The Manhattan Project
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Increased Urban Walkability For The Win
Report: CCDC Split From UDC Is "Critical To Success"
D.C. United Icon Ben Olsen To Retire
Via Gothamist, the New York Post reports on what looks to be a prank involving the American University alumni magazine, American Magazine, on two graduates of the D.C. school who later lived together in New York. In the spring edition of the magazine, it was apparently falsely reported that Ross Weil, 29, and Brett Royce, 28 were "life partners" who had been gay married, adding that they were leaders of a fake group called the Gay Rights Brigade. Royce and Weil have now filed a $1.5 million defamation suit against American in Manhattan federal court, claiming the school acted maliciously and with "gross negligence," since they failed to contact either of them to verify the truth of the report.
If we had known it was this easy to put made up things in alumni newsletters, we would have informed our various schools that we were all leaders of the most popular rock band in Japan with plans to begin training for a NASA mission early next year a long, long time ago. The editor of the Class Notes section of American Magazine told the NY Post that each item that appears there is fact-checked, but this lawsuit suggests otherwise. Did we mention we married royalty?
A lawyer for the plaintiffs claims that the suit has "nothing to do with homophobia," which is oh, maybe just a little bit hard to swallow considering the $1.5 million price tag the two have placed on having been reported to be gay. Surely no one reads the corrections section of an alumni magazine, and what better way to clear up any confusion about their sexual orientation than to file a splashy lawsuit, right?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
They have every right to sue. It'd probably be pretty hard to get laid by any fellow alumni after the fact. I don't know if I'd put $1.5 Million on that price tag though. No matter how tolerant or accepting you are of gays, it can change the way people deal with you, especially in your family. It's a well-known fact that Gays face discrimination so why should someone have to deal with it if they're not actually gay?
Knowing the nimrods who run my alumni magazine, this is just HI-larious! I look forward to a similar case coming from my school. Hahhaha!
Well I think it all depends on the
Seinfeld Costanza v. NYU case.
The willingness of Americans to turn to our legal system for any and all offenses, is once again in evidence with this story. If this had happened to me, as a straight guy, I'd just laugh it off, and maybe even frame the article and hang it in my living room. No big deal.
-Mr. T in DC
I think Larry Craig should change his "I'm not gay" quote to add "...but I could be for $1.5 million"
Since when is "coming out" part of alumni news? Just my opinion, but how did this type of info ever get published in the first place - factual or not.
I am not on my university mailing list (don't want to be solicited for donations) so I'm not sure exactly what would be in the magazine. Do they regularly mention the type of people their ex-students prefer to date? ("...and Anne West ('97) is now dating non-loser guys exclusively. This is a change from Anne's collegiate phase, when she was exclusively an idiot-only kind of girl....) Because unless you are chronicling ALL preference changes, the original article itself is so homophobic, it is just weird - and very antediluvian.
I went to a women's college and our alumnae mag mentions who women are married to (if they are married) and includes their maiden name, as well.
But how do we know for sure that they're not gay? I, for one, believe that they are.
Guest 8 - They haven't pled guilty to anything yet.
If the piece were true, there'd be nothing at all strange about it. Two alumni, who were living together, got married. They also happen to be active in a particular advocacy organization. Since alumni update pieces tend to be no more than three or four sentences long, it would be perfectly appropriate to include all of those little tidbits in an item. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people these days who are openly gay, and mentioning that such a person is marrying a member of the same sex is totally unrelated to the concept of "coming out".
I'd be willing to bet money that this "news item" was sent in by someone who is (allegedly) a friend of the two guys. Why isn't the original tipster listed as a party to the $1.5 million lawsuit, I wonder?
i think this is completely stupid. i am an american alum (law school). first of all, i don't even GET the alumni magazine because the law school has its own mag. second, even if EVERY person who gets the magazine reads the class notes section (and reads more than just their own year - and really, who does?), you're still talking about such a small number of people. surely they've made this a much bigger deal than it needed to be.
if they were concerned that a retraction/correction in the next issue would not be sufficient, perhaps they should have negotiated with AU to send out a separate mailing about the mistake, and about whatever new practices the alumni office would be putting in place to prevent further errors of that type.
of course, that wouldn't have gotten them the publicity.
Nate wrote:
'Believe it or not, there are a lot of people these days who are openly gay, and mentioning that such a person is marrying a member of the same sex is totally unrelated to the concept of "coming out".'
Really? Actual, live, openly gay people? Well, ya'll can slap my face and call me Sally, cuz that just ain't nuthin' I be seein'.
Or:
Duh. And the point is NOT whether there are people who are openly gay. The point, as I see it anyway, is that, without verification on the situation, American effectively tried to "out" these guys. Whether that was their intention or not, that is the result when two that *are NOT known currently to be gay* are said to be so. If they are indeed gay but had not yet told everyone in their lives, then yes, American did "out" them.
What if they are gay but keeping that particular aspect of their PRIVATE lives private because of personal or professional reasons? Like it or not, not every gay person feels ok to live that aspect openly.
And my guess as to why the original tipster isn't ferreted out and named in the suit is because either a.)the plaintiffs want to blame the party that PUBLISHED the erroneous info, or b.)they are shooting for deep pockets. Maybe a little of both. Anybody can SAY anything (including false info to a reporter), but it turns legal when it is WRITTEN, as I understand it.
Or I'm wrong.
If the prank had been one in which Royce or Weil had married Pamela Anderson, you can bet they would make thousands of copies and distribute them widely themselves. Their lawsuit has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with homophobia. It was a prank, and they need to get over themselves....
"If they were concerned that a retraction/correction in the next issue would not be sufficient, perhaps they should have negotiated with AU to send out a separate mailing about the mistake, and about whatever new practices the alumni office would be putting in place to prevent further errors of that type."
Aweome, reasonable solution.
If the prank had been one in which Royce or Weil had married Pamela Anderson, you can bet they would make thousands of copies and distribute them widely themselves.
Perhaps, but in that case 99.9% of the magazine's readers would know its a joke. But the fact that two otherwise anonymous alums are gay and living together could very well be true, so its totally different.
And its completely ridiculous that some of you consider it "homophobic" for someone to object to falsely being outed as gay.
12: The liar would still be (civilly) liable, but it is generally about the money so publishers are the ones that get hit.
11: "of course, that wouldn't have gotten them the publicity."
Or the potential money.
No one has mentioned the privacy issue here. If they were gay (which I assume they are not, because they say they are not) and they had not come out to their friends, family and co-workers this would be a horrible violation of their privacy. Let's not forget that homophobia is rampant in this country and if someone chooses to keep their sexual orientation private it is not the job of their former school to 'out them'. References to an alumnus’s personal information should not be published without express permission of the people in question. I am a current grad student at American and if they ever published my personal information without checking with me I'd sue too. After all, they hired Ladner who stole more money than that anyway. Just think of it as creatively re-cooping money stolen from tuition.
The correct response would be to pull an equally good prank on the friend that pulled this one on them....
The magazine must have some way of knowing who submitted the item. I'm an AU alum and as I recall, everything has to be sent in via e-mail. So at the very least, they should have made an effort to help id the prankster. If they did that I don't see the point of the lawsuit, but knowing AU, they probably just said "no comment" and sent up their lawyers, practically inviting a lawsuit.
Note to self: 1) have friend send gross lie into PSU alumni mag, 2) see gross lie in magazine, 3) sue PSU silly.
"it was apparently falsely reported that Ross Weil, 29, and Brett Royce, 28 were "life partners" who had been gay married, adding that they were leaders of a fake group called the Gay Rights Brigade"
The term is 'married' or 'civil unioned' not 'gay married'.
I think these men deserve some sort of reparation, but $1.5M? Let's be reasonable here.
Anonymous 12, the only point I was trying to make is that mentioning facts about a person that reveal that person's sexual orientation does not necessarily equal "outing," or opening a closet door. When someone is already open about their sexuality, reporting their marriage to a person of the same gender is just reporting their marriage, nothing more.
Should this have been fact-checked? Obviously, but everyone jumping up and down about accuracy and "revealing personal information" needs to calm down a bit, too. In my own alumni rag, nearly half of the update items start with, "Classmate X writes in to report about the five fellow alums he saw at Classmate Y's wedding ... " I would guess that those tidbits are only fact-checked when they come across as particularly far-fetched or implausible.
Boy, I just hope they were able to get their pants back from the dry cleaners without a hitch...
All three men involved (the plaintiffs and the attorney) are all fraternity brothers. One plaintiff was even known to be bisexual.
Smell something fishy?