deposition of james krupa, ph.d. volume 2 - ncse · pdf filedeposition of james krupa, ......

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON DIVISIONCIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09-CV-00244-KSF

______________________________________________________

DEPOSITION OF JAMES KRUPA, Ph.D.VOLUME 2

______________________________________________________

C. MARTIN GASKELL PLAINTIFF

v.

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY DEFENDANT______________________________________________________

The deposition of JAMES KRUPA, Ph.D., was

taken on behalf of the plaintiff before Ann Hutchison,

Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in

and for the Commonwealth of Kentucky at Large, at the

law office of Baker, Kriz, Jenkins, Prewitt & Jones,

PSC, 200 West Vine Street, Suite 710, Lexington,

Kentucky, on Wednesday, May 12, 2010, beginning at the

hour of 10:56 a.m. The deposition was taken by notice

and shall be used for any and all purposes allowed by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including use at

trial.

______________________________________________________

ACTION COURT REPORTERS184 North Mill Street

Lexington, Kentucky 40507(859) 252-4004

Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 1 of 18 - Page ID#: 535

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ACTION COURT REPORTERS 2

APPEARANCES

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Geoffrey SurteesAmerican Center for Law & Justice-Kentucky6375 New Hope RoadP.O. Box 60New Hope, Kentucky 40052

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Barbara A. KrizBaker Kriz Jenkins Prewitt & Jones, PSC200 West Vine Street, Suite 710Lexington, Kentucky 40507

Barbara W. JonesGeneral CounselUniversity of Kentucky301 Main BuildingLexington, Kentucky 40506-0032


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


INDEX

DEPONENT: JAMES KRUPA, Ph.D. PAGE

EXAMINATION BY:Mr. Surtees ................................. 4

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE ........................... 18

EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED

1 Series of e-mails 5

2 E-mail to Dr. Cavagnero from Dr. Krupa 8Re: Two items

3 E-mail to Osborn from Krupa re: Martin 9Geskell

4 Martin Gaskell - homepage 10

5 E-mail to Dr. Cavagnero from Dr. Krupa 13Re: FW Report to the Chair

(Above-referenced exhibits accompany original and copytranscript of plaintiff only.)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


JAMES KRUPA, Ph.D.

having been first duly placed under oath, was examined

and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY MR. SURTEES:

Q. Dr. Krupa, we meet again.

A. Yes.

Q. We've asked to have your -- to take you

deposition a second time, which is a very unusual thing,

only because subsequent to your deposition on

March 24th, we were provided with additional documents,

and so the purpose of today's deposition is just to go

over those documents with you.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Did you speak with anyone other than

Ms. Kriz regarding today's deposition?

A. I did.

Q. And who did you speak with?

A. After I -- Jeff Osborn. After I forwarded

that e-mail to Barbara -- and I didn't remember sending

it, but obviously I did, I went and asked Jeff, I didn't

think you went to the provost. Did you go to the

provost? I didn't go to the provost. So that was the

extent of the discussion.

Q. Well, we'll discuss that. Okay. And did


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


you review any documents in preparation for the

deposition today?

A. No.

Q. Let's go over those ground rules again.

Let's not talk over one another. Wait for me to finish

my question before responding. Refrain from saying

uh-huh and huh-uh. The court reporter can't take down

nods and shakes of the head so be sure to verbalize your

responses. If you don't understand one of my questions,

please ask me to restate or rephrase the question; I'll

be happy to do so. And try to think of any others. No.

You're a pro at this now. Right? Now whenever you're

asked if you've had your deposition taken before, you

can say twice.

Let's begin, Dr. Krupa, with the e-mail

that you...

(Exhibit No. 1 marked.)

Q. Dr. Krupa, I am showing you a document we

have marked as Exhibit No. 1. It is a one, two, three

four-page document, and it appears to contain a few

e-mails. At the top of the first page is an e-mail from

you to Dr. Osborn, subject line reading: Re: Two

items, and you write, "I'm thrilled you went to the

Provost with this. May piss off those in physics, but

it had to be done! Congrats, Jim."


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


What did you mean by I'm thrilled that you

went to the provost with this?

A. Apparently at the time I thought that

somebody went to the provost. I thought Jeff must have

gone to the provost, so I sent that, and at this point

I'm not sure who I meant to send that to, but anyway, at

that point I must have thought that Jeff had gone to the

provost.

Q. And do you recall what that was based on?

A. I do not. That's what's bothering me. I

have no recollection.

Q. Is it possible that you thought Mike

Cavagnero was the provost?

A. I'm slow, but not that slow. No.

Q. Just curious. So you just cannot recall

why you thought Dr. Osborn had gone to the provost with

this situation?

A. No. I must have thought somebody went to

the provost, and being confused, I'm very curious about

this, so I don't recall.

Q. At the bottom of the first page you write

to Dr. Osborn, "You know, Jeff, as I read your e-mail

again, it seems a total outrage if U.K. continues to

consider Gaskell for this position. It will be a

disaster for science outreach in this state. We might


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


as well have the Creation Museum set an outreach office

in biology." Where is the creation museum?

A. Where is it or what is it?

Q. I'm sorry, what is it?

A. It's a building in northern Kentucky, I

forget the town, Petersburg, that has basically new

earth creationism, so earth 6,000 years old, no

evolution, that sort of thing. We're all very familiar

with the creation museum.

Q. And why are you very familiar with the

creation museum?

A. Well, I've been there twice and it comes

up all the time.

Q. Was it your opinion at the time that you

wrote this to Dr. Osborn that Dr. Gaskell was a young

earth creationist?

A. No. I have no idea if he's young or not.

I suspect he's not, but I think I was just trying to

make a point here.

Q. At the time that you wrote that e-mail,

Wednesday, October 17, 2007, was it your opinion that

Dr. Gaskell was a creationist?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was based on what?

A. Our interaction in Memorial Hall several


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


years before, his website with the intelligent design

comments.

Q. So is it your recollection that what

Dr. Gaskell wrote about intelligent design is evidence

which demonstrates that he is a creationist?

A. Well, intelligent design is just another

form of it, a different name but the same form; so one

who supports intelligent design is as far as I've been

aware of someone who is antievolution and creationist.

And the Dover trial basically supported that.

Q. Do you believe that Dr. Gaskell at the

time that you wrote this e-mail supported the theory of

intelligent design?

A. Well, it was in the website that

intelligent design is science which we do not accept in

biology, and it all goes back to that Memorial Hall

comment of his.

Q. In the Memorial Hall comment did he raise

the subject of intelligent design?

A. No, he just said there is little or no

evidence -- I don't remember if it was little or no

evidence -- for evolution.

Q. Okay.


Q. Dr. Krupa, I'm showing you something we


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


have marked Exhibit No. 2, just one page, and I'm just

curious about the e-mail at the top here. You write to

Dr. Cavagnero: "By the way, Mike, I do know the

individual's name is Martin Geskell, G-e-s-k-e-l-l. I

referred to him as Gaskin. My slip. I have a friend

named Mark Gaskin I was just chatting with earlier.

Jim."

Just for purposes of identification, who

is Mark Gaskin?

A. Mark Gaskin. You know, even here I'm

forgetting it. A colleague, I'm not sure where. This

name is in biology. So -- I get names confused all the

time. So I can't tell you exactly who that person is at

this point. Somebody in biology.

Q. And then you say, "I do know the

individual's name is Martin Geskell." I guess in

correcting your mistake, you made another mistake.

A. Made another mistake, uh-huh. I'm a

tremendous speller.

Q. Okay.


Q. All right, Dr. Krupa, showing you a two-

page document we have marked as Exhibit No. 3.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. It appears to be a chain of e-mails, so


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


the first one begins on the last page, and it's

Dr. Osborn asking to run by some of his alleged

scientific arguments in regard to Martin Geskell's

website and asks whether or not he could submit them to

you ahead of time. Do you see that e-mail?

A. Yes.

Q. And then at the bottom of page one it's

your response saying: "Please do." Do you see that?

A. Uh-huh. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then above that Dr. Osborn

sends you an e-mail with a link saying: "His home page

is pretty different to say the least." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you click on that link?

A. If I recall, I clicked on it and scanned

it very quickly.


Q. And I'm showing you what we have marked as

Exhibit No. 4. Is that what you saw?

A. Oh, it's been too long ago to remember.

Q. Okay. And then in your response to

Dr. Osborn you write: This is interesting! Maybe he

has changed his views! What did you mean by that?

A. I recall scanning that document fairly

quickly, and I didn't pick up on much of anything and so


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


by the first scan nothing jumped out at me. It was when

I went back after a couple of the other e-mails and read

it more thoroughly that I saw the intelligent design

comments, things that I had highlighted that I brought

in -- a document that I brought in last deposition.

Q. So you thought at the time you wrote this

e-mail, October 15, 2007, you thought maybe he had

changed his views from being -- correct me if I'm wrong,

I don't want to put words in your mouth -- from being

antievolution to perhaps in favor of evolution?

A. Possibly at that time. But again, I

scanned it very quickly and came back to it sometime

later.

Q. And then you go on to say: "As I scan the

evolution stuff, I'm not seeing him actually support

evolution as much as lay out arguments." What did you

mean by that?

A. I have no recollection at this point.

Q. Is it possible that you meant to say: As

I scanned the evolution stuff, I'm not seeing him

actually support creationism as much as lay out

arguments?

A. I have no idea what I meant at the time,

but it was clear when I went back and read the document,

I don't know, days later, then the intelligent design


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


comments were clear.

Q. But this is referencing evolution, not

intelligent design, though. Right?

A. Well, yeah, it's just -- intelligent

design, antievolution, evolution, creation, whatever it

might be. And again, I can't remember specifically.

The only thing I can remember specifically is I scanned

it very quickly and put little time in to it and then

later came back and looked at it more carefully. And I

don't know how many days after that, but at this time it

was a quick scan.

Q. In your opinion can one be -- believe in

the theory and fact of evolution and accept the theory

of intelligent design?

A. Well, intelligent design is not a theory;

one, it generates no testable or falsifiable

predictions. Those who are proposing or supporting

intelligent design are, as a group, resisting

evolutionary theory as we study it.

Q. Are you --

A. So in a way it's just -- I'm sorry, I

didn't mean to -- essentially it's another form of

antievolution.

Q. You're familiar with the name Michael

Behe. Correct?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


A. Yes.

Q. Would you characterize him as

antievolution?

A. I do. He's one of the people that very

much is pushing the intelligent design activity, and so

he definitely is somebody who the evolution folks have a

problem with. He's a very complicated person in his

views.

Q. Are you familiar with his latest book?

A. I have not read it.

MS. KRIZ: Is it B --

THE WITNESS: Behe or ee. I can't

remember if it's --

MR. SURTEES: It's B-e-h-e, yeah.

(Off-the-record comments.)


Q. I'm showing you what we have marked as

Exhibit No. 5. It's a two-page document. Just take a

look at this for a moment and let me know when you've

had a chance to read it.

A. Well, let's see. This was -- I've read

this, it's been some time. This is the review and the

summary from the selection committee, the search

committee, if I recall.

Q. Why did you have a copy of this?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


A. If I recall, Mike Cavagnero forwarded it

to Jeff, Shelly and me.

Q. Okay. Let's just back up here. First of

all, at the top of this e-mail it says Barbara A. Kriz,

we all know who that his, that's the attorney, and her

name is there only because it was printed off of her

computer. Obviously it has nothing to do with this

original e-mail. The e-mail immediately below the line

says from James Krupa to Mike Cavagnero, and it says

forward -- would you agree with me that FW there means

forward?

A. Yes.

Q. And then in brackets another forward:

Report to the Chair r.e. Observatory Director Position.

And then there's a little right angle there under

which -- underneath it says report to the chair r.e. OB

se. Do you know what that is?

A. I have no clue what that is.

Q. Do you know whether that's an icon of some

sort?

A. I have no idea what that is.

THE WITNESS: This (indicating).

MS. KRIZ: Oh, this.

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

Q. Do you recall why you sent an e-mail to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Mike Cavagnero on Friday, October 26th, forwarding to

Mike Cavagnero, the chair of the physics and astronomy

department, the observatory director position?

A. I have no idea. I remember getting this

from Cavagnero or the chair of the selection committee.

I don't remember. And I don't even understand this

e-mail. I sent it without any kind of reply apparently.

Q. Apparently.

A. Yeah. Well, I push buttons incorrectly so

I'm not sure what this is. I don't know that I actually

ever responded to him. If I did, you would have the

e-mail, but I'm not sure I even responded to this.

Q. But so you did receive from Mike Cavagnero

a copy of the report that we're looking at marked

Exhibit No. 5?

A. Correct. Well, let me say either from

Cavagnero -- I assume from Cavagnero or from the chair

of the selection committee. I received it from somebody

in physics so I assume that this would be Cavagnero that

sent it originally.

Q. And do you know why they sent it to you?

A. I think because we had concerns, and so

they're letting us know what the committee was

deliberating.

Q. Did you speak with Dr. Cavagnero regarding


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


this report?

A. No.

Q. Did you speak with Dr. Troland regarding

this report?

A. No.

Q. Did you speak with Dr. Osborn regarding

this report?

A. Possibly. I don't recall. And if we

spoke, it was probably just briefly in the coffee room.

Q. You're on a tenure track position; is that

correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Say it again just for the --

A. Correct. I'm sorry.

Q. That's all right. We all do it. And when

will the time come for the department to decide whether

or not you are awarded tenure?

A. Oh, I have tenure. I've had tenure for

nine years.

Q. Oh. Okay. I see. I thought if you were

on tenure track, that means you're on the way to getting

tenure.

A. Well, maybe so. I'm tenured so I'm on my

way to full professor.

Q. I see.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


A. Yeah, I'm sorry.

Q. No, that's fine. Just give me a minute

here.

MR. SURTEES: I have no further

questions.

(DEPOSITION CONCLUDED 11:15.)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


STATE OF KENTUCKY )

COUNTY OF FAYETTE )

I, ANN HUTCHISON, Registered Professional

Reporter and Notary Public, State of Kentucky at Large,

whose commission as such will expire May 3, 2012, do

hereby certify that the foregoing deposition was taken

by me at the time, place, for the purpose and with the

appearances set forth herein; that the same was taken

down by me in stenotype in the presence of the witness

and thereafter correctly transcribed by me upon

computer; and that the witness was duly placed under

oath by me prior to giving testimony.

I further certify that I am not related to nor

employed by any of the parties to this action or their

respective counsel and have no interest in this

litigation.

Given under my hand, this 14th day of May,

2010.

_______________________________ANN HUTCHISON, RPRRegistered Professional ReporterNotary Public, State-at-Large


Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 25-1 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 553

deposition of james krupa, ph.d. volume 2 - ncse · pdf filedeposition of james krupa, ......

Documents