by Katy Young, Esq.
As a litigator with university leaders as clients, I am witnessing a troubling trend taking root across higher education:
- The presidents of Harvard and Penn were forced to resign following politically charged scrutiny.
- The University of Virginia’s president stepped down amid targeting by national political figures.
- DEI offices have been dismantled across Florida and Texas following partisan campaigns.
- Presidents who support academic freedom, transgender inclusion, or vaccine mandates have been called out not for mismanagement, but for values-based leadership.
In cases like these, the velocity and volume of public pressure outpaced the institution’s ability—or willingness—to respond.
Critique is expected in public leadership. But what we’re witnessing in many of these campaigns is something more calculated:
- Falsehoods repeated as fact
- Ghostwritten letters planted in local media outlets
- Coordinated pressure on boards to remove or discredit leadership
- Deliberate use of the media cycle to manipulate public perception
In legal terms, many of these efforts meet the definition of defamation: false statements of fact, published to a third party, that cause reputational harm—and, in the case of public figures, are made with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
In practical terms, they destabilize presidencies, derail institutional momentum, and degrade the trust that higher education needs to function.
The Makings of a Case Study from Which Others Can Learn
One month ago, I read a thoroughly researched Chronicle Higher Education article, The 774 Words That Helped Sink a Presidency with deep interest. The author, David Jesse, laid out the essential facts in the protracted Gallegly v. California Lutheran University (CLU) case. These facts—including but not limited to sworn testimony, court rulings, and moments of public escalation—are ones I too had become familiar with having represented the main target of the case in sending a “demand letter” to the plan that was grounded in many of these same primary documents.
I have put together this companion pieces as the makings of a relevant, timely—even urgent—case study. It draws from many of the same sources. Importantly though for today’s university leaders, it shifts the focus from the thin contracts at the heart of the lawsuit to the four-year character assassination campaign that unfolded largely outside the courtroom. That campaign, mostly overlooked by Southern California media, offers urgent lessons for those who aim to protect university integrity and mission-driven leadership.
If Jesse’s article left readers asking what truly toppled California Lutheran’s president and damaged the university’s reputation, this one answers it plainly. It wasn’t a breached agreement. It was a coordinated, calculated smear campaign that gained traction in the vacuum created by silent campus and community leaders, including the board of regents.
In higher education, silence—especially from the highest levels of shared governance—is the fastest path to presidential derailment and institutional harm.
The Courtroom Victory That Wasn’t Nearly Enough
In December 2024, CLU won a decisive ruling in Ventura County Superior Court. After hearing compelling arguments from the defendants’ attorneys, the judge ruled there was no charitable trust governing the Gallegly Center and no requirement to digitize the archives. This ruling—Phase One of the trial—affirmed the university had not breached a Charitable Trust Agreement.
In Phase Two of the trial, scheduled for October, a jury will determine if there are any contractual requirements to display the office furniture that Gallegly loaned (not gifted) to the university, and if so, for how long. CLU had put the furniture on display for approximately three years (2018-2021) before moving it to make space for the archival collection.
While CLU secured legal victory in Phase One, it had already sustained damages far harder to repair: its president’s reputation had been maligned, a severely distorted public narrative had taken hold, and trust among donors and the community was deeply eroded.
The True Target: President Lori Varlotta
Dr. Lori Varlotta, CLU’s first female president, arrived in 2020 amid pandemic disruptions and inherited the only three written agreements associated with this case. None of them require the digitization of the archives or the display of furniture to create the exact replica of the former Congressman’s office in Washington D.C. Yet almost immediately, she became the focal point of a carefully engineered public takedown. Over 60 letters and op-eds appeared in local outlets—from community members who had never even met the new president—accusing her of dishonesty, “cancel culture,” caving to a “woke” campus, and undermining Congressman Gallegly’s legacy.
Orchestrated Outrage not Grassroot Grievances
Despite claims of broad community concern, the campaign to discredit President Varlotta at California Lutheran University (CLU) was no grassroots movement. It was a calculated media offensive orchestrated by former Congressman Elton Gallegly, his wife Janice, and three politically aligned volunteers—David Shechter, Kevin McNamee, and James Lacey—referred to in court documents as the Gallegly “Associates.”
Discovery materials confirm the strategy: ghostwritten and heavily edited letters were pushed to newspapers and regents, signed by people who had never met Dr. Varlotta. The effort mimicked grassroots dissent but was, in truth, a political operation.
In December 2021—just weeks after the Galleglys filed suit—Shechter introduced himself to the Congressman:
“I am the administrator for the Sleeping Giant of Thousand Oaks and was referred to you by Kevin McNamee, Thousand Oaks city councilman. We were dismayed to hear about the decision that Cal Lutheran is making about the Gallegly Center and have mobilized letters of support to the Acorn. Four (4) of these letters went into the Acorn last weekend and 3 more are being submitted this week. I have assembled those letters in the attachment.”
By January 2022, Shechter orchestrates a more targeted and intentional lethal plan. He organizes volunteers to send templated letters that disparage Varlotta to all 28 of her “supervisors,” members of the board of regents:
“There are 28 regents and 7 letter writers; each has committed to sending letters to four regents. I also typed up a letter to Dr. Varlotta, which is attached here.”
This wasn’t opinion-sharing—it was scripted attack. McNamee, then a Thousand Oaks city councilman turned mayor, praised one letter-writer:
“You are spot on. Well done… Apparently, this is not the only WOKE issue the new president is implementing.”
Timing was as strategic as content. On Feb. 8, 2022—two weeks before Varlotta’s inauguration—James Lacey laid out the plan in an email to the Galleglys (emphasis added):
“It [the pre-inaugural part of the campaign] will be hard hitting. The plan is to drop this to the press right before her big deal on campus on 2-22. The distribution will include Wall Street Journal, Tucker Carlson, who is hitting the Woke School issue, Scholl (sic) board of regions the Star, All he Acorn’s (sic), Pacific Business Times, Epoch Times, The Gaudian (sic), LA Times, KNX Radio, Hannity, Fox News, HLM TV, PR ~ ‘Wire, CA Republican Members of Congress and Senate, Eric Early- currently running for AG of CA, CA Republican HDQ, among others. Copies will be displayed on school site, dorms, among other areas.
This goal here is for the buzz to be in full gear before your trial date and it will create some big noise, major distraction for the Presidents event and take away from her event where media will be present. If lucky, she will be answering questions, and the press will bring this up as negative that many of the media outlets may bring to lite too and have it published a few days before the trial date. … One way or another this is the strategy.”
After reviewing the emerging plan above, Janice Gallegly provides additional instructions. On Feb. 10, she responds to Shechter’s email with this:
“If you have letters that haven’t been printed by the Star, perhaps you could ask the writer to send them to the Acorn… Also below are a couple of suggested letters… If you have anyone that would sign them, we would appreciate it.”
…
“David, We truly appreciate yours and Kevin’s time in helping us. If you have any other ideas and need anything from us, please let me know. We need to keep the fires burning under their feet. President Varlotta’s 3-day inauguration starts February 22…”
Later in the proceedings, Ms. Gallegly is asked to explain in her own words what she meant in the February 10 email. During her sworn deposition testimony, she responded as follows:
Attorney: “What did you mean by ‘keep the fires burning under their feet’?”
Janice Gallegly: “I hoped she would not be inaugurated.”
Attorney: “Was one of your goals that this would be a story in the newspaper at the time of her inauguration?”
Janice Gallegly: “One would be that they didn’t inaugurate her.”
What began as a series of accusations turned into a crusade that followed a well-worn political playbook: manufacture outrage, flood the media, and pressure institutions and their leaders into silence or collapse.
From Critique to Crusade—Manufactured Fury Turns Fanatical
By May 2024—more than four years after the first disputes began—texts and emails among Gallegly allies were still flying. But the tone hadn’t cooled with time. It had hardened, becoming more malicious, more inflammatory, and more personal.
May 7, 2024, Linda Breakstone, a former journalist and Gallegly supporter:
“Trust me, you’re going to win this one!!!
Keep focus on the word ‘FRAUD!’ FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD!!!!
I think little miss liberal Varlotta walks into that job, immediately hates and takes aim at you and that big building because you and it represent CONSERVATIVES!!!
And she’s backed up by the ‘woke’ liberal mood at the time.
But THEN, it turns super ILLEGAL and devious as she realizes she can use the whole Gallegly thing to embezzle money off the top, while at the same time winning favor from all those little impressionable campus liberals.
Well, that backfired!!!
And now, you are going to destroy her career, life and win back your money and more!!!
We’ll hang her in effigy—but even better, I think a felony conviction can be in her future!”
This wasn’t hyperbole. It was a declared intent to ruin a university president—professionally, reputationally, and even legally.
The Defamation Threshold
As a practicing litigator, I reviewed hundreds of pages of these communications. They clearly established a deliberate, ongoing ruinous attack that was amplified in and by the local media. At Dr. Varlotta’s request, I sent a demand letter to the Galleglys and their three Associates asking for a public apology and reputational repair. All parties refused these modest requests.
To date, Varlotta has chosen not to file a defamation claim. But this campaign— with its published statements that attack a person’s character, allege wrongdoing, and explicitly aim to dismantle that person’s career and reputation—is a prime one for such a complaint. Arguably, it meets the legal definition of defamation: false statements presented as fact, published to a third party, causing reputational harm. What’s more, the coordinated nature and the repeated expressions of hostility, malevolence, and ill-will around wrongdoings that were not corroborated by a single fact means that the campaign likely meets the higher threshold of “actual malice.”
This is an important threshold for university leaders to understand.
In defamation cases:
- Private individuals must prove that the defamatory statements were false and made negligently.
- Public figures must meet a higher standard of “actual malice”: the speaker or writer knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.
- California law (e.g., Copp v. Paxton, 1996) affirms this standard and even adds an emotional component: a finding of malice may be supported by evidence of hatred, ill will, or an intent to injure.
Whether a university president is considered a public figure or a private one under defamation law is a gray area.
Dr. Varlotta likely meets the definition of a private individual since CLU is a small, regional university and its president is not a national figure. The defamatory statements—repeated, coordinated, and based on falsifiable claims—appear to meet the bar for actionable harm under California law, especially since the authors knew or should have known their accusations were false. Even if she were deemed a public figure, the case for defamation would remain viable since there is evidence that suggests both knowledge of falsity and reckless disregard for the truth.
Defamation Hurts Institutions, Not Just Individuals
The campaign’s institutional impact was severe:
- Donor confidence faltered as headlines questioned CLU’s integrity in handling donor contributions.
- Strategic momentum in overall fundraising slowed as several donors went on record saying they would not make any gifts to CLU “until the Gallelgy case was resolved.”
- Local elected officials, with strong regional networks such as Kevin McNamee, joined the fray and amplified mistruths.
- Faculty trust in the CLU president weakened amid the massive disinformation campaign and faculty eventually called for a vote of no confidence against the president
- Board cohesion and courage seem to have broken down under pressure and public scrutiny since the governing board remained quiet throughout the entire ordeal.
Varlotta eventually resigned. Not because of a legal ruling—but because the institution, under assault, failed to defend her publicly or vigorously.
A Broader Trend in Higher Ed
CLU is not alone in facing political pressures:
- Harvard and Penn presidents have been ousted under politically driven donor pressure.
- DEI programs at Florida, Texas, and elsewhere are under assault by partisan actors.
- The president of U Va stepped down last week after being singled out by Trump.
- Presidents who support vaccine mandates, transgender inclusion, and even academic freedom are increasingly subject to character attacks.
The Gallegly campaign represents a dangerous blueprint: use media, donor threats, and coordinated outrage to silence leaders and their governing boards.
Eight Steps Universities Must Take
- Evaluate Gifts Carefully
Donor gifts must serve the mission of the institution—not the legacy-building ambitions of the donor. Boards should insist on a formal risk assessment before accepting complex or high-profile gifts, especially those tied to political figures or legacy projects. High-profile or legacy-driven gift agreements require careful legal review before being signed.
- Draw Clear Lines Between Promotional Materials and Contracts
Fundraising brochures often use language that is aspirational, conceptual, or conditional. They should not be mistaken for contracts. University presidents and vice presidents of advancement (fundraising) must ensure that all donor commitments are clearly delineated in legally binding agreements—and that those agreements include exit strategies.
- Formalize Inter- and Intra-Communication Protocols
Who can make promises to donors? What happens when disputes between a donor and the university arise? What happens if there is significant sunlight between what the vice president of advancement wants and says and what the university president wants and says? These questions must be answered in advance of finalizing any major gift. The formulations of responses should not be part of ad hoc decision-making once gift issues arise.
- Educate Trustees on Defamation Law
Many trustees are well-versed in finance and philanthropy, but few understand the legal nuances of defamation described above. Boards should be trained to recognize the warning signs of defamatory attacks and know when—and how—to respond.
- Align Crisis Communication with Legal Strategy
Silence is not always safest. When facts are on your side, a carefully worded statement can prevent long-term damage.
- Publicly Support Leaders Under Attack
A board’s silence sends a message. So does its support. In times of crisis, the public posture of trustees can stabilize—or unravel—a presidency.
- Build Institutional Muscle Around Resilience
The best defense against false narratives is a well-informed campus community and a public reputation for integrity. Communicate values clearly, invest in internal trust, and prepare for reputational defense as a core function of leadership.
- Weigh the Pros/Cons of Litigation vs. Settlement
Achieving justice through the US court system is long, costly, and unpredictable process. Therefore, it is understandable why so many university boards, GCs and insurance underwriters push for settle rather than litigation.
In a case like this one, however, where there is overwhelming documentary evidence and testimony from the plaintiffs, litigation makes perfect sense. Settling with plaintiffs who have irrefutably and unapologetically done so much damage could easily send a damning message to future institutional leaders: smear campaigns take hold here; they force the board and local leaders to succumb to political pressure, even downright bullying.
Conclusion: Loyal Leaders Must be Backed by Brave Boards
David Jesse exposed the contract dispute. This piece exposes the character assassination that followed. If boards want brave, forward-looking leaders, they must be equally brave in defending them.
Political pressure becomes defamation the moment it crosses the line into falsehood, fabrication, and intent to injure. If university boards don’t draw and defend that line—no one else will.
Help is Here
If your institution is ready to draw a firm legal line between protected speech and actionable defamation—and to defend it with clarity and confidence—I’m here to help you do exactly that.
