effectuating the communication and thereby make – makes the
allegation that the person is incomprehensible?
Clowney: I’m not going to answer that. I’m not an expert on
communications skills. I’ve written papers on communication
skills and racial animus. I can’t say that. You’re – you’re asking
me to draw inferences here and I can’t say that. There are people
I know that are trained who don’t have any kind of animus; and
if they can’t understand someone, they get frustrated, and then
have nothing to do with race, sex, religion, whatever. But the
bottom line is that, you know, it’s – you have to listen a little bit
carefully, but, you know.
Attorney: Do you feel like you accepted your portion of the burden in
trying to understand Florence’s oral communications?
Clowney: Yes.
Attorney: Whether you feel that you accepted your portion of the
burden to comprehend what Florence was saying to you when
she was orally communicating with you?
Clowney: Yes, I do.
Attorney: Do you feel that you made a reasonable good faith effort to
understand Florence?
Clowney: Yes, I do.
Attorney: Is it your testimony that notwithstanding that effort that
was not enough and you still had oral communication problems
with Florence?
Clowney: Yes, I do.The fact that Clowney was both an attorney and the Assistant Chancellor
for Equal Opportunity in charge of the office investigating claims of
discrimination might seem to be ironic. It is also a sobering example of
the reach of standard language ideology.
Subsequent to this deposition, the university decided to settle this case
and so it never came to trial. Ms. Kyomugisha received compensatory
damages, back pay, and the attorney’s costs she had incurred. The
university’s lawyers did not disclose the reasons the university decided to
offer a settlement.
Ms. Kyomugisha was knowledgeable about the law, and she had the
strength of will and resources necessary to pursue her legal rights. Her