Both sides debate timing of events in Woodfield case

Hearing date not yet set in matter Both sides in the sexual harassment case against Assistant English Professor Malcolm Woodfield disagree over when charges were served to Woodfield. Woodfield is accused of coercing a female student in his class to have sexual relations with him in the fall of 1992. He has denied the charges. According to a source close to the woman who is accusing Woodfield of sexual harassment, the College Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility initially served Woodfield with a formal notice of the charge against him on Nov. 16 of this year. "The chair of the Committee [Madeline Joullie] gave Woodfield the complaint on Nov. 16," the source, who wished to remain anonymous, said. "They gave [the formal notice] to Woodfield by sliding it under his door, which is not the smartest thing to do." The source said a formal document exists which states that Alan Lerner, Woodfield's attorney in the matter, had seen the notice on Nov. 20, 1993. Lerner said last night that Woodfield did not receive official notice of the accusations against him from the Committee until Nov. 30. He also denied that he had seen the notice on Nov. 20, adding that he was not retained as counsel for Woodfield until "sometime in December." After the Committee accepted Woodfield's assertion that he did not receive the formal notice until November 30, the source said it allowed him 20 working days to respond to the accusations -- January 14 -- in accordance with University Policies and Procedures. On Jan. 11, one working day before the deadline, the source said Joullie approached Woodfield to remind him of the impending deadline. She also said that if he did not respond, the Committee would have to proceed without him, the source added. According to the source close to the woman accusing Woodfield of sexual harassment, Woodfield did not respond and told Joullie that he had not obtained an attorney. Joullie refused to comment on the matter last night. "Jan. 14 came and went, and there was no response from [Woodfield]," the source said. "Woodfield essentially forfeited his right [to be involved in University hearings]." Lerner said he personally mailed Woodfield's response to the Committee's charge on January 11. He added that he received a phone call from Woodfield toward the end of January. Lerner said Woodfield was upset over the fact that the Committee had not received a letter of response. Lerner said he contacted Joullie that week and voiced Woodfield's concern that the Committee would proceed with the matter without his response. He added that Joullie told him the Committee had the response in their possession and would be meeting to discuss the matter later that week. After the meeting, Lerner said the Committee scheduled Woodfield's hearings for Feb. 4 and told him they would be conducted as if no response from Woodfield had been received. After speaking with Joullie again, Lerner said the Committee decided to postpone the hearings and allow Woodfield to present his case due to a "misunderstanding" and in "fairness" to Woodfield. According to the source close to the woman, Lerner's depiction of the events is incorrect. The source said Joullie did not receive a letter of response from Woodfield until Jan. 26. The letter, dated January 11, had not been mailed, but rather placed in Joullie's mailbox. Since Joullie checks her mailbox every day, the source said, there was no way she could have overlooked it for 12 days. The source said the letter from Woodfield asked the Committee to postpone the hearings until September of this year. "I probably had some communication with [Joullie] and suggested the possibility of postponing the hearings until September," Lerner said last night. Since the administration had close to six months to prepare its case, Lerner said Woodfield should be given an ample amount of time to prepare for the hearings. "[The Committee] told us that [a September postponement] was out of the question," Lerner added. Lerner said he has no knowledge of a new hearing date for Woodfield. Joullie would not comment on when or if a hearing would be held.