Trial Starts In Suit Against UCLA By Prof. Gordon Klein, Targeted and Smeared For Refusing Exam “Leniency” For Black Students
UCLA Professor Gordon Klein seeks $22 million in his suit against the UC Regents and Dean.

Over five years have passed since a student in UCLA business school professor Gordon Klein’s Spring 2020 Principles of Taxation course emailed him “An Appeal on Behalf of Black Bruins” requesting that leniency in course grading be applied—but only to his Black classmates—due to the social climate following the George Floyd killing in Minnesota.
That email, and Prof. Klein’s reply declining to engage in race-based preferential treatment of a subset of students, precipitated a series of administrative and social media actions against him. Legal Insurrection has covered the events and eventual lawsuit by Prof. Klein since inception.
After Prof. Klein’s private email was posted on social media prompting a targeted campaign against him, UCLA kowtowed to the online mob and immediately placed Prof. Klein on administrative leave and banished him from campus. Though his employment was later reinstated, UCLA’s disciplinary treatment of Prof. Klein and public condemnation of his character resulted in threats of physical violence against him and his family, emotional turmoil, as well as substantial economic losses arising, most notably, from the abrupt end to his longstanding collateral business as an expert witness. In his lawsuit against the UC Regents and the Dean of the UCLA Anderson School of Management, Prof. Klein seeks $22 million in damages.
Trial began on Tuesday, July 1, before California Superior Court Judge H. Jay Ford, III. I attended the trial days held that week.
In attendance in the Santa Monica courtroom was a small gallery of observers, comprised mostly of Prof. Klein supporters and plaintiffs in other lawsuits against the UC and other universities, as well as one of the named defendants, Dean Antonio Bernardo.
Prof. Klein was called as the first witness. He began his testimony by detailing his 44-year history of teaching over 25,000 students at UCLA, primarily in the MBA program, during which time he has never been disciplined, his employment has been consistently renewed, and he has received merit-based raises in all but two evaluation periods.
The bulk of the evidence presented through Prof. Klein’s testimony was a compilation of letters beginning with the June 2, 2020 student email, which snowballed into this $22 million fiasco. Prof. Klein said he found the student’s emailed request for preferential treatment of his Black classmates “outrageous, unlawful, and unbelievably immoral.”
Prof. Klein explained that he graded the course on a curve such that boosting grades for Black students would necessarily result in lowering grades for non-Black students, constituting illegal race-based discrimination. Prof. Klein further opined that even if he were to grant the student’s request to exercise leniency in favor only of Black students, he would face challenges in identifying which students were Black since the course was conducted solely online via prerecorded videos of the professor’s lectures.
Within 20 minutes of receiving the email, Prof. Klein authored a reply structured as a series of questions in order to challenge the student’s thought process. He maintained that, as a seasoned educator, it is in his nature to pose questions to students to provoke critical thinking and promote learning and that he did not intend to “mock, humiliate, or insult” the student. Ultimately, Prof. Klein’s reply prompted an immediate heartfelt apology from the student. Thereafter, Prof. Klein considered the matter resolved.
Prof. Klein went on to provide the timeline of Dean Bernardo’s alleged retaliatory actions against him after learning of the emailed reply. Notably, on the same day as the triggering email exchange, Prof. Klein testified the dean referred Prof. Klein to UCLA’s Discrimination Prevention Office and, on the following day, he put him on administrative leave and banned him from campus. Prof. Klein further testified that on the third day, Dean Bernardo emailed the entirety of the Anderson Community—a body Prof. Klein estimates at no less than 42,000 recipients, the number of Anderson alumni alone—condemning Prof. Klein’s “troubling conduct” as an “abuse of power” that threatened safety and was contrary to the institution’s “core principles,” and informing that Prof. Klein had been placed on leave and that the remainder of his course had been reassigned to another professor.
Prof. Klein testified that shortly after dissemination of the Dean’s mass email, he received death threats and vandalism to his home, which he reported to the police, the FBI, as well as Dean Bernardo. Additionally, he began receiving multiple media inquiries about the controversy. It was then, he said, that he decided to appear on Fox News’s Laura Ingraham’s show to tell his side of the story.
Prof. Klein stated that, on June 21, 2020, he received an email from Dean Bernardo notifying him of his immediate reinstatement and that the news brought “joy to my heart.” However, Prof. Klein testified the joy was quickly replaced with shock when an hour and a half later he received another email from Dean Bernardo, blasted again to the whole Anderson Community, disparaging him and referring to an “ongoing process” against him, seemingly in contradiction to his contemporaneous reinstatement.
The last topic of Prof. Klein’s testimony for the day focused on a Twitter posting (i.e. “tweet”) by another student later the same day the email with the complaining student was publicized. Prof. Klein testified that the tweet was made by a former student of his from a different course that same quarter. She, along with four others from her sorority, had developed a rapport with Prof. Klein and the group of five students shared an inside joke with him whereby they would refer to him as their favorite professor and, in turn, he called them his favorite students. The group engaged in a number of emails back and forth, including some that were more casual in tone referring to lunch and dinner plans. In one email, the student requested that Prof. Klein bump up the A minus grade she earned in his course. After he denied her request, seemingly in retaliation, she posted to Twitter an edited portion of a March 14 email in which Prof. Klein called the group of five his “favorite” students culminating in a winking emoji.
Prof. Klein testified that although he was told that UCLA never formally investigated that student’s tweet, he was called in to discuss it with Title IX Coordinator. Without detailing discussion of the tweet itself, Prof. Klein testified that during the meeting, the Coordinator commented that he had experienced racial discrimination as a Black man. In a demonstration of empathy, Klein acknowledged the commonly reported example of discrimination described as “driving while Black,” which appeared to upset the Coordinator.
Trial resumed on July 2 with the continuation of Klein’s testimony on the issue of economic damages.
Prof. Klein detailed his lucrative, 17-year side career as an expert witness in complex and high-profile corporate litigation and how his multi-million-dollar business effectively dried up due to the damage to his reputation by UCLA’s alleged actions and public defamation. Prof. Klein further described the emotional distress and physiological effects he suffered on account of the public backlash for which he was prescribed medication for anxiety.
Cross examination by counsel for UCLA, Sandy McDonough, followed. In an attempt to impeach his credibility as to the tone of his emailed reply to the student, she confronted Prof. Klein with an email he had written in response to an unknown “well-wisher” only 12 hours after receiving the initial email from the student seeking racial favoritism, in which he remarked, “so I teased him for his silliness.” Prof. Klein explained that his use of the word “tease” meant ‘to understand the meaning of something,’ as in “tease out,” not as in poking fun.
In addressing the tweet mentioned above, McDonough presented Prof. Klein with that student’s accompanying comment that “Professor Klein has a history of sending considerably inappropriate emails.” She then showed the court emails in which Prof. Klein described students who are part of the previously mentioned group of five “favorites” as “delightful” and “sweet.” In another email Klein wrote, “Looking forward to seeing you and your morning bodyguards soon.” He explained that he was referring to the same group because they always sat in his class together in a squad. McDonough presented a final email wherein Klein responded to a student for whom he had provided career and personal advice that, in addition to career updates, she could update him on “juicy gossip from your housemates.” He explained that this student often confided in Klein about her life, including sharing stories about her sorority friends. McDonough disclosed that some of the recipients of these emails initiated a Title IX complaint.
Trial is scheduled to resume on Tuesday, July 8 with the continuation of the cross-examination of Professor Klein.
————
Tasha Gailys is a retired courtroom lawyer who sits in on trials every chance she gets. An alumna of UCLA, she currently lives in Austin, Texas.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
funny that a student would even have to ask for something that was a norm for blks
kudos to the professor for tryingggg to do the right thing
and while he might win
we as a society continue to lose out to these racist blm[plo monsters
What’s particularly enraging (and that I really hope comes out at trial) is that the “leniency” letter was a cynical ploy by non-black students to get out of exams.
The authors of the letter (and the mechanics of the subsequent cancel campaign) were not black students. They sent it knowing that UCLA professors could never agree to give black students “leniency” on account of race, for all the legal and ethical reasons Gordon articulated. But they also realized that anyone who said no could be publicly cancelled (and they used Gordon as the example).
And what happened? Exactly what the students wanted — many profs saw what happened to Gordon, did the risk / benefit analysis, and realized that simply cancelling exams and giving everyone an A cost them nothing, while standing on principle (and the law) could make them the next Gordon Klein and ruin them professionally and personally. And that the UCLA administration would not back them up, but would gleefully throw them under the bus.
Thus, at the end you had lots of e-mails from the non-black student orchestrators of this scheme celebrating how well it worked, and they didn’t have to sit for exams in tough “weed-out” courses like organic chemistry (which is regarded as the “weed-out” pre-med class). Pathetic people all.
I really would have like to have seen some of these students added as defendants, but I understand the tactical reasons for Gordon’s legal team deciding not to do so. Hopefully, all this will come out at trial, and the names of the students involved will be made public, so they can enjoy all the publicity and resultant opprobrium that can follow them around.
But, of course, Gordon still could get a massive judgment against Dean Bernardo personally (which is definitely possible) that reduces this onager to penury. That would be the ultimate lesson to these kinds of woke administrators — “this could be you if you abandon principle and cave to the woke mob.”
Reminds me of a long letter written to a professor, by a white Oberlin student, requesting that black students be opted out of exams, cause, Fergusson. The prof replied with “no.” The white student then posted the exchange to her facebook, whatever, with a trigger warning: violent language.
https://outsidethebeltway.com/oberlin-college-students-request-for-ferguson-related-exam-delay-gets-epic-response/
Pardon me for wanting some verification on this point of the race for who actually sent the original email asking for leniency, but I will say it was curious that they so easily gave up after the professor’s reply – and with an apology no less. Can’t say I have seen that happen often.
Go back and read the original letter, which is pretty clear that is from non-black students agitating for black students to be given leniency. (Can you say “virtue signaling”?)
The student who sent it to Gordon merely forwarded it to him — that student was not the original author. That explains why he was willing to apologize after Gordon’s response made him think through what he was asking.
Also look at the spreadsheet prepared by the orchestrators of this scam:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IX42mJZdzoi8q7iiiAWMqVpBi_3dCwn9X2xoKfnR6CI/edit?gid=1221560764#gid=1221560764
Note the column for “Notes/Requests from Black Students.”
Isn’t the asking for and then getting extra time for blacks actually an admission that blacks simply don’t have the goods?
And when/if put that way, won’t that send the lefties and blacks over the edge?
This whole episode is obscene.
I would have sued for $100,000,000, not $22 million.
I understand the desire, but the legal problem is that you must prove actual damages — you don’t just get to recover massive amounts of punitive damages. (You can ask for eleventy trillion dollars, but the law is going to limit your recovers to the actual economic damages you can PROVE, plus maybe a punitive damages multiplies of 3 or so.)
What makes this case a rare cancel culture case is that there is a very real, very provable theory of actual damages. The evidence is clear that Gordon had a business that was demonstrably raking in over $1 million a year — not speculative at all. It is also clear that it was destroyed overnight as a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Dean Bernardo’s perfidy. The $22 million is thus just the net present value of the future income stream that Gordon would have realized but for Dean Bernardo’s unlawful actions.
A case with this kind of provable economic damages is thus a rare duck: the Gibson’s Bakery case was another, but most cancel culture cases lack it, which is why you don’t see more such lawsuits . . . the economics of suing just doesn’t add up.
Gibsons sued for $200K and ended up with $36.5M, so think of it as “the day is young.”
Professionally “oppressed” groups mostly identify their friends as enemies.
“Professor Klein has a history of sending considerably inappropriate emails.” She then showed the court emails in which Prof. Klein described students who are part of the previously mentioned group of five “favorites” as “delightful” and “sweet.”
Absolutely inappropriate. He should have called them Nazis and racists instead, that has never found by a university to be inappropriate.
While I do not question Prof Klein’s version of events considering the hysteria of the times, I would have to see the original emails to comment. I do think that the student that requested better grades for black students over others should have been reported and immediately suspended from the college for such racist and unethical activity.
Why are you capitalizing “black?” Readers can’t take an article about racial discrimination seriously if the author capitalizes “black.”
Why, doncha know, it’s the AP style guide decree!!
Who died and made them boss? I’d bet money to marbles they don’t know what an Oxford comma is.
No serious people in the publishing industry consider the AP Stylebook to be the definitive source. Most still rely on the Chicago Manual of Style. (Forty-two years in publishing.)
The University actions at the height of blm hysteria displayed the true ideological tendencies of many of the wokiesta, lefty administrative/credentialed/laptop class. These folks went into hyper Karen mode with blm and Rona issuing draconian mandates, hounding innocent folks in public with all sorts of demands to comply with whatever nonsense was trending any particular week. Never forget who they displayed themselves to be. It is prudent to adjust all future interactions with them to reflect their discriminatory impulses to count by/create advantages or disadvantages by race and willingness to employ their totalitarian tendencies to enforce it.
Why do schools cling to this absurdity? Whether or not I get a good grade in a class should depend on how well I learn the materials and produce work product in line with the tasks assigned. It should not be easier to get a good grade if I happen to be in a class/year where my fellow students are bad at the class than if I were in another session. A curved grade provides no worthwhile feedback on whether or not the student understands the materials.
It scales itself correctly for the difficulty. Statistics are more reliable than an a priori guess at the correct grade for the material, the statistic being the percentage of any class that comes up with a particular grade. Make your class match that statistic and you’ll be pretty close.
If classes are getting dumber over time, that’s a statistic problem, not a curve grading problem.
You might do it like IQ and only use white students in producing the curve, then grade everybody using those grade point markers. That eliminates a lot of the classes getting dumber problem.
It depends on the norming sample; many college professors use the same exams and the results of those exams over many years, which may provide a statistically significant norming population. Some professors argue that this helps prevent grade inflation. Scoring against the students’ mastery of content (criterion-referenced measurement) may seem more valid, but unless criterion scores are established by subject matter experts and equated against previous populations, grade variance (i.e., different grades for similar demonstrated knowledge) is almost inevitable.
The sample size of, say 30, isn’t going to give you a normal distribution. You would need thousands – more students than that professor is going to be teaching in any given semester. And you’re going to have to rate the output from each student individually anyway, so mark against a fixed metric rather than relative to whichever assortment of random other students happened to be taking the class at that time.
It gets you closer than you would get a priori. That’s all it needs.
I’m not convinced.
We take a statistically insignificant sample size, individually grade each, then fiddle with the numbers to match an arbitrary ideal distribution based solely upon that tiny sample set, thus erasing the connection to the students actual performance.
How is that in any way “closer”?
Grading ‘on a curve’ cheats each student of an individual grade.
They are paying, often, hundreds of thousands of dollars–grade their papers individually.
Life is not ‘graded on a curve’
Scores are still achieved and recorded, the issue is what a particular translates to in terms of a letter grade. For example, an 85% correct score may be an A if the exam is historically difficult. Similarly, it may be a C if the exam is historically easy. One problem of course is explaining to a student how and 85 can be a C when they are used to it being a B.
Thank you for the excellent and detailed article.
And the value of a college degree continues its downward spiral…
Blacks should be able to ace a course on Principles of Taxation – Whites are taxed and the money is given to blacks.
I am curious whether the professor is paying his lawyer an hourly fee, as charged each month, or has a contingency fee arrangement.
I suspect he would come out ahead by paying an hourly fee.
Probably pays him on a curve.
Golly. If only there were landmark civil rights laws woven into the national fabric during the previous 60 years which would criminalize this aggressive, egregious, repeated discrimination/persecution/favoritism of citizens based upon skin color, then none of this kafka-esque insanity would be allowed on campus.
If only…
Some kids would rather go in front of a judge than do their homework
No surprise. They have more practice being in front of a judge,
I went to UCLA in the 70s and met my wife there. UCLA has changed a lot since me and my wife finished. It has become bad that some people believe they have special treatment and as such will not study, learn, and pass tests instead expect they will get automatic grades. This is not a matter of race but what they have been taught from being young growing up that they need to get special treatments for the past and these people need to learn to live a regular life.
For more info, including links to emails, etc. , see https://ericrasmusen.substack.com/p/the-trial-of-ucla-business-school
Leave a Comment