The article discusses a legal case involving Doe v. Carleton College, where a female student alleges abuse and inappropriate conduct by a professor named Donald Smith. Doe was a student at Carleton College between 2019 and 2023 and participated in various dance-related activities, including salsa classes with Smith. Their relationship evolved into an inappropriate and abusive dynamic, with Smith making inappropriate comments, touching Doe in ways that made her uncomfortable, and engaging in potentially coercive behavior. Doe later became Smith’s co-instructor for a salsa class, during which she spent significant time with him, including meeting at his residence. The case centers on Carleton College’s responsibility for Smith’s actions, particularly regarding hiring, retention, and supervision practices. The court has taken up the case, and the judgment is expected to address issues of institutional accountability in cases of educator misconduct.
Carleton College faces a lawsuit alleging failure to prevent abuse by staff member Donald Smith, who allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct with a student over multiple years. The case, Doe v. Carleton College, was recently decided by Judge Donovan Frank in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiff, Doe, was a student at Carleton between 2019 and 2023. She participated in the school’s social dance club before enrolling in salsa classes and an independent study with Smith, a Carleton staff member. During the 2020 winter term, Doe attended Smith’s salsa workshop and subsequently enrolled in Salsa I. Over time, her relationship with Smith grew closer, involving frequent communication and personal interactions. In March 2020, Doe and two other students visited Smith’s home for dinner with him and his wife. After the completion of Salsa I, Smith left a note in Doe’s student mailbox expressing interest in having her as a co-instructor. During winter break, Doe and Smith met approximately ten times in Smith’s office, where he continued to teach her. These sessions included inappropriate comments and physical contact that made Doe uncomfortable. In the 2021 fall term, Doe became Smith’s co-instructor for Salsa I. Smith offered to pay her $17.25 per hour, though the PEAR Department, which oversees such arrangements, was unaware of the co-instructor role. Smith paid Doe through personal checks, and as part of her duties, Doe met with Smith weekly to prepare for classes. These meetings occurred at Smith’s residence. Doe also enrolled in Salsa II during this period, spending roughly five hours per week with Smith. His behavior reportedly worsened over time, including sharing inappropriate personal information and discussing topics related to violence. Winter break 2021 saw Doe spend two nights at Smith’s home following the closure of her dormitory. On the second night, Smith invited her to explore his basement and engage in a “truth or dare” game. He served her alcohol, and after she consumed it, Doe felt unwell. Smith encouraged her to drink more, and she recalls feeling “weird and ill.” Her memory of the remainder of the evening is unclear, but she remembers Smith making several inappropriate sexual remarks. Doe eventually vomited and went to sleep. The next morning, she noticed red marks around her neck and did not report the incident to authorities at the time. On January 28, 2022, Smith invited Doe to his home for a birthday “surprise.” Upon arrival, he led her to the basement, where twenty-one pieces of colored paper lay face-down on a table. Each piece contained either a reward or punishment, with some punishments involving sexually inappropriate conduct, including hitting. Doe requested that the game end and they go upstairs, where they practiced dancing. Following the session, Smith bit Doe on her ear or shoulder, gripped her arm and throat, and made further sexually charged comments. Doe left shortly after. Several days later, Doe informed her therapist about the incident, and they discussed the implications of the events. The court documents suggest that Doe’s experiences with Smith spanned multiple terms, involving both professional and personal interactions. The lawsuit alleges that Carleton failed in its duty to supervise and retain Smith, leading to a pattern of misconduct. The case highlights ongoing challenges in addressing workplace harassment and abuse within educational institutions. The outcome of the legal proceedings will determine whether Carleton is held accountable for its handling of the situation.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
The article discusses a legal case involving Doe v. Carleton College, where a female student alleges abuse and inappropriate conduct by a professor named Donald Smith. Doe was a student at Carleton College between 2019 and 2023 and participated in various dance-related activities, including salsa classes with Smith. Their relationship evolved into an inappropriate and abusive dynamic, with Smith making inappropriate comments, touching Doe in ways that made her uncomfortable, and engaging in potentially coercive behavior. Doe later became Smith’s co-instructor for a salsa class, during which she spent significant time with him, including meeting at his residence. The case centers on Carleton College’s responsibility for Smith’s actions, particularly regarding hiring, retention, and supervision practices. The court has taken up the case, and the judgment is expected to address issues of institutional accountability in cases of educator misconduct.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of a legal proceeding without overtly endorsing or criticizing any political ideology. It focuses on the legal and institutional responsibilities of a college in relation to faculty misconduct, rather than promoting a specific political agenda. The framing is客观
Why factuality (85): The article provides detailed information from a court case, describing the timeline of Doe's involvement with Smith and the nature of their relationship. The facts are presented as they appear in the legal documents, showing progression from participation in dance activities to an inappropriate and
Why objectivity (60): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'inappropriate and abusive' and presents the narrative from Doe's perspective without balancing viewpoints. This one-sided framing reduces its objectivity.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.