Most students at the College are familiar with the name Omprakash. The organization, founded by Bowdoin alum Willy Oppenheim, is utilized by offices all over campus, including DavisConnects, the Title IX Office, the Oak Institute, the Office of Civic Engagement, and the Pugh Center.
Perhaps most notably, starting in 2021, all first-year students must go through an Omprakash classroom before arriving at the College. This classroom lays the groundwork for orientation and is many students’ first interaction with the College.
The Omprakash website reads, “At the core, our work is about learning through relationships, and our primary goal is fundamentally educational. By forging connections within our network, we aim to ‘lead out’ citizens of the world towards an awareness of the human community from which they are indivisible and within which they can enact change.”
However, it is not all smooth sailing in the organization. On June 13, 2022, eight Omprakash employees, four on the Core Team and four on the Mentor Team, sent a letter to the Omprakash Board of Directors and the network alleging that Oppenheim, who is both a board member and the Executive Director, created a harmful work environment. The employees accused him of sexual harassment, emotional and psychological manipulation, discrimination, aggression and verbal abuse, and excessive demands on team members’ time and levels of commitment.
The next day, Oppenheim sent a letter to the Board denying all allegations. He pointed out that all signatories worked part-time and he wrote that “all team members are generally free to set their own working schedules.”
Oppenheim continued to use one signatory’s maternity leave as proof that he was not controlling anyone’s life.
In response to the claim of discrimination, he wrote, “I will point out that I am the only white male member of our core team, and that white men are in a minority within our broader EdGE Mentor team as well.”
Oppenheim went on to explain what he believed the next steps should be, including welcoming an independent investigation of the claims and sharing several testimonials from people to defend his character.
Oppenheim did recognize his position of power in the organization, writing, “Finally, I should also acknowledge my own position as a member of the Board. Needless to say, I will recuse myself from voting on any of the matters related to this letter. However, should the Board wish to strengthen its independence by asking me to resign from the Board while maintaining my role as Executive Director, I would be happy to do so.”
On June 16, 2022, the Board wrote to Oppenheim and the signatories of the letter accusing Oppenheim of wrongdoing. They outlined the following steps: 1) an independent investigation would be undertaken by a third-party investigator, 2) Oppenheim would step down from the Board until the investigation’s completion 3) Oppenheim would remain as Executive Director and had to commit to refrain from discussing the allegations or investigations with partners, university clients, or any external stakeholders of Omprakash, and 4) the signatories would have the option to take paid leave until the end of the investigation or until July 31, 2022 and would have to sign an agreement, committing them to refrain from discussing the allegations or investigation, or the signatories could continue working, including interacting with Oppenheim, and would still have to commit to refrain from discussing the allegations or investigation.
All eight signatories left the company before the investigation took place.
Alex Knott, one of the signatories who was co-director of Omprakash with Oppenheim and another man for about a year left before the investigation for several reasons.
“When I received the email from the Board outlining our options – to keep working with Willy or else essentially sign an NDA in exchange for a month’s salary – resigning was clearly the only option for me. When I spoke with the other signatories they were in agreement. No one wanted to keep working with Willy nor receive hush money, and the fact that Willy hadn’t been asked to go on leave made it clear that they weren’t taking our complaints seriously,” she said.
Another signatory agreed with the reasons Knott presented.
“We were kicked out of Salesforce before the Board sent us their decision. In that email, they also told us that we were kicked out of our emails. It already felt like we were the ones being punished. And then the two options of signing an NDA or working with Willy felt like total non-starters. So we decided that the only thing that felt good was for us to leave. It felt like we got a bit of our power back, even though it was a small thing and led to all of us losing either a main or supplementary source of income,” she said.
The Board ended up hiring employment attorney Jennifer Sims to conduct an investigation. She found no wrongdoing.
“The investigator – an employment attorney with no prior affiliation to Omprakash or any of its Board or staff – spent several months conducting a rigorous investigation, interviewing over a dozen people (including myself and all of the complainants), and reviewing hundreds of pages of documents,” Oppenheim said.
However, several of the signatories do not believe that the investigation was unbiased.
“I think it’s important to talk about the investigation too, because that basically wasn’t an independent investigation. The Board had basically paid the lawyers to figure out how to shut this down. The lawyer was working for the Board,” Knott said.
Knott recalled a time when she wrote to the investigator outlining an instance of sexual harassment. However, the investigator did not mention the instance, or any other instances, in her report.
“She was looking for ways to get around what we were saying,” Knott said.
The Board completely denies Knott’s claims.
Chrissie Monaghan, a Board member, wrote, “We sought a credible expert in employment law who could independently investigate the allegations (the details of which were still largely unclear to us at the time) and provide us with a rigorous analysis of their merit and validity. We ultimately hired a respected employment law firm with which we had no prior affiliation. The attorney who led the investigation spent over 100 hours conducting interviews and reviewing documentary evidence, all at the expense of Omprakash.”
The Board allowed The Colby Echo to reach out to the investigator to get more information.
Notably, Omprakash did not discuss the allegations or investigation with the College, or any other college partners. The College only found out about the allegations through the Echo’s research, at which point they reached out to Omprakash to get more information.
Both Oppenheim and Monaghan explained why they did not feel it was necessary to report the allegations to any college partners.
“In the midst of the investigation, our Board of Directors discussed whether or not it would be appropriate to notify our university collaborators such as Colby. Ultimately, they decided it was not appropriate or necessary to do so in the midst of the investigation, but that they would take such steps as needed based on the outcomes of the investigation. Given that the investigation ultimately determined the accusations to be without merit, our Board of Directors decided that it was not necessary to inform Colby or any of our other university collaborators,” Oppenheim said.
“In short, the reason that we did not notify Colby before, during, or after the investigation is that it was an internal staff dispute that initially was under investigation and then ultimately found to be without merit, and did not impact our partnership with Colby in any way,” Monaghan said.
One of the signatories pointed out that 30 people left Omprakash by the end of the investigation.
Knott corroborated this statement, saying, “More than half of the organization left. It was in the 30s. Most of the working mentors ended up leaving. There were maybe a handful left after.”
Monaghan contests this point.
“It is important to emphasize that many of the staff who resigned were not actively working for Omprakash, or were only working in a part-time capacity. Among the original eight signatories to the letter, only one of them was working full-time for Omprakash, and several had not been active team members for a year or more. Among others who resigned over the weeks that followed, none were full-time team members, and many had not been active for a year or more. (A key point here is that members of our mentor team remain ‘on the team’ even if they are not actively working with any students.) Thus, while we were still deeply saddened to see that these team members chose to resign, it is misleading to say that these team members represented 50% of our staff,” she said.
Monaghan pointed out that she did not believe the investigation or the staff turnover had any impact on the College.
“To the best of our knowledge, these events did not have any substantive impact on Colby students, staff, or programming. During Summer 2022, we ran two Colby programs: DavisConnects Summer EdGE, and the Oak Institute for Human Rights Internship Program. A total of 21 students were enrolled in these two programs. In both programs, the first ‘unit’ of EdGE curriculum content was due on June 27, 2022. This means that most mentors in those programs would not have begun engaging with students until mid to late June, or even early July. So, while some of our mentors resigned on June 20 or shortly after, we were able to re-assign mentors from our existing team very quickly, and we are not aware of any case where a student’s experience within any of our programs was negatively impacted by this transition,” she said.
Since finding out about the investigation, the College has reached out to Omprakash for more information and discussed how to proceed.
Barbara Moore, Dean of Students said, “Colby reached out to Omprakash to learn more. Obviously in any of these cases, when it impacts the student experience or if it doesn’t align with our values, and we hear concerns, we immediately go into contact or investigate. In this case, Colby was satisfied that Omprakash did their due diligence in investigation and it didn’t directly impact in any negative way the Colby student experience, which is of the utmost importance to us.”
Dean Moore continued by discussing how the administration decides what to tell students.
“In this case, we’re satisfied that there wasn’t any harm impacted to our students. It didn’t impact the student experience in the program, and based on their investigation, we’re satisfied that their outcome was the outcome that they had, and there was not an impact on students. If there is no impact on students, it doesn’t actually seem to be something that students would care about. Students get lots of information, and for us, it’s ‘is this something that would directly impact students?’”
Some students believe that the student body should be made aware of what happened, given how many people interact with Omprakash and Oppenheim himself. However, it is important to note that Oppenheim lives on the West Coast, and thus only interacts with students virtually.
“I think the student body should know about this. Omprakash is even more embedded into Colby’s curriculum now with the 1st year journey. A huge portion of the employees at Omprakash resigned during this scandal, and the company never told its campus partners. The actions that Willy was accused of doing completely go against many of the lessons and morals that are taught over Omprakash. The student body needs to know that Willy is still in charge of this organization,” TJ Guercio `24 said.
Michael Giusti `24 disagrees with Guercio.
“As I don’t have to interact with him one-on-one and it’s all over Zoom, I don’t mind that I didn’t know. It wouldn’t have changed anything. While it’s great to know, it’s not like these allegations are going to have him stop working with Colby. Leadership is going to do whatever they want.”
Guercio echoes Giusti’s concerns with how the administration will handle the information.
“I know that there are behind-the-scenes conversations between Omprakash and Colby about the situation and transparency, and I’m so glad we got these important conversations going. I don’t have that much faith that the outcome will be productive, and I don’t see Colby leaving Omprakash. There is the sunk costs fallacy and it’s like a toxic marriage. On the other hand, Colby has a lot of power and a lot of leverage if they wield it correctly to do the right thing and hold Willy accountable. Maybe Omprakash’s harmful leadership structure will be forced to change,” he said.
Guercio continues, pointing out why the administration needs to be transparent.
“The administration needs to be transparent with the student body. They must see if the values that Omprakash used in the face of Willy’s allegations align with the administration’s values. If they don’t, then there must be actions taken to end Colby’s relationship with Omprakash. There must be accountability for the harm that Willy did, and he and his company must be held responsible for their actions. I believe the dozens of employees who left Omprakash in the wake of this controversy. Because they saw the company and the company’s leadership as so manipulative, toxic, and immoral that they parted ways with Omprakash, I think Colby should seriously consider doing the same. Other alternatives to Omprakash will prove to be more helpful and worthwhile for students,” he said.
Chloe Shader `24 agrees with Guercio.
“I believe and support the people who have come forward and shared their concerns about Willy. Considering the complicated issues that Omprakash deals with, I think Colby has a responsibility to make sure these issues are addressed by someone who is trustworthy and ethical and knows how to not abuse their position of power. From what I’ve heard Willy does not fit that description,” she said.
Dean Moore agrees with Guercio that it is important to look at partnerships with Colby’s values in mind. However, she believes that Omprakash still operates in accordance with those values.
“In the case of Omprakash, if that was an issue, if it would have panned out at Omprakash, we would have addressed it. If there is ever any personnel decision, we can’t talk about that. We could talk about how the College decided to go in a different direction and use a different vendor for ‘this.’”
Dean Moore explains how examining a partner’s values is a key part of the decision to contract with them or not.
“In any agreement or partnership we have, before we enter we’re certainly looking at ‘Does this align with Colby’s mission and vision?’ ‘Does it provide the level of experience that our students deserve?’ In an ongoing way, we evaluate all of those relationships, so that’s a continuous process. If there are concerns raised, whether it’s student-raised concerns or staff-raised concerns about a partnership or something not progressing in the way the College wants it to, we will immediately investigate. Depending on the outcome of what that is, if there is something, then the College would determine what to communicate and how to communicate,” she said.
President David Greene points out that the College has around 400 contracts, and oftentimes, things happen in the companies without the College ever finding out.
“There are things that happen at these organizations all the time that we never find out about. If there was something extraordinary, we might know about it, like if there was some kind of malfeasance or something else. Personnel issues are not likely because most places don’t talk about personnel issues, so it becomes very difficult to know the span of all of these different kinds of partnerships, and whether we would know about them. And, if we did, knowing if they were relevant to what we were doing or not.”
President Greene continued, pointing out when or why the College should know what is going on within an organization.
“If something happened in a partnership that was not related to the people we were working with, I don’t think we would see it. It’s not relevant, so it’s not something we would be broadcasting or talking about. If it was someone who was directly related to what we were doing, that would be a different thing. Then I would feel like we would have an obligation to say ‘This person has put other people at risk, we would not want our students working with someone like that,’ in a hypothetical situation like that. To me, it tends to be depending on the organization and our relationship with them. But if it was people we were working with directly, we might have a vested interest in acting on that one. It’s very situation dependent, both on the nature of our relationship with that organization, and who was involved, what was it, was that close to who we are, and would that impact our students or not.” he said.
However, in President Greene’s hypothetical, he said he would like to know if the allegations were about someone directly related to the College. Oppenheim often Zoomed with students, including talking to all First-Year Experience leaders and speaking to classes.
Regardless, Omprakash did not think it was important to tell any university partners about what was happening within their organization, and would never have if the Echo had not learned about it.
Giusti points out the tricky situation that this puts the administration in.
“I think we are moving in the right direction. As I write this, I’m trying to think what the school could even do in this situation. If they do address it then they accused a campus partner of this, but if they choose to not separate from Omprakash then they are going to get ripped to shreds. I assume there are contracts upon contracts signed and it won’t be easy to just get rid of Omprakash,” he said.
This all comes down to transparency, between both campus partners and the administration and the administration and students.
Dean Moore encourages students to reach out and talk to the administration about issues or concerns.
“We encourage students to engage with people as often as they want. A big part of transparency is dialogue and transparency is both information sharing and reciprocal dialogue and sharing feedback, and questions, and that for us is our hope with students, that that relationship continues to strengthen and grow,” she said.
President Greene points out that a big part of the College’s transparency is having students in places to make decisions and have influence on the College’s culture.
“A lot of what we do works through representative student groups and committees. The shared governance model of a place like Colby means that there are lots of decisions that take place, not by me, but in a decentralized way. Students are involved in a lot of that decision-making. From SGA to committees of the Board to faculty committees, there is an incredible amount of engagement.”
Dean Moore agrees.
“It’s important to share that the College is in regular communication, and there are a lot of different ways that we communicate with students regularly. The primary way is SGA. SGA is the student mechanism for information sharing, and there is a lot of information that is shared with SGA regularly, whether it’s in weekly meetings that they have with administrative staff and then leadership at the College. That’s an important part of how we see generally how information is shared down through. There are also lots of ways that students are involved. Colby does a really good job of bringing students into decision-making processes. We have probably more students on committees than other colleges, which I think is the way that it should be.”
Transparency is an ever-present issue at the College and one that is constantly evolving.
~ Mairead Levitt `25
Find Omprakash’s response to the article here: https://www.omprakash.org/blog/omprakash-response-to-colby-echo-article
Be First to Comment