"Lefkowitz admitted that the offending words she wrote about Martin were untrue but contended, successfully, that because Martin is a 'public figure', as that term is understood in America's libel laws, he has to prove not merely negligence on her part in not writing the truth, but also that she was motivated by malice."
Anti-Defamation League obtains lawyer for Lefkowitz.
Martin Appeals Ruling Successfully
Tony Martin Wins Second Round Against Mary Lefkowitz
Martin v. Lefkowitz: Libel Suit Involving Wellesley College Professors
The Onslaught Against Afrocentrism
The Appeals Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently handed
Tony Martin a victory in his ongoing libel suit against Mary Lefkowitz.
Martin, professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College, is suing Lefkowitz,
professor of Greek and Latin at the same school, for statements she published
in Measure magazine. Lefkowitz alleged, among other things in her
article, that Martin called a white student "a fucking white bitch.
The young woman fell down as a result of his [verbal] onslaught," Lefkowitz
further alleged, "and Martin bent over to continue his rage at her."
Martin considered this statement defamatory and initiated a libel suit.
At the first hearing two years ago, African American Justice Charles T.
Spurlock upheld Lefkowitz's preliminary motion to dismiss the case. Martin
appealed to the Appeals Court, which has now found in his favour.
Lefkowitz had argued that she was expressing an opinion and that she was
repeating a statement published elsewhere, and was therefore not legally
guilty of defamation of character. The three judge Appeals Court panel rejected
her argument. "The repetition of a defamatory statement, if not privileged,
gives rise to liability," they wrote. "If, as alleged, the statement
is false," the Appeals Court continued, "the defendant cannot
escape liability on the ground that her opinion is based on that statement."
Lefkowitz began attacking Tony Martin's Wellesley class on "Africans
in Antiquity" several years ago. Her attacks escalated into a general
assault on Afrocentrism, and appeared in the Wall Street Journal,
Chronicle of Higher Education, New Republic and elsewhere.
Her attacks culminated in a recent book, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism
Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History which has been heavily promoted
in the New York Times, on National Public Radio, and elsewhere.
Martin responded to her academic attacks in his 1993 book, The
Jewish Onslaught: Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront. In
the statements forming the subject of the present libel suit, however, it
is Martin's contention that Lefkowitz appears to have stepped over the border
between academic debate and defamation of character. The Appeals Court judgement
against Lefkowitz came as the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
honoured her for her anti-Afrocentric campaign. Lefkowitz was a special
honoree at the "elegant and inspirational evening" that marked
the Anti-Defamation League's 19th spring dinner. She was feted as one who
"rose above pressure, fear and personal attack to firmly challenge
erroneous afrocentrist [sic] claims on her Wellesley campus." The Boston
Jewish Advocate (May 17-23, 1996) article cited above continued with
Lefkowitz's own spin on the current lawsuit -- "I am the example of
what ADL can do! When a lawsuit was served against me by a colleague whose
views I challenged, Wellesley College was not there -- but Lenny Zakim and
the ADL were. They obtained counsel for me and stood with me as we refuted
historical and anti-Semitic lies. There is a destructive afrocentrism [sic]
on the campus today...."
A high ranking ADL representative, Sally Greenberg, similarly appeared in
court to help defend the interests of Alexander
Nechaevsky, a Russian Jew who was apprehended by Wellesley College campus
police after issuing threats against Martin at his college office. The Appeals
Court has remanded the Martin v. Lefkowitz libel case "to the Superior
Court for further proceedings." An earlier attempt by Lefkowitz to
settle out of court was unsuccessful when Martin rejected her offer and
the parties failed to agree on the basis for a settlement. The text of the
Appeals Court decision follows.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT TONY MARTIN vs MARY LEFKOWITZ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 94-P-1944.
The defendant repeated a statement contained in another's article. The
statement was: "The young woman fell down as a result of his [verbal]
onslaught and Martin bent over to continue his rage at her." A jury
could find such a statement about a professor's conduct toward a student
defamatory. Restatement (Second) of Torts # 570 (c) (1977). The repetition
of a defamatory statement, if not privileged, gives rise to liability. Restatement
(Second) of Torts # 578. If, as alleged, the statement is false, the defendant
cannot escape liability on the ground that her opinion is based on that
statement. The plaintiff also alleged that the statement was published with
reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Since, under Mass.R.Civ.P.
12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 755 (1974), "'a complaint should not be dismissed
for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can prove no set of facts in support of his claim,"' Nader v.
Citron. 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977); New England Insulation Co. v.
General Dynamics Corp., 26 Mass. App. Ct.. 28, 29-30 (1988), the
motion to dismiss should not have been allowed. The judgment of dismissal
is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for further
proceedings. So ordered. By the Court (Dreben, Gillerrnan Laurence,
JJ.), Asst. Clerk Entered: May 17,1996.
1. Lefkowitz won Round One on a motion to dismiss.
2. Martin won Round Two. Mass Court of Appeal overturned lower court -- reinstated case.
3. Lefkowitz won Round Three on a motion for summary judgment.
Lefkowitz admitted that the offending words she wrote about Martin were untrue but contended, successfully, that because Martin is a "public figure", as that term is understood in America's libel laws, he has to prove not merely negligence on her part in not writing the truth, but also that she was motivated by malice.
She claimed that Martin did not prove malice. Martin has appealed.