Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part V – Robbie Lieberman

This article is one part of a series exposing corrupt, fear-mongering academics who used police officers and lawyers to silence a single student while they move to crush his free speech and Title IX rights. Read Part IV here.

Robbie Lieberman, chair of the Kennesaw State University Interdisciplinary Studies Department, looks like what happens when a crow and a Brillo pad fall into a wheat thresher. If I looked like her, I’d be a feminist too.

Robbie Lieberman

That was insensitive of me. I should not judge a woman on the outside, because we all know that what’s on the inside counts for so much more. Sadly, the inside of Dr. Lieberman makes any article insulting her appearance a love letter by comparison. Please try not to choke on your own puke when I say this empress has no clothes.

As a department chair, you would think Lieberman would act as a voice of reason when her underlings collapse into anarchy over the Lone Ginger. Actually, she picked up her own torch and ran screaming all the way to the Dean of Students Dr. Micheal Sansivero, moderator of the Gerard vs. Clyne slaughter, and recent interviewer of Dr. Richard Dawkins.

Imagine Lieberman holding Stacy Keltner’s hand as Keltner blows snot into her fifth box of Kleenex, and you’ll get an idea of the show they put on for Dr. Sansivero.

Dr. Lieberman was one of the people who approached the last remaining adviser for what was then named KSU Men to pressure him to resign. She did this more than once. Before Sage was silenced by campus lawyers, his adviser came over and told Sage about Lieberman’s complaints.

Sage then sent Lieberman this email:

Sage to Lieberman


I’ll give you three guesses on what happens next.

It’s not a police report this time, although Lieberman’s name does appear on police reports in support of Sage’s hysterical accusers.

The problem is that Liebermen did nothing to encourage investigation and ease nerves. She instead entertained fears and tried to go over Sage’s head to get him in trouble. She never bothered to talk to Sage herself to clear up any misunderstandings, even though Sage explicitly invited her to do so.

What makes Lieberman especially disgusting is that unlike other ISD faculty, she actually met Sage once before. Once upon a time Sage brought literature to the former gender studies coordinator and Dr. Lieberman to recommend more diversity in perspectives on masculinity. Lieberman saw how Sage conducted himself, and she had no reason to assume that Sage was a danger to anybody.

This message brought to you by tax-funded scholars.
This message brought to you by tax-funded scholars.

Let’s look at the emails Dr. Lieberman sent through the series of tubes to Dean of Students Dr. Sansivero (Click for the full email thread).

First, congratulations to the dean for sending this message:

Sansivero says reports are not reasonable

Lieberman replies as such:

That is subjective, of course


This email shown above proves that Dr. Lieberman acknowledges this was an issue of subjective perception, right before subjectively defending the hysterical reactions of her lugubrious staff.

The hypocrisy continues in another email:

Robbie Lieberman does not get it


Robbie, Sage did absolutely nothing to target your staff. He only ever used words. Don’t pretend you were just doing your job, because there are no actions on Sage’s part that justify the fears of your drones.

If you had no intention on stepping on a students right to free speech, why did you allow a campus attorney restrict his ability to speak with anyone in your department with nothing but perception backing that restriction?

Liberty and security are mutually exclusive ideas for a reason: Freedom is not safe. So long as speech is free, all ideas risk death, even yours. Your faculty and staff do indeed have a right to a safe environment, but so does Sage. But you took that away from him when you went on a smear campaign specifically targeting him.

“Dr.” Lieberman, I hope you stop to acknowledge your bias. Do you feel even the slightest bit of remorse, oppressor?

I guess not, considering this “fact sheet” you had printed for the purposes of a campus meeting meant to destroy Sage Gerard. Naturally, you cherry picked the same tired out-of-context quotes and oft-refuted SPLC pieces that confirm your perceptions instead of evaluating the sources. Whatever makes your fears feel valid must be true, right?

I think you should know that Sage tried to invite you to a mediation. He was out and about working with the system in good faith trying to clear up misunderstandings. He learned that Dr. T. K. Hedeen, the University of Georgia Omsbud that organizes mediations, was a friend of yours.

Put yourself in Sage’s shoes for a second. Assume you are a passionate young woman who stands up for other women without apology. You never intend to offend, but you are willing to risk offending people to say that women are human beings that deserve respect. You are often considered an “oddball,” mostly because you tend not to think in terms of popular intellectual fashion. After voicing articulate criticism of systemic corruption pushed by men, a department decides to accuse you of wanting to kill men. One of the male faculty members (who you have never even met) refuses to come to work because of his personal discomfort. You try to work with the system, but learn it doesn’t actually care. Everyone more powerful than you are connected to each other, and lawyers decided that you are better kept silent. You cannot trust the system, you have no money to hire an attorney, and degree-holding ideologues are organizing to hurt you because “you are creating a hostile environment.”

Can you wrap your head around your department’s repugnance after picturing yourself in this situation?

…You don’t care, do you?

No, you are the kind of person who would read this article and say something stupid like “I would have cared if you and Sage weren’t so rude.” But we need to be rude, Lieberman. It takes rude people to make a point heard through your years of ideological brainwashing.

Your biography indicates a passion in diversity, peace studies and social movements. If you had any knowledge of how any of those things actually worked, you would have detected the beginnings of something powerful in Sage Gerard. You have witnessed his passion, but never asked if overreacting would only fuel his fire.

Attacking him was the greatest mistake of your career, and I think you are starting to figure that out.

All of the stress and fear you and your staff are feeling right now are unfounded. This should be good news to you. But in order to stop me from digging up your histories and exposing you for years on end, all you have to do is grow up and apologize to Sage Gerard. You have his email.

If I hear of you calling cops or lawyers to regulate the discussion, then you will be hearing back from me. I don’t think you want to convince this community that lawyers are fair game, because some of our readers (who have raised over $20,000 for Sage over a year) are talking about starting a legal fund.

The choice is so simple: Be an adult, or don’t. There is no other option. I would strongly suggest picking the one that only takes ten minutes and prevents years of misery. Do not let your stubborn need to think of Sage as a criminal blow back on your department, if not all of Kennesaw State University.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: