French Prof. Wins Libel Suit Against Figaro

A French court awarded Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures Alice A. Jardine 150,000 francs, approximately $30,000, in a lawsuit against a major French newspaper last week, ruling that the paper had acted improperly in falsely reporting her academic credentials.

A similar suit by Professor of Romance and Comparative Literatures Susan R. Suleiman against Le Figaro magazine was dismissed because a bailiff failed to deliver Suleiman's court papers before the filing deadline.

The two professors sued the magazine, a weekly supplement of France's major Le Figaro newspaper, for libel and defamation after an article in April 1994 attacked their academic credentials and the French section of Harvard's Romance Languages and Literatures Department.

In the article, journalist Victor Loupan characterized the Harvard French program as a community of feminist scholars devoted to the study of homosexual women of color.

At Harvard, "a classic author is a suspect author--better still, a banned author," Loupan wrote. "A contemporary work will be taught there if its author is a woman (at least), of color (if possible) and homosexual (perfect)."

The court upheld Loupan's right to criticize the French department in the above manner, writing, "If such a characterization is incontestably severe, it does not constitute, in itself, an attack on the honor or the consideration of the professors--and singularly of Ms. Jardine--as it is exclusively criticized as proceeding from debatable literary choices."

But the three French judges found that Loupan had acted improperly in criticizing Jardine's academic credentials.

Of all Harvard's French professors, only Jardine has any semblance of university qualifications, Loupan wrote, proceeding to mock those qualifications as insignificant.

The judges agreed with Jardine and Suleiman that the journalist went too far in defaming their credentials.

The court found that Loupan's characterization of Jardine's credentials could not have been found to have been made "in good faith," but rather stemmed from his intention to detract from Jardine's reputation.

Both professors said they were ecstatic to hear of the results.

"We're both very, very pleased and elated [with the decision,]" Jardine said.

"I'm delighted," Suleiman said. "This judgmentbears out Alice Jardine's and my sense that thejournalist had really stepped out of line."

Suleiman said she felt "vindicated" by thedecision. "[I am] happy that the results made itworthwhile to have expended so much effort on thecase, she said.

The judges awarded Jardine a combined total of150,000 francs in damages, which Jardine said herlawyer told her was the highest amountLeFigaro had ever paid in a lawsuit.

"In France, that's a huge sum of money to beawarded in a libel suit," Jardine said.

She said the amount awarded was significantbecause it will force others in France and in theUnited States to take note.

"It's important because it will send exactlythe message that we wanted to send," Jardine said."With freedom comes responsibility, and we've sentthe message that you can't libel or defamesomeone--we've sent the message that people willfight back."

"The thing that is most important to me is thateven though Susan's case was thrown out on atechnicality, the moral and symbolic victory was amutual one," Jardine said.

Jardine's suit was the only one that had legalstanding at the trial last month at thePalaisde Justice, the main court of Paris, becauseSuleiman's papers were delivered two days afterthe statute of limitations on libel had run out.

"Our lawyer sent both affidavits tothehuissier, or bailiff, just a few daysbefore the deadline and asked him to deliver bothin time," Suleiman said last month. "For reasons Ihave not quite understood, only Alice Jardine'saffidavit arrived on time; mine arrived two daysafter."

Lawyer Herve Cren presented both cases in thetrial and asked the court to see what it could doin maintaining judgment in Suleiman's case. Butthe judges did not mention Suleiman in theverdict.

Suleiman said she was disappointed that thejudges did not recognize her standing, but she washappy with the verdict.

"I feel that Alice Jardine's victory issymbolically mine as well since we have been inthis together from the start," Suleiman said. Sheadded that both were grateful to all of thefriends and colleagues world-wide who hadsupported them over the last year.

Suleiman said she was taking further legalaction against the bailiff for not performing hisduty, and that Cren would file the papers withinthe next ten days.

"Our lawyer assures me that the case is clearcut since the bailiff has recognized his fault innot delivering my papers on time," Suleiman said."Therefore as the lawyer puts it, the bailiff hasdeprived me of satisfaction in the case and he isliable for that."

Jardine said that she would split any awardmoney with Suleiman. But Suleiman said she didn'tthink that would be necessary.

"I expect that the suit against the bailiffwill produce at least the same amount of damagesas I would have gotten from Le Figaro,"Suleiman said. "But there may be additionaldamages for the harm done by the bailiff's ownerror."

Jardine and Suleiman also asked in their suitthat they be allowed to choose newspapers inwhichLe Figaro would have to acknowledgethat it was found guilty of libel and defamation,but the judges ruled that the magazine did nothave to publish the error messages because itprinted letters to the editor from Suleiman andJardine responding to the article.

The verdict was reached on Wednesday, but thepapers were not signed and the decision was notmade official until Friday.

Jardine said she called her lawyer's Parisoffice at 6 p.m. and that his secretary said averdict had been handed down.

Jardine said she asked what the verdict was,but the secretary said, "It's not official--thepapers haven't been signed, so I can't tell you."

The secretary did eventually read the decisionto Jardine over the phone.

Le Figaro has one month to decide if itwants to appeal the case, but Jardine said she didnot expect an appeal because the decision was sostrongly worded.

"Whatever happens, we feel that the right thinghas been done, and we don't feel it will bereversed," Jardine said.

"I felt elated, I felt proud of us for doing itand I felt optimistic about the possibility oftruth winning out over all the political 'noise.'"Jardine said

"I'm delighted," Suleiman said. "This judgmentbears out Alice Jardine's and my sense that thejournalist had really stepped out of line."

Suleiman said she felt "vindicated" by thedecision. "[I am] happy that the results made itworthwhile to have expended so much effort on thecase, she said.

The judges awarded Jardine a combined total of150,000 francs in damages, which Jardine said herlawyer told her was the highest amountLeFigaro had ever paid in a lawsuit.

"In France, that's a huge sum of money to beawarded in a libel suit," Jardine said.

She said the amount awarded was significantbecause it will force others in France and in theUnited States to take note.

"It's important because it will send exactlythe message that we wanted to send," Jardine said."With freedom comes responsibility, and we've sentthe message that you can't libel or defamesomeone--we've sent the message that people willfight back."

"The thing that is most important to me is thateven though Susan's case was thrown out on atechnicality, the moral and symbolic victory was amutual one," Jardine said.

Jardine's suit was the only one that had legalstanding at the trial last month at thePalaisde Justice, the main court of Paris, becauseSuleiman's papers were delivered two days afterthe statute of limitations on libel had run out.

"Our lawyer sent both affidavits tothehuissier, or bailiff, just a few daysbefore the deadline and asked him to deliver bothin time," Suleiman said last month. "For reasons Ihave not quite understood, only Alice Jardine'saffidavit arrived on time; mine arrived two daysafter."

Lawyer Herve Cren presented both cases in thetrial and asked the court to see what it could doin maintaining judgment in Suleiman's case. Butthe judges did not mention Suleiman in theverdict.

Suleiman said she was disappointed that thejudges did not recognize her standing, but she washappy with the verdict.

"I feel that Alice Jardine's victory issymbolically mine as well since we have been inthis together from the start," Suleiman said. Sheadded that both were grateful to all of thefriends and colleagues world-wide who hadsupported them over the last year.

Suleiman said she was taking further legalaction against the bailiff for not performing hisduty, and that Cren would file the papers withinthe next ten days.

"Our lawyer assures me that the case is clearcut since the bailiff has recognized his fault innot delivering my papers on time," Suleiman said."Therefore as the lawyer puts it, the bailiff hasdeprived me of satisfaction in the case and he isliable for that."

Jardine said that she would split any awardmoney with Suleiman. But Suleiman said she didn'tthink that would be necessary.

"I expect that the suit against the bailiffwill produce at least the same amount of damagesas I would have gotten from Le Figaro,"Suleiman said. "But there may be additionaldamages for the harm done by the bailiff's ownerror."

Jardine and Suleiman also asked in their suitthat they be allowed to choose newspapers inwhichLe Figaro would have to acknowledgethat it was found guilty of libel and defamation,but the judges ruled that the magazine did nothave to publish the error messages because itprinted letters to the editor from Suleiman andJardine responding to the article.

The verdict was reached on Wednesday, but thepapers were not signed and the decision was notmade official until Friday.

Jardine said she called her lawyer's Parisoffice at 6 p.m. and that his secretary said averdict had been handed down.

Jardine said she asked what the verdict was,but the secretary said, "It's not official--thepapers haven't been signed, so I can't tell you."

The secretary did eventually read the decisionto Jardine over the phone.

Le Figaro has one month to decide if itwants to appeal the case, but Jardine said she didnot expect an appeal because the decision was sostrongly worded.

"Whatever happens, we feel that the right thinghas been done, and we don't feel it will bereversed," Jardine said.

"I felt elated, I felt proud of us for doing itand I felt optimistic about the possibility oftruth winning out over all the political 'noise.'"Jardine said