IN THE DUKE STUDENT GOVERNMENT JUDICIARY

JUSTIN F. ROBINETTE
AND

JOHN DOES
ONE THROUGH EIGHT 1
Plaintiffs

--------------- v. -----------------

DUKE COLLEGE REPUBLICANS,

CHAPTER OF DUKE UNIVERSITY

AND

THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE

DUKE COLLEGE REPUBLICANS,
CONSISTING OF

CHAIR CARTER H. BOYLE, CHIEF OF STAFF RACHEL L. PROVOST,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAMUEL L. TASHER,
VICE-CHAIR K. STEWART DAY, JOSEPH A. LAUER,
SABRINA A. MCCUTCHAN, TRAVIS J. RAPP,
CHLOE A. ROCKOW, WILLIAM D. REACH,
CHARLES W. SULLIVAN, PROF. PETER FEAVER, FACULTY ADVISOR

Defendants.

1
In addition to Robinette, there are eight plaintiffs named in this case. They are listed as “Does” in order to remain
anonymous in this complaint until their private hearings with the DSG Judiciary. This is due to multiple death threats
beginning April 21, 2010 and suspected to have been sent by DCR officers to DCR members in retaliation (two of the
nine plaintiffs above have received death threats, totaling 4 death threats), fear of physical or blackmail retaliation by
DCR officers, the serious nature of the allegations, and a past history of student-on-student anti-gay harassment by
DCR Executive Board officers. A list of witness names will be sent to Chief Justice Matthew Straus.
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 2

ALLEGATIONS
1. I allege that the Defendants (“the Executive Board”) discriminated against me on
the basis of my sexual orientation, which affected the terms, conditions, and
privileges of Duke College Republicans (“DCR”) membership and leadership.

a. Defendants did this with discriminatory intent.

b. Defendants acted in their capacities as DCR leaders.
c. Defendants harassed Plaintiff Justin Robinette and others (Plaintiffs) on the basis of
sexual orientation.
d. Defendants have a history of anti-gay and racial discrimination and harassment, in e-
mails and in person.
e. Defendants substantively altered the norms of the DCR (including the club’s
constitution) to carry out their discriminatory impeachment.
f. Defendants fraudulently drafted articles of impeachment they knew were false
(Robinette presents e-mail evidence from defendants to Robinette).
i. Before they terminated him, Defendants supported Robinette’s
decisions for which they then officially terminated him, documented in
their e-mails preceding his impeachment.
ii. Most reasons listed in Plaintiff’s ―articles of impeachment‖ were false.
iii. Other reasons listed are such that a reasonable person would find them
suspiciously petty.
iv. Defendants gave an additional reason (embezzlement) inconsistent
with those in the articles of impeachment, on official record, which was
proven false.
v. There is ―convincing evidence that an exclusive group of DCR (―The
Executive Board‖) acting in representation of DCR had pre-discussed these
purposes and intentions, and that the people privy to these discussions were
strategically chosen for their likelihood to agree with the allegations…[T]hese
exclusive discussions were allowed to move forward because of the hostile
environment described above, and [I] thereby find that Robinette was
discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation (Acting Chief
Justice Mueller, Robinette v. DCR dissent).
g. Defendants spread Robinette’s sexual orientation to other Defendants, and attempted
to share Robinette’s sexual orientation with Plaintiffs, before the impeachment vote.
h. Defendants retaliated against Robinette as a member of the DCR by removing him
from club membership due to these official complaints of sexual orientation
discrimination and harassment.
 3 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

i. Duke’s student-organization program adheres to an unambiguous all-

comers policy, where removal of any undergraduate from membership
for any reason is prohibited.
i. Defendants created an environment in DCR hostile to those of the LGBT
community, consistent with a standard of ―hostile environment harassment‖ and
discriminatory intent used to determine discrimination in United States civil litigation.
i. There is no standard within Duke Student Government (―DSG‖) to
determine what constitutes a ―hostile environment.‖ Therefore,
plaintiffs respectfully request the Judiciary issue a standard relating to
―hostile environment harassment.‖
ii. There is no standard within DSG to determine what constitutes
―discriminatory intent.‖ Therefore, plaintiffs respectfully request the
Judiciary issue a standard relating to ―discriminatory intent.‖
iii. Plaintiffs further respectfully request an affirmation of Duke’s ―zero
tolerance policy‖ relating to both.

2. We allege that Defendants have perpetrated anti-gay, and racial, discrimination and
harassment in their unofficial and official club actions, as well as documented in e-
mails and Facebook messages, exclusively to DCR members. The defendants knew
their victims, and selected them as a result of their membership or connection with
the DCR. This student-on-student anti-gay harassment and discrimination created a
hostile environment not only for Justin Robinette, but for anyone similarly situated,
and for those in the LGBT community.
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 4
JURISDICTION
Duke administration notified the Duke community by e-mail on April 21, 2010 that ―Duke
has a strong tradition of student self-governance, so it is important to note that the primary
process for addressing these allegations was through the DSG Judiciary,” prompting
Plaintiffs’ filing in this court. While these allegations are abnormally serious and complex,
Plaintiffs have been told by Duke University Administrators that DSG holds jurisdiction
over these allegations.

BACKGROUND
This case concerns events that occurred during the Fall 2009, Spring 2010, and Summer
2010 semesters.

Prior to the disclosure of his sexual orientation, Plaintiff Robinette was elected to two terms
as DCR Chairman, re-affirmed by a third vote in March, 2010, and then elected co-chair of
the statewide CR organization, a promotion, 14 days before his impeachment. Robinette
was first elected DCR Chairman in March, 2009. No undergraduate student in DCR to his
knowledge was aware of his sexual orientation at that time. While Plaintiff was an active
member of DCR for two years before he ran for Chairman, he did not mention his sexual
orientation, and attended date functions with female members of the DCR Executive Board.
He decided not to tell the DCR or the DCR Executive Board of his sexual orientation, and
chose to actively conceal it. Despite anti-gay harassment by Defendants, who were elected
to the DCR Executive Board for the first time on February 24, 2010, Robinette chose not to
disclose his sexual orientation, or the harassment he was receiving, to the DCR club at large.

On February 16, 2010 Robinette was nominated for reelection by the general body of DCR
at a general body meeting, and handed off the electoral process to Defendant Rachel
Provost. Defendant Provost was nominated to handle the election process since Robinette
was running for reelection. During a three-day off-campus retreat with an extracurricular
program beginning the following day (February 17, 2010), in a confidential open-sharing
session, Robinette discussed with the group present his problems with extensive harassment,
derogatory comments, anti-gay slurs, and graphic anti-gay language used by CR executive
officers, whom he did not name specifically.

Upon returning to campus, Robinette was reelected Chairman by the general club
membership (and not just the Executive Board) on February 24, 2010, to serve a second
consecutive year-long term. His reelection was reaffirmed in the presence of the Duke
Student Government Vice-President of Student Affairs on March 16, 2010.

Robinette was elected by his peers in the Executive Board as well as CR members
throughout the state to the position of statewide Co-Chairman on March 31, 2010 (at CR
Spring Convention in Wilmington, NC). This occurred two weeks before his impeachment.

Some of the same Executive Board members who voted for his impeachment on April 14,
2010 not only supported him in this statewide election, but they travelled to Wilmington,
5 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

North Carolina in order to vote for him. One of the Defendants (Provost) even nominated
him to this position on March 31, 2010 in a convention of 100+ state College Republicans.

During the following two weeks, Robinette’s sexual orientation became widely spread
amongst the Executive Board of the DCR. Defendants Boyle and Provost shared
Robinette’s sexual orientation with the remaining Defendants. Former Vice-Chair Clifford
Satell testified that Defendant Tasher notified him of Robinette’s sexual orientation prior to
the impeachment vote, and notified Satell that Defendants Boyle and Provost told him of
Robinette’s sexual orientation only the weekend before the scheduled impeachment vote.
Tasher reported to Satell that he and others were worried that Robinette’s ―gay cronies‖
might attend the meeting in large numbers in order to protest or outvote them if Robinette
found out the impeachment was imminent.

Plaintiff Robinette was impeached the next day, on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 9:00pm.

Executive Board officers Clifford Satell, Trent Serwertz, Matthew Leonard, and officer Amy
Li resigned in writing immediately after Robinette’s impeachment.

Plaintiff filed a case concerning similar issues in April of 2010, which this Judiciary decided.
Both the majority and minority opinions agreed that a ―hostile‖ environment had been
created, specifically by Chairman Boyle and Chief of Staff Provost. The Judiciary also ruled,
3-1, that the hostile environment was perpetuated by individuals acting as individuals and
not in their capacity as DCR leaders or members.

This case will present new evidence that was unavailable for the April 2010 hearing
concerning the impeachment of Plaintiff Robinette. This case also concerns additional
events and incidents of student-on-student anti-gay harassment that were not considered in
April, 2010. Plaintiff meets the burden of proof for traditional hostile environment claims.
Indeed, DCR’s challenged conduct was severe and pervasive, created a hostile or abusive
environment, was unwelcome, and was based on the plaintiff’s sexual orientation. This
evidence proves Plaintiff Robinette was removed from club leadership and membership on
the basis of sexual orientation, and that before and after his impeachment he was harassed
on the basis of his sexual orientation in a manner that was humiliating, sexually explicit,
abusive, offensive, intimidating, and oppressive.

New evidence also proves that defendants removed him from club membership in
retaliation, after he officially filed these sexual orientation discrimination complaints. New
evidence proves defendants, as Executive Board representatives of DCR, were not truthful
about articles of impeachment, and created a ―closed,‖ fraudulent impeachment against the
knowledge of the DCR club on April 14, 2010.
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 6

APPLICABLE RULES, REGULATIONS, AND DSG BYLAWS

Actions perpetrated with discriminatory intent are against:

1. SOFC-bylaw Title IV, Chapter II-B1

2. SOFC-bylaw Title IV, Chapter I, D1-a
3. Duke Community Standard Appendix E: “Student Organizations”
4. Duke Student Government “Resolution of University Rights”
a. ―The right to fully participate in the Duke community.‖
b. ―The right to be treated as equal, not inferior.‖
5. Duke University’s Non-Discrimination (Equal Opportunity) Policy
6. Duke University’s Harassment Policy
a. Forbids harassment on ―any demographic basis, including sexual
orientation.‖
7 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

SCOPE
This case concerns actions which occurred within an Executive Board of a student
organization chartered under Duke University’s student-organization program. This
Executive Board had the intent, and made all sufficient effort, to keep the general club
membership of DCR out of the discriminatory decision-making of the elected Executive
Board by refusing members their Constitutionally-protected right to vote and speak at
Robinette’s impeachment meeting. This was accomplished by inappropriately amending the
club’s Constitution without consultation or notification of the General Club Membership, as
required by the club Constitution. Furthermore, Defendants specifically targeted members
of DCR in person or on Facebook in their capacity as DCR leaders with harassing contact
and blackmail.

'''''' ''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''' ''''''''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''''' ''''' '''''' ''''''''' '''''''''''' '''' ''''''''''''''
''''' '''''' ''''''''' '''''''''' ''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''' ''' '''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''' '''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''
'''''' '''''''''''''''' '''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''' ''''''''''' '''''''' ''''''' ''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
''''''''''''' '''' ''''' '''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''''''' ''' '''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''' '' '''''''''''''''
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''' ''''''''''' ''''' '''''' '''' '''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' '''''
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''' '''' ''''''''''''
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''' '''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''''''''' '' '''''''''''''''''''' ''''' '''''''''''''''''''
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''' '''''' '''''''''''''''''''' '''''''' '''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' ''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''
'''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Given the Executive Board’s efforts to keep their actions hidden from DCR club
membership; Robinette’s reelection by the DCR club mere weeks before his impeachment;
the intent of defendants to deny DCR members the right to speak or vote on the
impeachment; the immediate protest-resignations of four senior officers following
Robinette’s impeachment; and defendants’ retaliation against DCR members and plaintiffs;
we ask for a declaratory ruling for the Plaintiff.
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 8

Plaintiffs propose the following model for establishing ―discriminatory intent,‖ taken
from the United States judicial system:
PLAINTIFFS MUST PROVE:
i. SUBSTANTIAL DISPARATE IMPACT
1. Robinette was harassed on the basis of his sexual orientation, while
defendants were not. The sexual orientation-based animus was persistent and
the student-on-student anti-gay harassment severe, sexually explicit, lewd,
offensive, intimidating, and oppressive.
2. Multiple other students were blackmailed, harassed, or removed from
membership of DCR on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. Other
members were not.
3. In impeaching Plaintiff Robinette, Defendants made procedural and
substantive departures from the norms generally followed by the DCR
including those set forth in its Constitution and bylaws.
4. The ―articles of impeachment‖ included actions which were listed as
offenses, but to which Defendants had previously agreed, supported, and
encouraged, as documented in various e-mails from Defendants
(―Appendix‖).
5. Robinette was elected (unanimously and without opposition) mere weeks
before his impeachment by the DCR club and Defendants, with no objection
by Defendants or anyone else.
6. Robinette was re-affirmed as Chairman of DCR in a vote held only two
weeks before the impeachment, again unanimously and without opposition.
7. Robinette was treated disparately when it was discovered that he was gay:
a. ―…the disclosure of the plaintiff’s sexual orientation coincided with the
timeline of the impeachment trial‖ [20 April 2010]. ―These actions together
exposed Robinette’s sexual orientation without his consent or participation to a
degree with which he would not have otherwise assented… this, too, constitutes
discrimination.‖
— (ACJ Mueller, Robinette v. DCR dissent)
8. Defendants slandered Robinette in public comments to the media by adding
additional offenses not listed in the articles of impeachment as just cause for
the impeachment. A Duke University Audit proved these accusations were
totally false and baseless. The Defendants knew the accusations were false
when they made them.
9. Defendants sought to humiliate Robinette on the basis of his sexual
orientation by:
a. Sending him e-mail links to ―butt sex‖
 9 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

b. Sending him an e-mail with only the anti-gay slur, ―Shit-on-Dicks,‖ (S-
on-Ds) directed at Robinette in the subject line
c. Responding to club e-mails regarding club matters with graphic
homosexual content
d. Sending him e-mails with pornographic anti-gay drawings, specifically
from Defendant and Chairman Boyle
e. Sending John Doe VII harassing Facebook correspondence regarding his
support for Robinette
f. Harassing additional plaintiffs in person and in writing regarding sexual
orientation of Robinette and another plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s 12
separate requests for defendants to stop (―Syllabus‖).
10. '''''''''''' '''''''''' '''''''' was blackmailed by defendants citing ―personal information‖
which ―would be used against him by others‖ on Facebook (presented as
evidence) on April 26, 2010. This led the student to intentionally overdose
on prescription medication, requiring hospitalization.
11. Defendants shared Plaintiff Robinette’s sexual orientation with other
Executive Board members immediately before the impeachment.

ii. HISTORY OF DEFENDANTS’ DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS

1. E-mail evidence, witness testimony (in ―Syllabus‖)
2. Discriminatory and harassing statements made to Plaintiff and witnesses
during the Fall and Spring semesters of the 2009-2010 school year
3. Discriminatory and harassing statements made to plaintiffs and witnesses in
the run-up to the impeachment
iii. PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DEPARTURES FROM THE NORMS
1. Defendants departed from norms followed by the club, including those
found in its Constitution, bylaws, DSG Constitution, DSG bylaws, and in
the ―impetus, procedure, and outcome‖ of the impeachment trial (ACJ. Mueller).

iv. ANY UNLAWFUL RETALIATION BASED ON COMPLAINTS OFFICIALLY FILED

1. Robinette and several additional plaintiffs were removed from club
membership for official sexual orientation discrimination complaints.
2. Other members of the DCR who supported Robinette during and after the
impeachment (publically and privately) were removed from DCR
membership because of their support for Robinette.
3. Membership removal for any reason, let alone sexual orientation, is not
permitted in chartered or recognized student organizations in Duke’s
student-organization program. Duke’s student-organization program
adheres to an unambiguous all-comers policy.
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 10

SYLLABUS
1. THE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT CREATED BY DEFENDANTS WAS
2
OFFENSIVE, INTIMIDATING, OPPRESSIVE, AND CONSISTED OF:
Specific derogatory comments to Robinette by defendants:
o Defendant Boyle told Robinette that he thought ―gay sex was disgusting,‖ and
has referred to Robinette as a ―faggot,‖ ―flamboyant,‖ ―fag,‖ ―disgusting,” ―Shit-
on-Dicks,‖ ―S-on-Ds,‖ and “ironic.”
o Defendant Provost was asked by John Doe '''''' to stop referring to gay people
by the name ―S-on-Ds,‖ especially in the presence of Justin Robinette.
o Defendant Boyle sent Justin Robinette an e-mail on Valentine’s Day
containing a link to “butt sex” and in which he referred to Justin Robinette as
“S-on-Ds” in the subject line. This was sent with the explicit purpose of
humiliating Robinette on the basis of his sexual orientation.
o This language was witnessed by Plaintiffs and other undergraduate students.
o When Robinette told Boyle he was gay and that Boyle should stop referring to
gay people as ―S-on-Ds,‖ Boyle responded that he ―thought [Robinette] was a
fundy [meaning, a fundamentalist Christian].‖ Boyle began referring even more
frequently to Robinette as “Shit-on-Dicks” or ―S-on-Ds.‖3
o Boyle also called Robinette ―enius‖ (a variation on the word ―penis‖), referring
to Robinette by this name in an e-mail subject line.
o Defendant responded that Robinette ―was a supporter of the Faggot Center‖ before
they knew he was gay, said in the presence of the NC State CR Chairman at an
official inter-university CR function. The NC State CR Chairman responded
that he wanted to ―close down NC State’s own Faggot Center,” referring to the
campuses’ LGBT Centers.
o Boyle asked inappropriate sexual questions meant to humiliate Robinette.
 These questions were graphic, explicit, and included sexual details
which Boyle shared about himself.
 Boyle often asked his opinion on whether other DCR officers were gay.

2
NOTE: All victims were affiliated with the DCR in some way, exclusively targeted by defendants on the basis of
that affiliation and race or sexual orientation.
3
Plaintiff Robinette apologized to a DCR member who witnessed the comment, "Shit-on-Dicks" and lewd
descriptions of homosexuality, by Defendant Boyle. Robinette apologized on behalf of Boyle because Robinette
was Chairman of the organization.
11 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.
 Boyle asked graphic questions about whether Robinette would have
sexual intercourse with other DCR officers.
o Boyle also asked Robinette inappropriate sexual questions concerning women
and asked Robinette if he had ever tried sexual intercourse with a woman.
o Boyle described to Robinette masturbation involving a plastic vagina called a
―Fleshlight‖ which Boyle said he purchased and owned, and told Robinette he
should ―try it‖ to see ―what a vagina actually felt like.‖ This conduct was
unwanted, persistent, and lewd. Robinette would not have been harassed
persistently with this subject matter if he were not gay.
o Defendant Provost told witness ''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''' she was ―uncomfortable with
[Robinette] acting more gay.‖
o Provost told Robinette: “Stewart Day [current DCR vice-chair] said he heard a
rumor either the DCR Chairman or the Duke Democrats President was gay. I told him
he’d be surprised which one was.”
o These statements were often accompanied by speculation and suggestions by
Defendants Boyle and Provost that the general DCR membership would not
like the fact that Robinette was gay.
o These statements occurred before and after official DCR meetings and
were intended to humiliate Robinette.
o Provost approached Robinette during a DCR meeting on February 16, 2010
and said she believed Robinette had ―hickeys‖ which were visible, asking if they
had been given by men or women. She asked this in a negative way, and
asked during a DCR meeting so that Robinette would be forced to take her
aside in order to be quiet.
o Another DCR member told Defendants Boyle and Provost she was sure
Robinette ―was only 60% gay‖ when she was told about Robinette’s sexual
orientation, Provost and Boyle alleged to Robinette before the impeachment.
Defendants slandered Robinette by telling witnesses that Robinette was engaging in
sexual intercourse at any given time when he was not. Specifically, Provost told
witness '''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''' that Robinette was likely ―having sex with someone‖ when
asked by '''''''''''''''''''''' where Robinette was on March 27, 2010. '''''''''''''''''''''''''' reported
this was said in a ―serious‖ way. In fact, Robinette was not engaging in sexual
intercourse; rather, he did not attend the gathering specifically to avoid Defendants
Boyle and Provost and their harassment due to his sexual orientation.
E-mails to Robinette with subject lines consisting only of an anti-gay slur (―Shit-on-
Dicks,” “S-on-Ds‖), indicating Robinette, in order to humiliate him;
E-mails whose only content were links to ―butt-sex‖ intended to humiliate Robinette;
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 12

E-mails containing links to pornography regarding club matters urging Robinette to

―watch it;‖
References to DCR members perceived to be gay by ―ulterior nicknames;‖
Pornographic homosexual drawings in e-mails from defendants to Robinette,
including referring to perceived gay students by the drawing, ―8---> <---8,‖
indicating male genitals;
Derogatory hand gestures used at club meetings and directed at Robinette outside of club
meetings which utilized this same pornographic homosexual image, to humiliate Robinette;
Comments from defendants Boyle and Provost that they would reveal Robinette’s
sexual orientation to the Executive Board;
Spreading slanderous and false information about Plaintiff’s sexual history and history
of sexually-transmitted disease
o Defendants maliciously threatened Robinette that they would spread
information they knew at the time to be untrue, concerning Plaintiff
Robinette’s HIV status. Robinette is not HIV positive.
o The rumors became so damaging to Robinette psychologically that he felt
compelled to undergo extensive testing in order to have the results ready in
order to combat the false rumors.
E-mails in response to club e-mails which contained only the word ―semen,‖ sent by
a former DCR officer to Robinette in order to humiliate him (―Appendix‖);
Unwanted and graphic sexual propositioning by an older, former DCR officer.
o During the Fall 2009 semester, Robinette began receiving unwanted and graphic
sexual propositioning from '''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''', a former DCR Exec Board officer.
o Robinette was officially moved from his Residence Hall, where he served as a
Resident Advisor, by his Residence Coordinator as a result of the information
he shared concerning the unwelcome sexual harassment and requests for
sexual favors '''''' '''''''''''''. These requests were lewd, lascivious, and unwanted.
o This occurred before Robinette’s impeachment. Robinette was relocated
before his impeachment.
o '''''''''''' asked Robinette who on the Executive Board knew of Robinette’s
sexual orientation, what Robinette believed the Executive Board would think
of him if they knew Robinette’s sexual orientation, and he told Robinette that
he asked another DCR member if she believed Robinette to be gay. '''''''''''''' is
now graduated, but was not at the time of the offenses or the complaints filed.
Defendants acted in the eyes of DCR when they behaved in this manner because:
o They exclusively targeted students affiliated in some way with DCR.
o Their harassing e-mails were sent to club officers or were part of other club-
related e-mails.
o Their relationship to the DCR was the prime motivator and catalyst to each of
the accusations contained in this complaint.
13 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

2. DEFENDANTS BOYLE AND PROVOST ATTEMPTED TO RECRUIT MEMBERS

OF DCR TO PARTICIPATE IN DEFENDANTS’ HABITUAL VANDALISM
Defendants Boyle and Provost regularly took part in destructive on-campus
vandalism and recruited members of DCR to participate.
o Plaintiff Robinette was told of the vandalism by Defendants, which often
included ripping down LGBT flags from students’ windows; threatening to
burn LGBT flags; writing derogatory words such as ―nigger‖ on school
property; and ―throwing‖ university property from windows.
o Robinette submits e-mails from Defendants asking Doe VII to participate in the
vandalism. Plaintiffs asked Robinette to participate in the vandalism, and for
Robinette to invite Doe VI and Doe VII to participate in the vandalism if he did
not want to participate himself. Thursday, March 11, 2010 – Boyle to Robinette:
 "depending on whether you're willing to do this, we could have some exec
board only (and maybe even a select group of the exec board) discussion
about how exactly to do the proposal. We might even want to all meet in
person and definitely include Stewart, he's a thrower for sure"
[emphasis added]
 Defendants specifically mentioned Doe VII as well in an e-mail as a
potential ―recruit‖: “[Doe VII] should become a thrower.‖
 Defendants texted Robinette invitations and outcomes of the
vandalism, urging him to participate, praise, and respond to them.
o Plaintiffs often told Robinette of the extent and outcome of the vandalism.
o Before the impeachment of Plaintiff Robinette, ''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''' called the police
to notify them of Defendants’ vandalism.4
 To Plaintiff’s knowledge, defendants were investigated.
 ''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' '''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''' ''''''''' '''''''''' ''''''''''''''''' '''''' ''''''''
'''''''''''''''''' '''''''' '''''''' ''''''' '''''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''.
o On one occasion, Robinette was forced to hide an LGBT flag from
Defendants Boyle and Provost, who were threatening to burn it in front of
―KA section‖ (where Robinette was employed as an RA) to humiliate him and
force him to ―come out.‖
o Defendants claimed they had removed the flag from a student’s
dormitory window.
o Robinette hid the flag in a hallway ceiling so that Defendants could not burn
it. Robinette was witnessed concealing the flag by other Plaintiffs.
The East-West Campus Bridge was vandalized in May, 2010 anonymously with the
words, “Lying Fag Robinette, DCR = Righteous, Get AIDS in Hell.”
4
Robinette witnessed much of this conduct, but feared retaliation and disclosure of his sexual orientation if he
informed on defendants in any way but confidentially, to authorities, or to other trusted DCR officers.
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 14

3. E-MAILS5 FROM DEFENDANTS TO ROBINETTE WHICH INCLUDED

ROBINETTE’S “DUKE COLLEGE REPUBLICANS” SIGNATURE AND
DISCUSSED DCR-RELATED MATTERS:
On December 31, 2010, Defendant Boyle urged racial and racist discrimination in
DCR against ―naggers,‖ a reference to the term ―niggers,‖ in an official e-mail sent
to Robinette regarding new-member recruitment for the Spring 2010 semester:
―I'd recommend finding a place to set up the [registration] table behind which I
can park the [H]ummer, open all the doors, and blast rap music. The hummer's
sound projection is unbelievable. It should sufficiently summon the naggers,
although I'm not sure how receptive they'll be to anything involving Republicans.
Maybe you could make a big poster with attached pamphlets that reads, Can you
spell Republican? If so, you might be one! Take a brochure;”
Robinette received the following e-mail from Defendant Boyle on March 4, 2010
under the subject line, ―Fwd: Fwd: Re: Clarification of CR Resolution‖:
―I'm not preaching that we bend over and spread our anooses wide for this
fucker. Rather, I urge caution about provoking this 3-incher into tying us up and
then calling in a 7 foot, 300 pound black man named Tyrone to fuck us with his
anaconda. The last thing any of us wants is some bullshit,
legalese application of “the rules” and College Republicans
being hurt in a tangible way [emphasis added]. That being said, given
Cliff’s role on the “former” board...I don't think we could find a better choice for
someone to attack [DSG Vice-President of Student Affairs Spencer Eldred]
relentlessly and if it goes sour, just distance ourselves from Cliff and say he
doesn't represent the views of Duke College Republicans…Just think how
pathetic it is that he is stroking it to the fact that he thinks he can own us with
the DSG Constitution. We can get him back with the revised resolution.‖
On February 10, 2010, Defendant Boyle sent an e-mail to Robinette, writing that he
would create a trilogy of dramatic works, and that:
―In all likelihood the trilogy could be completed with a dramatic case study film about
''''''''''' ''''''''''' lab partner: "The God-is-definitely-going-to-send-her-to-hel-L Word.”
This lab partner was a lesbian. Boyle was making a derogatory joke referring
to the television series, ―The L Word,‖ which is about lesbians. Robinette
responded by e-mail that he thought this comment was ―hate‖ful, and told
Boyle again that he did not wish for Boyle to use derogatory language when

5
Plaintiff Robinette presents these e-mails and Facebook messages from Defendants and anonymous e-mails
regarding DCR, as evidence Defendants created a hostile environment generally to the entire club, not only when
alone with Robinette or small groups of DCR.
15 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

referring to gay people. '''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''' responded to Defendant Boyle’s e-

mail: ―Seriously?‖

Chairman Boyle, in an e-mail on March 2, 2010:

“If he doesn't respond shortly, it probably means that chode got this nice little
nugget from Vikram and jumped on it (Eureka! let's own those dirty
warmongering Republicans!) and then went to bed after sending you his steaming
pile of twist-the-facts horseshit thinking he had just thrown a monkeywrench into
Duke CR's plans. He'll wake up in the morning to a giant cock in
his face saying, “We're the College Republicans, bitch!”
Defendant Boyle sent Robinette a response to an official club e-mail to the DCR
listserv, in which Boyle suggested that DCR members anonymously post on the
Duke Democrats student-organization president’s political blog, urging them to post
―Great Deals on Chanukah Presents‖ since this student is Jewish.
o Defendants have also referred to Jewish students as ―pigs‖ in the presence of
Plaintiffs.
o Defendants referred to the Duke Democrats student-organization president as
―Pig ''''''''''''''',‖ and replaced his first name with the word ―Pig‖ when
speaking about him to Robinette at club meetings. Defendant Provost also
sent anti-Semitic text messages to witness ''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''', who is Jewish.
''''''''''''' was upset at receiving these messages in the presence of Plaintiff
Robinette and witness '''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''.
o Defendant Boyle sent Robinette an e-mail in which Boyle suggested that DCR
members anonymously post on the Duke Democrats student-organization
president’s political blog, urging them to post ―Bally Total Fitness‖ in order
to humiliate their victim further. Robinette and plaintiffs were uncomfortable
with the severity of these requests for DCR to harass another student with
anonymous racist or otherwise offensive anonymous posts.
On April 15, 2009 a former DCR officer sent the following message to the DCR e-mail
listserv, regarding a campus wide e-mail sent by Duke Vice-President of Student Affairs
concerning the anti-sin picketing of the extreme anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church and
the need for tolerance:
“Duke cannot be allowed to encourage pro-gay behavior on campus. This is
truly unbelievable. It is a direct assault to the spirit of the establishment clause
in the US Constitution. It is one thing to encourage students to avoid
dangerous drinking behaviors or drug use, but it is quite another to send a
blast email calling for the defense and tolerance of immorality and sin.”
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 16

Defendant Tasher responded to an official club e-mail from Plaintiff Robinette, in

which Robinette announced his competition in an upcoming election. Defendants
voted for Robinette in this election, and Tasher e-mailed about Robinette’s opponent:
“As you can see someone has a case of 2 inch cock syndrome and
feels the compulsion to surround his degenerate self with 5 racks.”

4. HARASSING CORRESPONDENCE FROM DEFENDANT PROVOST

TO '''''' '''''':
'''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''' ''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''' of the DCR and supported Robinette privately to
the Executive Board and publicly in the media.
In retaliation for supporting Robinette in front of the Executive Board, Defendant
Provost blackmailed ''''''''''' '''''''' in an unsolicited and unwanted Facebook message:
“I am telling you this because I want everyone involved to drop it, please do not say
anything else or prolong this because people have done some research and I think it
would be best for all of us if that research does not come out. I'd rather no one use what
they have found. I am merely warning you that there are other people
who will be using information against you .”
Defendant Provost also harassed ''''''''''' '''''''' during the Last Day of Classes (LDOC)
on April 28, 2010 when she approached him in Few dormitory and asked why he was
supporting Robinette concerning his impeachment.
At one point, Provost asked if the reason was that he, ''''''''' '''''''', was gay
because ―no one can figure out why you’d support‖ a gay person like Robinette.
Provost alleged that DCR member Jake Moroshek was telling students,
including her, that ''''''''''' ''''''''' was gay.
She indicated that she would spread this information to other students.
In a follow-up unsolicited Facebook chat, Defendant Provost wrote:6
"9:45pm: this is unnecessary, not the way to go about resolving a
personal issue."
“9:48pm: and by the way I did have a recorder with me on ldoc.”
―9:56pm: I have offered to discuss this in person as I am more
than knowledgeable about your personal situation than
either sam [Tasher] or carter [Boyle], I am willing to
speak with you privately, as I have said.”

6
Included here are only excerpts of the unwanted communication from Provost. The entire transcript of the
Facebook chat is included in the Appendix.
17 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

"9:58pm: I also have more information on this situation than the

others involved, so they will not learn of it if we speak
privately.”
"10:09pm: what is your concern? that we might spread
something?"
10:11pm: "you're afraid of blackmail?"

o '''''''''' '''''''' asked Defendant Provost not to contact him 12 times during this chat:
1. “9:56pm: I would prefer not to discuss this online to be honest.”
2. "9:58pm: there's nothing that you "know" that would change my
position…it'd be inappropriate to speak about it until it is.
3. "10:00pm: I'm not sure what there is to discuss.”
4. "10:04pm: I'm sorry Rachel, it's not appropriate for me to talk about
either situation or anything that might be relevant online...or in
person.”
5. "10:07pm "I'm sorry I can't help you”
6. "10:10pm: I promise the way you phrase the question is not why
I'm not answering.”
7. "10:12pm: Sorry."
o ''''''''''' ''''''''' consistently told her to please attend the mediation, which would be
moderated by Dr. Moneta, if she wished to contact him in any way:
8. "9:45pm: We'll discuss it at mediation.”
9. "9:46pm: ok then we can go to student conduct and have a whole
formal thing.”
10. "9:47pm: That's why I want to do mediation.”
11. "9:57pm: That won't work either[,] i've suggested mediation[,] you
have refused, which is your right to do."
12. "10:09pm: then go to mediation."
o This chat mentioned DCR, DCR officers’ names, and their role in DCR.
o ''''''''' ''''''''' ultimately had to go offline in order to avoid Provost.

As a result of these threats and harassment, '''''''''' '''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''' overdosed on

prescription medication and was hospitalized the day after these threats were sent to
him. He remained under 24-hour surveillance while in the hospital and was released
three days later.
Plaintiff Robinette received a campus no-contact order against defendants after '''''''''
'''''''' was hospitalized.
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 18

5. DEFENDANTS BOYLE AND PROVOST HARASSED AND INTIMIDATED

THE ROOMMATE OF A DCR MEMBER ON THE BASIS OF HER RACE.
Boyle and Provost placed a note containing a racial epithet under the dormitory door
of the African-American roommate of a DCR member:
The note read: ―Nagger ‖
Defendants did not know the victim, but they were friends with the victim’s
roommate because she was a DCR member. Plaintiff was told this DCR member
was in attendance for the harassment.
Defendants were directly witnessed placing this note under the student’s private
Central Campus bedroom by '''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''.
Witness '''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''' stated to multiple secondary witnesses, including Plaintiffs,
that the victim was targeted because she was African-American. Multiple plaintiffs
were knowledgeable of this harassment after it occurred.
Doe VIII stated to Plaintiff Robinette that he felt sorry for the harassed girl.
Plaintiff Robinette notified Duke Administration officials and Residence Life and
Housing Services officials.
This harassment occurred before Plaintiff Robinette’s impeachment.

6. E-MAIL FROM FORMER DSG VP SPENCER ELDRED

Robinette presents e-mails from Spencer Eldred as evidence that an official
complaint was filed, after his impeachment but before his and others’ removal from
membership:
Eldred to Robinette by e-mail:
―I am on your side and, frankly, disgusted—not just with those in DCR
who have acted with such words and deeds, but also with the way the
university has been treating this obvious violation of policy. Your privacy is
important to me. I understand you are not open about your sexual
orientation. This maltreatment should not further erode your privacy more
than it already has without your explicit intent.‖
 19 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

7. ADDITIONAL INCIDENTS AND ESCALATION AFTER IMPEACHMENT:

April 21, 2010: An anti-gay death threat to Robinette was placed under his door with
the word, ―faggot,‖ and the image of a bloody, hanging body.

April 28, 2010: Vandalism of a DCR member’s door with anti-gay slurs.
o Shortly after voicing support for Robinette at the closed Executive Board
meeting in which the impeachment occurred, Doe VI’s dormitory nametag
was vandalized with the word “faggot” underlined and containing
exclamation marks.
o Doe VI was targeted because he was a former Vice Chair of the DCR, who
resigned in protest immediately after Robinette was impeached, and was
known by defendants to be close friends with Robinette.
o Doe VI only voiced support for Robinette during the closed impeachment
meeting, and did not do so publically or in the media. Therefore, only those
who were present during the impeachment were aware of Doe VI’s support of
Robinette.
o Defendant Provost has trespassed twice in the dormitory of Doe VI, most
recently during the night of March 27, 2010.

Early May, 2010: The East-West Campus bridge was discovered with graffiti which
read:
o ―Lying Fag Robinet [sic], DCR = Righteous, Get AIDS in Hell.‖
o This replicated a Duke CollegeACB thread in which Robinette was discussed
as the subject line, and which read: “uhhh…Robinette = lying fag. DCR =
righteous.”
o Other anonymous posts or anonymous comments on news articles included:
“Robinette is a psycho, he should be kicked out of [D]uke,”
“[Justin Robinette]: if you ever needed a reason to hate gays,”
“I hope he chokes on a dick, kill, eat, kill, eat,”
“take his dick and put it down his throat.”
June 21, 2010: A death threat was sent to Plaintiff Robinette via e-mail which read:
―A dead faggot: What I don't understand is why you continue to
talk to everyone about this like you want it to continue. You can't
be a faggot in the Republican Party and you are about to learn that
you can't be a faggot general [sic]. You're over to me and the rest
of us. Go eat shit out of another homo, so stop trying to hate what
is free speech. You're dead to me like a fag, and you're about to be
dead to everybody else fag.‖
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 20

June 21, 2010: Plaintiffs suspect a DCR officer sent a second, separate death threat
which was sent via e-mail to Plaintiff Robinette and read:
―Hi all—I was told to forward a message to Justin from someone
special: Justin..The best thing that ever happened to the DCR's
and the Republican party was that we got rid of Our Faggot.
You're going to find yourself killed and wish you were still saying
all we did was call you names. So what I am saying is I think it is
best for us all you should stop talking and take back your
complaint against me, it's not as easy to paint over a dead faggot.
'''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''
Duke University - Department of Economics
'''''''' ''''''''''''''‖

June 21, 2010: An e-mail death threat7 was sent to '''''''''' ''''''''''' '''''''. '''''''''' '''''' created a
Facebook page titled, ―Petition for Duke University to Take Action against DCR,‖
which has 327 members as of August 18, 2010. The threat to ''''''''''' '''''' read:
―A nigger who rescues Our Faggot: Like I'm surprised to see it
that niggers come to the rescue of faggots in this world XD [sic].
Stop making this go on like you know anything and close your
group--the petition on DCRs on Facebook--and you won't find you
[sic] and one less dickgobbling faggot killed I'm just saying, take
this like you want. Did you read the student government's?So [sic]
fuck you you're the only one making this continue”

7
Police were notified in all cases of death threats, vandalism, and blackmail where appropriate. To Plaintiff’s
knowledge, the Police have made no arrests presently in these matters.
21 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

ALLEGATIONS IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT:

Defendants maliciously concocted the Articles of Impeachment (―Articles‖) by aggregating
petty and outright false allegations against Plaintiff Robinette for the sole purpose of
impeaching him because of his sexual orientation. Every allegation contained in writing
within the Articles allegedly occurred before March 28, 2010, the date that Robinette was
elected statewide co-chair with the full support of the Defendants (Defendant Provost even
nominated Robinette publicly for this position). Some allegations within the Articles took
place before February 24, 2010, the date when Robinette was reelected unanimously and
with the full support of Defendants to a second consecutive year-long term as Chairman.

Defendants often supported, encouraged, or advised Robinette in carrying out some of the
alleged violations. In fact, just 48 hours after Robinette’s impeachment, Defendant Boyle
(who succeeded Robinette as Chairman) promoted the exact same policy (continuing to
allow student involvement in the campaigns of both Republicans in a Congressional
primary) for which he had just voted to impeach Robinette, in an official e-mail to the DCR
club. Boyle made no mention of Robinette’s impeachment in this first e-mail as chairman to
the general club.

The most serious allegation levied against Robinette involved slanderous charges of
embezzlement as a result of spending club funds on personal clothing items. This charge –
which, if true, could have led to Robinette’s expulsion – did not appear, and was not
referenced, in the articles of impeachment. In response to the charge, Duke University
launched an official University Audit. The audit concluded that Robinette had committed
absolutely no wrongdoing regarding the embezzlement. Defendants knew the charge was
false when it was made. Defendant Boyle made this charge to a Duke Chronicle reporter on
April 18, 2010, four days after Robinette’s impeachment.

Defendants never impugned or mentioned any financial problems they had with Robinette’s
fundraisers or club purchases to Robinette or to the club’s Treasurer (who also resigned
immediately following Robinette’s impeachment and is a Plaintiff in this case).

The maliciously petty allegations within the Articles, in writing and signed by Defendants,
included:

Article 2) Robinette ―attempted to fix club elections.‖

o In fact, Robinette recused himself from handling club elections intentionally,
with the purpose of running for reelection as Chairman. Defendants
perpetrated a scheme to fix elections, and asked Robinette to do so by e-mail.
Robinette did not do so, even though Defendant Tasher, for example, asked
him by e-mail:
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 22

“Justin, [I] spoke to Joey. He would be thrilled with Chaplain. Can you
make sure certain important people have lists of the candidates and if there's a
potentially undeserving or hostile candidate running against a qualified or
friendly candidate make sure people know whom to support? Thanks.
Samuel L. Tasher, Duke University T'09, L'12.”
o So that Robinette would not be handling an election in which he was running,
he officially asked for someone to be nominated to fill the role otherwise filled
by the Chairman. Rachel Provost stated by e-mail to the DCR club’s e-mail
list:
“I was nominated and confirmed to handle all election questions, concerns and
procedure.”

Article 3) Robinette sent Letters to the Editor without ―clearing them‖ with the
Executive Board
o There has been no tradition of such oversight during the Plaintiff’s three years
as a member of the Club. Furthermore, it is common within Duke Student
organizations to delegate ―spokesman‖ responsibilities to the Chairman.
Robinette’s actions were in line with this established environment. Robinette
received an e-mail from Defendant Tasher on February 9, 2010 (―Appendix‖)
regarding letters to the editor which affirmed Tasher’s support for the Letters.
Article 4) Robinette allegedly failed to call a meeting during a three week period in
April, 2010.
Article 5a) Robinette failed to respond to an e-mail in a week to a member of
another school’s CR club.
Article 5b) Robinette ―blew off opportunity to attend or encourage Board members
attendance of Lawson-Roche debate at UNC, made more egregious by DCR’s
involvement with the campaigns of both Frank Roche and BJ Lawson.‖
Article 6a) Robinette failed to provide one of the defendants a personal ride back
from a conference in Washington, DC
Article 6d) Robinette allowed current undergraduate and former Executive Board
members to receive e-mails through the club’s listserv.
o While Robinette was impeached for allegedly adding students to the club
listserv, Defendant Rachel Provost asked Robinette to add her personal
friends to the listserv. She sent an e-mail, for example, on February 25, 2010,
in which she asked Robinette:
―Hey [Defendant] travis wants to know if he can be put on the listserv.‖
o Not only did Defendants impeach Robinette for petty reasons which they
then supported themselves after the impeachment, they also impeached him
for actions (above, for example) which Defendants requested him to take as
23 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.
Chairman. A reasonable person would find this contradictory, and therefore
not a viable reason for which Robinette should be impeached.
o Robinette was expanding the relevance of the club by including general club
members on some e-mails and to the Executive Board because they were still
committed and active members.
o Defendant Provost even explicitly discussed her own actions regarding
removing members from the club listserv and blacklisting others. It should
be noted that the Articles included references to Robinette’s alleged ―purging‖
of members. Not only is such an allegation baseless, but Defendants are guilty
of the very same act they accused Plaintiff of in the Articles. Following is an
e-mail from Defendant Provost to Robinette:
“I can't text right now, so I figured I'd email. I sent OIT an email to remove
Vikram and Jake from the owners list on CRs. If they don't fix it soon,
maybe you should send an email as well since you're chairman? Since I'm not
in charge they might just ignore my email…And I deleted Matt Burns and
Vikram. Chloe only needs to be an admin/moderator to send emails, I
believe, so you might want to hold off on her being an owner. She's nice enough
that if Vikram asked her to add him or something she might do that, and its
safest to keep the blacklist abilities to you, me, and sam (who
probably doesn't know how to use it, or even know that it exists).”
o Robinette did not remove students from the listserv, because this is against
school policy since membership is determined solely by a student’s presence
on the club listserv. The CR Constitution states: ―Membership in the DCR stems
from membership on our e-mail list. Membership for an individual entails the following:
being on the official e-mail list.”
o Robinette and Plaintiffs, as well as individual LGBT student members, were
removed from the club listserv and denied membership after Robinette’s
impeachment.
Article 7) Defendants impeached Robinette for a decision which he had not yet
made. Robinette failed to give out the Walter Jones Campus Defender Award
o This award had been given out for the previous three years. The previous year,
Robinette was responsible for, and presented, this award to Mr. B.J. Lawson,
and the year before to Professor Michael Munger of Duke University. No
obvious candidate appeared for 2010, though Robinette was considering
presenting the award to Defendant Tasher before the impeachment. Defendants
impeached Robinette for a decision which he had not yet even made.

Defendants perpetrated a scheme to draft reasons for impeaching Robinette, and

Defendants were chosen for their likelihood to agree with the allegations. General club
members were removed from the club listserv and refused the right to speak or vote at the
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 24

impeachment meeting. Five members who attended the meeting immediately resigned
afterwards, four in documented official resignations to the DCR Executive Board listserv.

Defendants’ past history of discriminatory conduct, and substantive changes in the

procedures and norms of the club before the impeachment vote, assist in establishing a
discriminatory intent. Robinette will present evidence and testimony at the time of his
hearing as to any other specific impeachment articles alleged.

GENERAL CLUB MEMBER DISENFRANCHISEMENT AND

DISCRIMINATION:
When Robinette’s sexual orientation was disclosed, Defendants conspired to use this fact to
impeach Robinette. Defendant and Executive Board member (Executive Director) Samuel
Tasher contacted former Vice-Chair Clifford Satell by phone on April 14, 2010, the day of
the impeachment. Tasher was told of Robinette’s sexual orientation by defendants Provost
and Boyle. Tasher approached Satell thinking he would support the impeachment, since
Satell was considered a neutral party and did not know Robinette’s sexual orientation.
Tasher had a long-established working relationship with Satell through DCR (in fact, Tasher
personally recruited Satell to join the DCR when Tasher was President of the DCR, and
Satell was a freshman, in 2007).

During this conversation, Tasher informed Satell that Robinette was gay. Tasher asked Satell
what he thought of that fact. Tasher discussed this issue in the context of explaining his
various issues with Robinette. Tasher asked Satell if he felt it was in the best interest of the
club to have a president like Robinette. When Satell voiced his general support for Robinette,
Tasher changed tone and then insisted that an impeachment was not immediately coming.8

Tasher then instructed Satell not to speak at the meeting that evening. Tasher explained that
since Satell was no longer on the Executive Board (his term as Vice-Chair had ended in
March), if Satell were allowed to speak or vote at the meeting, this could mean that any of
Robinette’s ―gay cronies‖ could potentially speak up at the meeting as well, to be consistent
with the rules of order. Tasher explained that the meeting was supposed to be closed for
that reason; he explained that Defendants Tasher, Provost and Boyle were meeting over
lunch discussing the impeachment.

After the impeachment, Defendants asked Robinette to resign in order to avoid announcing
to the club that he had been impeached. They did this to avoid telling the general club
members that they had been disenfranchised from their constitutional right to vote (given in
8 Robinette was impeached later that same day.
 25 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL.

the DCR club constitution). All DCR club members are given the right to vote on a leader’s
impeachment, including the right to know the Chairman will be impeached:
“Any member may request to remove the Chairman with 2/3 approval from the
whole body, not just those present. In either situation, the Executive Board must be
presented with the reasons for the removal before the vote. After the request to
remove the Chairman is passed by the appropriate numbers in the Executive Board,
a meeting of the general body must be held within two weeks, in which 2/3 of those
present must vote to remove the Chairman as well.”9
Robinette notified Boyle and Provost of this provision in an e-mail on April 13, 2010, telling
them that they would not be able to convince the general membership of the DCR to
impeach its leader for no reason. In this same e-mail, Robinette impugned Boyle’s treatment
of LGBT students, in his usage of ―ulterior nicknames‖ to refer to members of the LGBT
community.

After deciding to impeach Plaintiff by circumventing the club’s Constitution, Defendants

altered the Constitution minutes before Robinette’s impeachment with the intent to secure
the outcome of that impeachment. This change altered the impeachment clause, taking away
the general club membership’s right to know or vote on the impeachment. It was changed
by Defendants so that those same Defendants in the room, and only they, were eligible to
vote in the impeachment. The above provision was stricken entirely.

The meeting in which this change occurred was advertised as the first ever ―closed‖
executive meeting of the DCR, advertised only to the listserv of students Defendants had
chosen for their likelihood to agree with respondents’ allegations or to view Robinette’s
sexual orientation in a negative way.

Two students who attended the meeting were not allowed to vote because respondents
changed the DCR Constitution minutes before the vote. Both students were removed from
the DCR executive listserv by respondents. Both students are plaintiffs (witnesses) in this
case, and are no longer DCR members.

Four senior executive officers resigned immediately after the impeachment, in protest.

DCR vice-chair '''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''', who served on the Executive Board the third longest of
all DCR officers, sent a second resignation letter in which he resigned from the entire DCR
club, and not just the DCR Executive Board (witness, plaintiff). He stated in his resignation
letter that ―it hurt a bit when my roommate[Defendant Boyle], current Chairman of the CRs, jokingly

9 th
From the DCR Club Constitution as of April 14 , the day of the impeachment. It is this version that is on file with
DSG as Defendants failed to follow proper DSG procedure for enacting amendments to club constitutions.
 ROBINETTE and DOES I-VIII v. DCR, ET AL. 26
stated that even though he didn’t agree with me being an atheist and with my views on LGBT matters, he
would like me on the board for next year.‖

Multiple club members have removed themselves from the listserve and DCR in protest,
since they had no other way to express their feelings on the issue to the Executive Board.

NOTA BENE: Defendants’ change to the constitution, striking this clause entirely and
replacing it with a clause permitting only Defendants the right to vote on Plaintiff’s
impeachment, not only violated Plaintiffs’ (and all others’ similarly situated) right to vote on
Robinette’s impeachment, but violated their right to vote on the nature of changes made to
their rights to vote. This is not only disenfranchisement, but was a substantive alteration to a
club norm which allowed plaintiffs to carry out their discriminatory impeachment
immediately after the constitutional change, against Plaintiff Robinette. Though consultation
with the entire club membership is required by the club Constitution to alter it, Defendants
carried out their plan regardless. All club members had a right to ―fully participate‖ in DCR
which cannot be rescinded without consultation or notification of the body of DCR which
this change affects.

Acting Chief Justice Mueller addressed this drafting problem: ―I further assert that the Duke
Student Government can and should place a responsibility on all of its student organizations to follow
necessary and reasonable safeguards to ensure that no such discrimination ever enters into any action taken by
the group as a whole. In this case, I do not believe that the Duke College Republicans followed necessary and
reasonable procedures for doing so‖ (Robinette v. DCR dissent). The intent to conceal conduct
which was disenfranchisement and discrimination is prohibited. Furthermore, in response to
this allegation, Duke Student Government enacted a protective bylaw on behalf of plaintiff
Robinette and all other students similarly situated: ―Any future changes to a student group
constitution do not go into effect until confirmation is received by the SOFC Chair.‖

Respectfully submitted,

Justin F. Robinette
and
John Does I-VIII