addition to the employment you've listed 23 here from 2007 to 2016 and your McGill position that you 24 still hold, are there any other (audio distortion) 25 involved in that intervening time period? 17 1 A. No. 2 Q. Now, you list various grants and awards here at 3 the bottom of page 2 of exhibit -- excuse me, page 1 of 4 Exhibit 2. Is this a complete list of the grants and 5 awards you've received? 6 A. Yes, it is. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. And a final question about this 8 employment and grants and awards. 9 Have you ever received a fellowship to teach 10 as either a visiting professor or some kind of honorary 11 professor at a different institution than UNT? 12 A. No, never. 13 Q. Okay. So I wanted to ask you a few questions 14 about your publications. Have you published any articles 15 or publications of any kind since 2021? 16 A. Actually, I haven't. I have not published, no. 17 Q. Okay. So this is a complete list of your 18 publications in Exhibit 2? 19 A. Yes, not counting forthcoming. 20 Q. Okay. And can you tell me if you have 21 published any articles that are not peer-reviewed? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. In my entire career? 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. I have one article that is editor reviewed, 18 1 which is listed here under 2020. The Brigade Textbook: 2 Disseminating the Riemannian Legacy. This was editor 3 reviewed. 4 Q. This one? 5 A. Yes. 6 MR. ALLEN: I've highlighted for the 7 record the publication indicated by the witness, The 8 Brigade Textbook: Disseminating the Riemannian Legacy 9 in the Soviet -- excuse me, Russian-Soviet Theoretical 10 Tradition. 11 Did I read that correctly with perhaps some 12 mispronunciation? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Any other article that was not peer reviewed? 15 A. "The Concept of Mutability in Russian Theory," 16 2014, was peer reviewed by the SMT program committee and 17 by the editor, but it was peer reviewed by the Journal, 18 so -- 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. -- it was not peer reviewed through a 21 journal process, but it was peer reviewed by the 22 program committee of SMT, which is somewhat different, 23 but it's still peer reviewed. 24 Q. So SMT stands for the Society for Music Theory, 25 right? 19 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And program committee in 2013 as listed in the 3 2014 entry on your CV, does that refer to the SMT program 4 committee for its annual conference of that year? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What did you submit for the program committee 7 in 2013? 8 A. A conference proposal for a slightly shorter 9 version of this paper, because conference papers are 10 shorter. 11 Q. Did you submit the entire paper or just the 12 proposal? 13 A. Proposal. 14 Q. And just -- I know you probably don't have your 15 proposal from 2013 fresh in your memory. But 16 approximately how long was the submission to the 17 program committee in 2013? 18 A. The rules for SMT haven't changed for many 19 years. It was -- it's been -- for many years, including 20 that year, the word limit has been 500 words, not 21 counting musical examples and bibliographies, and 22 that's what it was. 23 Q. Basically, 500 words of text, plus references 24 or whatnot. Yeah? 25 A. And musical examples, yes. 20 1 Q. And just for the record, because you have to 2 understand this may come before a jury which has very 3 little background in music, what kind of musical 4 examples? What do you mean by that? 5 A. Annotated score examples. 6 Q. I'm sorry. What? I just didn't hear. 7 A. Annotated score examples. 8 Q. Approximately how long was the article that you 9 published in 2014, "The Concept of Mutability in Russian 10 Theory"? 11 A. I can't -- I can't recall right now. I'd 12 have to go back to the article and count and look at the 13 word count. I don't remember it now. 14 Q. Is it longer than 500 words? 15 A. Definitely, yes. 16 Q. Is it longer than 10 pages? 17 A. There are no pages because it's an online 18 publication. It's edited in paragraphs, not pages, which 19 is why it's harder to say the word count. 20 Q. Okay. And let's go to The Brigade Textbook, 21 the 2020 article that's highlighted here. You also said 22 that this -- I believe you referred to this as reviewed 23 by the editor, and that's what you put in your CV, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Can you describe the process of reviewing by 21 1 the editor? 2 A. Let's see. He read my article and gave 3 comments. Well, first of all, when he read my article, 4 he -- by the way, this was not just my article, but a 5 group of the articles. So when he received those three, 6 he agreed to have them published and gave comments and 7 suggestions for changes. And I made some changes. 8 And usually, there are multiple steps of changes and 9 revisions when something goes to publication. So that's 10 what happened. Yes, so this is -- yeah, I think that's 11 it. Yes. 12 Q. Who was -- you referred to "he." I assume that 13 refers to the editor of Theoria? 14 A. Correct. Frank Heidlberger. 15 Q. Frank Heidlberger is your colleague at the 16 University of North Texas, correct? 17 A. He was. I'm no -- I'm no longer at UNT. 18 Q. Correct. Do you still consider him a 19 colleague? 20 A. I still consider him a colleague in terms 21 of SMT, in terms of the Society For Music Theory. I 22 consider all theorists my colleagues. 23 Q. In music, you mean, right? 24 A. Well, music theorist like SMT members. 25 Q. Did Frank Heidlberger, who's also a defendant 22 1 in this civil action, did he solicit these papers that 2 you've just described? 3 A. What do you mean, solicit? 4 Q. Well, let me ask a clarifying question. 5 A. Um-hum. 6 Q. As -- in your experience as an academic who's 7 published, what, two, four, six, eight, nine, at least 8 nine articles and presumably has others in progress -- 9 A. Um-hum. 10 Q. -- is it your understanding that editors of 11 journals sometimes solicit papers for their journals? 12 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 13 A. You mean -- solicit, you mean ask, correct? 14 Q. Correct. Did Frank Heidlberger approach you 15 and invite you to submit your paper to Theoria? 16 A. I think it went like this. We talked about 17 my presentation because this started as a presentation 18 in the Russian theory interest group at SMT. We talked 19 about my presentation, and he asked what the presentation 20 was about. I told him some of the details. And at that 21 point, I think he offered to see the three articles, mine 22 and Philip Ewell's and Christopher Segall's. I'm not 23 sure if it counts as solicit. I think that's how it 24 happened. 25 May I add something else? 23 1 Q. Please. 2 A. I just noticed that the introduction to the 3 Russian Music Theory Panel in that same volume, 2020, 4 it's listed right below. It's also not peer reviewed, of 5 course, because that's not even an article. That's an 6 introduction. But I guess I wasn't completely clear when 7 I didn't say that, because that is -- 8 Q. This is approximately five pages here, right? 9 A. It's maybe three or four, something like that. 10 It's actually not an article. It's an introduction. 11 Q. I understand. I understand. 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. And this was approximately, it looks like, 14 15 -- 26 pages here? 15 A. I guess so. That's what it says, yes. 16 Q. Referring to the Brigade Textbook paper that 17 was approximately 26 pages, give or take, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. All right. And that's far longer than a 20 500-word conference panel submission, correct? Or a 21 paper proposal to a conference? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And this is the same conference as is listed in 24 the 2014 entry, the Concept of Mutability in Russian 25 Theory? 24 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. It's actually not the same. Well, I will 3 explain what's not the same. 4 Q. Please. 5 A. The 2014 paper was presented at the conference, 6 SMT conference. 7 Q. Um-hum. 8 A. The paper that resulted in the 2020 Theoria 9 paper was presented at the interest group for Russian 10 Music Theory, which is part of SMT, but it's a smaller -- 11 it's an interest group. 12 Q. Can I just interrupt for just a second? So 13 just so I understand, there's an organization that puts 14 on an annual conference, the SMT, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And it sounds like there's a -- there are 17 general submissions which let's say just come in as 18 part of the general population of music theorists, 19 correct? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. I don't understand what general population is. 22 I'm sorry. 23 Q. Well, that's what I'm kind of trying to 24 understand, too. This difference between a special 25 interest group and other submissions by scholars in your 25 1 field. So it sounds like there's two different tracks 2 for submitting paper proposals to the SMT conference. 3 A. SMT -- 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. -- has many interest groups. At this point, 6 I think around 20 or perhaps more than 20. The papers 7 presented at the interest group don't go through the 8 SMT program committee. 9 Q. I see. 10 A. Because an interest group has its own process, 11 its own program committee. 12 Q. And how big is -- how big is the Russian 13 interest group in the SMT? 14 A. Well, it's changed a lot in this five years. 15 I don't remember how big it was in 2018. This was 16 presented, by the way, in 2018. 17 Q. Um-hum. 18 A. In fact, I don't even know now. How big is -- 19 well, it depends on how you define the membership of the 20 interest group, because there is a way to define the 21 membership by the people who have joined -- joined the 22 group online. 23 Q. Um-hum. 24 A. And I don't know how many there are right now, 25 and I don't remember how many there were in 2018. 26 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. But another way is to count the attendance, 3 so there's different ways to define membership. 4 Q. And incidentally, if I don't know, you don't 5 know, and that's a perfectly acceptable answer. 6 A. Um-hum. 7 Q. So describe for the record the review process 8 for a submission of a panel to the interest group or 9 however you define that, the Russian interest group or 10 committee. 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 Q. Go ahead, Dr. Bakulina. 13 A. In general or for that year? 14 Q. Why don't we stick to the 2020 publication that 15 grew out of, what did you say, the 2018 panel paper? 16 A. Um-hum. That was reviewed by the chair of that 17 interest group. My proposal was reviewed by the interest 18 group chair. 19 Q. That was a single individual? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. All right. You don't happen to know his name 22 at this time from back then, do you? 23 A. Christopher Segall. 24 Q. And he was one of the people presenting in your 25 panel as well, right? 27 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. How long was -- well, describe your proposal 3 for the panel that was submitted to Christopher Segall as 4 the head of the Russian interest group. 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. To be honest, I don't recall. 7 Q. Did Christopher Segall review the entire paper, 8 the Brigade Textbook: Dissemination -- Disseminating the 9 Riemannian Legacy? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. Review it at what point? Prior to the -- prior 12 to my presentation? 13 Q. Yeah, that's a good question. I'm talking 14 about getting the proposals accepted to the SMT 15 conference to the extent they were presented in an 16 interest group. 17 A. That's what I unfortunately don't recall how 18 that was reviewed in that year. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Yeah. 21 Q. Would you have remembered if you submitted an 22 entire 26-page manuscript for review by Christopher 23 Segall? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. I definitely did not. 28 1 MS. QUIMBY: Go ahead, Dr. Bakulina. 2 A. The 26-page paper did not exist at the time, 3 because with conference proposals, including interest 4 group presentations, the first thing that one sends is a 5 proposal. And it's not a paper. It's a proposal. It's 6 not a paper. The paper is bigger. The proposal was 7 smaller. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. The paper is written later. And in my case, 10 the paper for the interest group was written first, but 11 after the proposal, and the enlarged version for the 12 journal was written still later. 13 Q. Thank you. And would your contribution to 14 the proposal have been something similar in nature to 15 what you provided to the SMT program committee for the 16 2013 conference? In other words, something in the nature 17 of 500 words, basically an abstract or a proposal? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. It's possible. But it's also possible that it 20 was less formal, because as I said, interest groups don't 21 have the same rules as SMT program committee. So it's 22 not as formalized and it's not as standardized. 23 Q. If you know, was Christopher Segall aware of 24 your identity as the author of the proposal when you 25 submitted it to the 2018 program committee Russian 29 1 interest group? 2 A. I think he was, yes. 3 Q. Okay. And you certainly knew that he was 4 the chair of the Russian interest group at that time, 5 correct? 6 A. Yes, definitely. 7 Q. Thanks. And can you describe for the record 8 what you understand by peer review in academic journals? 9 A. Definitely. A peer review is very formalized. 10 It consists of this process. First, if an article, full 11 article, not a proposal, but a full article is sent to 12 the editor, unless there is a website where you submit, 13 where you don't actually literally send an email to an 14 editor, so that depends on the journal. 15 Q. Um-hum. 16 A. But the editor is the person who gets the 17 article. Next, the editor finds peer reviewers, which 18 are normally two and which are normally involved in 19 double-blind. That's the most normative process, 20 double-blind peer-review process, which means that the 21 editors don't know the identity of the article's author 22 and the author doesn't know the identity of the two 23 reviewers who are -- I don't know. Sometimes, there 24 could be more than two. And the reviewers read the 25 article, and they write reports. And there's usually a 30 1 deadline. 2 Q. Um-hum. 3 A. And the reports are sent to the editor, and the 4 editor makes a decision based on the reports. And if the 5 decision is difficult to make, for example, if the two 6 reports have yielded conflicting results, the editor may 7 ask a third person, a third reviewer, to write the 8 report. And so it goes until the editor can actually 9 give a single answer as opposed to conflicting answers. 10 A single answer based on the reports. 11 Q. A single answer refers to? 12 A. A single answer. 13 Q. Accepted or rejected or whatnot? 14 A. Yes. It's usually one of three answer -- kinds 15 of answers, which is accept, revise and resubmit, or 16 reject, although I have heard about some journals that 17 they have a fourth option, which is revise and resubmit 18 somewhere else, but I have never seen that. 19 Q. Where you always have the option to revise and 20 resubmit somewhere else, right? 21 Okay. I think I get what you're -- what 22 you're saying. And thank you for that description. 23 So that's what you -- if an academic 24 publishing in music theory says a peer-reviewed journal, 25 that's what they mean, referring to that process as you 31 1 understand it, correct? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. Yes. And by the way, if it is revise and 4 resubmit, there will be a second submission. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. And usually, the same process will recur with 7 the second -- with the resubmission. 8 MR. ALLEN: And Professor Bakulina, I have 9 taken the liberty of circulating to you and your counsel 10 and to the court reporter Exhibit 3, which I intend to 11 mark for the record. 12 (Exhibit Deposition Number 3 marked.) 13 MR. ALLEN: Exhibit 3 is the same as 14 Exhibit 2, with the only exception being that the 15 highlights are now included that we've just discussed 16 in your testimony. 17 Q. Can I just get you to examine Exhibit 3? 18 I've marked this as Exhibit 3 for the record. And 19 are these highlighted sections the 2020 and 2014 20 publications that we've been discussing in your 21 testimony today? 22 A. Yes. What's the question? 23 Q. That's the question. I just -- this is going 24 to be a formal exhibit in the record. And I just 25 want to make a record, that as we've discussed and 32 1 highlighted, these specific publications in your CV, 2 which was formerly Exhibit 2. 3 Exhibit 3 now (audio distortion) with the 4 articles that you've identified as not subject to this 5 formal peer-review process that you've just described 6 is now highlighted. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And I just want you to certify as the witness 9 that I haven't done anything other than highlight those 10 articles that we've discussed, the 2020, the Brigade 11 Textbook article, the 2020 Introduction to Russian Music 12 Theory panel article, and the 2014 Concept of Mutability 13 in Russian Theory; is that correct? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. Yes, that's correct. 16 Q. Thank you. Do you recall any objection in your 17 field to the fact that you published these three articles 18 without formal peer review? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. Objection from whom or in what form? 21 Objection to them being published? 22 Q. Did anyone -- well, let me strike that and 23 ask another question. 24 Did you list these articles in your annual 25 review at UNT? 33 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. Well, the one from 2014 would not have been 3 listed because that was way before I came to UNT. 4 Q. Okay. So the 2000 -- 5 A. The one -- 6 Q. Let me ask the question more precisely, and 7 thank you for that clarification. 8 A. Um-hum. 9 Q. The two 2020 publications, the Brigade Textbook 10 and Introduction to Russian Music Theory published in 11 Theoria -- 12 A. Um-hum. 13 Q. -- the journal edited by your colleague at that 14 time, Frank Heidlberger, also on faculty at UNT, were 15 those listed your submissions for annual review 16 at the University of North Texas? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. Yes. The -- the article was the introduction. 19 I actually don't remember because, as I said, it's not an 20 article. I don't recall if I included it. Maybe I 21 didn't. 22 Q. Um-hum. Did you -- 23 A. But the article is, yes. 24 Q. The 26-page article, the Brigade Textbook, 25 you would have submitted for your annual review at the 34 1 University of North Texas? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Do you recall who was the department head at 4 that time? 5 A. Benjamin Brand. 6 Q. Did Benjamin Brand criticize this publication, 7 the Brigade Textbook, because it was not peer reviewed? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. No, he did not criticize. 10 Q. Was there ever any petition or letter -- let me 11 strike that question. 12 Was there any open letter published by the 13 Society for Music Theory objecting to Theoria publishing 14 papers that were not subjected to formal peer review? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. Sorry. Was there any -- I'm sorry. Could 17 you repeat? 18 Q. Sure. Was there ever any open letters 19 circulated by members of the Society for Music Theory 20 objecting that Theoria published articles without peer 21 review? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. To my knowledge, there was not. 24 Q. Were you ever accused of being a racist for 25 publishing articles without peer review? 35 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. I have not been. 3 Q. And in your experience, is it well within 4 the norm of the practice of academic music theorists to 5 publish articles such as you published in 2020 in Theoria 6 and in 2014 in the Journal for Music Theory online? 7 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 8 A. Yes, it can happen. It is within the practice. 9 It is less often. It happens less often than peer -- 10 than a standard peer review. But it does happen, 11 particularly when the paper to be published was first 12 presented at a conference. Not absolutely everything 13 that gets published in journals is peer reviewed through 14 the process that I have described. 15 Q. And let's -- let's discuss Theoria just a 16 little bit even though you've already testified quite 17 extensively on how that one publication came to be. 18 MR. ALLEN: And I'm going to mark for the 19 record as Exhibit 4 a title page and some other pages 20 associated with the journal, Theoria. But first, I will 21 dutifully put them in the chat. 22 (Deposition Exhibit Number 4 marked.) 23 Q. So Professor Bakulina, I'm going to publish to 24 the record Exhibit 4. This is, as I said, a title page 25 of the journal, Theoria, Historical Aspects of Music 36 1 Theory, Volume 26, from 2020. 2 Did I read that correctly? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And you are familiar with this journal because 5 you published in it, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And here is the editor named Frank Heidlberger 8 as listed on the editor page, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you recognize this as the title page of that 11 volume in which you published the articles we just 12 discussed as part of your CV? 13 A. Yes. I recognize it as the contents page, yes. 14 Q. And then I've also included the Directions to 15 Contributors. That's a page from -- the same journal, 16 page 157. Do you see that? 17 A. Yes. It's very small. I can't read it. 18 Q. Is that a bit better? I tried to expand the 19 view. 20 A. Could you expand -- oh, actually, if chat has 21 posted it, I will download. 22 MS. QUIMBY: I don't think you shared this 23 one in the chat. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 MS. QUIMBY: I don't see it yet. Oh, 37 1 there it is. Never mind. I'm sorry. 2 MR. ALLEN: Did it come through? 3 MS. QUIMBY: I see it. 4 MR. ALLEN: Thanks. 5 MS. QUIMBY: No, my fault. 6 MR. ALLEN: It might be there was a lag. 7 I don't know. 8 A. Can I take a minute and open it on my own 9 computer? 10 Q. Please. And I'm just asking you to read the 11 last page. 12 A. The last page. 13 Q. Which would be page 3 of Exhibit 4. 14 A. I'm almost there. One second. Um-hum. I'm 15 ready now, yes. 16 Q. Okay. And do you see where it's about one, 17 two, three, four, five, six, the seventh paragraph on 18 that page, it says, "All submissions will be peer 19 reviewed for their scholarly quality, clarity, and 20 originality"? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Is it your understanding as a reader of -- 23 well, let me back up. 24 You are also a reader of Theoria as a scholar, 25 correct? 38 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. Reader? What do you mean by reader? 3 Q. Sure. Do you make it a practice to regularly 4 read the articles published in Theoria as a scholar? 5 A. Not regularly. I have just joined the 6 editorial board last month. 7 Q. Congratulations. So you are very familiar with 8 Theoria, right? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. I'm not very familiar. I have just started. 11 In fact, I haven't been -- I have been on the editorial 12 board for only one month, so I'm not very familiar. 13 Q. Have you reviewed any of their policies for 14 review and submissions? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. What is their formal policy for reviewing 17 submissions? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. I don't remember the entire policy, but I've 20 discussed it with the editor, with Dr. Heidlberger. And 21 he said that I'm going to serve as peer reviewer in the 22 usual way. I will receive anonymous articles and write 23 reports in the usual way, anonymous reports. Not -- they 24 will not be anonymous for the editor, but write reports 25 in the double-blind peer-review process. 39 1 Q. That you described earlier, correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. To your knowledge, does Theoria have any 4 expressed policy against self-publication by the editor 5 in the pages of Theoria? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. Actually, quite honestly, I don't recall. I'd 8 have to -- I'd have to review. I know you are showing me 9 part of the rules, but it's not all of the rules. To be 10 honest, I haven't read this before the deposition, so I 11 can't really -- at this point, I don't know. 12 Q. Okay. Do you -- do you know if Theoria has any 13 expressed policy governing self-publication by the editor 14 in the pages of Theoria in anywhere? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. I don't know because, as I said, I haven't 17 reviewed the entire policy for today. So the -- 18 Q. Sure. 19 A. -- answer is I don't know. 20 Q. Again, this is from volume -- well, now, 21 we're -- 22 A. Yes, it's from a few years ago. 23 Q. This is Volume 26 of 2020, which is the sample 24 that constitutes Exhibit 4. 25 Were you aware, in the Volume 26 from 2020, 40 1 the volume in which you yourself were published as an 2 author, whether there was any expressed indication that 3 the article which you published was not subjected to 4 double-blind peer review? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. Just to make sure I'm responding correctly, I'm 7 so sorry. 8 Q. Please. 9 A. Can you repeat? 10 Q. Sure. Let's just try to break it down. 11 You published in this volume, Volume 26, in 12 2020, of Theoria, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And this Directions to Contributors page 15 says, "All submissions will be peer reviewed for their 16 scholarly quality, clarity, and originality." 17 Right? It doesn't say some will be and some 18 will not be, right? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. So my question is, are you aware of any 21 indication in Volume 26 of Theoria that your particular 22 article was not subjected to double-blind peer review? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. I know it was not subjected to peer review. 25 Q. I know you were. I'm asking, was there any 41 1 indication -- indication in the pages of Theoria -- 2 A. I see. I see. 3 Q. -- that it was not subjected to double-blind 4 peer review? 5 Let me ask that question once more -- 6 A. I get it. 7 Q. -- just to get a clear record. 8 No, no. And this is a perfect example of 9 you coming back at me to try to get me to ask a clear 10 question, and I very much appreciate it. But let me try 11 to see if I can pose the question clearly, and then we 12 can get a clear answer and move on. 13 So are you aware of any statement in the 2020, 14 Volume 26 of Theoria, indicating that your article was 15 subjected -- or excuse me -- that your article was not 16 subjected to double-blind peer review? 17 A. Right, I understand now. No, there is no 18 such indication. 19 Q. Thank you. 20 I want to talk now about the 2019 plenary 21 address by your colleague, Philip Ewell, a professor at 22 Hunter College, at the SMT annual conference. 23 A. Um-hum. 24 Q. Did you attend the 2019 annual conference of 25 the Society for Music Theory? 42 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you attend the plenary session at the 3 2019 conference? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And if you remember, do you remember on what 6 days that plenary session -- or excuse me -- on what day 7 the plenary session took place? 8 A. I think it was a Saturday. The plenary session 9 is usually Saturday, early afternoon. So the conference 10 is usually Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and 11 it's usually on a Saturday. 12 Q. And do you remember the specific dates, if you 13 know? I've had trouble figuring that out. 14 A. Not the date, but that would be in the program. 15 Q. Is it usually the first weekend in November 16 that the SMT conference takes place every year? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. Yes, but the program is published online. 19 Q. So it was a Saturday afternoon plenary session, 20 right? 21 A. Um-hum. 22 Q. And Philip Ewell gave his paper with other 23 scholars, correct? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. His paper was his own. But there was more than 43 1 one paper in the plenary session, yes. 2 Q. Okay, thank you. What was the reception of 3 Philip Ewell's paper? 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. The reception at the -- at the plenary meeting, 6 quite positive. 7 Q. Do you recall a standing ovation? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Was there any criticism of Philip Ewell's paper 10 at the Society for Music Theory at the plenary address in 11 2019? 12 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 13 A. At the plenary address, no. 14 Q. Was any criticism allowed of Philip Ewell's 15 paper at the plenary session in 2019? 16 MS. QUIMBY: You cut out. I'm sorry. I 17 didn't hear the first part of that question. 18 MR. ALLEN: Sure. 19 Q. Still talking about the 2019 plenary session, 20 did the SMT allow for any criticism of Philip Ewell's 21 paper in the 2019 conference? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. I don't think it's possible for the SMT to 24 allow or not allow criticism. Everybody is free to 25 criticize. It's not something that SMT can allow or 44 1 prohibit. 2 Q. Was there any part of the program dedicated 3 to a scholar who was critical of Philip Ewell's address 4 to the 2019 SMT plenary session? 5 A. Was the -- could you repeat the question? 6 Q. Yeah, sure. Did the SMT program committee 7 organize any formal response of criticism to Philip 8 Ewell's talk at the SMT conference in 2019? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. No. I think my answer is no. 11 Q. Yeah. Now, were you aware that the 12 plenary address delivered by Philip Ewell was 13 published eventually in Spectrum? 14 A. At the time of his presentation, no. 15 Q. Are you aware of the journal, Spectrum? 16 A. Yes. It's one of our major journals. 17 Q. Who publishes Spectrum? 18 A. SMT. 19 Q. Is it published under the guidance of SMT 20 through the Oxford University Press? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. I don't remember which press, to my -- to my 23 shame. I don't remember. 24 MR. ALLEN: Well, I don't know if you need 25 to be ashamed. It's okay. And that wasn't my purpose to 45 1 try to catch you out. But why don't we mark for the 2 record Exhibit 5. 3 (Deposition Exhibit Number 5 marked.) 4 Q. Actually, I will put it in the chat here. 5 A. Exhibit 5. Okay. 6 Q. Now, I'm going to represent to you that this 7 Exhibit 5 is made up of three different documents. One 8 is a printout of the SMT website, which addresses the 9 Spectrum. That's on page 1. On page 2 is a printout 10 from the website of the Oxford University Press Academic, 11 which addresses the same journal, Spectrum. 12 A. Um-hum. 13 Q. And then the rest, page 5 through 11, is 14 taken from Spectrum itself, including the title page and 15 Professor Ewell's article titled Music Theory's White 16 Racial Frame. 17 A. Um-hum. 18 Q. Are you able to see that? 19 A. I can't read it. I see, but it's very small. 20 Q. Yeah. And we're not going to read the entire 21 article at this time, but my question for you is, was 22 it your understanding that Philip Ewell and the other 23 plenary speakers at the 2019 conference would be 24 publishing their articles in Spectrum? 25 A. I learned about the Spectrum publication only 46 1 when this specific issue came out. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. I didn't know about this. No, wait. So 4 different versions of Philip Ewell's talk was published 5 in two different places. Wait. I did know about this, 6 or was it the other one? Because the other one is MTO, 7 Music Theory Online. 8 Q. Yes. 9 A. Sorry. Give me one second. 10 Q. Um-hum. 11 A. This one, I think -- I think this one was 12 announced at the conference, at the SMT conference. 13 Q. Um-hum. But the plenary session would be 14 published? 15 A. Would be published. But I can't recall 16 100 percent. It's a little bit mixed in my memory 17 right now. 18 Q. Sure. 19 A. I think that the other journal, which is MTO, 20 which also published a version of -- 21 Q. MTO stands for Music Theory Online, correct? 22 A. Correct, yes. Music Theory Online also 23 published a version of Ewell's paper, but that was 24 separate. But this Spectrum publication, I think, 25 was announced at the -- well, maybe soon after the 47 1 conference. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. So I don't recall at which -- exact which 4 moment in time. Maybe it was announced at the SMT 5 conference in 2019, or maybe it was announced a little 6 bit later. But now, I remember that it was announced in 7 some way around that time. 8 Q. Sure, thank you. What do you, as a scholar, 9 know about the editorial practices of review at Spectrum? 10 A. My experience with Spectrum is very limited, 11 and my experience with Music Theory Spectrum is only as 12 someone who submitted, but was not accepted. 13 Q. Okay, I'm sorry. 14 A. I never served on their -- no, no bad feelings. 15 I've never served on their board. I've 16 reviewed anything for them. And I've never published 17 anything for them. I submitted. And yeah, it was not 18 accepted, so... 19 Q. When did -- when did you submit this -- sorry 20 for talking over you. Are you done? I apologize. 21 A. I'm done. 22 Q. All right. I wanted to ask when you submitted 23 an article to Spectrum. 24 A. I submitted twice or kind of three times. 25 The first one was around 2019. No, not around. Wait. 48 1 The first one was around 2018 or '19. 2 Q. Um-hum. 3 A. And the second time, which was a completely 4 different article, was in 2023. 5 Q. More recent? 6 A. Yes. And that was completely different. 7 The first time, I actually submitted twice, because I 8 got a revise and resubmit, and I resubmitted. And the 9 resubmitted one was also not accepted, so... 10 Q. I'm sorry. 11 A. So it went kind of, shall I say, twice around 12 2018 and '19, because it was a submit and then a 13 resubmit. And that was one paper. And the second -- 14 a completely different one came in 2023, yes. 15 Q. Did you read Philip Ewell's publication of 16 his plenary address in Spectrum? 17 A. Probably. I don't specifically remember 18 reading it. Maybe I read parts of it. 19 Q. Um-hum. 20 A. I knew already that I was familiar with the 21 plenary address presentation, so I don't recall if I 22 read the entire Spectrum article or not. 23 Q. Okay. And you have read articles in Spectrum 24 before, right? 25 A. Yes. 49 1 Q. Is it your understanding that Spectrum is a 2 peer-reviewed journal? 3 A. Yes. 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 Q. And here on the Oxford University Press 6 website, in fact, you can tell. If you skip down to 7 the bottom of page 3, you'll see a URL, a website address 8 here. Do you see that? Do I need to expand that a 9 little bit? 10 A. Please expand, because I can't read. It's too 11 small. 12 Q. I understand. Is that a little better? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So you see where it says academic.oup.com as 15 the website prefix? 16 A. Yes, yes. 17 Q. And as an academic, you understand that OUP is 18 the abbreviation for Oxford University Press, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So again, this is from their website addressing 21 the publication of Spectrum. 22 And it says here, "Music Theory Spectrum 23 practices blind review. For this reason, authors should 24 avoid identifying themselves directly or indirectly in 25 the submission itself, confining such identification to 50 1 an accompanying cover letter." 2 Right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was that your understanding of the practice 5 when you submitted articles to Spectrum? 6 A. Yes, definitely. 7 Q. Okay. 8 MS. QUIMBY: Are we at a good point to 9 take a break? It's been about an hour. 10 MR. ALLEN: Sure. I just have another few 11 questions about this, but I'm perfectly happy to take a 12 break, Professor Bakulina, if that is something that 13 would help you. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you. That 15 would very much help. 16 MR. ALLEN: Let's -- let's go off the 17 record. 18 MS. QUIMBY: Thank you. 19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:04 a.m. 21 We're off the record. 22 (Recess taken) 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's 10:11 a.m. 24 We're on the record. 25 Q. Professor Bakulina, I'm going to put up Exhibit 51 1 5 once again. I just have one or two more questions 2 about Exhibit 5. 3 Again, I'm looking here at page 6 of the 4 exhibit is Philip Ewell's actual article that begins on 5 page 324 of the journal, Music Theory's White Racial 6 Frame. 7 Do you recognize that article? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. When this article came out, do you recall any 10 discussion in the field that this article was not peer 11 reviewed? 12 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 13 A. I do not recall discussions of it being not 14 peer reviewed. I recall discussions about the article. 15 Ewell's work was discussed a lot at the time. 16 Q. Um-hum. 17 A. But not the fact that it was not peer reviewed. 18 Q. Just one more question. Do you recall any 19 indication in the pages of Spectrum that this article was 20 not peer reviewed? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. I don't remember seeing such an indication. 23 But I can't say for sure if such an indication exists. 24 I would have to read the whole volume. You know, I don't 25 know if -- 52 1 Q. I understand. 2 A. Not necessarily on the first page of the 3 article or somewhere else. But I don't recall seeing 4 such a -- such an indication. 5 Q. In your experience as an academic and an author 6 of academic journal articles, where would such an 7 indication typically be expressed in the pages of a 8 journal? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. That's a good question. Where such an 11 indication. I don't know where it would be. 12 Q. That's fine. Now, you mentioned an article by 13 Philip Ewell in the pages of Music Theory Online, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is it fair to say that was an expanded version 16 of his plenary address? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. I think it's a somewhat difficult question 19 because a full and -- like full, real answer, to answer 20 fully, I would need to reread both. I would need to 21 reread the entire MTO article by Ewell and relisten to 22 his 2019 plenary address. I know they are related. I 23 don't know if it would be fair to say that they're 24 versions of the same thing, but they definitely have 25 the same topic. 53 1 Q. Okay, okay. And the Music Theory Online 2 article was a much longer article than the Spectrum 3 article? 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. I don't know. I... 6 Q. Are you familiar with the database called 7 Schenker Documents Online? 8 A. I know it exists. I've never used it. 9 Q. Okay. I want to ask you a few questions about 10 your relationship to Timothy Jackson. 11 Well, before we move off of the Schenker 12 Documents Online topic, do you consider yourself a 13 Schenkerian scholar of music theory? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. I'm not asking you to compare yourself to 16 anyone, but do you consider yourself an expert on 17 Schenkerian analysis? 18 A. Yes, and I would like to qualify this. I 19 consider myself an expert on Schenkerian analysis, not 20 on Schenker as a person, not on his biography, which I 21 don't know very well. But on his analytical system, yes. 22 Q. Okay. Now, I want to talk to you about your 23 relationship to Timothy Jackson. You know the Plaintiff 24 in this civil action, Timothy Jackson, correct? 25 A. Yes. 54 1 Q. Can you explain for the record your 2 relationship to Timothy Jackson? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. Go ahead. 4 Sorry. 5 A. We were colleagues between 2016 and '22 at UNT. 6 And as I said, I probably consider music theorists in 7 SMT, you know, members of SMT my colleagues in a more 8 general sense. So in that sense, yes, my colleague as 9 a music theorist. We generally had a good collegial 10 relationship most of those years, of course, until this 11 lawsuit began, yes. 12 Q. Okay. And when you took your position at the 13 University of North Texas in, I believe that was 2016, 14 you joined the faculty as an assistant professor, 15 correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. You were without tenure? 18 A. Yes, correct. 19 Q. And when did you achieve tenure? 20 A. 2022, in May. 21 Q. Did Timothy Jackson oppose your appointment 22 to tenure? 23 A. No. To my knowledge, he did not. 24 Q. Did you ever publish anything together with 25 Timothy Jackson? 55 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did you ever visit Timothy Jackson at his 3 house? 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. Yes, once. I was together with my friend, 6 Gillian Robertson. 7 Q. And what was the occasion? 8 A. We were invited. There was no occasion really. 9 It was just a friendly visit, I guess. 10 Q. How would you describe your interactions 11 with Timothy Jackson at that time? 12 A. Colleagues and friends. 13 Q. Um-hum. Did you serve on any dissertation 14 committees together? 15 A. Oh, for that, I would need to review my 16 materials. Wait, I have to think. I served on so 17 many committees at UNT. This is a generally difficult 18 question. Dissertation committees. Do you mean -- so 19 Ph.D. dissertation or master's? 20 Q. Ph.D. committees. 21 A. Ph.D. dissertations. 22 Q. With graduate students. 23 A. You know, I want to say no. But I'm not 24 100 percent sure, because I know we've been on committees 25 together. 56 1 Q. Um-hum. 2 A. And I'm like maybe 85 percent sure that we were 3 not actually on Ph.D. dissertation committees together. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. But I'd have to review my service at UNT -- 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. -- to answer 100 percent. 8 Q. Did you ever observe directly the way Timothy 9 Jackson treated graduate students? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. Yes. At meetings, like lectures. 12 Q. Um-hum. 13 A. I saw their interactions, yes. 14 Q. And based on your direct observations of 15 Timothy Jackson, how did he treat graduate students to 16 the extent that you were able to see? 17 A. To the extent that I was able to see, it was 18 all good and friendly and okay in my experience. 19 Q. And you mentioned serving on various committees 20 with Timothy Jackson. And it's not 21 important for the record right now that you identify 22 the committees. I just would like you to state for the 23 record your experience of Timothy Jackson as a colleague 24 in his service with you on those committees. 25 A. Let's see. I actually don't remember that many 57 1 committees where Tim Jackson and I were on together. 2 Q. Um-hum. 3 A. But in terms of service on committees, I don't 4 recall anything problematic. It was okay. 5 Q. Thank you. Do you have any knowledge of 6 Timothy Jackson committing extorsion at the University 7 of North Texas? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. I don't know the word "extorsion." May I 10 be allowed to look it up in a dictionary? What is 11 extorsion? I can look it up -- 12 Q. Well, do you know the -- do you know the 13 English word "blackmail"? 14 A. Could you -- I think, but I'm not 100 percent. 15 Q. It's a similar -- 16 A. Could you try to explain? Is it an anonymous 17 thing? 18 Q. Well, it's a legal term, but it's also 19 generally colloquial term. So usually what I do in this 20 situation is ask you if you have an understanding of it, 21 and you are telling me you don't know what the word 22 "extortion" means, right? 23 A. Correct, I don't. 24 Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge of Timothy 25 Jackson mistreating graduate students in any way? 58 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. I have to think. Possibly, yes. Yiyi Gao. 3 Q. Please state for the record how you think 4 Timothy Jackson mistreated Yiyi Gao. 5 A. I don't know how he mistreated or whether he 6 did. But I know that she was his student for some time. 7 And in 2000, I think, 18, she switched advisors. 8 Actually, she switched to me. I know she didn't want 9 to stay with Jackson, Dr. Jackson, as her advisor 10 anymore. I don't know what happened. 11 Q. Okay. And was she a doctoral student? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did she complete her dissertation with you? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And to the extent that you knew about her 16 relationship with Timothy Jackson, you heard that from 17 her? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. Actually, I haven't heard anything from her. 20 She didn't tell me. I just know the fact that she left 21 Timothy Jackson as her advisor, and that's highly unusual 22 to leave an advisor. More often than not, a graduate 23 student stays with the same advisor. So just the fact 24 alone that she had left him as an advisor stands out. 25 It's very unusual. 59 1 Q. At the time that she switched from Timothy 2 Jackson to you as her advisor, did you have any suspicion 3 that Timothy Jackson had engaged in any criminal activity 4 that led her to switch? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. Definitely not. I was not. 7 Q. Okay. Can you identify any specific actions 8 that Timothy Jackson committed that you identify as 9 racist? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. I have to think. Could you repeat the 12 question? 13 Q. Sure. Can you -- or please identify for the 14 record any specific actions that you claim were racist 15 that were committed by Timothy Jackson. 16 A. Is a journal article -- does a journal article 17 count as an action? 18 Q. Well, it would be what you understand it to be. 19 If you want to say that publishing a journal article was 20 something that he did that was racist, you can say that 21 for the record. 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. Yes. Some of the things that Timothy Jackson 24 published in his 2020 Journal of Schenkerian Studies 25 article, I believe are racist. That is my own opinion. 60 1 That's not something that I shared with, you know, 2 anyone. It's my personal opinion. 3 Q. I understand that. And we'll talk about that 4 in a second. 5 A. Um-hum. 6 Q. In addition to publishing an article in the 7 2020 volume of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, are 8 there any other actions that Timothy Jackson engaged in 9 that you would identify as racist actions? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Are there any behaviors that Timothy Jackson 12 has engaged in that, to your knowledge, are racist? 13 A. No. 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 Q. Have you ever been told by any individual 16 that Timothy Jackson engaged in specific actions that 17 were racist? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. I think the best answer would be I don't 20 remember. 21 Q. Okay. Do you not remember because it didn't 22 happen, or do you not remember because it may have 23 happened and you just can't recall the specifics of it? 24 A. Yes, it's the latter. There has been a lot 25 of discussion of what happened in SMT and writings and 61 1 behavior of many people, including Philip Ewell, 2 including many, many people, including Timothy Jackson. 3 And I cannot remember everything that was said. 4 Q. Okay. But as you sit here today, you can't 5 give specific testimony about behaviors that someone 6 told you about that were racist regarding Timothy 7 Jackson? 8 A. No. I cannot, no. 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 Q. Thank you. Let's go back to what you said 11 about the 2020 article in the Journal of Schenkerian 12 Studies. Are you referring to the article he published 13 in the Symposium of Volume 12? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. What -- and I understand you're stating that 16 it's your opinion. So what, in your opinion, was racist 17 that Timothy Jackson published in his 2020 article? 18 A. So I'm going to go by my memory, which means 19 that it may not be exact wording. 20 Q. That's fine. 21 A. But the statement about the paucity of the 22 Black women and men being due to the fact that these 23 people grow up in homes that don't have enough -- that 24 don't value classical music enough. So that's an 25 approximate quote from Timothy Jackson's article. 62 1 Q. Um-hum. 2 A. And in my personal opinion, that is racist, 3 because the implication of this statement, of this 4 sentence, is that music theory is inherently based on 5 classical music, on the culture of classical music, of 6 the principles and history of classical music. And 7 Dr. Jackson doesn't actually say which classical music. 8 Because, in fact, Europe is not the only 9 place on earth that has classical music. There are many 10 different cultures that have music that they would call 11 classical. For example, there is such a thing as Indian 12 classical music. But I'm going to infer from context 13 that Dr. Jackson refers to European classical music. 14 Q. Um-hum. 15 A. And so this statement by him, that music theory 16 depends or the practice of music theory depends 17 on how much classical music or how much exposure to 18 classical music its practitioners have had in their 19 childhood ties the discipline of music theory to music 20 by -- primarily by white people. I understand that 21 European classical music includes some nonwhite persons, 22 composers before and so on, but it is primarily culture 23 of white European people. 24 And that, I think, is a racist idea, because 25 music theory as a field, in my opinion, is and should 63 1 be a theory of all music, not only classical, not only 2 European, not only white people, not only nonwhite 3 people. Music theory, as a discipline, should be based 4 or related to any music from this planet. So the 5 practice of music theory and the disciplinary basis of 6 music theory should not be understood in relation to 7 European classical music alone. 8 Q. So I'm sorry. Were you done? 9 A. To understand it that way, in my view, is 10 racist. 11 Q. Um-hum. And have you published on that 12 subject? 13 A. No. 14 Q. It sounds like you have just made an argument 15 that music theory should address all music, correct? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. I didn't say that. Music theory, as a 18 discipline, should be open to addressing music from 19 anywhere on the planet. 20 Q. So wouldn't that mean that a Black scholar who 21 wanted to enter the field of music theory should address 22 the field of Western classical music? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. Could you repeat? I think I'm confused by 25 the formulation wouldn't, because if it's like yes or 64 1 no, I'm confused about the positive versus negative. 2 Q. Well, let's -- let's take Philip Ewell as 3 an example. 4 A. Sure. 5 Q. He was a colleague of yours, right? 6 A. In terms of music theory as a field, yes. 7 Q. And you know him personally, correct? 8 A. Oh, yes, I know him quite closely. 9 Q. And you know him to have engaged with the field 10 of Western classical music as well, right? 11 A. Yes, if you include Russian in the category 12 of Western, which, in my opinion, is somewhat ambiguous. 13 Q. Should a Black musical scholar such as Philip 14 Ewell, to be a practicing academic, be in a position to 15 address Western classical music? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. I'm in no position to dictate whether someone 18 should address something. So if I say that a Black 19 person should address something or should not address 20 something would be extremely arrogant because I think a 21 Black scholar, just like any scholar, should address 22 whatever they feel like addressing. They should not be 23 limited. 24 Q. Do you recall Timothy Jackson making an 25 argument that on average, Black families did or did not 65 1 expose their children to classical music? 2 A. I -- he wrote it in the article, yes. 3 Q. Do you know of any statistical or empirical 4 evidence that Black families as a whole in the United 5 States exposed their children to classical music? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. I'm not familiar with any statistical studies, 8 but also I'm not a statistical scholar, no. 9 Q. You have no basis to state that what he wrote 10 is not true then? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. I have no basis. But my argument is not about 13 statistical truth. My argument is about the relationship 14 that he has created between the discipline of music 15 theory and exposure to classical European music. My 16 argument is not about statistics. My argument is about 17 the relationship. 18 Q. In addition to -- I think you said in 19 identifying what you found racist in the 2020 article was 20 that the paucity of Black scholars in music theory was 21 due to the -- I suppose however you want to characterize 22 it, the lack of Black scholars' engagement or Black 23 citizens' perhaps engagement with Western classical 24 music. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But 25 that's one of the racist things you found in the article, 66 1 right? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. Yes. And what I'm finding racist is the 4 relationship that Timothy Jackson creates between 5 practicing music theory as a discipline and classical 6 European music specifically. That's what I find 7 problematic. 8 Q. In addition to that claim, what other 9 statements by Timothy Jackson in his 2020 article did 10 you find, quote, racist? 11 A. There are two more, and I want to qualify. 12 One is actually not by Timothy Jackson himself. It's 13 actually by Schenker, and Dr. Jackson quotes Schenker at 14 some point in the 2020 article. And the quote is, and 15 again, I'm paraphrasing, that Schenker is saying that any 16 person who practices the rules -- not rules. Any person 17 who practices the laws of classical music or something 18 like that can be a great musician, something to that 19 effect. And that's actually an example of a colorblind 20 racism, which is when someone says I don't care which 21 race this or that person is. I just care what they do. 22 That's colorblind racism. But that's actually a code 23 from Schenker. It's not what Jackson himself wrote. 24 However, I do think that Dr. Jackson quoted that as sort 25 of a way to try to absolve Schenker. That, you know, 67 1 Schenker, towards the end of his life, thought that 2 everyone was equal, so he became less racist. I don't 3 know if it's true. Maybe it's true that Schenker 4 became less racist towards the end of his life. That's 5 possible. But I'm not actually making that claim. But 6 I don't think that this specific quote, that anyone who 7 practices the laws of, you know, of tonal music can 8 become a great musician. I don't think that this 9 removes racism. I think that this actually exemplifies 10 colorblind racism. 11 Q. Do you understand Timothy Jackson to be arguing 12 that Black Americans cannot master classical music? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. No, that's not what he ever saw or what he ever 15 said. 16 Q. And by this colorblind racism idea, do you mean 17 that, for instance, judging musicians on the basis of 18 their merit alone, whether they're Black, white, BIPOC, 19 whatever, from whatever country, from whatever historical 20 national background, that's racist? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. I'm not saying it. But it has been argued. 23 And yes, I -- for the moment, I think I would adopt that, 24 yes. I think the concept of colorblind racism, I got 25 that from the work of Ibram Kendi, one of the theorists 68 1 of critical race theory. 2 Q. Um-hum. 3 A. And that is the idea of colorblind racism; that 4 judging someone solely on the basis of merit without 5 considering their race is colorblind racism. 6 Q. And do you believe Timothy Jackson was 7 expressing this, quote, colorblind racism in his 2020 8 article in the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 9 A. He endorsed -- 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 THE WITNESS: I'm so sorry. I constantly 12 speak too fast. 13 MS. QUIMBY: That's okay. 14 A. Jackson quotes Schenker who exhibits colorblind 15 racism. And in my understanding, Jackson -- the purpose 16 of this quote was to show that Schenker became less 17 racist towards the end of his life. 18 Q. And that's also something, in your opinion, 19 is racist in the 2020 article, right? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. It would depend on how to define racism, in 22 my opinion. 23 Q. Well, that's what I'm trying to get at. 24 We're trying to identify in Timothy Jackson's 2020 25 article what, in your opinion, is racist, which is 69 1 something you've already testified to; that you found 2 the article to have committed thoughts or utterances 3 that you found racist. And I'm trying to identify 4 specifically what you mean. 5 So far, you've identified what you call the 6 paucity of Black scholars in the academic discipline of 7 music. You've also identified this quote from Schenker 8 that seems to be used by Professor Jackson to endorse 9 colorblind racism in your view. 10 Did I get that right so far? 11 A. Yes, that's correct. Yes, yes, yes. 12 Q. You also mentioned that there were three and 13 we've gone through two. So I was going to ask if you can 14 identify the third concept or utterance that you found 15 racist in Timothy Jackson's 2020 article. 16 A. The third one, I won't say -- I will not say 17 that it is racist, but I find it highly problematic. 18 It's the passage where Timothy Jackson discusses the 19 Black on Jew antisemitism. And I know that this problem 20 exists, but the problem in Jackson's article is that he 21 places Ewell's -- Philip Ewell's ideas in the context of 22 antisemitism. And I think I should not say that, in 23 itself, is racist. But the objective here seems to be 24 to show that Philip Ewell is antisemitic. And that, in 25 itself, is not racism. But it is an attack on Philip 70 1 Ewell. And in my opinion, that's a problem. So I guess 2 I should not say that, in itself, it's racist, but I find 3 it to be problematic. 4 Q. Was it problematic when Philip Ewell attacked 5 Timothy Jackson as racist? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. I don't remember that Philip Ewell ever did 8 that. 9 Q. Was it racist for others to attack Timothy 10 Jackson as racist? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. I cannot speculate like that. I'd have to see 13 specific context, a specific piece of writing. I cannot 14 hypothesize like this. 15 Q. Were you aware that the SMT graduate students 16 who signed the statement calling for the cancellation of 17 the Journal and that a discipline of Timothy Jackson 18 accused him of being racist? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. If I might look at the letter again right now, 21 then I might be able to answer more precisely. 22 Q. Okay. We'll get to that later. But just the 23 three things that you've identified as -- I guess you 24 said racist, but also problematic in the 2020 article 25 is that he discussed Black American antisemitism towards 71 1 Jews. Did I get that right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. He discussed a quote from Schenker that you 4 felt problematically endorsed colorblind racism? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And also, he identified the paucity of the 7 Black scholars in music as due to a failure of the Black 8 community to value classical music. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. About the third element, identifying 11 antisemitism in the Black community -- 12 A. Um-hum. 13 Q. -- are you aware of any articles published, any 14 scholarship indicating that his statements about 15 antisemitism in the Black community are empirically 16 false? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. I'm not stating that it is empirically false. 19 In fact, Dr. Jackson cites articles about this topic, 20 about Black antisemitism. So there are publications. 21 I haven't read them, but I remember that they exist. 22 He cites them. So it's not empirically false. The 23 problem that I see is not empirical. The problem that I 24 see is that he connects a specific scholar who is arguing 25 for changes in music theory to deal with antisemitism. 72 1 That is the problem. It's not empirical. 2 Q. Is that -- the problems that you identified in 3 the 2020 article by Timothy Jackson, do those justify 4 stopping the publication of the Journal of Schenkerian 5 Studies? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. Do they justify stopping the publication of the 8 Journal? I'm not sure. It's a very big question. 9 The stopping of the publication of the Journal of 10 Schenkerian Studies was related to many problems. 11 They're very complicated. I cannot relate of the 12 stopping of that publication to a single problem. 13 Q. Well, why don't you name the problems with 14 the publishing of the Journal that you think led to this 15 stopping of its publication? 16 A. Okay. In my opinion, so this is not in -- this 17 is not someone else's opinion, right? This is not 18 something that I share with others. It's my own opinion. 19 In my honest opinion, what led to the stopping 20 of Journal of Schenkerian Studies publication -- by the 21 way, I don't know if it has -- if it has been stopped 22 forever. I don't know what's going on right now. 23 But what led to the interruption of its 24 publication in the year 2020 was the fact that many 25 authors, not all, but many authors in the 2020 Symposium 73 1 positioned themselves in -- as antagonists of Ewell. 2 And in so doing, they positioned themselves as 3 antagonists of changes in the discipline. And I'm not 4 speaking of just any one article or any one person, 5 but more as the sort of philosophical core of that 6 volume. And so to understand what I just said, we need 7 to understand what was happening in music theory around 8 that time, right before the pandemic in 2019. 9 What Ewell, in his keynote address in 2019 10 did was he argued in favor of changes in the field. And 11 those changes would be to make the field more inclusive. 12 Q. Um-hum. 13 A. And the fact that so many authors in the 2020 14 JSS Symposium positioned themselves in a position to 15 this, showed that these authors were opposed to these 16 changes. They were opposed or at least they did not like 17 to see someone arguing for changes and for inclusivity 18 and to make the field more open. 19 Q. Um-hum. 20 A. So the problems are really disciplinary and 21 they're quite broad. So it's not any one article. 22 Q. Okay. And in addition to -- I think what you 23 called a philosophical core of the volume, what other 24 problems were there with the Journal that, in your view, 25 justified its stopping publication? Or I think you 74 1 characterized it the interruption of the Journal in 2 2020. 3 A. Yes. 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. Yes. I do think that the lack of peer review 6 for those articles -- 7 Q. Um-hum. 8 A. -- in the Symposium were also part of the 9 problem. So let me explain more. 10 Yes. I completely understand that sometimes, 11 even in journals that are generally peer reviewed, some 12 articles are not peer reviewed. We've already discussed 13 that. And yes, that is true. I don't know if it's a 14 good thing, but it's a realty. Most articles are peer 15 reviewed, some aren't. 16 The problem in this case is not only the fact 17 that those articles were not peer reviewed. It is sort 18 of a combination of several things. It's the fact that 19 these articles, this Symposium, most articles in the 20 2020 JSS Symposium remained polemically in relation to 21 Philip Ewell's keynote. They were directed at a specific 22 person who identifies as Black, Philip Ewell, they're 23 meant in opposition, and they're arguing against things 24 that Philip Ewell said. In this sense, they are 25 polemical. So that's one problem. 75 1 The second problem is that they're polemical 2 in relation to an extremely sensitive issue, which is the 3 issue of race, identity, inclusion, belonging. And with 4 all of that, with this extremely painful and sensitive 5 topic, these articles were not peer reviewed. So the 6 problem is not simply the lack of peer review. The 7 problem is the combination of the lack of peer review 8 with the sensitive and painful and polemical nature of 9 many of these articles. Not all, but many. 10 Q. All right. Now, in your experience as a 11 scholar and some -- well, let me back up. 12 You've reviewed articles for journals before 13 yourself, haven't you? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So you know the entire process, from the front 16 end to the back end, as an author and as a reviewer, and 17 now as a member of the editorial board of at least one 18 journal, right? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. So in your view, how would peer review have 21 changed the Volume 20 Symposium of the Journal of 22 Schenkerian Studies? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Form. 24 A. You are asking me to speculate. And I should 25 not do it, but I can say what I would have done if I was 76 1 asked to peer review, if you tell me which specific 2 article. 3 Q. Well, let's take Timothy Jackson's article. 4 How do you think it would be different if it was 5 subjected to peer review? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. To my peer review or someone else's peer 8 review? Because every person is different. 9 Q. Well, you've said that it was especially 10 important to peer review the articles, because they were 11 addressing polemically controversial ideas published by 12 a Black person, Philip Ewell, arguing against a Black 13 person on issues of race that are very sensitive and 14 painful. So how would that be different? How would 15 Timothy's journal article and -- how would Timothy 16 Jackson's Journal article in 2020 in the Symposium of 17 the Journal of Schenkerian Studies be different if it 18 was subjected to peer review? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. I think that unfortunately, the question is too 21 general, and it asks me to hypothesize about what would 22 have happened, but I don't know who would do it. 23 If you ask me about what I specifically would do, I 24 could actually answer. 25 Q. If you were asked to peer review Timothy 77 1 Jackson's Journal article, how would it turn out 2 differently, the Journal article? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. I primarily would have suggested to soften 5 the language when it comes to the discussion of race. 6 Q. Um-hum. 7 A. And the specific discussion of Ewell. 8 Q. Is that more of a matter of tone? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. No. It's both a matter of tone and substance. 11 Q. So as a peer reviewer, you would have urged him 12 to change the very substance of his article, correct? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. I would have suggested changes. And of course, 15 the -- normally, the process of peer review involves more 16 than just reviewers. It would also 17 involve an editor, which, in this case, is another 18 problem. But I would have made suggestions about it, 19 which is completely normal, by the way. I have reviewed 20 many articles, and I always make suggestions for 21 substantive changes. Yes, that's completely normal. 22 Q. So I'm just trying to make a list based on your 23 testimony of the reasons which you've said are complex, 24 why the Journal's publication was interrupted 25 in 2020, as you've characterized it. And now, we've got 78 1 the philosophical core of the Journal was one reason, and 2 the lack of peer review is another. What other reasons 3 would you identify as reasons for interrupting the 4 publication of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. Okay. Let's see. The lack of peer review 7 and the -- I think I would identify a third problem, but 8 that third problem is not only about Volume 12 of this 9 article, it's more general. 10 Q. Um-hum. 11 A. The editorial structure of the Journal was 12 extremely unclear. I was on its editorial board for 13 several years, and I never knew what was expected of me. 14 Nobody ever gave me clear instructions of what to do. By 15 the way, at this point, and this is some years later, 16 I know much more clear with what a peer reviewer is 17 supposed to do. But the first time I entered the 18 editorial board of JSS was when I was in my early 19 thirties. And at that time, I knew much less. And I 20 was never explained clearly what to do. And generally, 21 the process and the principles of how the Journal looked 22 felt chaotic and disorder, like it didn't have clear 23 order or rules. And that's another reason why I 24 personally think that the Journal needed to be -- 25 needed to change, needed to be restructured, needed to 79 1 be rethought. 2 Q. And the unclear editorial structure you've 3 now identified as another reason why the Journal of 4 Schenkerian Studies should have been interrupted in 2020, 5 are there any additional reasons that you can identify? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. Could you remind me what the first was? 8 Q. Sure. There was -- you identified many of the 9 authors took a position that was critical of Ewell, and 10 this was the philosophical core of the volume. There was 11 a lack of peer review. We'll just leave it at that. And 12 there was this editorial structure, which was unclear. 13 Those are the three reasons I have so far. Can you 14 identify any other reasons? 15 A. No, that's it. 16 Q. Okay. So as you sit here today, you can't 17 identify any other than those three reasons? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 Q. I just want to tie a bow in it. That's all. 20 A. I cannot identify right now. Maybe if I had 21 more information, maybe I would see more reasons. Right 22 now, I can't. 23 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Thank you. It's been 24 another hour. I was just going to suggest that maybe we 25 go off the record, please. 80 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:59 a.m. 2 We're off the record. 3 (Recess taken) 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:11 a.m. 5 We are on the record. 6 Q. Thank you, Professor Bakulina. I wanted to 7 transition to talking about the call for papers in the 8 Journal of Schenkerian Studies in that winter of 2019, 9 early months of 2020. But before I do that, I wanted to 10 ask if you were aware that there were three peer-reviewed 11 articles published alongside the Symposium in the Journal 12 of Schenkerian Studies in 2020? 13 A. I did not know how many, but I was definitely 14 aware that there would be other journals -- other 15 articles of the Journal, in fact. Yes, I did. Yeah, 16 I knew that. 17 Q. Did you learn of any objections to those three 18 articles? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. I think that one of the letters, I forget 21 which, but not the one that UNT faculty signed, one of 22 the other letters mentioned that they had a problem with 23 the entire issue of the Journal, and that's actually a 24 problem because the entire issue of the Journal is 25 larger; that it contains more than just the Symposium 81 1 on Ewell's. 2 Q. Right. Were there any -- but my question is 3 has anyone, to your knowledge, ever attacked those three 4 articles? 5 A. To my knowledge, no, never. No one. 6 Q. The structural problems you've identified with 7 the editorial process at the Journal did not affect those 8 three articles? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. To my knowledge, it didn't. I actually don't 11 know about all of those, all of those three articles. I 12 don't know about how each of them was reviewed or not or 13 how it was -- how it made its way into the Journal. I 14 know about one. 15 Q. Which one is that? 16 A. Nicholas Stoia, I was one of the reviewers. 17 Q. Did you recommend it for publication? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you think it's a valid scholarly article? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. Well, I recommended it for publication. My 22 report was sent to the -- to Ben Graf. 23 Q. Benjamin Graf being the editor of the Journal 24 of Schenkerian Studies at the time? 25 A. At the time, yes. I sent my report in 2019, in 82 1 the fall of 2019. 2 Q. And just for purposes of the record, 3 Mr. Benjamin Graf is a teaching professor at the 4 University of North Texas, correct? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 Q. If you know? 7 A. I think he's a lecturer. 8 Q. Okay. So some of this, you've already done for 9 the record. But can you reprize or just review briefly 10 your relationship to the Journal of Schenkerian Studies 11 while you were an employee at the University 12 of North Texas? 13 A. I became a member of its editorial board. I 14 don't remember which year, but maybe 2017 or so. And 15 that was my only involve -- my only type of involvement 16 with the Journal. I never published in the Journal. 17 Yes, that's it. 18 Q. Did you resign from the Journal of Schenkerian 19 Studies editorial board at some point? 20 A. Yes, I did. 21 Q. When was that? 22 A. 2020. 23 Q. Was it following the publication of Volume 12? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Can you explain your role in the publication of 83 1 Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. My role in the publication process? 4 Q. Um-hum. 5 A. I participated in reviewing the call for 6 papers. And I was the recipient of several emails from 7 Timothy Jackson of some of the materials that later in 8 the revised form became part of his article in Volume 12. 9 Q. In addition to reviewing these emails and 10 participating in the formulation of the call for papers, 11 did you have any other role in the publication process 12 for Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. Let's see. There was also a verbal discussion. 15 And the topic -- topics of the verbal discussions were 16 very similar to those of the emails. 17 And I mean discussions with Timothy Jackson, who would 18 sometimes come into my office and talk about these 19 topics. That's it. Nothing else. 20 Q. I was going to ask you where these 21 conversations took place. They were in your office? 22 A. Um-hum. 23 Q. One-on-one with Professor Jackson or also 24 sometimes with others or -- 25 A. To be honest, I don't recall right now. 84 1 I think that sometimes he came into my office on -- by 2 himself, so that would be him and me. I don't remember 3 much more than that. 4 Q. Okay. What initiated your -- let's just take 5 the process that led to issuing the call for papers. 6 A. Um-hum. 7 Q. As you sit here today, can you identify a 8 beginning point? I know that there was a paper by 9 Philip Ewell sometime in the early weeks of November 10 2019, but I'm talking about UNT. What was the initiation 11 of this process with the Journal that led to the issuing 12 of a call for papers? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. The initiation came from Timothy Jackson. He 15 began to discuss Ewell's key -- sorry. Ewell's 2019 16 thing, the paper from SMT, keynote. And that was the 17 initiation. And so did Stephen Slottow. Both of them 18 initiated, I'd say. 19 Q. Is that normal in academic life, to discuss a 20 paper like that? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. I have no idea what is normal. I cannot 23 represent normal. 24 Q. Was it unusual for you to discuss papers 25 that were given at the STM with your colleagues? 85 1 A. No. That, in itself, was not unusual, no. 2 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Madam Court Reporter, 3 are we up to Exhibit 6? 4 THE REPORTER: Yes, that's right. 5 (Deposition Exhibit Number 6 marked.) 6 Q. I'm going to mark for the record an exhibit, 7 Professor Bakulina. I'm putting it in the chat now, and 8 I'm going to publish it to the record here. This is an 9 email, Exhibit 6, which is entitled, Not everyone was 10 enthusiastic about Ewell's talk. It's Bates stamped 11 JACKS 86826. It's dated November 15th, 2019, and it is 12 an email from Timothy Jackson to you, among other people. 13 A. Um-hum. 14 Q. Have I characterized the email correctly? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And just for the record, this is your email 17 address while you were an employee at the University of 18 North Texas? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. In this "To" line? 21 A. Yes, yes. 22 Q. So if we see a document that has that email in 23 it, it would have been either sent or received by you? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So this is November 15th, 2019. Is this the 86 1 email that you remember initiating this conversation 2 about the Ewell paper and maybe addressing this through 3 the pages of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. I don't remember if it was this specific 6 email that initiated it. In fact, I don't recall what 7 initiated, was it an in-person conversation first or 8 email first. I can't recall. It was too long ago. 9 Q. Okay. Is it accurate to say this conversation 10 began around this time, the middle of November of 2019? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you consider anything racist about this 14 email? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. So I would need to read it. And because it's 17 very small right now, may I ask to make it bigger, and I 18 will read? 19 Q. I want to make it as big as I can, but I'm 20 mindful that we don't want it to -- I think that's -- can 21 you read that? 22 A. Yes. Wait, don't move. Let's see. Yes, yes, 23 I can read it. Okay. 24 Q. Just ask me when you need me to scroll down. 25 I understand that it's not helpful for me to scroll all 87 1 over the place while you are trying to focus. 2 A. Sure. Can you please move up a little as well? 3 Q. Absolutely. 4 A. Okay. Not everyone (reading softly)... 5 Q. And Professor Bakulina, can I ask you not to 6 read out loud? Because I don't want the court reporter 7 to record what may or may not be even audible. Thank 8 you. 9 A. Okay. I'll try not to. Okay. You can scroll. 10 Q. And that's just the very end of the email. 11 Just so you know, there's nothing else. See? There you 12 go. 13 A. Okay. Just one minute. 14 Q. Have you been able to review it? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. Remind me of the question. I think I'm ready 18 to answer now. 19 Q. Okay. So my question for you is, is it your 20 opinion that there is something racist in this email? 21 A. No, it's not my opinion. 22 Q. Can you explain in as much detail as you can 23 remember the process of formulating the call for papers? 24 A. The -- so it was formulated in email. And the 25 people involved in the emails were Timothy Jackson, Levi 88 1 Walls who was the student editor at the time, Benjamin 2 Graf who was the outgoing editor. Yes, outgoing. 3 Q. Um-hum. 4 A. Let's see. I was on those emails and maybe 5 other people. I don't remember. 6 Q. Um-hum. 7 A. And so it was, you know, back and forth. I 8 can't recall who formulated what, but it's all in the 9 emails, so... 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. That can be -- you know, one can follow in 12 the emails. 13 Q. Let's see if we can't get a clear picture 14 from some of the contemporary emails. 15 (Deposition Exhibit Number 7 marked.) 16 Q. I'm going to introduce into the record as 17 Exhibit 7 a rather large document, Professor Bakulina. 18 This is a document that Timothy Jackson submitted to 19 the so-called ad hoc panel that was convened to 20 investigate the Journal of Schenkerian Studies. I don't 21 have any expectation that you know all of these emails, 22 but it was an attempt. I'm just going to represent to 23 you it was an attempt by my client to provide the 24 committee with the internal correspondence related to 25 the publication of Volume 12. So I'll also dump this 89 1 into the chat, so everyone can have it. That's not the 2 right one. Hang on. One second. I just want to make 3 sure. Yeah, this is the right one. Okay, good. It's 4 rather large, so it's almost two megabytes. It may take 5 some time to arrive. 6 A. Um-hum. 7 Q. Now, I'm going to help us navigate. Do you see 8 in the lower left-hand corner, there are page numbers 9 that are UNT five digits? Four digits? Do you see 10 those? 11 A. 138? No. 12 Q. Do you see in the bottom left-hand corner, 13 there's UNT 2645? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Those are called Bates numbers. And the 16 attorneys assigned those numbers to documents. They 17 form a continuous series, so that the entire series of 18 documents produced in the case have a continuous run of 19 page numbers. 20 A. Um-hum. 21 Q. So I'd like to direct you to Bates 22 number 2657. Do you see that on your screen here? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And this is a -- excuse me -- a series of 25 emails in which you are participating? 90 1 A. Um-hum. 2 Q. And this is your email here at the top, 3 correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And this is an email from December 1st, 2019 at 6 the top, and it continues on down. Did I characterize 7 that correctly for the record? 8 A. Um-hum, yes. 9 Q. In this first email on December 1st, 2019, 10 at about 6:53 p.m., it looks like you're discussing the 11 SMT plenary session. Is that fair to say? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And I believe you testified to this earlier; 14 that it was announced right before the presentation that 15 the plenary talks would be published in Music Theory 16 Spectrum, right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you recall this discussion, Professor 19 Bakulina? 20 A. Yes. I recall these emails, yes. 21 Q. Um-hum. And what was your purpose in writing 22 this first email on December 1st at 6:53 p.m.? 23 A. Please give me a minute to read. 24 Q. Absolutely. 25 A. Yes. So the purpose of this email was to 91 1 suggest that we should not publish the call for papers or 2 call for responses at that time; that instead, we should 3 wait for Ewell's paper -- Ewell's -- the publication of 4 Ewell's article in Music Theory Spectrum. I thought that 5 the call for papers was premature. 6 Q. And what was the reasons of other people 7 working on the Journal at that time? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. Well, one of the responses is right in front of 10 us. Levi Walls seems to say that this complicates the 11 matter. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. That it suggests that Levi also knew about 14 this, and he thought it would also make sense to wait 15 with the call for -- 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No, it doesn't 17 say that. 18 MR. ALLEN: Who is speaking right now? 19 I'm sorry, Professor Bakulina. Whoever is speaking, you 20 are not the witness. The witness is Ellen Bakulina. 21 Q. I'm sorry, Professor Bakulina, can you 22 continue? 23 A. That's all. So the response by Levi agrees 24 that the forthcoming article by Ewell complicates the 25 matters. 92 1 Q. And that's an email on Sunday, December 1st, 2 2019, at 7:51 p.m.? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. And then it looks like the discussion 5 continues. There's an email which appears to be from 6 Timothy Jackson on Sunday, December 1st, even later in 7 the evening, at 10:06 p.m. Right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And Timothy says to you all, "All things 10 considered, JSS should go forward with the call as 11 planned." 12 Right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you remember getting that email? 15 A. Quite honestly, I don't remember getting this 16 email. I remember reading it at some point later on. I 17 don't remember getting this email. 18 Q. And do you see after that, there's a response 19 from Benjamin Graf on December 2nd, 2019, at 9:14 in the 20 morning? 21 A. Yes, I see it. 22 Q. And what did Benjamin Graf say? 23 A. Do you want me to quote? 24 Q. Sure. Can you just please read that into 25 the record? 93 1 A. "From Benjamin Graf's email." 2 Q. Um-hum. 3 A. "I agree with Tim. We should go forward with 4 the call and be open to publishing more on this matter in 5 future publications." 6 Q. And just to back up to the email Timothy 7 Jackson had sent the day before, he also addressed 8 whether there could be the possibility of additional 9 responses, correct? 10 A. Let's see. Give me a minute. Yes. 11 MS. QUIMBY: I'm sorry. Before we 12 continue, can we take a moment to clarify who spoke on 13 the record just a minute ago? It's my understanding 14 that it wasn't Renaldo, and I'm not sure. 15 MR. ALLEN: I honestly don't know. If 16 they want -- I mean, it was a male voice. 17 MS. QUIMBY: I'd just like to clarify for 18 the record who that was. 19 MR. ALLEN: It wasn't -- Timothy, are you 20 on? Did you speak? Or was it Cari Jacoby? Cari Jacoby 21 is probably a female? 22 MS. QUIMBY: It was not Cari. 23 MS. JACOBY: I'm a female. 24 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. Sorry. 25 MR. JACKSON: I didn't speak. I did not 94 1 speak. 2 MR. ALLEN: Adam Scozzari would be the 3 videographer, and I can't believe that -- 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I've been muted. 5 MR. STOWERS: This is Renaldo Stowers. 6 I was muted, and it wasn't me. 7 MR. ALLEN: I'm the only one in my house 8 right now, and I think you all are familiar with my 9 voice, so it certainly wasn't me. So I don't know. 10 MR. STOWERS: Is there anybody else who 11 has access who is on here other than T -- 12 MS. QUIMBY: I was going to ask you who 13 TLJ is. I saw that earlier. 14 MR. ALLEN: That should be Timothy, right? 15 Timothy, are you TJ -- TLJ0019? 16 MR. JACKSON: I am. But I don't know if 17 my audio was off. I can only say that it wasn't me who 18 spoke. 19 MR. ALLEN: All right. Well, I'm not sure 20 who else it would have been then, but there is no one 21 else in my home. I don't -- Dr. Bakulina testified that 22 the only one else with her is her cat, so... 23 MS. QUIMBY: Yeah. 24 MR. ALLEN: Mary, if you want -- for 25 the record, if you want to have that stricken from the 95 1 record -- or I don't know what you want to do to address 2 that. I'm open to suggestions. 3 MS. QUIMBY: I was just trying to clarify. 4 MR. ALLEN: No, obviously. I asked at 5 that time if the person would identify themselves, and 6 no one spoke, so I'm not sure what was going on there. 7 Q. Sorry. I'm trying to pick up where we left 8 off, Professor Bakulina. I want to get you back on 9 screen. There we go. 10 "So I was just going to say that the day 11 before Timothy Jackson had addressed the issue that 12 more responses have promise." 13 I'm just reading into the record a portion of 14 that email on Bates page UNT 2658. 15 "More responses have promised and have even 16 been -- and even been requested. Therefore, if others 17 are interested in responding, but wish to wait for the 18 published version of Ewell's talk, then they are welcome 19 to do so, and which should be open to publishing 20 additional responses to that version in a subsequent 21 issue after the upcoming one of the Journal of 22 Schenkerian Studies." 23 Did I read that right? 24 A. I think so, yes. 25 Q. Was there any objection at this time that 96 1 Philip Ewell had not been personally invited? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. As much as I recall, no. And that's very 4 unfortunate. I regret this personally. 5 Q. You didn't object to Philip Ewell not being 6 personally invited in 2019, did you? 7 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 8 A. I think I might have mentioned something 9 verbally, and I don't recall if it was in any of the 10 emails. But I mentioned Philip Ewell to one of the 11 people involved, maybe to Timothy Jackson, maybe to 12 Stephen Slottow. I don't recall what I said, but I 13 think that I mentioned something. I greatly regret at 14 this point that I did not explicitly ask to wait or to -- 15 that I did not explicitly suggest to ask for Philip 16 Ewell's response to the responses. 17 Q. Did you speak to Philip Ewell before 18 the publication of the Volume 12 of the Journal of 19 Schenkerian Studies after his plenary talk and before 20 its publication? 21 A. I have to think, because Philip Ewell and I had 22 a lot of exchanges about many things because we 23 share an important research area. 24 Q. Um-hum. 25 A. And I didn't recall the details, but it is 97 1 possible that we interacted between his plenary address 2 and the publication of Volume 12 of JSS, yes. 3 Q. Did anything prevent you from reaching out to 4 Philip Ewell individually and inviting him to participate 5 in Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. I think my membership on the Journal of 8 Schenkerian Studies board prevented me from inviting him 9 personally to. So I would not -- I felt I could not 10 invite him and say like, hey, Phil, do you want to write 11 a response to the responses or response to something? I 12 could not. I felt I could not invite him on my own like 13 this because I was a member of JSS board. 14 Q. What prevented you, as a member of the JSS 15 board, from inviting Philip Ewell personally? 16 A. What prevented me was that as a board member, I 17 was -- I thought at least, maybe it was a wrong 18 perception, but I felt like as a board member, JSS 19 board member, I was sort of under the directions of its 20 advisory board, which, at that time, was Timothy Jackson 21 and Stephen Slottow. And because I was less empowered 22 in the division, meaning that I did not have tenure and 23 they both did and still do -- 24 Q. Uh-huh. 25 A. -- I didn't feel enough independence to do what 98 1 I wanted to do. I felt like I needed to -- obey is not 2 the right word. To -- I felt submissive, I guess, 3 because I was afraid basically of being too independent. 4 I was afraid to say things to the advisory board, that 5 they would not -- I thought they would not necessarily 6 like what I did. 7 Q. That didn't prevent you from raising the 8 issue that they should delay the publication of 9 Volume 12 because the plenary session was going to be 10 published in Music Theory Spectrum, did it? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. That did not prevent me, correct. 13 Q. And you had just been at a talk in November 14 of 2019 where Philip Ewell received a standing ovation, 15 right? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you feel an inability to speak to Philip 19 Ewell in any way? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you feel there was a, quote, power 23 differential, between you and Philip Ewell as scholars 24 in the field? 25 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 99 1 A. In the scholars of the field, yes. I think, 2 yes. 3 Q. But yet you felt that you could speak to him 4 about issues concerning publication in Theoria, right? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. Wait. Was it the same year? 7 Q. The Theoria article came out in 2020, right? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 Q. The same year? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. Yes. But it doesn't mean that the discussion 12 happened at the same time. 13 Q. Well, any discussions you had with Philip Ewell 14 over anything related to the publication in Theoria, did 15 you feel somehow intimidated by him? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. No, I did not feel intimidated by Philip Ewell 18 with respect to publication in Theoria mostly because he 19 was not in a position to give me any directions. His 20 article and my article in Theoria were on par with each 21 other and the third one by Segall. We were on par with 22 each other. And I might not remember perfectly well, 23 but I don't think Philip Ewell and I discussed much with 24 respect to articles in Theoria. I would not discuss with 25 him. I would discuss it with the editor. 100 1 Q. Were you intimidated by Frank Heidlberger as 2 the editor of the journal Theoria? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. Intimidated by the fact that he was the 5 editor or by something that he said? 6 Q. By the fact that he was the editor. 7 A. No, not really. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. I was not in any situation with respect to my 10 publication in Theoria that would create any problematic 11 events, no. 12 Q. When you were formulating the call for papers 13 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies to solicit articles 14 for the Symposium -- 15 A. Um-hum. 16 Q. -- do you recall any discussion about whether 17 there should be a specific ideological focus of the 18 submissions? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. I remember that the call for responses. Now, I 21 don't actually remember the final form of the call for 22 responses. 23 Q. Um-hum. 24 A. But one of the drafts of the call for 25 responses, I remember seeing that email stated 101 1 explicitly that the Journal welcomed different 2 viewpoints and different opinions; that it was 3 not committed to any specific viewpoint. 4 Q. Did you think that was appropriate? 5 A. I certainly thought that was appropriate, 6 yes. 7 Q. Do you recall that being raised by Timothy 8 Jackson as well, that the call for papers should be open 9 to different viewpoints? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. I don't remember who wrote that. I remember 12 that this was in the draft of the call for responses. 13 I don't remember who drafted that specific document. 14 Q. And I'm just talking about the principle of 15 soliciting papers that were open to different viewpoints. 16 Was that discussed amongst the people formulating the 17 call for papers? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. Yes, it was. 20 Q. And do you remember Timothy Jackson opposing 21 the openness to different viewpoints in the pages of the 22 Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 23 A. No, I don't remember him opposing it at all. 24 Q. Did he support the call for papers in its 25 form that asked for open -- well, was open to different 102 1 viewpoints? 2 A. I think he did, although I would like to see 3 the specific wording. I think you have it in the email, 4 but I think he did support that, yes. 5 Q. Sure. Let's slip down to UNT 2659. Do 6 you see this is -- well, I'm going to peek up on the 7 previous page, UNT 2658, because that's where the e-mail 8 begins. 9 Do you see this? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And apparently, Diego, Andrew -- Diego Cubero, 12 Andrew Chung, and some others. I'm not sure. I'm sorry. 13 Now, I'm going to just focus on the first 14 paragraph. You'll see -- and I'm not trying to hide the 15 ball, but that is an email that spans one and maybe a 16 quarter pages. 17 A. Um-hum. 18 Q. But I'd just like to focus on the first 19 paragraph. I'm happy to give you time to review the 20 entire email, if you'd like. 21 A. Okay. I read the first paragraph now. 22 Q. Should I expand the view? 23 A. Expand. 24 Q. Yes. How is that? Readable? 25 A. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Give me... 103 1 Q. Please. 2 A. Okay. I have read it. 3 Q. And so is this consistent, this email on 4 December 3rd, 2019, is this consistent with your 5 understanding that Timothy Jackson supported a call 6 for papers that was open to different viewpoints? 7 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 8 A. I think that it is consistent, but there's an 9 underlying problem. 10 Q. Let's discuss that in a second. 11 But he does say, "We don't want to be seen to 12 be disagreeing with Ewell's broader point of advocating 13 inclusion of different ethnicities in the discipline of 14 music theory." 15 Right? 16 A. Yes. So this is consistent -- 17 Q. What's the problem that you have identified 18 in this paragraph? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. The problem is that this paragraph, it's not 21 such a huge problem, because this wouldn't be published, 22 so it's not in the call for papers. But the problem is 23 that -- let's see. Dr. Jackson is also on this email, 24 right? Yeah. 25 Q. Yes. 104 1 A. That he's attracting everyone's attention to 2 Ewell calling Schenker racist, and this suggests that 3 the focus is on -- let's see. So the focus is on Ewell 4 calling Schenker racist. The problem is not that 5 Schenker made racist statements. The problem for 6 Jackson is that Ewell called Schenker racist. So the 7 fact that Schenker -- the fact that Jackson is drawing 8 everyone's attention to this perhaps suggests that 9 Jackson sees this as a problem. So he sees Ewell's 10 views of Schenker as racist as a problem. I'm not saying 11 that he directly says it here, but he definitely attracts 12 everyone's attention to that in this email. And that 13 suggests that there will be people agreeing with Ewell's 14 thoughts. There will be people disagreeing with Ewell's 15 thoughts. So Jackson seems to be open to different 16 viewpoints. But at the same time, he seems to be willing 17 to contest Ewell's statement that Schenker was racist. 18 And I'm not sure it was necessary at that point, because 19 I think at that point, everyone knew that Schenker was 20 racist and everyone knew why Ewell focused on that 21 problem, because Ewell wanted to change the field. 22 But you're right, that Jackson is open to 23 different viewpoints according to this email. 24 Q. And he also says, "I thought that Andrew's 25 point was very well taken." 105 1 Do you see where he says that in this email? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Who is he referring to? 4 A. Andrew Chung. 5 Q. Does that -- did you understand him to 6 be receptive to a junior colleague's point in the 7 formulation of the call for papers of the Journal of 8 Schenkerian Studies? 9 A. Yes. 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 MR. ALLEN: We may come back to this 12 exhibit because it has so many emails, Professor 13 Bakulina, but I'm taking it down for the moment. I am 14 going to mark for the record -- are we up to Exhibit 8? 15 THE REPORTER: Yes. 16 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. I'm putting it 17 in the chat. 18 (Deposition Exhibit Number 8 marked.) 19 Q. And I'm going to publish it to the record. 20 This is -- Exhibit 8, for the record, is an email of 21 December 11th, 2019, sent by Timothy Jackson to various 22 colleagues, including you as well, correct, Professor 23 Bakulina? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you recognize this email? And let me -- 106 1 it's a four-paged document, so I'm happy to give you 2 time to review it. 3 A. I recognize my own email address. I don't 4 remember reading it, though. 5 Q. Okay. And I wanted to call your attention 6 to -- well, let's just read the -- the email that is at 7 the head of this chain says, "Dear Colleagues," including 8 you. "I have approached a number of Schenkerians 9 directly with request for comment on Ewell's SMT 10 presentation. We will receive publishable replies 11 from at least four outside distinguished scholars. 12 Not from Eric Wen, however, see below." 13 And then I think you'll agree that the next 14 email seems to be forwarded. And it's an email from the 15 previously mentioned Eric Wen who is apparently at 16 Juilliard from the email, right? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. I don't know because I... 19 Q. Yeah, that's fine. I'm not trying to pull a 20 fast one on you. I'm going to expand this a little bit. 21 Do you see how the next email in the thread is 22 actually a forwarded message here? 23 A. Yes, I see it. 24 Q. And it is from Eric Wen? 25 A. Okay. Yes, okay. 107 1 Q. And his email is ewen@juilliard.edu? 2 A. Yes. Okay, so it's him. Yes. 3 Q. Do you recognize that as an email from the 4 institution Juilliard? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What's Juilliard, for the record? 7 A. It's a conservatory. 8 Q. A rather famous one, right? 9 And then it follows another email that Timothy 10 Jackson has apparently forwarded again with Mr. Wen, and 11 it has this lengthy thread to it. Did I characterize 12 that correctly? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So I just have a few brief questions about 16 this, the first being -- I think I asked this before, but 17 I can't remember. Do you recognize getting this email? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. I'm sorry. But the question is probably vague. 20 Q. Do you remember receiving this email? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. No, but it's probably my fault. No, I don't 23 remember this email. 24 Q. That's all right. Okay. 25 A. But I did get a lot of emails. It doesn't 108 1 surprise me. 2 Q. Do you know who Eric Wen is? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Who is Eric Wen, for the record? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. He's a music theorist. Judging from this 7 email, he was employed at Juilliard at the time, although 8 I wouldn't actually remember it myself. I think that 9 now, he's retired. But again, I'm not sure. I have only 10 met him once or twice. We don't know each other closely, 11 so I don't know much about his -- I don't know much about 12 his biography. But yes, he is a music theorist, and he's 13 recognized as a Schenkerian specialist. 14 Q. Is it accurate to say that Timothy Jackson 15 is sending you this email indicating people he's been 16 contacting to solicit papers for the Journal of 17 Schenkerian Studies, Volume 12? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. I'm so sorry. Could you repeat? 20 Q. Sure. Is it accurate to say that this email 21 informs you of at least one individual, Eric Wen, that 22 he's contacted to solicit a paper from for Volume 12 of 23 the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. Yes, yes. 109 1 Q. Did you raise any objection at this time that 2 Timothy Jackson was directly soliciting papers for the 3 Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. I did not. 6 Q. Did Timothy Jackson ask you to approach 7 your dissertation advisor whose name, I believe, was 8 Rothstein? 9 A. I don't recall if Timothy Jackson asked me to 10 do so, but I recall that I emailed William Rothstein and 11 I received an answer from him. 12 Q. And he declined to participate in Volume 12, 13 right? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. That's right. 16 Q. Do you remember when that was that you 17 contacted him? 18 A. It was in November or December 2019. 19 Q. Okay. Did you object to being asked to 20 approach William Rothstein at that time? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. No. I did not object in an email, no. 23 Q. Okay. I'm going to slip back to Exhibit Number 24 7, which is that compendium of emails we discussed 25 before. And if you'd just give me one second. I'd like 110 1 to direct your attention to UNT page 2663. This is -- 2 it begins in the middle of that page. Well, let's go to 3 the top of the page. 4 "Call for papers originally sent to the whole 5 SMT list network on December 17, 2019." 6 Did I read that caption correctly? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So this section of Exhibit 8 refers to an 9 email apparently sent to this email address. Do you 10 recognize the email address in the "To" line, 11 SMT-announce@lists.societymusictheory.org? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What is that email? 14 A. I think that email sent to this address go 15 to the -- what's the status of that person? Not the 16 president. It's Jennifer Diaz now. Director? To one 17 person, and then that person normally publishes the email 18 for SMT membership. I think it's that email address. 19 Q. So to sum up -- 20 A. No. That actually is SMT announce. No, that 21 would be SMT announce. The SMT list, I'm not sure. 22 Maybe that's where it automatically goes to the entire 23 SMT membership, although that would be strange. So what 24 I'm not sure about is when one sends an email to this 25 address, lists, right? Lists something, whether it 111 1 goes to one person or whether it goes to entire SMT 2 membership. That's what I don't remember. Otherwise, 3 of course, I know this address. 4 Q. This address is meant to communicate to whoever 5 is managing the list for SMT, that this is an 6 announcement that should go to the entire membership 7 of the SMT, correct? 8 A. I think so. It would be Jennifer. I think so. 9 Q. And do you have any reason to believe that the 10 call for papers did not go to everyone on the SMT list? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. Let's see. Let me just look for a minute. 13 Q. Yeah. So I'm just going to -- we will go 14 from the top. This was the first email. It seems to 15 have gone out on December 17th, 2019. 16 It says, "Please find attached a CFP for the 17 Journal of Schenkerian Studies." 18 Right? 19 A. Yes. So would it go to everyone? So you are 20 asking me was this sent to the entire SMT membership? 21 Q. Well, let's -- let's take it one step at a time 22 just for the record since the audience here may 23 have no idea what CFP is. CFP means call for papers, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. 112 1 Q. And now, back to who gets the list and who 2 doesn't, the second message is December 31st to someone 3 named Bob Kosovsky. Do you know who Bob Kosovsky is? 4 A. No. But I think he might have been one 5 of the authors involving 12. I don't know him. 6 Q. But was it your understanding that the call for 7 papers was going to be sent out through the SMT list, 8 which would go to every member of the Society for Music 9 Theory? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. Yes, that was my understanding. 12 Q. And is this the actual call for papers that had 13 been collectively drafted by the members who were working 14 on the call for papers of the course of the winter 15 2019-2020? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. Give me a minute. 18 Q. Yep. And let me know if you want me to scroll 19 down. 20 A. Scroll up slightly. 21 Q. Oh, sorry. 22 A. Thank you. Stop. Very good. Please give 23 me a minute. 24 Q. Yes, please. 25 A. Okay. I have read. Could you repeat your 113 1 question, please? 2 Q. Is this the call for papers that was compiled 3 by the group that was working on the call for papers in 4 November-December of 2019 for Volume 12 of the Journal of 5 Schenkerian Studies? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 A. I would have to reread all emails related to 8 the call for papers between members of the journal board, 9 if this is the version. But it seems similar. I 10 don't -- 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. Yeah, I would have to read all of the emails to 13 see if this is the exact version that we collectively 14 came up with. 15 Q. Okay. As you sit here today, having read 16 the first half page of this, do you have any reason to 17 believe that this is not the call for papers that was 18 sent by the Journal of Schenkerian Studies calling for 19 papers for Volume 12? 20 A. No, I have not. 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 Q. Okay. So do you have any reason to believe 23 that Philip Ewell did not receive the call for papers 24 that was sent by the Journal soliciting contributions 25 for the Symposium? 114 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. I have no such reason to believe, but I 3 don't know if he actually received it. 4 Q. And can you define for the record what a call 5 for papers is in academic publishing? 6 A. It's a text and definitely goes in that 7 category. Call for papers is a text that states things 8 like, for example, such and such a journal, such and 9 such conference or symposium or something like that 10 welcomes -- usually, it welcomes proposals. But as we 11 said, as we discussed before, things are not always peer 12 reviewed in the usual way. So a call for papers, a call 13 for proposals, is a text that explicitly invites sending 14 papers or sending proposals to a journal or to the 15 problem committee of a conference. 16 Q. And this says -- just here, it says, "As a 17 journal dedicated to Schenkerian studies, we find it 18 important to foster discussion of these issues. As a 19 part of Volume 12, we invite interested parties to 20 submit essay responses to Ewell's paper." 21 Right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And it says we hope -- in the next sentence, 24 just skipping forward, "We hope to publish a variety of 25 thoughts and perspectives." 115 1 Right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So a call for papers is an invitation to submit 4 contributions, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. In the eventual Journal of Schenkerian Studies, 7 Volume 12, the Symposium, were a variety of viewpoints 8 published? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. They weren't all ideologically opposed to 11 Ewell, correct? 12 A. You're right, yes. 13 Q. Do you know of any contributions that supported 14 Ewell's position that were rejected? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. I don't know of any that were reflected, no. 17 Q. Okay. All right. I want to transition to 18 talking briefly about Mr. Levi Walls. And I'll just 19 start by asking if you had any direct relationship with 20 Mr. Walls? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. Levi Walls was my student in at least one 23 class, which was Music Theory Pedagogy. I was on his 24 master's thesis committee. What year would that be? 25 Oh, my God, now, I -- I can't remember. 116 1 Q. That's okay. 2 A. I was on his master's thesis committee. And by 3 the way, you asked a few hours ago if I was on the same 4 committee with Dr. Jackson ever on a Ph.D. 5 committee, and I couldn't remember one, but I was on 6 a master's thesis committee. 7 Q. So I was going to follow up and ask if 8 Timothy Jackson was on that master's committee, too. 9 A. Yes. I think Jackson was the advisor. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. So anyway, I know Levi Wells quite well. 12 Q. That would have been before 2020 then, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And how did Mr. Walls perform in his master's 15 thesis? 16 A. He performed well. 17 Q. Was -- let's just focus on your relationship 18 with Mr. Walls. When you said you know quite well, did 19 you believe there was a power differential between you 20 and Mr. Walls? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. Yes, because -- yes, of course. Yes. 23 Q. Did you ever experience Mr. Walls to have any 24 kind of inability to speak his mind to you? 25 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 117 1 A. I have no idea. These things are never 2 explicit. A person might seem completely okay with -- 3 for example, with me. And I will never actually know if 4 they feel intimidated. But in reality, they might have 5 big problems in their mind, and they might be afraid and 6 not okay. But I will never know, because these things 7 are something that nobody can ever fully know. 8 Q. Did Mr. Walls discuss ideas related to his 9 master's thesis with you directly? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Did you experience him to be nervous in doing 12 so? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. No. 15 Q. Fearful? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you find him incapable of articulating 18 his own ideas in that relationship? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. Articulating his own ideas, one's own ideas, 21 when it comes to thesis or dissertation writing is a 22 complicated topic. I did not feel anything was 23 problematic. But exchange of ideas, no, it's just a 24 complicated topic. Everyone expresses ideas when 25 discussing a thesis or dissertation or -- yeah. 118 1 Q. Well, how would you describe your dialogue with 2 Mr. Walls as you supervised his master's thesis, 3 as a member of his master's thesis committee? 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. He seemed, what's the word? It was productive. 6 And he had enough substance in his 7 thesis. 8 Q. And did that inform your decision to approve 9 his eventual master's thesis? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. Yes, it did. 12 Q. And were you able to observe Professor 13 Jackson's relationship to Mr. Walls in the master's 14 thesis committee? 15 A. I don't recall seeing how Dr. Jackson 16 interacted and Levi Walls interacted, but I do know 17 that the ideas -- no, I did not see them interact. 18 Q. Did Mr. Walls ever complain to you that he felt 19 intimidated by Professor Jackson? 20 A. During his master's, no. 21 Q. Did he ever after that? 22 A. He did not complain to me, but he reported 23 in the -- the report by the ad hoc committee in 2020 24 included his description of their interaction. And 25 that's when I learned that their interaction was quite 119 1 problematic. 2 Q. What about their interaction was quite 3 problematic that you learned about later? 4 A. So I haven't actually reread that part of the 5 report recently. So my recollection is from several 6 years ago, but Walls said that Dr. Jackson forced him 7 to make certain decisions. I don't remember if those 8 decisions were about his actual ideas in his thesis or 9 his Ph.D. work or was it about something else. But I 10 think some of those aspects were, according to Walls, 11 Jackson forced certain things upon him related to 12 Volume 12. 13 Q. Do you remember the Ad Hoc Panel Report saying 14 that Mr. Walls was instructed not to censor people? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. I don't recall that. 17 Q. Okay. 18 MS. QUIMBY: Are we at the good point to 19 take a break or at least soon? 20 THE WITNESS: That would be good. 21 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, let's take a break. I 22 have no problem taking a break now. 23 MS. QUIMBY: Can we -- 24 MR. ALLEN: How much time do you want, 25 Mary? I'm mindful that it's -- what is it? 12 -- well, 120 1 are you on East Coast time? You're in Montreal, correct? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. It's 1:16 for me. I 3 would benefit from a break now. 4 MR. ALLEN: Of course. Mary, when do you 5 want to come back? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Dr. Bakulina, would you like 7 to take a more -- 8 MR. ALLEN: Oh, do you mean lunch? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Lunch break or -- we're 10 certainly able to do that. 11 THE WITNESS: Sure. We could take a lunch 12 break now, yes. 13 MR. ALLEN: Maybe come back at a quarter 14 till? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Okay. That's fine, yeah. 16 MR. ALLEN: Okay. We'll see you then. 17 Thank you, Professor Bakulina. 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:16 p.m. 19 We're off the record. 20 (Recess taken) 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:52 p.m. 22 We're on the record. 23 Q. So Professor Bakulina, before we broke for 24 lunch, we were talking about Mr. Levi Walls. 25 A. Yes. 121 1 Q. And I just had a few more questions about that, 2 and then we'll move on to talking about the Schenker 3 controversy. 4 A. Sure. 5 Q. But I just -- if you could, for the record, can 6 you identify anytime before July of 2020 when you were 7 the direct witness to Professor Jackson exercising 8 disproportionate power over Mr. Walls? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. Excuse me. 10 Only indirectly. And so this is a little bit of a 11 guess. But I will say, because I think it is relevant, 12 I'm speaking of Walls' master's thesis. So his 13 master's thesis is an analysis of an opera, Schenkerian 14 analysis of an opera by a woman composer, French, from 15 the nineteenth century. Schenkerian analysis of large 16 portions of music. First of all, it's very difficult. 17 And I applaud Levi for doing that. It's hard to do. 18 Q. Um-hum. 19 A. It seemed to be very strongly influenced by Dr. 20 Jackson's thinking and intellectual style. 21 Q. Um-hum. 22 A. Because Jackson did an analysis of an opera 23 around that time. I think he did -- well, I won't. I 24 won't say things that I don't remember exactly. But he 25 did an analysis of an opera. And he genuinely likes 122 1 doing Schenkerian analysis of extremely large portions 2 of music, including operas. And when I was working with 3 Levi, it occurred to me more than once. I was thinking, 4 is it possible that he did all of this on his own? Like 5 how much is this influenced by Jackson? So this is the 6 only thing I can say. It looked like it was heavily 7 influenced by Jackson. How much it was -- how much, you 8 know, was it influenced or was it more Dr. Jackson sort 9 of dictating more what to do to Levi Walls, I don't know. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. So it's not about, you know, a specific 12 interaction that I witnessed. It's something that I can 13 only guess based on the intellectual substance of that 14 thesis. 15 Q. And in your interactions with the editorial 16 staff of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies leading up to 17 the issuing of call for papers, did you have any direct 18 knowledge of Levi Walls being affected by a so-called 19 power differential between him and Timothy Jackson? 20 A. The power differential was obvious. I 21 was not aware of any incidents, no. But the power 22 differential was obvious because the fact that the 23 Journal editor was the student of someone on the advisory 24 board, Timothy Jackson, it was obvious that Jackson at 25 least would have an influence on the editor. So it was 123 1 obvious that the editor, Walls, would not be independent 2 in making his decisions. He was obviously dependent on 3 his -- on Jackson primarily because Jackson was his 4 advisor. 5 Q. Was he so dependent on Professor Jackson as his 6 advisor that it prohibited him from expressing 7 independent views on Philip Ewell's work? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. I don't know. I can't speculate about that. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. But I think it's possible, because the 12 topic is extremely sensitive. And I know from personal 13 experience that it's not easy to have objective opinions, 14 and it's easy to sort of feel intimidated when it comes 15 to sensitive topics. 16 Q. Do you think Professor Walls -- strike that. 17 Do you think Mr. Walls was more intimidated by 18 Timothy Jackson or more intimidated by the Society for 19 Music Theory's open letter condemning the Journal of 20 Schenkerian Studies that he edited as a student editor? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. I don't know. I am in no position to judge 23 about his -- how he feels or felt. I don't know. 24 Q. You said you were close to Mr. Walls. Did 25 he ever discuss feeling unable to express his views on 124 1 Timothy Jackson with you? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. No, never. 4 Q. Thank you. Let's talk about the Schenker 5 controversy. And by Schenker controversy, do you 6 understand I mean the controversy that erupted in July 7 of 2020 when Volume 12, and especially the Symposium, 8 came to light for the first time? 9 A. Um-hum. 10 Q. Okay. When did you personally realize there 11 was going to be a controversy surrounding Volume 12 of 12 the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. When I saw Facebook post that described the 15 Volume 12 as -- as problematic. It used the word 16 "racist." Racist, yeah. 17 Q. Who was the -- who was the author of the 18 Facebook post that you read, if you recall? 19 A. Christopher Segall. 20 Q. Um-hum. Was Christopher Segall a contributor 21 to Volume 12? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you remember Christopher Segall complaining 24 that there was anything racist about the process before 25 he published? 125 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. Not that I'm aware, no, no. 3 Q. Before this time, when you first realized, I 4 guess, through a post by Christopher Segall that the 5 Journal of Schenkerian Studies was going to be accused 6 of racism or whatever it said in that post, had you 7 objected to any of the -- what you considered structural 8 problems with the Journal that you enumerated before, 9 that there were many authors positioning themselves in 10 a way that was antagonistic to Ewell, that there was a 11 lack of peer review, and that there was unclear editorial 12 structure? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. I did not object partly because I had not seen 15 any of those contributions, because I was not 16 reviewing them. I never saw them except for Jackson's 17 contribution, parts of which I saw in emails. But not 18 counting that, I didn't know about what the offers would 19 be. 20 Q. Okay. But you didn't object before July of 21 2020 to the lack of peer review? 22 MS. QUIMBY: I'm sorry. Can you repeat 23 that? 24 Q. Before July of 2020, you did not object to 25 the absence of peer review of the Symposium, correct? 126 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. I did not object. 3 Q. And you did not object to the unclear editorial 4 structure before July of 2020, right? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. Unfortunately, I did not. 7 Q. And do you -- are you aware of any objection to 8 the unclear editorial structure made by Diego Cubero 9 before July of 2020? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. I am not aware, no. 12 Q. Are you aware of any objection made by Diego 13 Cubero to the lack of peer review of the Symposium before 14 July of 2020? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. I'm not aware, no. 17 Q. Are you aware of any objection made by Diego 18 Cubero to the absence of a personal invitation to Philip 19 Ewell before July of 2020? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. I think I shouldn't answer because there might 22 be objections in the email correspondence from the early 23 2020. There might be something that I have forgotten. 24 But right now, I don't remember such objections, no. 25 Q. I think I asked you about Diego Cubero in 127 1 that question, right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So I was going to ask the same question of 4 Andrew Chung. Are you aware of any objection made by 5 Andrew Chung before July of 2020 to the supposed lack 6 of an invitation to Philip Ewell to participate in the 7 symposium? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. No, I'm not aware. 10 Q. Thank you. Did you learn after July 25th, 11 2020, that Philip Ewell announced that he refused to 12 read Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. Yes. I know that after, yes. 15 Q. Where did you learn that? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. I don't recall. But it might have been a 18 Facebook post. A lot happened on Facebook. Maybe on 19 Facebook. 20 Q. Is Facebook a particularly scholarly medium? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. No. It's a way to communicate, especially 23 during the pandemic. All of this was taking place during 24 the pandemic. And for me, Facebook remained the main 25 way to stay connected to humans at that time, not just 128 1 scholars, but humans. There was email, too. But 2 Facebook remained more important throughout that time. 3 Q. Are you on Twitter? 4 A. No, I have never been. 5 Q. Now known as X just for the record. You knew 6 that, right? 7 A. I forgot. But I guess now, I don't know. 8 Q. So you are not on X either. That would be 9 my follow-up question. 10 A. No. 11 Q. Okay. Thank you. And you don't know of any 12 policy of the University of North Texas Press making 13 Facebook some sort of authority for editorial practices 14 of its journals, do you? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. No, not at all. I want to clarify. I -- my 17 colleagues and I don't use Facebook as an authorized 18 platform to publish. We use Facebook to stay connected. 19 This is how we are together. Like in pre-pandemic world 20 or even pre-internet world, the equivalent of Facebook 21 would be to physically get together in a physical 22 place which, you know, it's not -- it's not publishing 23 something scholarly. It's a place to be together with 24 other people. 25 Q. Um-hum. Do you think it's particularly 129 1 professional for a scholar to refuse to read the 2 publications of his or her critics? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. I think it depends on a specific situation. 5 I don't think there's a single answer to that question in 6 general. 7 Q. What about the specific situation of Philip 8 Ewell announcing that he refused to read Volume 12 of the 9 Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 10 A. I think that in this case, to me, Philip Ewell 11 seems entirely justified to say this. Because reading so 12 many articles that disagreed with him on topics relevant 13 to his identity and his race would probably be extremely 14 painful. But of course, I cannot speak for him. I'm 15 only -- unfortunately, I'm speculating. But that's the 16 kind of situation where I think refusing to read 17 something on emotional grounds, to me, looks justified. 18 Q. Is that because Philip Ewell is Black? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. No. It's because the article has to do with 21 his identity. It doesn't matter what kind of identity. 22 It could be racial identity. It could be gender 23 identity. It could be national identity. It's not 24 about a specific type of identity. It's more about the 25 fact that the subject is relevant to his identity, and it 130 1 is his identity that was also the subject of his keynote 2 address initially. So he's emotionally invested. He's 3 more emotionally vulnerable. 4 Q. I'm sorry. You froze. Could you repeat that? 5 Just the last part. You just froze. The last part of 6 your sentence cut off. I don't know if everyone else's 7 did. Can you hear me? No. 8 A. Should I repeat? 9 MS. QUIMBY: I heard the last part of it. 10 Did the court reporter get it? 11 THE REPORTER: Yes. 12 MR. ALLEN: Okay. We'll just go on. 13 It's okay. 14 Q. What I wanted to ask you, so what specific part 15 of Philip Ewell's identity was implicated in the 16 critiques that you're identifying here? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. His race. 19 Q. And what race is that, according to you? 20 A. That's not according to me. That's according 21 to him. It is his race is Black. 22 Q. Okay. But you understood his race to be Black. 23 And that was what -- 24 A. I understand that this is how he identifies 25 according to his writings. 131 1 Q. Okay. Do you think it was -- let me strike 2 that question. 3 Would it be appropriate for someone to refuse 4 to read Philip Ewell because they were white? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. No, not at all, because as I said, the problem 7 is not a specific type of identity. The problem is not 8 because something is white or someone is white or someone 9 is Black or someone is Hispanic or someone is a man or a 10 woman or transgender or whatever. It's not about the 11 type of identity. It's more because the topic of 12 controversy was related to the identity of the specific 13 person. 14 Q. You don't think titling a paper, The White 15 Facial Frame, or however it was characterized, somehow 16 would be understood as implicating white identity? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. I don't know what you mean by implicating white 19 identity. But white people are dominant in our fields, 20 so it would be a completely different situation. 21 Q. So it's okay to harangue white people, but not 22 okay to harangue Black people in the same way? Is that 23 your view of it? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. I unfortunately don't know the word "harangue." 132 1 May I use a dictionary? 2 Q. Sure. Insult. 3 A. Can you rephrase your question, please? 4 Q. Sure. I'm going to go back to -- I'm just 5 going to share again Exhibit 8, which was Music Theory's 6 White Racial Frame by Philip Ewell, which he published 7 in the pages of Music Theory Spectrum. 8 A. Um-hum. 9 Q. Do you remember looking at Exhibit 8 together? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And this was a publication of the plenary 12 address he gave at the 2019 Society for Music Theory? 13 A. Um-hum. 14 Q. So could I ask you just to answer audibly, 15 please? 16 A. Yes. Go ahead. 17 Q. Okay. And so did you understand by this that 18 he was basically criticizing the whole of white people as 19 a race in the practice of music theory? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. I don't think he criticized the white people as 22 a race. I think he criticized the practices within music 23 theory that privileged the music and ideas of white 24 people because whites were and remain in the majority in 25 the field. 133 1 Q. And he could -- would it be -- strike that. 2 Is it legitimate for a white music theory 3 scholar to refuse to read Philip Ewell just because it 4 implicates his or her race? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. Is -- is it? 7 Q. Well, let me strike that and ask it a different 8 way. 9 Can we agree that it would be unprofessional 10 for a scholar of music theory to refuse to read Philip 11 Ewell simply because he was criticizing what he calls 12 white supremacy or structural whiteness in music theory? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 Q. That would be -- that would be completely 15 unprofessional, wouldn't it? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 Q. To refuse to read a Black critic of white 18 supremacy in music theory? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. Perhaps it would be objectionable not to read. 21 I don't think it's nonprofessional. Nobody can read 22 everything. There are many things that I don't read. 23 And it's not unprofessional simply not to read something. 24 But in this case, I agree that it would not 25 be -- it would be objectionable for someone not to read 134 1 Ewell's publication because Ewell's publication is 2 directed -- the purpose of Ewell's publication is to 3 change the field and make it more inclusive. And that 4 is something for which everybody in the society is 5 responsible. 6 Q. But it is okay for Philip Ewell, as a Black 7 man, to refuse to read Volume 12 of the Journal of 8 Schenkerian Studies? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. Surprisingly, I will say yes, because of the 11 power differential between white people and Black people 12 in the field. What I mean is the fact that someone who 13 is in minority, and Black people in music theory right 14 now are not simply minority, they're a very tiny 15 minority. And someone who identifies as Black, and they 16 are reading publications that are somehow engaging with 17 a race and that are against them, that's going to be 18 more painful, and they're going to feel more vulnerable 19 compared to someone who's in the majority simply because 20 it's majority versus minority. 21 Q. You've already testified that you know Philip 22 Ewell personally, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you've praised Philip Ewell as 25 courageous, correct? 135 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. I have never done that. 3 Q. You've never praised Philip Ewell as 4 courageous? 5 A. In fact, I have -- no. 6 Q. Do you know him to be -- sorry. I talked 7 over you. I apologize. 8 A. I never called him courageous so far. 9 Q. Do you know Philip Ewell to be especially a 10 weak man? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. I'm so sorry, but I really disagree with the 13 wording. I think everybody is allowed to be weak. I 14 think it's very human to be weak. In fact, I think it's 15 very human to show one's weakness. And you seem to imply 16 that to be weak is somehow bad, but I don't agree with 17 that at all. 18 Q. So my question was different. Do you know 19 Philip Ewell to be an especially weak man? I'm asking. 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. I don't know. I cannot answer this 22 question. It's phrased in a way that conflicts with 23 my understanding of the word "weak." 24 Q. And can we agree that there's nothing about 25 being Black that makes Philip Ewell especially vulnerable 136 1 or fragile or weak, right? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. Can we agree that being Black makes Ewell 4 more vulnerable within the context of music theory? 5 Q. I would never say such a thing. I said could 6 we agree that being Black does not make Philip Ewell 7 weaker than other scholars. We can agree on that, can't 8 we? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. His race itself does not make him weak, no. 11 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I'm go to mark for the 12 record -- I'm going to mark for the record as Exhibit 9. 13 (Deposition Exhibit Number 9 marked.) 14 Q. You can see this email from Stephen Slottow to 15 Timothy Jackson, Levi Walls, you, as well as others? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And it's dated July 25th, 2020? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Now, it's in the nature of this email, it sort 20 of begins at the end and goes to the beginning as this 21 is the way that email threads are often produced to us. 22 So I'm going to go to the end. But if, at any time, 23 Professor Bakulina, if you want to review the documents, 24 just say so. 25 This is an email from Andrew Chung to, 137 1 again, you as well as others on July 25th, 2020. Do 2 you remember getting this email from Andrew Chung? 3 This is on page UNT 0302. 4 A. Okay. One minute for reading. Okay, yeah. 5 Q. Do you remember getting this email from 6 Andrew Chung? 7 A. For some reason, I don't. I thought that my 8 first -- I first was in contact with the scandal that 9 erupted on Facebook. 10 Q. Um-hum. 11 A. But I don't remember this email. 12 Q. Oh, well. In fact, you respond, it looks like, 13 relatively quickly. This is at 7:00 p.m. that Andrew 14 Chung sends you this email in this thread that is Exhibit 15 10. 16 A. Um-hum. 17 Q. And then you answer at 8:31 p.m., right? 18 A. Um-hum. 19 Q. And you say, "Thanks so much for alerting us. 20 I see something similar on Facebook." 21 Right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So my question for you, is it accurate that 24 this is the first time, reflected in these emails, that 25 you were becoming aware of a controversy surrounding 138 1 Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. And then if we -- yeah, Andrew Chung 4 asks in the next email, I think he's asked if you 5 should forward it. By you, they should be informed and 6 involved. You say about Tim Jackson and Stephen Slottow, 7 right? 8 A. Um-hum. 9 Q. And he responds, "Yes, please forward this 10 message to anyone you think would be appropriate." 11 Right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And then you do so in the following e-mail on 14 Saturday, July 25th, at 6:37 p.m. Right? 15 A. Okay, yes. 16 Q. And you emphasize that you completely agree 17 with Andrew, that the social media response is getting 18 serious and should somehow be addressed. Right? 19 A. Yes, yes. 20 Q. Thank you. And then Mr. Walls chimes in, 21 correct? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. Uh-huh. Okay, yes. 24 Q. Do you remember getting this email on 25 July 25th from Mr. Levi walls? 139 1 A. In fact, I don't. But I can't deny the 2 existence of this email. I just don't remember reading 3 it, hum-um. 4 Q. Okay. Do you remember Mr. Walls being 5 concerned for his career at this time? 6 A. Oh, yes, absolutely. He even -- yes, 7 definitely, yes. 8 Q. And so in this email, in the thread, he writes, 9 "I just heard about this. It's very worrying especially 10 as I don't want my career to be ruined before it properly 11 began. I have a family to take care of now. I'm also 12 confused about what exactly people want." 13 Did I read the first sentences of this email 14 correctly? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was it your understanding -- is it your 17 understanding now that he feared some sort of reaction 18 because of the power differential between him and Timothy 19 Jackson at this time? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 Q. That he's expressing here? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. Let's see. It is clear that he's afraid 24 for his career in general. It's not clear that he's 25 specifically afraid of Dr. Jackson, no. 140 1 Q. Is he afraid of the reaction of the Society for 2 Music Theory and the community of scholars that are 3 objecting to the Journal of Schenkerian Studies at this 4 time? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. What is the previous email? If I read the 7 previous email, let's see. Yeah, okay, okay. Could we 8 go back to Levi? 9 Q. Yes. So just to be clear, this previous email 10 sent by you on July 25th, you did send it to Levi Walls 11 as well, right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And then this is the next email in the thread? 14 A. Um-hum. 15 Q. So it's reasonable to understand that he's 16 reacting to your email, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 Q. And my question is, do you understand from 20 reading this email by Levi Walls, that he's concerned 21 that he will be the victim of a reaction by the people 22 who are objecting to the Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. I think that is fair to say, yes. 25 Q. And then Timothy responds in the next email -- 141 1 A. Um-hum. 2 Q. -- at about 9:47 p.m. 3 And he says, "I think that whether the Journal 4 wants to publish responses to the responses is something 5 we on the editorial team will need to discuss. My 6 feeling is that we should consider such second level 7 responses as long as they are factual and focused and 8 have scholarly merit. As I said, MTO asked that we 9 consider publishing more responses to Ewell's article." 10 Did I read that right? 11 A. Yes. Could you make it a little bigger? 12 Q. Yes, I'm sorry. Please feel free to ask 13 that I make it bigger at any time. 14 A. Please. 15 Q. Let me get it a little bit. It all fits on the 16 page. Is that readable to you, Professor Bakulina? 17 A. Yes, that's very good. Thank you. 18 Q. So -- and you got this email? 19 A. Apparently, I'm on the receiving list. 20 Q. Yes. And do you understand from this email 21 that Timothy Jackson was opposed to publishing any 22 response by Ewell? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. Jackson is not objecting to publishing anything 25 in this -- in this email. 142 1 Q. Okay. Just the -- this is from Stephen Slottow 2 who responds to the thread again. And this is the last 3 email in the thread. He refers to you calling him, 4 correct? 5 "Ellen called me," he says. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you remember getting a call from Stephen 8 Slottow? Or calling him? Excuse me. 9 A. I don't remember the actual call. But Stephen 10 and I often exchanged phone calls when I -- when I lived 11 in Texas. 12 Q. And if you could read the second paragraph here 13 and just tell me when you've had a chance to review it? 14 A. Okay, sure. Uh-huh. Yes, I'm ready to 15 discuss. 16 Q. So is there anything that you understand 17 is inaccurate about the way that Stephen Slottow has 18 characterized the decisions of the editorial staff at 19 the time based on your direct experience with the whole 20 process? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. I think this is a fair description of what the 23 editorial board did. But I do think -- I now think there 24 is a real problem with not inviting Ewell because this 25 is, of course, the substance of this email. So I'm 143 1 thinking of another symposium, which was also in 2 response to one scholar, and I'm talking about Music 3 Theory Spectrum in the year 2011. There was a symposium 4 in response to something by Richard Taruskin. And 5 Richard Taruskin himself responded to the responses at 6 the end of that symposium. Now, I understand that this 7 is how it should have been done. So the problem is not 8 that Ewell -- that, you know, other scholars -- that 9 various people did not have an opportunity to respond 10 to Ewell's talk. The problem was more about the way it 11 should have been organized is that there should have been 12 responses followed by response to responses. That would 13 be fair. 14 Q. Um-hum. Was it ever -- did you ever receive an 15 email stating that people would refuse Philip Ewell 16 an opportunity to respond in the pages of the Journal of 17 Schenkerian Studies to the Symposium? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. No, I never heard about that. Did I respond 20 incompletely? 21 Q. No, no. I'm looking at a new exhibit. I'm 22 sorry. Sometimes, I'm fumbling with my own exhibits. I 23 apologize. 24 MR. ALLEN: I'm going to mark for the -- 25 hold on. Let me -- because I want to publish these at 144 1 the same time. I'm just going to mark for the record now 2 as Exhibit 10. 3 (Deposition Exhibit Number 10 marked.) 4 Q. And also publish to the chat here. This is 5 an email thread that I believe you'll find shares in 6 common multiple emails with the previous thread we just 7 examined. I'm going to go through that with you in one 8 second. This is a string of emails, the top of which 9 appears to be from Timothy Jackson to Diego and 10 colleagues. And it follows on an email of Sunday, 11 July 26th, 2020, at 12:52 p.m. I'm just scanning down. 12 And do you see, I've scanned down to UNT 0307. 13 And this is one of the emails we just examined, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And it's an email from Levi Walls on 16 July 25th, 2020, saying, "I just heard about this." 17 Correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you'll see that this is then -- from here 20 on down, it's the same thread, I believe. But I'm happy 21 to give you more time to examine this, if you would like. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. And do you see here, it begins with Andrew 24 Chung's first email in the previous thread, Exhibit 9? 25 A. Yes. 145 1 Q. Okay. So I just did that because as often 2 happens with emails, someone will pick a thread up, and 3 it will go in a different direction in cases. So I just 4 want to talk about the emails that are unique and new to 5 this thread in Exhibit Number 10. 6 So picking that up from where we left off, 7 here, Andrew Chung responds on Saturday, July 25th, with 8 you on the email, correct? 9 A. Um-hum, yes. 10 Q. This is on UNT Bates number 0307. And he 11 says he agrees with Levi Walls, that a well considered 12 and timely response seems important. 13 Did I characterize that correctly? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. Could you make it bigger? 16 Q. Yes. Sorry about that. I think I can get 17 one more in there. 18 A. Very good. 19 Q. Is that more easy to read? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Sorry about that. 22 A. Um-hum. So Andrew writes, "I agree with 23 Levi, that a well considered and timely response seems 24 important." Okay. 25 Q. And did you agree with that? 146 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. Did I agree at that time? I don't remember 3 this email string at all. 4 Q. And then Benjamin Graf writes again, with you 5 included here, right? 6 A. Um-hum. 7 Q. The next in line is an email of July 25th, 8 2020, at 9:47 p.m.? 9 A. Um-hum. 10 Q. And he also agreed, "Yes, we need to respond." 11 Right? 12 A. Uh-huh, yes. 13 Q. Do you know if Benjamin Graf reached out to 14 Philip Ewell to invite him to respond to the Symposium? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. No, I don't know if he ever reached out. 17 Q. Then Diego Cubero writes back, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you remember getting this email? 20 A. I don't remember much about the emails. 21 Q. Okay. And Benjamin Brand writes on Sunday, 22 July 26th, at 10:17 a.m., UNT 0305, that he would like 23 to call an emergency meeting at 4:00 p.m.? 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. Do you remember Benjamin Brand calling an 147 1 emergency meeting at 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, July 26th, 2 2020? 3 A. Vaguely. 4 Q. Did you participate in that meeting? 5 A. Actually, I don't recall if I did. That's very 6 strange. But so much had happened at that time, that I 7 don't remember that specific meeting. 8 Q. And do you remember talking to Benjamin Brand 9 about the Schenker controversy shortly after you became 10 aware of it? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. Maybe not specifically. I know that I talked 13 with almost every colleague, whether on the phone. By 14 the way, I was in Montreal at the time, so -- but it was 15 the time of the pandemic anyway, so we couldn't meet in 16 person. So I know I talked with many of them. I don't 17 remember the details. 18 Q. Okay. So you don't remember the details of 19 your conversations with Benjamin Brand dating back to 20 July of 2020? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Did you have any conversations with Dean 24 Richmond? 25 A. As far as I recall, no. 148 1 Q. Did you have any conversations with Frank 2 Heidlberger at this time, July -- end of July 2020? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And what did you discuss with Frank Heidlberger 5 concerning the Journal of Schenkerian 6 Studies in, you know, the end of July 2020, beginning 7 of August? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. I think we mostly exchanged information from 10 like who saw what on Facebook, because our friends, you 11 know, set of friends is not the same. So we would 12 exchange information and tell each other what, you know, 13 who said what. And I think the same happened between 14 Stephen Slottow and me. 15 Q. And I'm just going to draw your attention to 16 this top email by Timothy Jackson. 17 A. Um-hum. 18 Q. And I'm just going to ask if you remember 19 getting this email or you remember reading it at the 20 time. 21 A. Give me a second. 22 Q. Yeah, please. 23 A. Yes. I think I remember this one, yes. 24 Q. Did you react in any way to this email by 25 Timothy Jackson by writing to him? 149 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. I don't recall what I did. I guess the email 3 copy answers your question. 4 Q. Okay. And do you find this email to be an 5 accurate description of the editorial process of 6 Volume 12 as much as you know? 7 A. One minute. 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. Yes, it 9 looks like it. 10 Q. Okay. Thank you. I apologize if I already 11 asked you this, but I think I asked if you had spoken to 12 Dean Richmond. But I would like to ask you if you recall 13 writing a letter to Dean Richmond? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. I don't recall writing a letter to Dean 16 Richmond. 17 (Deposition Exhibit Number 11 marked.) 18 MR. ALLEN: I'm going to mark for the 19 record as Exhibit 11 a document captioned July 29th, 20 2020, Dear Dr. Richmond. 21 A. Who wrote this? 22 Q. We'll get to that in a second. I just want 23 to publish it to the chat, and then we'll examine it. 24 So I'm marking for the record as Exhibit 11, 25 again, a document dated July 29th, 2020. And I'm just 150 1 going to scan to the bottom of the document, which is 2 five pages. 3 A. Um-hum. 4 Q. And it has, "Sincerely, Ellen Bakulina, 5 Assistant Professor, UNT College of Music," as the 6 signature line. 7 A. Oh, I see. I didn't remember this. 8 Q. So I'm -- well, this is the point I'm going 9 to ask. Do you remember composing this letter to Dean 10 Richmond? 11 A. I don't remember. The thing is that once I 12 left UNT, so much has happened that I -- my memories have 13 been somewhat unclear. I'm not denying facts. I just 14 say that it seems like it happened in a different 15 lifetime unfortunately. I'm very sorry. 16 Q. Well, and my purpose isn't to catch you out. 17 I'm just trying to understand what you were writing to 18 Dean Richmond, if this was received by Dean Richmond, 19 things of that nature. 20 A. Sorry. I'm reading. What was your question? 21 Q. Sure. So I want to -- I want to walk through 22 the letter. Now, let me do this, for you, too, because I 23 know the size of text is also an issue. Is that readable 24 to you? 25 A. Yes. 151 1 Q. So I'm going to try to go through it, if you 2 don't mind. 3 A. Go ahead. 4 Q. And I'm just going to ask you if what you wrote 5 here corresponds to your memory, your experience, and 6 whether this was sent to Dean -- was actually sent 7 to Dean Richmond. To start with, do you know if this 8 letter was actually sent to Dean Richmond? 9 A. You know, I completely don't remember anything. 10 I honestly don't remember anything about 11 this letter. I don't know if it was sent. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. Oh, I see. It's like a report. 14 Q. It does read like a report, yes. Do you need 15 some more time to scroll through it or -- 16 A. Why don't you give me a minute to read what's 17 on the screen right now. 18 Q. I'll start with this. How's that? 19 A. Okay, okay. One second. I'm sorry. 20 Q. Um-hum, please. 21 A. Uh-huh, yes. So I'm reporting what happened, 22 yes. 23 Q. Okay. And so I'm just going to scan up a 24 little bit. 25 It says, "I appreciate your concern regarding 152 1 the latest issues of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies 2 and its reception by the scholarly community. I will 3 address your questions in two separate categories." 4 A. Um-hum. 5 Q. "In addition, I will also express my own 6 reflections on the situation." 7 Did I read the first paragraph of your letter 8 correctly? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So it refers to Dr. Richmond's questions? 11 A. Um-hum. 12 Q. What questions did you receive from 13 Dr. Richmond at this time and in what form? 14 A. With my huge apologies, I have to say I have no 15 memory about this. I -- yeah. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. And I can even explain why I don't have much 18 memory about this. 19 Q. Please do. 20 A. I think everything felt extremely confused, and 21 it was an explosion of a huge amount of email, social 22 media posts, phone calls, conversations. And it just 23 felt so chaotic. And I don't blame anyone. It just -- 24 yeah, that's, I think, the reason why I feel it so -- 25 Q. Okay. 153 1 A. I remember sort of like a flow of a huge amount 2 of everything. 3 Q. Um-hum. 4 A. Yeah, but not the details. Anyway, I'm ready 5 for your more specific question. 6 Q. Well, I think since you don't remember anything 7 about this, we might go on. I understand your testimony. 8 I just want to scan through it just to give you a sense. 9 There's a first part, which you promised in 10 the introduction. 11 A. Um-hum. 12 Q. And like a good report, then you move on to the 13 second part, right? 14 A. Um-hum. 15 Q. "Does the board endorse these essays?" 16 And then it comes to a conclusion. 17 And you say, "I do not endorse the way these 18 essays were put together at the end." 19 Correct? 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. And I want to show that -- I just want to see 22 if this refreshes your memory. You do say you endorse 23 Suzanne Clark's essay -- or Suzannah Clark's essay, 24 right? 25 A. Yes. Suzannah Clark's is one of the supportive 154 1 essays of Ewell. 2 Q. So that's pro Philip Ewell? Suzannah Clark? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. I don't think the essays are necessarily pro 5 Ewell or against Ewell. They rather take different 6 attitudes towards issues of inclusion in the field. 7 Q. But you used the word "supportive." 8 "I endorse Suzannah Clark's essay." 9 When you say supportive, you mean it was 10 supportive of Professor Ewell's point, I guess, in your 11 idea to -- or in your conception to increase inclusion 12 in the field? 13 A. Clark supported Ewell's call to -- for being 14 more inclusive, and I endorsed her essay. That's what I 15 said in this essay -- in this report. 16 Q. And you also endorsed Christopher Segall's 17 essay? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And then you say you endorsed Stephen Slottow's 20 essay as well, right? 21 A. I guess so. That's what it says. Let's see. 22 Yes. I still agree with what I said at the time, yes. 23 Q. Okay. And here, as you've even testified 24 today, you did not endorse Timothy Jackson's essay, 25 right? 155 1 A. Correct. And I still feel the same way. 2 Q. Um-hum. And finally, we will go on to this 3 in a second. You endorsed the content of the anonymous 4 essay, right? 5 A. Well, that is what it says now. I actually, 6 right now, I don't recall much on the anonymous essay. 7 Q. Right. But here, it -- that's okay. But here, 8 it says you didn't agree that it would be 9 published anonymously, summarizing what you say here, 10 right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And you say, "It is unethical to publish 13 anonymous work." 14 Why is that? 15 A. It's because everybody should be held 16 responsible for what they say. And when something is 17 anonymous, there is no one to hold responsible, so other 18 people become responsible, and that's not fair. 19 Q. And given that almost the entire Society for 20 Music Theory attacked the Journal of Schenkerian Studies 21 in an open letter, which you yourself also signed, don't 22 you think the anonymous author was rightly afraid? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. Of course, they were rightly afraid. But 25 that's not a good reason to be anonymous, to stay 156 1 anonymous in a publication. 2 Q. And then you write, the five essays that you 3 had just discussed above, you had read completely, and 4 you said, "have not had enough time to read and form a 5 clear opinion of the rest of the Symposium essays." 6 Right? 7 A. I guess that's what it says, yes. 8 Q. And of course, this is July 29th, 2020. It 9 seems from the record, the volume became available only 10 on July 25th, 2020, right? 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. Okay. So this is more or less four days later? 13 A. Um-hum. 14 Q. And then you criticize the way in which the 15 essays were put together, right? 16 A. Yes, correct. 17 MR. ALLEN: Okay. So I just want to 18 then mark -- this is the wrong -- hold on. Let me take 19 this down. 20 MS. QUIMBY: It's been about an hour. 21 Before we move on to the next exhibit, would you -- can 22 we take another break? 23 MR. ALLEN: Oh, that's a great idea. 24 Yeah, sorry. I was losing track of time. 25 MS. QUIMBY: I just noticed it. 157 1 MR. ALLEN: Would you like a break, 2 Professor Bakulina? 3 THE WITNESS: Sure. Thank you, Mary. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. ALLEN: Let's go off the record, 6 please. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:48 p.m. 8 We're off the record. 9 (Recess taken) 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's 1:58 p.m. We're 11 back on the record. 12 (Deposition Exhibit Number 12 marked.) 13 Q. Professor Bakulina, I've taken the liberty, 14 while you were on your break, to pre-mark Exhibit 15 Number 12 for the record. It's an email from you to 16 Benjamin Brand, among others, on July 29th, 2020. 17 Do you see this Exhibit 12? 18 A. Yes, I have just read it. 19 Q. Do you recognize this email as one that you 20 wrote to Mr. Brand? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And it refers to the emergency meeting that was 23 on a Sunday previous to this, right? 24 A. I don't know what year, but it refers to a 25 previous email, yes. 158 1 Q. Not an email, an emergency meeting, right? 2 A. Emergency meeting. Okay, sure. Yes, yes. 3 Q. Does that help refresh your memory, that you 4 did attend that emergency meeting on Sunday that Benjamin 5 Brand had called for and that we examined in a previous 6 exhibit? 7 A. Unfortunately, no. But I believe what the 8 email says. That's -- that's good. 9 Q. Okay. And the email continues. 10 "I said that my contribution to the 'call for 11 responses to Ewell' formulation was to suggest that the 12 call should be inclusive; that we must welcome different 13 kinds of perspectives. I have just reviewed those emails 14 one more time and this is actually untrue. The idea of 15 inclusivity was already there in Levi's original draft, 16 and it was further mentioned by Andrew Chung." 17 Did I read that correctly? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Does that help refresh your memory of what 20 you said at the emergency meeting on that Sunday in July 21 of 2020? 22 A. I have no idea what I said at the emergency 23 meeting. I apologize for this. 24 Q. You don't have any reason to believe that what 25 this email recorded in July of 2029 [sic] was false, do 159 1 you? 2 A. No, it should not be false. I usually say what 3 actually happened. I don't usually lie. 4 Q. Sure. So you wouldn't misrepresent something 5 like that to your division chair, right? 6 A. I don't remember misrepresenting anything. 7 Q. Sure, okay. Thank you. And I think this is 8 also consistent with your testimony today, that the call 9 for papers included discussions about including different 10 viewpoints, correct? 11 A. Yes. In fact, I don't think that the call for 12 papers was very problematic, with the exception of 13 the -- 14 Q. Um-hum. 15 A. That he didn't ask Ewell, as I said. But other 16 than that, I think the call for papers itself was 17 a call for responses. It was not problematic. 18 Q. Sure. Do you remember what happened next in 19 the controversy that was erupting at the University of 20 North Texas at the end of July of 2020? 21 A. I do not. 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 (Deposition Exhibit Number 13 marked.) 24 MR. ALLEN: Okay. And I'm going to 25 mark the next exhibit for the record, which will be 160 1 Exhibit 13. And I'm putting that into the chat as well. 2 Q. Professor Bakulina, I've marked for the record 3 Exhibit 13. This is an email from John Richmond to Music 4 Faculty, Music Staff, Music Adjunct, and also Jennifer 5 Cowley, on July 31st, 2021. 6 Did I characterize that email correctly? 7 A. Yes. Could you make it bigger? 8 Q. Of course. 9 A. Okay. Uh-huh. 10 Q. And it says that "The University of North Texas 11 College of Music has begun a formal investigation into 12 the conception and production of the twelfth volume of 13 the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, which is published by 14 the Center for Schenkerian Studies and the UNT Press." 15 Did I read that right? 16 A. Yes, you did. 17 Q. And that "The University, the College of Music, 18 and the Division of Music History, Theory, and 19 Ethnomusicology reaffirm our dedication to combating 20 racism on campus and across all academic disciplines." 21 We remain -- excuse me. "We likewise remain deeply 22 committed to the highest standards of music scholarship, 23 professional ethics, academic freedom, and academic 24 responsibility." 25 Did I read that correctly? 161 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I have just one -- well, a couple of questions. 3 You would have received this email as well, right? 4 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 5 A. I don't know. I'm not listed -- oh, I'm 6 listed. I think so. As I said, it's difficult to 7 remember everything. 8 Q. What is the musicfaculty@unt.edu, if you 9 know? 10 A. I should have been part of that, yes. 11 Q. Okay. Is it your understanding that these 12 are collective emails that go out to all members of 13 faculty, all members of music staff, music adjuncts? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you're, of course, on faculty at this time, 16 right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And you said you were in Montreal? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did you retire there because of -- not 21 retire, but did you remove yourself to Montreal 22 because of COVID? 23 A. No. It's because I spent every summer in 24 Montreal. In fact, anytime I was not teaching, I spent 25 in Montreal, because of my family. 162 1 Q. Oh, great. And so, of course, it was 2 summertime. It was the end of July? 3 A. Um-hum, yes. 4 Q. You weren't on a faculty appointment up there 5 of any kind, right? 6 A. I was on faculty at UNT. I did not work 7 anywhere else. 8 Q. Okay. I meant in Montreal, so thanks. 9 All right. So there is no reason to believe 10 that you would not have received this email? 11 A. No, there is no reason. 12 Q. Okay. When Dean Richmond writes that the 13 College of Music reaffirms the dedication to combating 14 racism, what was your understanding of what he was 15 referring to? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. My understanding was that he confirmed that 18 inclusion was important at UNT. 19 Q. And why was he, as you understood it, 20 reaffirming this dedication to combating racism in 21 this announcement? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. This is because Volume 12 of JSS created an -- 24 what's the word -- not unpleasant, objectionable public 25 image of UNT. 163 1 Q. Um-hum. 2 A. Because it's important not only what every 3 individual thinks what inclusion means, what racism 4 means, and so on, but also the public image of something. 5 So when Volume 12 of JSS came out, the public image of 6 UNT was affected, and this is what this email was about. 7 Q. Um-hum. Was the Journal of Schenkerian Studies 8 ever published again after July 31st, 2020, to your 9 knowledge? 10 A. To my knowledge, no. 11 Q. Do you think that reflected well on the 12 University of North Texas? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. I don't know. It's -- the question is too 15 general. I don't know. 16 Q. I'm going to transition to talking about what 17 two documents that you referred to. Well, actually, all 18 three documents besides some of the email correspondence 19 that you referred to when I asked you what documents you 20 had looked at to prepare for your deposition. This would 21 be the petition signed by faculty, the petition signed by 22 students, and the Ad Hoc Panel Report of November 25th, 23 2020. So I'm going to mark for the record the Ad Hoc 24 Panel Report. 25 (Deposition Exhibit Number 14 marked.) 164 1 MR. ALLEN: And you'll have to give me a 2 second here. I seem to have lost it. Where did it go? 3 I'm going to need a second to -- sorry. I had this 4 exhibit, and now I don't seem to have it anymore. I 5 think this is it. Okay. I apologize, Professor 6 Bakulina. One of the deposition exhibits I was going 7 to show you, I misplaced, and I'm finding it again. 8 Q. So I'm marking for the record as Exhibit 14, 9 the Ad Hoc Panel Report. And I'm also going to publish 10 that into the chat. We're just going to wing this. 11 All right. So we're not going to go through 12 the entire report. But the report had attached to it 13 certain exhibits of its own that I have marked as part 14 of the entire report. I'm only doing this because that 15 keeps them all in one place. But for our purposes, I 16 want to call your attention to a document that was 17 attached to the Ad Hoc Panel Report. And again, I'm not 18 trying to hide anything. 19 Do you recognize this document as the Ad Hoc 20 Panel Report of Review of Conception and Production of 21 Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies dated 22 November 25, 2020, correct? 23 A. Yes. Yes, I do. 24 Q. And do you recall that various documents 25 were appended to the end of that report, including 165 1 this statement of UNT faculty on Journal of Schenkerian 2 Studies? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And the first signature on this document is 5 yours, Ellen Bakulina, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And it says, "We the undersigned faculty 8 members of the University of North Texas Division of 9 Music History, Theory, and Ethnomusicology stand in 10 solidarity with our graduate students in their letter 11 of condemnation of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies." 12 Correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And then it goes on to say, "We endorse the 15 call for action outlined in our students' letter." 16 Do you see that in the second paragraph? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And what document is linked here? 19 A. The student letter. 20 Q. And is that also appended to the Ad Hoc Panel 21 Report as, quote, Exhibit 3 to the Ad Hoc Panel Report 22 here? 23 A. It looks like it. We have -- yes, that's the 24 student letter, it seems, yes. 25 Q. Do you want some more time to review it? 166 1 A. If you ask a specific question, I will review 2 it. 3 Q. Okay. We will get to it, but I'm just 4 trying to authenticate that this has been incorporated 5 by reference at least through this link, in your letter 6 that you signed. 7 A. Yes. 8 MS. QUIMBY: Form. 9 Q. And that you say, "We enforce the call for 10 action outlined in our students' letter," right here, 11 right? 12 And this also asserts in the last sentence of 13 this paragraph, "The fact that he was not afforded the 14 opportunity to respond in print is unacceptable, as is 15 the lack of a clearly defined peer-review process." 16 Did I read that last sentence correctly? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Who is "he" in this sentence? 19 A. "He" would be referring to the last person 20 named by name, which is Ewell. 21 Q. So that should be understood to read the fact 22 that Philip Ewell was not afforded the opportunity to 23 respond in print is unacceptable? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And you knew that Philip Ewell was going to 167 1 receive the call for papers just like anyone else, 2 correct? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. Yes. But the call for papers did not include 5 him. Yes, of course, Ewell would have received the call 6 for papers, the call for responses. What the call for 7 responses says, however, is we are asking whatever -- 8 we're inviting whatever responses to Ewell's paper. 9 Now, Ewell would not normally respond to his 10 own paper, to his own presentation. What we should 11 have done as, you know, people who drafted the call 12 for responses or call for papers, was to give Ewell a 13 specific opportunity to respond to the responses. That's 14 something to which he could have properly said, you know, 15 yes, I want to respond to the responses, or no, I don't 16 want to respond to the responses. 17 Q. And all of that which you just explained, is 18 that stated anywhere in this Statement of UNT Faculty on 19 Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 20 A. It is implied where it says -- can you make 21 it bigger? 22 Q. Um-hum. Is that readable? I can make it 23 bigger one more click, I believe -- 24 A. I can -- 25 Q. -- but it starts to come out of the screen if I 168 1 do it any bigger. Let me make it just a little wider. 2 A. -- explain to you. Thank you. 3 So what I just said is not stated in the 4 letter. 5 To me, what I just said is implied in the 6 statement, "He was not afforded the opportunity to 7 respond in print." 8 Q. I believe you've already testified that no 9 one expressed the intention of excluding Philip Ewell's 10 response to the Symposium, correct? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. The call for papers was not phrased so as to 13 include Philip Ewell himself, so as to include him in 14 terms of response to responses. 15 Q. But it doesn't say that the fact is that the 16 call for papers didn't mention Philip Ewell explicitly, 17 right? That's not what this says. 18 It says, "The fact that he was not afforded 19 the opportunity to respond in print is unacceptable." 20 Right? 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. Well, you quoted correctly. What's the 23 question again? 24 Q. Well, this doesn't say something to the effect 25 of the call for papers didn't mention Philip Ewell by 169 1 name, does it? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. So this letter states that he was not 4 afforded an opportunity to respond. To me, this refers 5 to the fact that the call for responses did not offer an 6 opportunity for Ewell to write a response to responses. 7 Q. And did you participate in the drafting of this 8 UNT Faculty Statement on Journal of Schenkerian Studies? 9 A. I remember reading a draft and maybe making 10 small suggestions, but I was not the one who drafted the 11 letter. 12 Q. Did you ever suggest that anyone add all of the 13 verbiage that you just testified was implied in this 14 statement to the letter in actual words? 15 A. No, I did not suggest that. 16 Q. Now, I want to go to the students' statement, 17 and we'll ask some questions about that. Let me see. I 18 think this is a better -- I'm just trying to make this 19 easy for you to read. But if I make it just a bit wider, 20 is it possible for you to see all of this now? 21 A. Yes. Very good, thank you. 22 Q. Is this a good size for the font? 23 A. Yes, excellent. 24 Q. Okay. So what, in this student letter, is 25 the call for action? 170 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. Call for action. It's a little bit later, if 3 you scroll a little bit down. 4 Q. Okay. Here it says, "We also call on the 5 University of North Texas and the UNT College of Music to 6 take the following action:" 7 Is that part of the students' call for action? 8 A. I think so. Scroll further. 9 Q. And then they have three bullet points, if you 10 want to call them that, or three numbered paragraphs in 11 here, right? 12 A. Right. 13 Q. One is dissolve the JSS, correct? 14 A. Yes. That's one of the actions, yes. So 15 that's the call for actions, correct. 16 Q. And also, critically examine the culture of 17 UNT, the COM, which I think means College of Music, and 18 the MHTE, which means School of Musicology [sic] History, 19 Theory, and Ethnomusicology; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And they want something to do with changing our 22 culture, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And is this also part of the call for action? 25 "Hold accountable every person responsible for 171 1 the direction of the publication." 2 A. Yes, definitely. 3 Q. And that includes, "This should also extend to 4 investigating past bigoted behaviors by faculty and by 5 taking this into account, the discipline and potential 6 removal of faculty who used the JSS platform to promote 7 racism. Specifically, the actions of Dr. Jackson, both 8 past and present, are particularly racist and 9 unacceptable." 10 Did I read that correctly? 11 A. You read that correctly. 12 Q. Okay. Do you recall any internal 13 correspondence between you and other faculty discussing 14 limitations on your endorsement of the faculty petition? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. I don't recall discussing specifically 17 limitations. 18 Q. Do you have any memory of any limitations on 19 the faculty endorsement that you insisted on at the time? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. No, I don't remember. I don't recall. 22 Q. If there are emails that are discussing that 23 subject, namely, limitations on the endorsements of the 24 students' letter, do you have any reason to believe that 25 they would give a misleading account of the faculty 172 1 discussions at that time? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. Limitations? What limitations? Could you 4 rephrase the question, please? 5 Q. Sure. Did you -- were there any discussions 6 among the faculty, for instance, saying I don't want to 7 sign the students' statement because I don't want to go 8 this full distance, or I don't want to endorse that 9 specific part of the letter, or I want to choose this to 10 emphasize and not that? Any discussions of that nature 11 that you recall from that time period in July of 2020? 12 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 13 A. We certainly discussed the details. I don't 14 recall what the details were. But the -- we -- when the 15 faculty let us say that we support the call for action, 16 I remember that we agreed that people should be 17 accountable. 18 Q. Um-hum. 19 A. Responsible parties should be held accountable. 20 And to me, accountable is responsible. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. And the examining the culture of UNT was 23 definitely a part of what we discussed for sure. 24 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I'm going to mark for 25 the record -- well, let's see again. I'll publish this 173 1 to the chat as well. This will now be -- oh, my 2 goodness. Where are we in the -- Exhibit 15? 3 THE REPORTER: You marked the last one? 4 MR. ALLEN: The last one was Exhibit 14, 5 for the record. I had intended, and I thought I did, 6 but I may have made a mistake. I wanted to mark for 7 the record as Exhibit 14 the Ad Hoc Panel Report of the 8 University of North Texas dated November 25th, 2020, 9 which is what the witness and I have been discussing and 10 which incorporates as attachments a statement of UNT 11 faculty on the Journal of Schenkerian Studies dated, in 12 this version, July 31st, 2020, and a student letter or 13 petition, which is attached to the Exhibit 14 as its own 14 Exhibit 3, which is an undated statement or petition by 15 the students. 16 Q. Did I characterize that correctly, Professor 17 Bakulina? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. I'm sorry. I was not following. 20 Q. Yeah. Did I characterize Exhibit 14 21 correctly in my statement to the court reporter? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. I'm sorry. I'm beginning to be a little tired. 24 Q. That's okay. 25 A. I didn't know you were addressing me. 174 1 Q. That's all right. I'm just trying to create 2 a record, that we've marked as Exhibit 14 the Ad Hoc 3 Review Panel's Report of Review of Conception and 4 Production of Volume 12 of the Journal of Schenkerian 5 Studies, dated November 25th, 2020. 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Okay. And that's the document we were 8 discussing that incorporated the student letter and the 9 faculty letter, correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Now, I'm marking as 12 Exhibit 15 -- 13 (Deposition Exhibit Number 15 marked.) 14 Q. -- an email from Diego Cubero to Rebecca 15 Geoffroy-Schwinden of 7-30-2020 or July 30th, 2020. 16 And it's captioned Statement on JSS Issue. 17 Did I read that correctly? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I know you are not on this email, Professor 20 Bakulina, but it refers to you right here. Can I ask 21 you to read that section in purple letters? 22 A. If you would make it bigger. 23 Q. Oh, of course. Okay. Do you recall having 24 a discussion about these issues having to do with the 25 faculty statement around the time of July 30th, 2020? 175 1 A. Yes, I remember the discussions. 2 Q. Were you discussing those issues directly 3 with Rebecca Geoffroy-Schwinden? 4 A. I remember the discussion with Rebecca and 5 others, yes. 6 Q. What was Rebecca Geoffroy-Schwinden's role in 7 the formulation of the faculty statement? 8 A. She prepared one of the drafts. I forget 9 which. I don't remember if it was the first or the 10 last, but she drafted one of the drafts. 11 Q. Do you know if she was the faculty member who 12 circulated the final signed statement to Dean Richmond? 13 A. I don't. 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. I don't recall who that was, her or someone 16 else. 17 Q. And was it -- was it Rebecca Geoffroy-Schwinden 18 that you gave permission to put 19 your name to the faculty statement? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So this is from Diego Cubero. 22 And he says, "Below, I have compiled the 23 responses I have received so far." 24 Do you know what that refers to, if you do? 25 A. I think that we had sent her reactions to one 176 1 of the drafts of the faculty letter. 2 Q. Okay. And is this an accurate description of 3 your reactions to the faculty letter that you had seen 4 at that time? 5 A. I don't remember, but I will trust this email. 6 Q. Okay. Do you know of any other written record 7 of your reactions to endorsing or not endorsing the 8 faculty letter at this time? 9 A. They would all be in these emails. I don't 10 think there are any others. 11 Q. Okay. So in the first paragraph, From Ellen, 12 after this statement, From Ellen -- and you understand 13 that refers to you, right? 14 A. Yes, it does. 15 Q. There's no one else in the faculty who signed 16 the statement named Ellen, correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. All right. You take issue with some phrasing. 19 "Look at us and witness this reality. Let 20 us be an example," or words to that effect, right? 21 A. Um-hum. Those are the words, yes. 22 Q. Do you know if they took your suggested changes 23 to heart? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. Meaning like did they make changes based on 177 1 what I said? I think they did because -- 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. -- this wording is not in the final draft. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. I guess, yes. 6 Q. And then second, you take issue apparently with 7 the last phrase, "Dismantle and to rebuild our shared 8 institutions," which you found unclear, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Third, you say, "I cannot sign in support of 11 the student statement. For one reason, that statement 12 mentions, 'We condemn the egregious statements written by 13 UNT faculty members within this publication.'" 14 Right? 15 A. Okay. Give me one second. We condemn the 16 egregious... I see. Yes, okay. Yeah, correct. 17 Q. And so there, that was in line with the 18 July 29, 2020 letter we reviewed earlier in which you 19 had analyzed five different contributions to the 20 Symposium, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And you felt some were worthy publications 23 and some were not? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. I don't think worthy of publication is what I 178 1 meant. I meant more my personal agreement. 2 Q. Okay. And from the looks of the final 3 statement, we just examined in Exhibit 14 -- 4 A. Um-hum. 5 Q. -- it sounds like this change was also 6 adopted by the faculty in their final statement, 7 correct? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. Yes, because -- sorry. 10 Q. But the final statement did maintain its 11 endorsement of the condemnation of Timothy Jackson in 12 particular, correct? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. We never endorsed the condemnation of Timothy 15 Jackson. I don't know if there was such a thing as 16 condemnation of Timothy Jackson. 17 Q. So if you look at Exhibit 14 where it says, 18 "Hold accountable every person responsible," and it 19 specifically states, "the actions of Dr. Jackson, 20 both pass and present, are particularly racist and 21 unacceptable," you don't think that specifically 22 condemns Professor Jackson? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. The faculty letter does not endorse his 25 opinion. The faculty letter endorses a call for action, 179 1 and that's not the same as condemnation of something. 2 Q. You don't think specifically the actions of Dr. 3 Jackson, both past and present, are particularly racist 4 and unacceptable is a condemnation? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. I mean that our faculty letter does not endorse 7 that. 8 Q. Well, I understand you're saying that after 9 talking to your lawyers. I'm asking you a specific 10 question, whether stating in this letter, "The actions 11 of Dr. Jackson, both pass and present, are particularly 12 racist and unacceptable," to the condemnation of 13 Professor Jackson? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. I'm not sure, because people can change. 16 What if Timothy Jackson changes and we -- I don't think 17 it's -- I don't think this condemns a person. I think 18 this definitely gives an opinion about the actions of a 19 person, but condemn the person is something different. 20 You know, I have changed through the years, and another 21 person can change through the years. I don't think 22 this is -- I don't agree that this is condemnation of 23 a person. 24 Q. Okay. So it's your testimony today that 25 declaring "the actions of Dr. Jackson, both past and 180 1 present, to be particularly racist and unacceptable," 2 does not condemn him, his past actions, both past and 3 present? 4 A. Correct. I think this does not condemn him 5 as a person. 6 Q. Okay. So we will go back now to Exhibit 15. 7 What you were saying here, or at least what it summarizes 8 you having said, is there anything in this that limits -- 9 I don't know, maybe we'll call it criticism then, of 10 Professor Jackson's racism and his actions, both past 11 and present, is that ever addressed in any of this right 12 here? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. Let's see. Okay. So please repeat your 15 question. 16 Q. Is there anything in this statement that limits 17 the criticism of Dr. Jackson's specific -- 18 excuse me. Strike that. 19 Is there anything in this discussion that 20 expresses the intention to limit the endorsement of the 21 student's criticism of Dr. Jackson's, quote, racist 22 actions, both past and present? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. Is there anything that limits -- no, there is 25 nothing that limits. This talks about the articles and 181 1 the journal. No, the answer is no. 2 Q. In fact, this summary says, "I do support its 3 main message." 4 Correct? 5 A. Students' statement. Yes, but I don't think 6 that the main message is to condemn somebody. I think 7 the main message is to change how we do things. I say 8 we, at UNT. 9 Q. Is that stated anywhere in this letter, this 10 statement, what you just said? 11 A. I think this is implied in the phrase, "We 12 stand in solidarity with our graduate students in their 13 letter of condemnation of the Journal of Schenkerian 14 Studies." 15 Q. There, you actually used the word 16 "condemnation" of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, 17 right? 18 A. Yes, but it is not a condemnation of a 19 person. It's a condemnation of a journal, a Schenkerian 20 journal. 21 Q. And you also talk about systemic racism in 22 the discipline, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. That was important to the faculty, to condemn 25 systemic racism? 182 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. Most definitely. 3 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Mary. 4 MS. QUIMBY: That's okay. You can answer. 5 A. Yeah, yes. The answer is yes. 6 Q. And you also say, "The forthcoming issue," 7 meaning Volume 12, "is replete the racial stereotypes 8 and tropes." 9 Did I read that correctly? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And are there racial stereotyping and tropes 12 that you're referring to in this faculty statement, those 13 in the article that you claim were written by Timothy 14 Jackson in this Symposium? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. Yes, some of them. 17 Q. Okay. So I just have one more -- well, two 18 more series of questions, but the first will be about 19 the ad hoc panel itself. You were interviewed by the 20 so-called ad hoc panel? 21 A. Yes, I was. 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 Q. What did you tell the ad hoc panel? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. About what? 183 1 Q. Do you know what I mean when I say the ad hoc 2 panel that wrote the report that we just examined as 3 Exhibit 14? 4 A. Definitely, but you question was not specific 5 enough. 6 Q. Sure, sure. You've also testified that you met 7 with the so-called ad hoc panel, right? 8 A. On Zoom, yes. 9 Q. Yeah. And my question is when you met with the 10 ad hoc panel, what did you tell them? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 Q. Is it -- are you unable to testify to what 13 you told the ad hoc panel? I know your attorney seems 14 to object to that question. 15 A. I think that you're expecting me to summarize 16 everything that I said. And right now, I don't feel 17 prepared to do that. But I -- as I mentioned, I reread 18 the panel -- the panel report. 19 Q. Um-hum. 20 A. And I did that yesterday. And I -- so it's all 21 there. I'm not sure if you're testing my memory or what. 22 Q. Well, one of the purposes is to find out what 23 you will say at trial. That's one of the purposes of a 24 deposition, Professor Bakulina. And that's why I'm 25 asking you what you remember that you told to the ad 184 1 hoc panel. Let me back up and maybe I can ask a few 2 questions that will help focus us. 3 Did you meet with them more than once? 4 A. I met with them once. 5 Q. And I wouldn't expect you to remember the day, 6 but it was in 2020? 7 A. I think it was either November or December. 8 I think it was December 2020. 9 Q. Okay. And the documents will reflect when the 10 actual meeting was, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 13 Q. And do you know why they wanted to meet with 14 you? Did they tell you why they wanted to meet with you? 15 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 16 A. I think the reason for writing that report was, 17 one, a response to the call for action. Because 18 the call for action ultimately says, you know, hold the 19 responsible parties accountable, right? 20 Q. Um-hum. 21 A. And to me, accountable means responsible, 22 able to respond. So that panel examination was part of 23 this sort of commitment to hold people responsible, 24 including myself. 25 Q. How were you held responsible, Professor 185 1 Bakulina? 2 A. How was I held responsible? 3 Q. Um-hum. 4 A. I was asked to honestly answer all of the 5 questions, and I did. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. I also will say that I have changed a lot. 8 And in that year, 2020, I certainly read more on racism 9 and antiracism than I had ever known before. And I have 10 changed my teaching as the result. 11 Q. Um-hum. 12 A. And to me, that's also part of being 13 responsible, because we're responsible to what we do 14 to our students. 15 (Deposition Exhibit Number 16 marked.) 16 Q. I'm going to mark for the record Exhibit 16. 17 And I've just published that in the chat as well. Let me 18 put it back up. I'm going to represent for the record 19 that is an email thread with the Bates number UNT 2509 20 from Benjamin Brand to John Ishiyama on September 17th, 21 2020. 22 Did I read that correctly? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, I don't believe you are on this email 25 thread. But it is between your division head, Benjamin 186 1 Brand, and the members of the ad hoc panel. Do you 2 recognize John Ishiyama as the member of the ad hoc 3 panel? 4 A. Yes, I do. 5 Q. What role did he play, as far as you understand 6 it, on the ad hoc panel? 7 A. He -- well, first of all, he was one of the 8 people asking the questions. 9 Q. Um-hum. 10 A. And I don't know if he helped draft the final 11 report. Beyond that, I don't know. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. I haven't met members of that panel beyond my 14 meeting with them on Zoom. 15 Q. Was all of your correspondence with the ad hoc 16 panel through John Ishiyama? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. That, I actually can't recall. Can I look -- 19 could you please make it slightly bigger? Yes, thank 20 you. That's fine. I actually don't recall if I got 21 emails from any of these other people. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. When you say these other people, do you mean 25 the other people in the cc line of Exhibit 16? 187 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. You do know that you received emails from time 3 to time from John Ishiyama while the ad hoc panel was 4 doing its work? 5 A. Yes. I remember his name, yes. 6 Q. And here, Benjamin Brand says -- I'll just read 7 this into the record from this point. 8 "I would reiterate my suggestion that you ask 9 to speak to my colleague, Dr. Ellen Bakulina. As I 10 mentioned, she would be able to give you insight into 11 the internal dynamics of the Journal and the Center." 12 A. Um-hum. 13 Q. Did I read that right? 14 A. Yes, you did. 15 Q. All right. Now, have you talked to 16 Professor Brand about your role in the Journal prior 17 to September 17th, 2020? 18 A. Not on -- yes, I talked with him. Moreover, 19 there were actually meetings in which he would be 20 present. Or maybe wait, not him, but there were meetings 21 of the Center for Schenkerian Studies through the years. 22 I don't recall. I'm not sure I remember if Benjamin 23 Brand would be there, but we certainly talked, yes. 24 Q. And is what he said here to the ad hoc panel 25 accurate, that you would be able to give insight into 188 1 the internal dynamics of the Journal and the Center? 2 A. Yes, of course, because I was part of the 3 Center, and I was on the editorial board of the journal. 4 Q. But as you sit here today, you don't have 5 any memory of what you discussed with the ad hoc panel 6 specifically? 7 A. I remember the ad hoc panel relatively well 8 as opposed to -- like in July 2020, it's a little vague. 9 But this I -- so if you -- like if you pose specific 10 questions, what answer to what -- like I can talk about 11 that. Just if you try to make your questions a little 12 more specific. We definitely talked about the Journal. 13 We definitely talked about how my relationship with 14 Dr. Jackson worked. 15 Q. Um-hum. 16 A. So what specific thing would you like to know? 17 I will definitely answer. 18 Q. What objections to the way the ad hoc -- excuse 19 me. Strike that, please. 20 What objections to the way in which the 21 Journal of Schenkerian Studies was run did you raise 22 with the ad hoc panel? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. I think I said that -- first of all, I did 25 say that the organization of the panel and the process 189 1 in the Journal was not clear. I said that. I also -- 2 let's see. I think I would have talked about the Center 3 for Schenkerian Studies because, of course, that was 4 causally related to the journal. I also talked about 5 some of my interactions with Timothy Jackson that are, in 6 my opinion, irrelevant to the journal. But I said it 7 nonetheless, because they asked questions about how my 8 relationship with Jackson as my colleague were. 9 Q. And what was that you mentioned about your 10 colleague, Timothy Jackson? 11 A. I mean, for -- in many ways, our relationship 12 was just fine. But I did mention two things that 13 happened in October 2016. And I mentioned them as 14 ethically inappropriate, and I still think that. And I 15 still feel frustrated by what happened, and I said that 16 to the panel. 17 Q. What was ethically inappropriate? Can you 18 describe that? 19 A. Yes, definitely. One was Timothy Jackson was 20 asking me about my medical insurance which, in itself, 21 is okay, but he started talking about diseases and he 22 started insisting that I might get a disease later on 23 that, you know, that would be dangerous and potentially 24 lethal. And for this reason, I need to do something with 25 the insurance. I don't remember what it was about the 190 1 insurance, but he kept talking about the disease, which 2 made me quite uncomfortable. That's a relatively small 3 thing. 4 Q. Was this a disease you actually had or one he 5 was afraid you might get? 6 A. I was afraid I might get. No. Thank God, I do 7 not have it. 8 Q. Um-hum. 9 A. The second interaction that I described 10 to the panel, and that interaction happened in 11 October 2016, Timothy Jackson, without me asking him 12 about it, talked about the proceedings of the search 13 committee that interviewed me at UNT in February of 14 2016. And Timothy Jackson said to me that members of 15 that committee were unwilling to hire me or to vote for 16 hiring me, which I think is entirely inappropriate. I 17 think that the proceedings of a search committee must 18 be confidential. And the fact that he said this to me 19 felt extremely personal, but was unethical and felt very 20 awkward and painful, because it made me feel like he 21 wanted me to feel bad about my colleagues. So he said 22 that the rest of the search committee, with the exception 23 of one other member, which was Paul Warwick who is now 24 retired, the search committee did not want to vote for me 25 because they did not want any women. That's what Timothy 191 1 Jackson said. I have no idea if this is true. But these 2 things must remain confidential. And the fact that he 3 said this to me in my first semester at UNT made me 4 extremely uncomfortable. And I thought this was 5 unethical, and I still think this is unethical. 6 Q. Sorry, are you finished? I didn't mean to -- 7 A. This is unrelated to the journal. But 8 perhaps it's related in a way that Timothy Jackson can 9 do inappropriate things that just were unexpected. 10 Q. And this hiring committee thing, was Timothy 11 Jackson communicating to you that he voted against you 12 because you were a women? 13 A. He communicated to me that he and Paul Warwick 14 were the only two of the committee that voted for me. 15 Now, I don't know if that's the truth, but that's what 16 he said. 17 Q. Do you have any information to suggest that 18 he was not telling you the truth? 19 A. I have no idea, because no one else did the 20 breach of confidence. 21 Q. And wouldn't you want to know if people in your 22 department had it out for you simply because you were a 23 woman? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. I don't want to know, because I think these 192 1 things must be confidential. 2 Q. Is there a policy at UNT that these things have 3 to be kept confidential? 4 A. They normally are confidential everywhere, and 5 it's not even about policy. It's a human ethical thing. 6 Ethics is not about policy. Ethics is about universal 7 understanding of, you know, hurting someone or not 8 hurting someone. 9 Q. And you felt hurt because Timothy Jackson told 10 you some of your colleagues might have had it out for you 11 because you were a woman? 12 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 13 A. I felt hurt because Timothy Jackson wanted me, 14 I thought, to have enmity against my colleagues, which I 15 never had. The problem for me was I couldn't understand 16 why he said this to me. Did he said this to me because 17 he wanted me to feel like I have enemies? I'm not 18 asking. This is a rhetorical question. The main 19 problem for me with this incident is why he said this. 20 And -- 21 Q. And you don't think the simplest explanation, 22 that he was trying to help you? 23 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 24 A. No, because I was not having problems. I 25 was not having problems. Nobody would need to help me 193 1 because I was not having problems. And I wouldn't even 2 know if I would have problems because that was -- I was 3 two months into my position. I -- yeah. At that point, 4 I definitely did not have problems. 5 Q. Do you know that the ad hoc panel filed a Title 6 IX claim on your behalf against Timothy Jackson? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did you ask them to? 9 A. No. 10 Q. And do you remember telling them that Timothy 11 Jackson had told them that other people had opposed your 12 appointment because of sex? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. The word "sex" was never mentioned. 15 Q. Well, I'm sorry. Do you know what a Title IX 16 is? I'm sorry. I should have backed up. I'm not asking 17 you for a legal understanding. I'm just asking if you 18 know what Title IX is. 19 A. I have a general understanding. I'm afraid 20 my knowledge is very limited. 21 Q. So I'm just going to represent to you that 22 Title IX forbids discrimination on the basis of sex and 23 education. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. So when I said sex, that's what I meant, not 194 1 anything else. 2 A. Okay, okay. 3 Q. The fact that you are a woman. And so Timothy 4 Jackson told you that members of your search committee 5 had opposed your appointment because -- 6 A. Because I'm a woman. 7 Q. A woman. And you then apparently relayed this 8 to the ad hoc panel? 9 A. I did. 10 Q. And on the basis of these other issues that you 11 claim made you feel, quote, uncomfortable, they filed a 12 Title IX complaint on your behalf? 13 A. I did not know that. This is the first time 14 I hear about it. 15 Q. And you didn't ask them to, huh? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. Do you know if they filed a Title IX 18 complaint against anyone else on the search committee 19 that had actually opposed your appointment because you're 20 a women? 21 A. I don't know. No, I have not heard of anything 22 like that. 23 Q. And you would agree, wouldn't you, that 24 opposing someone's appointment solely because they were 25 a woman would be discrimination on the basis on sex, 195 1 right? 2 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 3 A. Right. 4 MS. QUIMBY: Can we take a break? It's 5 been another hour. 6 MR. ALLEN: Has it been? I'm sorry. I 7 was getting away from myself. I think we're almost done. 8 So when we come back, we'll finish up, Professor 9 Bakulina. Can he go off the record, please? 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:55 p.m. 11 We're off the record. 12 (Recess taken) 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:06. We 14 are back on the record. 15 (Deposition Exhibit Number 17 marked.) 16 MR. ALLEN: Good afternoon, Professor 17 Bakulina. I'm hoping this is our last session, so we'll 18 try to begin with Exhibit 17, which I'm marking for the 19 record as an email from Ellen Bakulina to John Ishiyama, 20 with the other members of the ad hoc panel cc'd. And the 21 date is October 2nd, 2020. 22 Q. Is this an email you sent, Professor Bakulina? 23 A. Yes, yes. 24 Q. It looks like you had your discussion with them 25 on this day. 196 1 "Thank you for your discussion today," at the 2 signature line. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. It also attaches Bakulina JSS 5 Response.docx here. Do you know what that attachment 6 was? 7 A. No, unless I could look in my documents. 8 It was possibly the report that I sent to John Richmond, 9 but I -- 10 Q. That's what is referred to the first sentence 11 here, right? 12 A. I see. A portion of the record I sent to Dean 13 Richmond. Okay. Well, that explains it. 14 Q. That's just my question, because I don't know. 15 So why did you send him only a portion of the document 16 and not the whole document? 17 A. I don't remember this email exchange. It 18 was an answer to a specific question, I'm sure. 19 Q. Okay. And it says here, "The other portion 20 deals with the assessment of Volume 12 content." 21 Right? 22 A. I don't know. I guess they asked me to send 23 something about the production of Volume 12 rather than 24 my opinion about Volume 12. I don't know. I don't know. 25 Q. Okay. All right. And then you go on to say in 197 1 this email of October 2nd, 2020, "I have one other point 2 in addition to what I said earlier today. If the Journal 3 of Schenkerian Studies continues to exist, it would be a 4 good idea to involve people of color as a 5 form of recompense after the racist content of some of 6 the Volume 12 articles in two ways: As part of the 7 journal's leadership, there are non-white Schenkerians 8 and also women Schenkerians who have not yet been 9 involved with JSS, and as part of the content encourage 10 analysis of music by POC composers. As my other points, 11 this one is only a suggestion since I don't know what 12 the outcome of the journal review will be." 13 Did I read that correctly into the record? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can you just state for the record what POC 16 means? 17 A. People of color. 18 Q. Okay. And you're advocating for hiring 19 people on the basis of race to the Journal's leadership? 20 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 21 A. It would not be hiring, because people on the 22 editorial board of a journal, they're not hired. It's 23 not for money. 24 Q. Was the editor of the Journal of Schenkerian 25 Studies paid? 198 1 A. Actually, I don't know. That's a good 2 question, a very good question. 3 Q. So -- because you are talking about the 4 Journal's leadership, right? Not just the board of 5 editors, right? 6 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 7 Q. Journal's leadership? 8 A. Journal's leadership is a rather inclusive 9 term. It would include -- 10 Q. Um-hum. 11 A. It would include both editor and editorial 12 board in mine. That's what I meant. 13 Q. And you're advocating appointing individuals to 14 the Journal's leadership on the basis of race, right? 15 A. Could you make this slightly bigger? 16 Q. Oh, I apologize. I forgot to do that again. 17 A. No problem. Don't worry. 18 Q. I think we've got it here. 19 A. Yes, very good. As part -- so I didn't 20 recommend to appoint someone, although I think it would 21 be possible. I say here involved people of color, and I 22 can explain what I mean. 23 Q. Sure. 24 A. One way would be for -- for UNT because the 25 Journal is published -- was published by UNT, would be 199 1 to invite a -- or even better perhaps, to invite 2 applications for this position -- and again, I don't 3 know if it was ever a paid position -- from women and 4 nonwhite people. 5 Q. Um-hum. 6 A. And I don't mean that the appointment or 7 selection of a new editor or editorial board members 8 would be solely on the basis of race or gender. It 9 would be selection on the basis of many things, including 10 the experience, have they ever had editorial experience, 11 their knowledge of Schenkerian techniques. I mean, many 12 criteria would be involved. 13 Q. And just if you know, besides Philip Ewell, who 14 I believe has a background in Schenkerian analysis, 15 correct? 16 A. I'm not sure. 17 Q. You don't know? 18 A. I don't remember. I haven't looked at his 19 transcript. 20 Q. Do you know of any people of color who are 21 Schenkerians? 22 A. So first of all, I don't think I should limit 23 this to people I know. It's true that I do actually know 24 relatively many people in my field, but it doesn't mean 25 that I know everyone. And even someone -- 200 1 Q. I'm not suggesting that you know everyone. 2 I'm just asking if you know any Schenkerians who are 3 people of color. 4 A. I think that it's not necessarily the best way 5 to put it. I think someone who may be -- someone who has 6 the necessary qualifications, but who is less well-known 7 in the field. So you know, maybe it's somebody who I 8 don't know because they're less well-known because they 9 have had the privilege to have an important position or 10 something. Maybe something like that. 11 Q. Sure, maybe. But I'm asking a specific 12 question, not about those things. I'm asking the 13 specific question, if you know if there are any 14 Schenkerians who are people of color. 15 A. So there is one who is on faculty at -- give me 16 one second. Is it Emory University? And I don't 17 remember his name. He's Black. 18 Q. Um-hum. 19 A. Emory University. And then there are people 20 who are currently or were at that time students. There 21 are -- of course, I shouldn't say of course, but there 22 are people from Asia or people of Asian origin who are 23 Schenkerians. Now, I should know some of their names. 24 Q. Um-hum. 25 A. Last name Mak. I don't actually know them in 201 1 person. But I know -- sorry, I should know the lat name 2 Mak, M-A-K or M-A-C, is an Asian person. 3 Q. Um-hum. 4 A. Eric Wen, of course. 5 Q. And do you have any direct knowledge of Timothy 6 Jackson excluding people of color from the leadership of 7 the Journal of Schenkerian Studies because they were 8 people of color? 9 A. No, no. 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. And you do know that he involved Diego Cubero 13 in the formulation of the call for papers in 2019, right? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. That's true. And Diego Cubero, I think, 16 was -- now, I'm not absolutely sure. But I think he was 17 on the editorial board. Yes, I think that's correct. So 18 yes, there were some people of color. And by the way, I 19 don't know if Diego identifies as a person of color 20 anyway. I think he's Hispanic, but they were certainly 21 in the minority. And by the way, this letter also talks 22 about gender, and that would refer to women Schenkerians. 23 Q. And he involved you in the call for papers 24 about production as well, right? 25 A. Yes. And I'm not saying people who are not 202 1 white men were completely excluded. What I meant is that 2 they could be more highlighted in the field or subfield. 3 Q. You also know that Timothy Jackson and the 4 editorial staff involved Andrew Chung, correct? 5 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 6 A. I actually don't know if Andrew Chung was 7 involved, or maybe I don't recall well. 8 Q. Do you know if Andrew Chung identifies 9 himself as a person of color? 10 A. I don't know how he identifies, but I think 11 both his -- I don't know how he identifies. I think both 12 of his parents are Asian. 13 (Deposition Exhibit Number 18 marked.) 14 Q. Okay. I'm going to mark for the record Exhibit 15 18, which has also been dropped into the chat. This is a 16 document captioned, Dear Dean Richmond. It 17 has no signature line, but I'm just going to ask you to 18 read -- I know this is -- I'm going to try to anticipate 19 your next question is that I should expand it. 20 A. Thank you. 21 Q. I don't want to spend too much time on this, 22 but I think we've already discussed it in some degree. 23 It starts with the first paragraph. 24 "I appreciate your concern with our latest 25 Journal of Schenkerian Studies and its reception by the 203 1 scholarly community. I will address your questions in 2 two separate categories," and so forth. 3 I'm just going to ask -- and please take as 4 much time as you would like to review it. As far as I 5 can tell, this is the exhibit referred to in Exhibit 17 6 as "a portion of the letter I sent to Dean Richmond on 7 July 29th, 2020." And I'm just going to ask you to 8 read it and ask if that is something that you can state 9 for the record? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. Okay. One minute. So let me... 12 Q. Um-hum. 13 A. Okay. So what's your question? 14 Q. Is this the exhibit that you attached, or let 15 me say -- scratch that. 16 Is this the attachment that you included as 17 part of your email of October 2nd, 2020, which has been 18 introduced into the record as Exhibit 17, the "portion 19 of the letter I sent to Dean Richmond on July 29, 2020"? 20 A. This seems like something that I wrote, but I 21 don't know if it was that attachment. 22 Q. And remember the previous exhibit, when we 23 discussed the July 29, 2020 letter had these two points, 24 A and B. 25 A. Yes. 204 1 Q. "Beginning on November 15th, I participated 2 in an email exchange," and so forth? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. To me, this looks like the identical language 5 except for your analysis of the content of the Journal of 6 Schenkerian Studies. 7 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 8 A. Yes. So that was attachment B about -- about 9 the process, editorial process. 10 Q. Okay. And you'll see this has Bates number UNT 11 2559 as the first page, Exhibit 18. 12 And Exhibit 19 has the first page, UNT 2555. 13 So they're very close in the documentary 14 production that was given to us as part of discovery in 15 this case. 16 A. Sorry. May I ask? This one, where does it 17 come from? Is it an email? 18 Q. When you say where does this come from, are you 19 referring to Exhibit 18? 20 A. The thing that I see in front of my eyes 21 right now. 22 Q. Yes. This is Exhibit 18, and this comes from 23 the document production given to us by the University of 24 North Texas in response for our request for documents 25 that are relevant to this case. 205 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. And the fact is that's why I'm asking, because 3 I don't know. It's in close proximity to Exhibit 17, 4 which is an email, including an attachment, that is 5 referred to in the letter -- excuse me, in the email 6 as "the letter I sent to Dean Richmond on July 29th, 7 2020." 8 Okay. And then later in the record, but a 9 few pages only, we find this. But of course, if it was 10 an attachment, it doesn't say I am an attachment. Do 11 you know what I mean? I'm just trying to see -- 12 A. Oh, I see, I see, I see. So you are asking if 13 this is part of my report. Can I look once again at my 14 report to Dean Richmond? 15 Q. Absolutely. 16 A. Whatever that was the report for, I don't know. 17 Q. The previous exhibit? 18 A. I'm sorry. My English is getting -- 19 Q. I understand. 20 A. The thing that I wrote for the Dean Richmond. 21 Q. I'm sorry. Yes. Sorry, I'm trying to find it. 22 It is just going to take me one second. That is not the 23 correct one. I know it's in here. Hold on. 24 Here it is. I believe it's Exhibit 11. Do 25 you recall examining -- 206 1 A. Yes. I recall examining it like an hour or two 2 ago. 3 Q. And I would represent to you that at least 4 the portions I've highlighted from July 29th, 2020 to 5 subparagraph (a), beginning on November 15th, 2019, are 6 more or less identical except for the date which somehow 7 got lost to this exhibit? 8 A. Yes. It's part of the same thing. I agree. 9 Q. Okay. Thank you. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I don't have any further questions about that. 12 I just wanted to authenticate that for the record, 13 Professor Bakulina. 14 So after the ad hoc panel issued its report, 15 which we've already examined to some extent and has been 16 introduced as an exhibit in this deposition, what 17 happened next? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. I understand you are asking about the Journal. 20 Q. Yes. What first activities did you engage in 21 concerning the Journal of Schenkerian Studies after 22 November 2020? 23 A. I see. I was invited by the dean, I think, the 24 dean to serve on a search committee that looked for 25 a new editor. And I served on that until the time I left 207 1 UNT. 2 Q. And what did you do as a person on the search 3 committee? 4 A. So first, we formulated a description of the 5 position. 6 Q. Um-hum. 7 A. And then we received, I think, two 8 applications. I don't have it anymore. And we 9 reviewed the applications. 10 (Deposition Exhibit Number 19 marked.) 11 MR. ALLEN: I do want to ask you about 12 that. I just want to mark for the record Exhibit 19. 13 Exhibit 19 is an email string from Benjamin Brand and 14 Jennifer Cowley, Renaldo Stowers, John Richmond. And 15 then it looks like it attaches a call for applications, 16 Editor of Journal of Schenkerian Studies. 17 Do you recognize this email? 18 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 19 A. I see. I don't recognize this email. I 20 don't know if I received it. 21 Q. And I see that you are not on the string. So 22 if your answer is no, that's a perfectly fine answer. 23 A. Um-hum. 24 Q. Do you see this next email is, in Exhibit 19 is 25 -- 208 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. -- from SMT-announce on behalf of Bakulina, 3 Ellen. And this is your email, correct? 4 A. Yes, so I guess I was the one who sent it to 5 SMT-announce. 6 Q. And it's dated May 15th, 2021, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And I know this is small, so I'm going to blow 9 it up a little bit here. Can you read that? 10 A. Yes, I can. 11 Q. It starts UNT 5054, and it continues over 12 the next page, right? And I'm going to get rid of this 13 highlight. What is this Dear Colleagues document that 14 you have circulated to the SMT-announce list? 15 A. Sorry. Let me read. One minute. 16 Q. Yeah. 17 A. Seeking applications. 18 Q. Hold on. I just -- I'm sorry. That wasn't 19 intentional. 20 A. No problem. Okay. That's a different 21 document, right? 22 Q. My apologies. This should be it. I'm sorry. 23 I opened a new document, and it jumped out of the way. 24 It's one of the perils of virtual depositions, so please 25 have as much time as you want to examine this document. 209 1 A. Okay. Yes, I am ready for questions. 2 Q. Okay. And I just want to scan down to the next 3 page, which goes over to UNT 5055. 4 A. Um-hum. 5 Q. And I just -- to highlight here, your name is 6 at the bottom where it says, "Inquiries, nominations, and 7 application materials should be directed to the search 8 committee chair Jessica Nápoles via email. Search 9 committee members include:" 10 And your name is listed as the first member, 11 correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What is this document? 14 A. It's the call for applications. 15 Q. Call for applications for a new editor? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And was it your understanding that Timothy 18 Jackson could not serve on the Journal of Schenkerian 19 Studies editorial staff? 20 A. No. It was not my understanding that he 21 could not serve on this. 22 Q. That was not communicated to you by Benjamin 23 Brand? 24 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 25 A. It was never formulated that Timothy Jackson 210 1 cannot apply for this. 2 Q. Okay. And it says -- I'm just looking at the 3 second sentence that begins, "We hope." 4 Do you see that? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Right here? 7 A. Yes, yes. I do, I do. 8 Q. I just wanted to read that into the record. 9 "We hope that the new editor or editors will 10 help rejuvenate the journal, redefine it in light of the 11 current state of music theory as a field, and restructure 12 and rebrand it to promote its long term viability." 13 Did I read that correctly? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can you tell me, as a member of the search 16 committee, what you meant by redefine the Journal in the 17 light of the current state of music theory as a field? 18 A. Because Volume 12 of the Journal was involved 19 with Philip Ewell's ideas, I think that redefining the 20 journal would deal with redefining it in relation to 21 ideas of antiracism and redefining it with respect to 22 the growing diversity of SMT. And also, redefining it 23 with respect to the growing globalization of our field. 24 Q. Uh-huh. 25 A. Because our field -- I mean, JSS is an American 211 1 publication. And for a time, American music theory was 2 relatively, not entirely, but relatively isolated. And 3 there were real reasons for it. I'm 4 not criticizing it right now. But there came a time 5 gradually, but especially maybe, I will say maybe 20 6 years ago, 15 years, where it was no longer just American 7 music theory. 8 Q. Um-hum. 9 A. And the field was changing and is still 10 changing globally around the world. And so there are 11 music theorist societies now in many countries. There 12 are some in Asia, and those are some of the youngest 13 ones. There is one in Russia. There are some in Europe. 14 And some of them are older and some are those are newer. 15 Q. Um-hum. 16 A. And more -- more than all of that, there's more 17 and more interaction. So the field is being globalized. 18 And to me, the rejuvenation of the Journal mentioned in 19 this call for applications means that Schenkerian 20 analysis, if it is to continue existing, 21 it will continue existing in this new and much larger 22 cultural context. 23 Q. Um-hum. 24 A. Not the context -- not necessarily or not only 25 the context, you know, of former Schenker followers or 212 1 Schenker students coming to the U.S. That was extremely 2 important to the twentieth century, but no longer there. 3 You know, how does the Journal and how does the area of 4 Schenkerian studies exist in a more globalized world, in 5 a world where all of these different cultures and all of 6 these different countries and societies in the different 7 countries interact and languages interact and ideas 8 interact. And there is, of course, also, yes, greater 9 racial and gender and other diversity in SMT itself in 10 America. And that's really a context that simply did 11 not exist some time ago. And I don't think this ever 12 says that Timothy Jackson cannot do it or cannot apply 13 for it. This is more about really two things: The role 14 of the Journal in the new universe, may I say, and the 15 role of the new universe or the changing universe, 16 changing global intellectual context, in relation to 17 what exists in Schenkerian studies nowadays. 18 Q. Okay. And following after the clause that 19 calls for the redefining of the Journal in the current 20 state of music theory as a field -- in the light of the 21 current state of -- it says, "restructure and rebrand 22 the Journal to promote its long term viability." 23 If I asked you what that meant, would your 24 answer be more or less the same? 25 A. Yes, but it also would be more, and I can -- 213 1 Q. Please. 2 A. Rebrand. I think I -- somebody did not come up 3 with this word, but I can tell you what I understand by 4 it. 5 (Cat sounds) 6 Q. She's tired at the end of the day, too, I 7 think. Sorry, I interrupted you. So we were asking -- 8 you were going to define what your understanding of 9 rebranding a journal was. I apologize. I couldn't 10 resist with the cat sound. 11 A. No problem. The contents of a journal -- and 12 I'm not specifically talking about JSS, any journal or 13 any conference, there are things that are being analyzed, 14 pieces that are being analyzed, sources that are being 15 cited. In a way, that is the branding. You know, so if 16 I read a journal whose latest issue analyzes, let's say, 17 I don't know, Stravinsky, Bartók, and I don't know, 18 Rochberg or somebody like that, my first thought would 19 be that it's a journal on twentieth century art music. 20 If I need a journal that, you know, has in its latest 21 issue, I don't know, seven articles out of which six 22 are on various genres of popular music, I will probably 23 think that it's a journal on popular music or something 24 like that. 25 And I think that -- so I haven't reviewed 214 1 the last issues of JSS, of course, not counting 2 Volume 12. But I think that most people agree that 3 existing materials in JSS up to Volume 12 are mostly on 4 European music of the tonal era. Is that logical? Well, 5 that's the things that Schenker analyzed primarily. So 6 yes, a Journal of Schenkerian studies following in the 7 traditional Schenker logically seems completely good. 8 However, I also think that if the readership 9 of the journal made an effort to include pieces that go 10 beyond the, you know, white male, European composers of 11 certain centuries and made greater effort to publish 12 about the book of women, for example, or to publish 13 about, I don't know, an article about perhaps fully 14 tonal work by a -- non-like composer or American 15 composers. You know, there's more diversity there than 16 Europe. And that would also encourage more diversity in 17 future volumes. So to me, rebranding means, you know, 18 changing the contents of -- let's say, one volume or 19 two volumes would change how these journals would be 20 perceived in the future and showing the direction. 21 Q. So the new direction really had to embrace 22 new content of the kind you've described? 23 A. Yes, to me. 24 Q. Yes. And sorry. To follow up on something you 25 said earlier, you said to your knowledge, the committee 215 1 received two applications? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Who applied? 4 A. I don't remember the names. I am so very 5 sorry. I honestly don't recall the names. Both of 6 them are not well-known scholars in the field, which I 7 personally like that fact. That means that, you know, 8 people who haven't yet had an opportunity to show their 9 work a lot or their qualifications a lot would have an 10 opportunity to work. That's all I can say. I wish I 11 could recall the names. 12 Q. Were there documents reflecting the 13 applications of these individuals? 14 A. They were CDs in both cases. 15 Q. Were there any other documents that concerned 16 these two applications that you know of? 17 A. Let's see. There would be a -- there would 18 be the -- I don't remember if the cover of the CD would 19 be a separate documents. Or maybe the cover was simply 20 the email itself. Give me one minute, please. 21 Q. Can you just describe what you are doing there? 22 A. I'm reading the exhibit, the document that 23 you've shared, because I'm trying to see if we asked for 24 cover letter and CD separately or were they the same. 25 Okay. It would be here. Correct, thank you. At least 216 1 up to there, I'm sorry. I guess the cover letter for CD 2 was separate, okay, but I don't recall the details. 3 Q. Do you recall internal communications of the 4 committee about these two applications? 5 A. Yes. We -- yes. 6 Q. Would you have met to discuss them in person? 7 A. No. It was during the pandemic. 8 Q. Uh-huh. By Zoom? 9 A. It was by email. 10 Q. Okay. And so there would also be email 11 correspondence among the committee members reflecting 12 these two allocations, right? 13 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 14 A. I think so. 15 Q. Okay. And you read those emails yourself, 16 correct? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 Q. At least as long as you were at the University 19 of North Texas, right? 20 A. As long as I was at UNT, yes. 21 Q. And are you -- do you have any knowledge of why 22 neither of these applicants were appointed? 23 A. I remember that one of them didn't have enough 24 experience in editorial work, or maybe both, but the 25 other one, I don't recall. 217 1 Q. Were these applicants sent rejection letters, 2 to your knowledge? 3 A. Jessica Nápoles would know more. Actually, I 4 don't know. 5 Q. In your experience, wouldn't that be the usual 6 practice to send applicants for a position like this a 7 rejection letter if they weren't going to be appointed? 8 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 9 A. In my experience, well, that was a very unusual 10 experience. I don't know what would be normal. Because 11 my other experience serving on such committees included a 12 search committee for faculty, and that's very different. 13 Q. And search committees for faculty, if someone 14 was not invited to campus for an interview, wouldn't they 15 be sent a rejection letter? 16 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 17 A. In my experience, not always, because I have 18 certainly applied for jobs for which I never heard again. 19 I'm not saying that this is the universal practice. I 20 think partly, it depends on the amount of -- number of 21 applications they received. 22 Q. About the makeup of the committee, Jessica 23 Nápoles is associate professor of choral music education? 24 A. Um-hum. 25 Q. Right? 218 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you know her personally? 3 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 4 A. Sorry. 5 Q. Let me rephrase my question. I'm looking at 6 the description of the search committee at the bottom of 7 Exhibit 19. 8 A. Yes, very good. 9 Q. Do you see this? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And I'm asking about Jessica Nápoles? 12 A. Um-hum. 13 Q. Associate professor of choral music education? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Does Dr. Nápoles have any grounding in 16 Schenkerian studies? 17 A. Actually, I don't know. I don't know much 18 about her training. 19 Q. Is choral music -- Well, let me put it this 20 way. As someone on the faculty at UNT MHTE, do you have 21 an understanding of what choral music education is at the 22 University of North Texas? 23 A. I have never reviewed their program. But 24 it's not like choral education. A specialist does or 25 does not know, or is or is not expected to know, certain 219 1 analytical tools. It's possible, but I don't know 2 exactly that Jessica was trained in Schenkerian analysis. 3 I don't know. But I mean, Schenker analyzed choral 4 music, too, among other things. 5 Q. What is typically taught in the choral music 6 education program? 7 A. That, I don't know. I really don't. 8 Q. Choral music? Could that be one thing that's 9 taught? 10 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 11 A. I thought you were asking in more -- in more in 12 depth. 13 Q. Well, I sort of do want to know more in depth. 14 But you don't seem to know what choral music education 15 teaches at all. Is that your testimony? 16 A. No. Choral music and choral music education 17 are not the same thing. I know a little bit about choral 18 music partly because I had written my dissertation on it. 19 But music education as a field is unfortunately something 20 that I'm less knowledgeable about. I do know that they 21 work a lot in groups, and that a lot of their practices 22 are sort of hands-on and practical like having teaching 23 practicums and mock teaching, things like that. I -- 24 this is all speculation, because I have taught music 25 theory and pedagogy, and I think music ed teaches that, 220 1 too. But I never reviewed their program. 2 Q. Have you ever had a single conversation with 3 Jessica Nápoles about Schenkerian analysis? 4 A. Yes, at the time when we were both on the 5 search committee. 6 Q. And did your discussion lead you to believe 7 that she understands how to conduct the Schenkerian 8 analysis of a piece of music? 9 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 10 A. We did not talk about pieces of music. 11 We talked about the qualifications of the applicant. 12 Q. Did you talk about the application of 13 Schenkerian analysis in scholarship? 14 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did anything you discussed with Jessica Nápoles 17 give you reason to believe that she understood how to 18 apply Schenkerian analysis in scholarship? 19 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 20 A. Please repeat the question. 21 Q. Sure. I'm trying to figure out if, in your 22 discussions with Jessica Nápoles concerning the search 23 committee, you had reason to believe that she understood 24 how to take the methods and techniques of Schenkerian 25 analysis and apply it to music and scholarship? 221 1 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 2 A. I did not have a reason to believe whether 3 she did or did not understand how to apply them. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. Because I can't say that somebody does not 6 understand something simply because we haven't talked 7 about it. 8 Q. And you didn't think it was necessary to 9 talk to Jessica Nápoles about whether or how deeply she 10 understood Schenkerian analysis? 11 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 12 A. No, because in my opinion, to find an editor 13 for a journal is not to analyze the piece of music. 14 Q. And let's talk about John Ishiyama. We know 15 that you've already corresponded with him as part of the 16 ad hoc committee, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You know that he's a political scientist, 19 right? 20 A. I guess I knew that. 21 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 22 A. I forgot. 23 Q. You know -- let me strike that question. 24 Have you ever discussed John Ishiyama's 25 knowledge of Schenkerian studies? 222 1 A. No. 2 Q. Do you know if John Ishiyama understands 3 anything about Schenkerian analysis? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Graham Hunt, I believe, was formerly on the 6 board of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, correct? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Do you know if -- do you know if he is a 9 scholar of Schenkerian analysis? 10 A. He has grounded in Schenkerian analysis as well 11 as other things, like form analysis. 12 Q. And Ron Chrisman is the director of the 13 University of North Texas Press, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. But other than that, does he have any knowledge 16 of music scholarship? 17 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 18 A. I don't know what his knowledge of scholarship 19 is at all. 20 Q. Do you know if Ron Chrisman has any knowledge 21 of Schenkerian analysis? 22 MS. QUIMBY: Objection, form. 23 A. I don't know. 24 Q. And of course, there's you, Ellen Bakulina. 25 So we've talked about you enough, Professor Bakulina. 223 1 MR. ALLEN: I believe I have no further 2 questions, and I'm going to pass the witness. 3 MS. QUIMBY: Can we take five, please? 4 MR. ALLEN: Absolutely. 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:48 p.m. 6 We're off the record. 7 (Recess taken) 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:54 p.m. 9 We're on the record. 10 MS. QUIMBY: Thank you. I have no 11 questions. I will reserve my questions for trial. 12 MR. ALLEN: Okay. We can go back off. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:54 p.m. 14 We are off the record. 15 16 17 (Proceedings concluded at 3:54 p.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 224 1 CHANGES AND SIGNATURE 2 WITNESS: ELLEN BAKULINA, PH.D. 3 DATE: 10-16-24 4 5 PAGE/LINE CHANGE REASON 6 _____________________________________________________ 7 _____________________________________________________ 8 _____________________________________________________ 9 _____________________________________________________ 10 _____________________________________________________ 11 _____________________________________________________ 12 _____________________________________________________ 13 _____________________________________________________ 14 _____________________________________________________ 15 _____________________________________________________ 16 _____________________________________________________ 17 _____________________________________________________ 18 _____________________________________________________ 19 _____________________________________________________ 20 _____________________________________________________ 21 _____________________________________________________ 22 _____________________________________________________ 23 _____________________________________________________ 24 _____________________________________________________ 25 _____________________________________________________ 225 1 ______________________________________________________ 2 ______________________________________________________ 3 I, ELLEN BAKULINA, have read the foregoing 4 deposition and hereby affix my signature that same 5 is true and correct, except as noted above. 6 7 ____________________________ 8 ELLEN BAKULINA 9 10 THE STATE OF ________________) 11 COUNTY OF ___________________) 12 13 Before me, __________________________, on this 14 day personally appeared ELLEN BAKULINA, known to me or 15 proved to me on the oath of _______________________ or 16 through ______________________________ (description of 17 identity card or other document) to be the person whose 18 name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and 19 acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same for 20 the purpose and consideration therein expressed. 21 Given under my hand and seal of office on this 22 _______ day of __________________, ________. 23 24 _______________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 25 THE STATE OF __________________ My Commission Expires: ________ 226 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 ELLEN BAKULINA, PH.D. 11 October 16, 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, ELLEN BAKULINA, was duly sworn 17 and that the transcript of the oral deposition is a 18 true record of the testimony given by the witness; 19 That the deposition transcript was duly submitted 20 on November, 12, 2024, to Mary Quimby, attorney for the 21 witness,for examination, signature, and return to me by 22 December 16, 2024; 23 That pursuant to the information given to the 24 deposition officer at the time said testimony was taken, 25 the following includes all partes of record and the 227 1 amount of time used by each party at the time of the 2 deposition; 3 Michael Thad Allen - 05 HRS: 49 MIN Mary Quimby - 00 HRS: 00 MIN 4 5 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 6 Michael Thad Allen ALLEN LAW, LLC 7 P.O. Box 404 Quaker Hill, CT 06375 8 Telephone: 860.772.4738 Fax: 860.469.2783 9 E-mail: M.allen@allen-lawfirm.com 10 11 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: 12 Mary Quimby Assistant Attorney General 13 General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station 14 Austin, Texas 78711 Telephone: 512.463.2120 15 Fax: 512.320.0667 E-mail: Mary.Quimby@oag.texas.gov 16 17 - and - 18 Renaldo Stowers (Appearing Live) Cari Jacoby 19 University of North Texas System Office of General Counsel 20 801 North Texas Boulevard Denton, Texas 76201 21 Telephone: 940.565.2717 Fax: 940.369.7026 22 E-mail: Renaldo.Stowers@untsystem.edu cari.jacoby@untsystem.edu 23 24 I further certify that I am neither counsel for, 25 related to, nor employed by any of the parties or 228 1 attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was 2 taken, and further that I am not financially or 3 otherwise interested in the outcome of the action. 4 Certified to by me on this 12th day of November, 5 2024. 6 7 8 9 10 11 ________________________________ Kim D. Carrell, CSR NO. 1184 12 Date of Expiration: 7-31-26 JULIA WHALEY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 13 2012 Vista Crest Drive Carrollton, Texas 75007-1640 14 214-668-5578/Fax 972-236-6666 JulieTXCSR@gmail.com 15 Firm registration No. 436 Firm registration Expires 5-31-25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25