The "Eastman Kool-Aid"
Drink up—or else.
Eastman’s actions—culminating in my abrupt expulsion—were wrong.
They were harmful. They were alarming.
They were also incredibly stupid.
Every sane adult who looks at this case ends up asking the same question: What were they thinking?
Because what you're seeing now is the end of a long, destructive road that had many off-ramps. I built most of them.
I asked—repeatedly—to sit down with Eastman’s leadership and talk about how to resolve the situation. I even offered to help the school repair the reporting process so this wouldn’t keep happening—because it has happened so many times, to so many students.
I proposed mediation. I wrote formal letters. I offered to waive legal claims. I offered to take down all social media posts.
Yes, indeed—this public record of Eastman's institutional rot? The one you’re reading right now, posted here for the whole internet to see?
It was entirely avoidable. I offered to shut it all down. In writing. More than once. All so that we could come to a productive, reasonable resolution—after Eastman’s own investigation found that their Director of Orchestras violated harassment policy and they epically mishandled the complaint.
Eastman refused to have that conversation. They expelled me instead—breaking a long list of policies and laws in the process, and creating the very damage they thought they were avoiding by shoving me out the door.
I talked to a Title IX advocate this week who was "gobsmacked" by the school's decisions. "They don't seem to think there are any consequences for their actions," she said incredulously.
So what were they thinking?
Were they high?
No.
They were drunk. As I’ve talked to people about this situation, I’ve heard the phrase “the Eastman Kool-Aid” with surprising frequency.
Some called Eastman "incestuous" or "inbred." All alluded to the weird insularity and institutional reverence that’s pervasive in a school run almost entirely by its own alums.
It creates a time-machine-like bubble around Gibbs Street. A bubble in which everyone is so out-of-touch that it somehow seemed like a good idea to protect a man who's bad at his job, screams profanities in the classroom, and breaks harassment policy.
A bubble in which it inexplicably made sense to them to expel the reporting party during an open harassment and retaliation investigation—the second one!—while lecturing her about her tone.
A bubble in which breaking their own policies seemed like a reasonable trade-off if it allowed the prestigious Eastman School of Music to show an uppity woman who was in charge.
It's a bubble that is rarely popped by reality. Until—a 200-page legal complaint and a national civil liberties foundation show up on Gibbs Street.
Although even now, there's no guarantee the bubble will burst. The University of Rochester—and many, many Eastman faculty—have had the documentation I’m sharing below for over eight weeks.
They have not defended Eastman's actions. They have made no attempt to explain themselves. They have simply refused to respond.
Let's hope they sober up soon.
You can take action by:
Going to thefire.org/rochester to contact the university and demand accountability.
Amplifying the story on this platform and others.
Becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The text below is taken directly from my complaint against the Eastman School of Music, submitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights under penalty of perjury. I filed the complaint after being illegally expelled from the school with no process, warning, or prior disciplinary action.
Paragraphs are numbered as they are in the original filing. Redactions and clarifications are marked in brackets. Some pronouns may be changed for anonymity.
DHR Full Chronology
G. First Attempt at Constructive Resolution
335. On December 3, 2024, I sent a formal letter to [Eastman Dean Kate] Sheeran... documenting the school’s misconduct and requesting a constructive path forward. (See Doc C3: Sheeran Resolution Request)
335.a. Note: I wrote the letter at the recommendation of a Title IX attorney who began advising me pro bono shortly after Hain’s defamation threat... They felt my proposed remedy—intended to repair educational harm—was positive, reasonable, and likely to succeed if the school acted in good faith...
338. I clarified that I was seeking resolution—not escalation…
341. I offered to waive all legal claims and revise or remove social media posts related to the case. I proposed engaging the university ombuds or an outside mediator to structure the discussions, given the complexity of the situation.
346. Sheeran did not respond to my letter requesting resolution. I followed up to request—again—confirmation of receipt, offering to deliver a hard copy to her office if needed. She replied briefly, saying that Ardizzone would contact me to discuss an academic plan.
347. I replied to Sheeran to clarify that I already had an academic plan in place, and that was not the purpose of my letter.
347.a Note: This was the first in a series of bad-faith exchanges that lasted for nearly three months, culminating in my expulsion. (See ¶354-363, 374-375, 460.a, 477, Damages and Relief ¶87-95)
One outside professional— knowledgeable about the school’s internal culture—repeatedly referenced “the Eastman Kool-Aid” when advising me about the school’s extreme insularity.
I. Sheeran Refuses Second Attempt at Resolution
349-351. When Sheeran refused to respond meaningfully,... I sent [her] an email… in which I... said that I thought meaningful repair was possible. I noted that this was an opportunity for everyone involved to learn how to respond better to serious harm in the future, which could have benefits well beyond my case.
353. I acknowledged it might not be appropriate for her to handle the matter directly, but that a meaningful resolution seemed unlikely without her involvement. I asked—personally and sincerely—whether she would be willing to speak with me about a path forward.
354. Sheeran offered no meaningful response. She replied with the same brief message, stating again that Ardizzone would follow up with an academic plan.
355. [Guest faculty Tito] Muñoz was stunned. He texted me before I had even seen Sheeran’s reply. He said he would call her and try to “talk some sense into her.” I told him her response made the situation worse. He agreed...
356. I responded to Sheeran’s email and said I was disappointed by her response but that I remained open to a conversation if she changed her mind.
363. ...Sheeran responded that she had nine hundred students to manage and did not have time.
At one point, Eastman Dean Kate Sheeran resorted to passing verbal messages through a third party to avoid direct contact with me.
J. Third Resolution Attempt with Additional Documentation, Eastman Stonewalls
365. In a final effort to resolve the matter constructively, I sent a formal letter to Ardizzone on December 23, 2024. (See Doc C11: Ardizzone Resolution Request)
370. In my letter to Ardizzone, I offered, again, to remove social media posts, waive legal claims, agree on how to discuss the matter publicly, create a plan that would not interfere with Varon’s return in the fall, and listen to the school’s needs and concerns.
372. I stressed my intention to reach a positive resolution and to genuinely effect change, stating:
…I genuinely want a positive outcome. I believe it can have positive effects beyond this one situation…. I don’t know how to give anyone the disappointing news that Eastman’s attitudes and priorities on safety, equity, and respect for its students haven’t improved in spite of repeated efforts and calls for change. I’d rather not have to…
I am not trying to burn this down. I would not be spending an exhausting level of time and energy on finding solutions if I didn’t think there was an enormous amount of opportunity and knowledge to be had at Eastman, if I didn’t have very positive relationships with students, faculty, and ensembles worth preserving, and if I didn’t think some positive change was possible.
At some point, I would personally find it meaningful to work with the university or the school on how to improve these processes, and to work with the department to make the field and study of conducting more inclusive and welcoming for women and others.
373. The letter received no response.
I wrote to Sheeran to say that this was an opportunity for everyone to learn how to respond better in the future, which could have benefits well beyond my case.
285.a I reported Sheeran’s actions to the Office of Equity and Inclusion, along with other concerns.
At one point, Sheeran resorted to passing verbal messages through others to avoid direct contact. (See ¶313)
Her refusal to engage with me—while communicating openly with the men I reported—was a violation of university policy, Title IX, and best practice in handling complaints of harassment and assault.
Sheeran responded that she had nine hundred students to manage and did not have the time.
DHR Document 4
Pervasive and Entrenched Misconduct
52. Eastman’s unlawful acts were pervasive—spanning multiple administrators, time periods, and domains of institutional responsibility. The misconduct persisted across the tenure of two separate deans—including Kate Sheeran, whom Eastman presented as a milestone in gender equity as its first female dean—and multiple members of senior leadership.
54. Many of the key administrators involved in this case are deeply embedded figures whose careers have been shaped entirely within Eastman’s culture of casual illegality—where retaliation, discrimination, and widespread policy violations were repeatedly documented and ignored.
55. Associate Dean Matthew Ardizzone—who issued my expulsion while under active investigation—received his DMA from Eastman in 1997 and has worked in Eastman administration since 2009, including roles in admissions and academic affairs.
56. John Hain—who advised me to transfer on reporting harassment and threatened me with a defamation suit—completed both his master’s and doctoral degrees at Eastman and joined the administration in 2008.
Jamal Rossi—who was alleged to have obstructed multiple significant harassment investigations—completed his doctoral degree at Eastman held senior positions there from 2005 to 2024.
Faculty are protected by Eastman alumni recycled into leadership roles.
They don’t correct the system they inherited—they sustain it.
57. Kate Sheeran, Eastman’s first female dean, recused herself from the panel reviewing Varon’s misconduct—yet oversaw my expulsion while under investigation herself.
She earned her bachelor’s degree at Eastman and repeatedly emphasized her alumni status upon appointment, positioning herself as both a symbol and steward of Eastman’s institutional identity.
58. This level of institutional insularity has created a closed ecosystem—one in which loyalty and familiarity allow total disregard for compliance, accountability, or legal risk.
This extends to faculty—particularly in the conducting department, where decades-long appointments, combined with thinly veiled discrimination and harassment, have functionally excluded women for decades.
59. The department’s four senior figures—Neil Varon (appointed 2002), Mark Scatterday (DMA ’89, faculty since 2001), William Weinert (appointed 1994), and Brad Lubman (appointed 1996)—have each held long-term, near-total control over the department, with no structural oversight.
Title IX Coordinator John Hain unilaterally rescinded accommodations approved by the university’s own Title IX director.
Graduate Dean Matthew Ardizzone told me that the school limited my performance dates because I reported harassment.
64. The conducting faculty are only a small subset of a much larger pattern. As detailed in Appendix B, numerous Eastman faculty across departments have engaged in documented misconduct, often repeatedly, without consequence.
65. These faculty are protected by administrators who came up through the same institutional ranks—Eastman alumni recycled into leadership roles who sustained, rather than corrected, the system they inherited.
65.a Note: One outside professional—not a musician, but knowledgeable about the school’s internal culture of misconduct—repeatedly referenced “the Eastman Kool-Aid” when advising me about the school’s extreme insularity.
Abuse of Institutional Authority
96. Eastman leadership repeatedly abused its authority to misrepresent institutional policy—recasting legal protections as discretionary and compliance as optional. Routine access was framed as special treatment.
Policy violations were presented as requiring no explanation. Retaliation was passed off as neutral discretion. Over time, the pattern wasn’t just misleading—it was manipulative.
97. John Hain unilaterally rescinded approved accommodations over my objections and the university’s own central Title IX coordinator. (See Full Chron. ¶104-109)
The school later denied my request to limit contact with Varon since it was not an accommodation they were “willing to provide.” (See Full Chron. ¶130)…
Nearly every member of the school’s leadership said university policy prevented them from constraining Varon.
When those same administrators chose to expel me, they bypassed every policy on record.
Ardizzone claimed to have personally allowed course arrangements that were governed by policy and faculty approval and told me that he granted my transfer credits “by virtue of [his] position.” (See Full Chron. ¶46.a, 255).
99. Ardizzone even told me directly that the school had limited my performance dates specifically because I reported harassment. When I named the actions—in writing—as violating law and policy, he did not deny the claims. He simply ignored them. (See Full Chron. ¶250-251)
100. Even my basic existence in the institution was misrepresented as being subject to the personal discretion of administrators. In issuing my expulsion, Eastman’s leadership falsely claimed the authority to terminate my standing in the program and physically bar me from Eastman’s campus—with no process or external oversight—while openly defying their own policies. (See Appendix A ¶77-78)
101. The repeated intrusion and aggression from Eastman leadership—undertaken in direct response to my reporting of misconduct—rose to the level of retaliatory harassment in its own right.
105. More troublingly, on multiple occasions, nearly every member of the school’s leadership invoked policy constraints when asked to intervene against Varon. When those same administrators chose to expel me, their scrupulousness vanished. They bypassed all relevant policies and imposed the most severe possible sanction—without process, warning, or appeal. (See Full Chron. ¶64-65, 90, 95, 105-106, 115-116, 123-124, 143-148, 220)
(End of DHR Excerpt)
Please go to thefire.org/rochester to demand accountability and amplify the story on this platform and others.