 |
| Danielle Kurin |
 |
| Enmanuel Gomez Choque |
Since February, I have posted quite a few blog posts detailing my reporting on alleged misconduct by University of California, Santa Barbara archaeologist Danielle Kurin and her ex-husband, Enmanuel Gomez Choque, a Peruvian archaeologist based in Andahuaylas. Between January and March, I asked Kurin four times, by email, to comment on my reporting, but she did not respond. More recently, Kurin and her attorney, David Scher of the Hoyer Law Group, have made some responses to my reporting, which I agreed to post uncut and unedited despite some very negative things they had to say about me.
As I noted on one of these blog posts, earlier this year I was anonymously sent testimonials on behalf of Kurin and Gomez that were signed by two different Peruvian women. I asked the anonymous sender to tell me who they were, in confidence, or at least to authenticate these documents in some way. I got no response, and since I was not sure I had the permission of the letter writers--nor that of individuals named in the letters--I did not publish them. Again, I noted on the blog that I had received them.
Yesterday I received them again from Scher, in a more highly redacted form. Scher vouched for their authenticity and I assume he has permission from the letter writers. I asked Scher to provide some more context for them, since they are dated after UCSB found Gomez and Kurin to have committed misconduct (sexual harassment and retaliation, respectively) on June 14, 2016.
Scher says:
"The authors are native Peruvian women who admire and respect Dr. Kurin because of her work there and her personal relationship with the locals. These witnesses wanted to ensure that the truth was told and therefore prepared these sworn affidavits out of appreciation for Dr. Kurin and concern that she and Mr. Gomez would be treated unfairly. What is particularly poignant to us is that the affidavits are sworn, voluntary and provided without any motivation other than concern for the subject. Now, the identities are public as well – we hope their privacy will be respected and that to the extent their live testimony is sought that the legal process is followed. Whether the statements were used in a Title IX investigation is not something I can answer. You would need to contact the applicable school’s Title IX office via FOIA in light of confidentiality rules."
The first letter is from Katherine Sencia Huaman, who worked at the office of Tourism and Culture in the summer of 2015 when Kurin and Gomez held their field school. The second one is from Olga Gomez Choque de Vivanco, a registered nurse (I do not know her relationship to Gomez but the family has an extensive presence in Andahuaylas.
I welcome comments on the letters, and am happy to provide them here.
Update: There is a lot of speculation in the comments section below about the relationship between Olga Gomez Choque de Vivanco and Enmanuel Gomez Choque. Kurin's attorney, David Scher, confirms to me this afternoon that they are in fact brother and sister.
I welcome comments on the letters, and am happy to provide them here.
Update: There is a lot of speculation in the comments section below about the relationship between Olga Gomez Choque de Vivanco and Enmanuel Gomez Choque. Kurin's attorney, David Scher, confirms to me this afternoon that they are in fact brother and sister.
26 Comments
Furthermore, there's a notary public on just about every street corner in Peru. Why aren't these notarized? Why isn't there a certified translator (also easily found in Peru)?
I'm pretty sure the drinking to remember/not to forget is straight out of an ethnography written by Thomas Abercrombie (RIP): https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230370678_2? Others also talked about this in their ethnographies; I think Billie Jean Isbell did in her "To Defend Ourselves." So while it's plausible that the letter writer is only saying something that is true in the Andes, it's highly suspect that the language used is nearly identical to what's published. I personally have never heard any of my Quechua-speaking and Aymara-speaking friends and acquaintances put it in these terms.
I've never heard anyone use the term "huascar" either. I know in the chronicles this term was mentioned to mean drunkard in the context of the civil war between Atahualpa and Huascar, but in all my years in the Andes, I have never heard any Quechua speakers use it. I could be wrong, but I will double-check with my Quechua-speaking friends. If it /is/ used, it's certainly a rare term.[Edit: I now consulted with three native Quechua speakers. They say that 'huascar' is not a term they have heard to refer to drunk. They say that a similar term, 'huasca' is used, but it's not Quechua. It's general Peruvian slang used by people of all different backgrounds. When used in Spanish, you can say "huasca" or "vamos a huasquear" meaning "we are going to get drunk." But it's not "huascar" in any form. Two of the Quechua speakers, who speak the Ayacucho dialect, insist that 'huasca' doesn't even originally come from Quechua. Another Quechua speaker, this time of the Cuzco dialect, said that it's possible 'huasca' comes from the Quechua word for 'rope,' but the term is not generally seen as Quechua but a general Peruvian slang used by everyone, including whites, Quechua speakers, Aymara, and Ashaninka. The Quechua terms for drunk are sinka and machasqa.]
I am also disgusted at the way these letters invoke a racist understanding of highland Peruvian culture, that they are "humble," "innocent," "ignorant of cosmopolitan and gringo customs," etc etc. comes straight out of colonial-era discourses about the "helpless and simple Indian." Their characterizations of the "racist gringas" are so hyperbolic and caricatured and beggars belief. I have seen racism by whites against highland Peruvians, but generally, students who choose to come to highland Peru are respectful of real local customs, not made-up ones like libating to Pachamama at a happenin' dance club (people will slip while dancing!).
“I was also present the next evening when Dra. Kurin was informed of this scandalous behavior. Dra. Kurin took _____________ downstairs and way from the other students. I do not understand english, but I do know that Dra. Kurin’s tone was calm and regular. _____________ was yelling, and she stamped her foot and pointed her finger in the face of Dra. Kurin and looked and sounded very angry. But she was not crying. She was full of rabidness. My mother, who is unletted and wo was with me, was also scared by the temper of _____________. We know because were about 3 meters away from them, on the first floor of the Field Station. When the conversation was done, _____________ went upstairs. I followed. Upstairs, _____________ to have a tantrum out of nowhere.
It was scandalous. She was screaming and crying and howling. The rest of the Americans came and gave a hug to _____________. I used my celular telephone to call Dra. Kurin who was still on the ground floor to relate what was happening. I asked Dr. Kurin if I should administer a sedative to hysterical _____________ or call a psychologist. Dra. Kurin said to let her be like a squeezed sponge, which in our language means to let her get her tears or frustration out of her body and to give her sedating medacine. I do not know why ____________ had such a extreme reaction and I do not know her motivation to treat anyone with such a lack of respect. Her scandalous behavior was very scary”.
I do not know of any other health professional who would diagnose an emotionally distressed patient (as the students in the project are) with the terms “full of rabidness”, “scandalous behavior”, and “lack of respect”, especially since she herself admits that due to language barriers could not understand the reasons behind the student’s “extreme reaction”. This immediately exposes that she was strongly biased against the students/patients, and therefore a false witness. Also suspect is that her first instinct, without understanding what was actually happening to the patient, was to sedate her!
This is what known to criminal investigators as M.O.
The first affidavit is from Katherine Sencia Huaman, an employee at DIRCETUR. The second is from Olga Gomez Choque de Vivanco, a registered nurse.
A commentor in another post had to say this about Gomez:
“Mr. Gomez was named in January 2019 as the Jefe de la Division de Educacion, Turismo, Cultura y Deporte (head of the division of education, tourism, culture and sports) for the Provincial Municipality of Andahuaylas. He was also, as of 2017, the Director Sub Regional de Comercio Exterior y Turismo Andahuaylas - DIRCETUR, Gobierno Regional de Apurimac (the subregional director of exterior commerce and tourism of Andahuaylas for the regional government of Apurimac).”
If this is true, then that would make Sencia Huaman either Gomez’s close colleague or his direct subordinate. If so, her affidavit cannot be considered “without any motivation”.
The nurse is likely a close relative, maybe a sister, of Gomez. If so, her affidavit cannot be considered “without any motivation”.
Don’t make us do your homework for you, Scher.
Now we find out that the relative nurse is actually the chief nurse in one of the largest General Hospitals in the Apurimac region. She also lives and practices in a two-story house in Talavera.
And let us not forget how she portrayed Gomez on her UCSB lab webpage:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190227200000/www.anth.ucsb.edu/kurinlab/people/enmanuel-gomez-choque
I have met many poor families in highland Peru. This is not it.
Did he get a dispensation? If so, one wonders what his status in Holy Mother Church is now that he is a divorced man?
I would like to comment under my own name, but given the reports of retaliation we have read, I am withholding my name to protect the anonymity of other commentators. I do not wish to help Kurin identify them through a process of elimination.
Furthermore, from information Michael has posted about Dr. Kurin's victims, it appears that Dr. Kurin had a particular problem with middle aged white women who she targeted for not being sufficiently supplicant in her classes. Middle aged white women who are not sufficiently supplicant are exactly the demographic targeted by the Karen meme. It's possible that Dr. Kurin's victims were not all white, but the Title IX information posted indicates that they filed on the basis of gender and age, not race.
It should be said that very few of the people in the position to curtail Danielle Kurin's behavior are women (of any race). Most are men.
The use of the Karen meme on this blog comment thread further harms women who continue to struggle in a sexist society, inside academia, outside academia, and online.
It's disappointing to see that even here, the sexist and ageist Karen meme is being weaponized against women.
https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4000385/SVSH
"B. Policy Coverage
This Policy covers acts of Prohibited Conduct committed by University students,
employees, and third parties (such as Regents, contractors, vendors, visitors,
guests, patients and volunteers), and acts of Prohibited Conduct committed against
students, employees and third parties, when the conduct occurs:
1. on University property;
2. in connection with University employment or in the context of a University
program or activity (including, for example, University-sponsored study abroad,
research, on-line courses, health services, or internship programs); or
3. off University property and outside the context of a University program or activity,
but has continuing adverse effects on—or creates a hostile environment for
students, employees or third parties while on—University property or in any
University program or activity.
Consistent with Section 101.00 of the Policy on Student Conduct and Discipline, if
and as specified in implementing campus regulations, this Policy may cover
additional Prohibited Conduct by students that occurs off campus.
Not every report of Prohibited Conduct will result in a Resolution Process described
in Section V.A.5, even if it is covered by this Policy. Rather, the Title XI Officer will
close some reports after making an initial assessment (see Section V.A.4)."
The updated policy coverage does not seem to be any different than the pre-Title IX changes policy, at least where it comes to off-campus/abroad incidents. Under section (2), UCSB may still claim that Kurin’s 2018 field school was an IFR program and therefore not sanctioned by them. Assuming this will not change soon (note the interim status), the next question is whether the case could fall under (3) “off University property and outside the context of a University program or activity, but has continuing adverse effects on—or creates a hostile environment for students, employees or third parties while on—University property or in any University program or activity.” Any thoughts?
https://play.acast.com/s/the-archaeology-show/85b7ebd2-85bb-11e9-90d5-4ba6dc6b5b00
The following excerpt may be relevant in reference to the above discussion:
06:30: “What was limiting [archaeology field schools] was a) there was no quality controls, because these programs were taking… place off campus, and therefore the universities did no assert very good quality controls... universities are usually self-insured, and during the last two decades they became very concerned about liability issues of things that happened in the field and started to cut off any kind of sponsorship and any kind of responsibility to field schools… The IFR is not self-insured, the IFR is fully insured and therefore we can take a lot of liability. And universities are trying to delegate now liability for any off-campus activities to external organizations who are just filling a niche in the current political, economical, and social market for universities to work with.”
He then goes on to talk about the IFR peer-review process that all field schools are supposedly subjected to. Quality control aside (clearly bollocks considering what IFR knew about Kurin at the time), it may be that UCSB actually opted for her field school to be offered through a third-party operator like the IFR in order to reduce their liability. A corollary is IFR’s liability in this whole story, which is “a lot” as per Boytner’s claim. Those UC policies quoted above were already in place when they allowed Kurin to run her 2017 and 2018 programs (with incidents in both), and as UCLA faculty Wendrich and Vaughn should have known that its coverage would potentially exclude IFR programs.