I probably do a “Jay Oberski” google search every 6 months or so unless Monica or any of the other folks looking out for our community reach out with an update. Otherwise, I don’t think about this stuff on a day to day basis. I have way to many other things to focus on. The site is out there doing it’s job and that’s that. But today, I did a quick search and this site wasn’t in the #1 google result like it normally was, it was way down at the bottom and for some reason, those links weren’t going anywhere. After a bit of research, it looks like Blogger had disabled the site due to concerns about online harassment. I don’t know how long it was down. I also couldn’t log in to get at any of the content that had been posted. So, that sucked.
When I looked at Bloggers TOC, there were certainly some guidelines about targeting individuals that could be interpreted as a violation. While I see this site is a public service to warn folks about an abuser and predator in our community, it does target an individual and did post public information about the WF Psych program. So, guilty as charged. Jack found a way to take the site down for a sec. Good for him. I also wonder if he was filing complaints the whole time but Google updated their moderation guidelines given this new world order we find ourselves in.
Luckily for me, I was able to spin up a privately hosted blog pretty quickly and all the content was archived on the internet archive. So, I was able to get all the content back up, improve the design of the site slightly and get all the old links redirected to their counterparts on the new site. Took me about 3 hours, but we should be back in business. If you notice any broken links or images not loading, drop a comment and let me know so I can fix it. Hopefully, the search rankings will come back in the next few weeks as well.
This will cost me a little more to run now, about $6/month + the $10/year for the domain, but I figure it’s worth it to help vulnerable people avoid getting caught in his web.
This is a story from last year that didn’t feel relevant at the time, but given all the work I just did to get the site back up after Blogger disabled it, I wanted to share it. Regardless, the fresh content will help the site get reindexed.
So, pretty soon after the Duke Chronicle article dropped last year, a mutual friend of Jay/Jack/Jaybird and mine reached out for a drink. We’ll call him, “Red”. I figured it was about Jay, but I jumped at the excuse to catch up with him regardless.
Red and I ran through some general life updates and then the conversation came back around to Jay. He apologized a bit, I could tell he wasn’t super comfortable, but I’m well used to Jay sending his cronies to do the things he’s too much of a coward to do himself. Red was basically was asking if I’d agree to a meeting with Jay.
Now, mind you, that while the Duke Chronicle Article was already posted, neither I, nor Monica had received any letters or emails from Jay’s lawyers letting us know that the threat of litigation was lifted. So, I let Red know that while I and Monica are under active legal threat, there is zero chance that I will ever meet with him. I let him know that I would agree to a meeting, if and only if, Jay provided a letter guaranteeing that he would not pursue legal action against us and admit that he did in fact do the things we have accused him of. The proof was already out there, so, felt like an easy lift if this was a genuine ask and not a further attempt at manipulation and intimidation.
But then I switched gears. I let Red know how sorry I was that Jay put him in the middle of all this and I asked him how much he knew about the situation. Turns out, while he knew about the Facebook posts from a few years ago, he knew nothing about the website, the legal threats or the recent the Duke Chronicle article that included the text messages Jay sent to the Duke student he was involved with when my original FB post was posted.
So, I proceeded to let him know what a raging douche canoe his friend was to omit all of that information when asking Red to do him this favor. I didn’t need Red to take sides, just wanted him to understand the situation. Red listened, and took it all in, but didn’t generally react much. He was and is still a loyal friend to Jay as far as I know.
Red and I then changed gears and talked more about life updates and what we are working on over a couple glasses of Bourbon.
I never heard back on my offer to meet Jay if he provided written retraction of his legal threat. Although I have seen Red a few times since and all is well with the two of us. Jay hasn’t come up as a topic.
Monica recently posted an update to her website with some news about Jack O’berski.
It appears that Jay, now Jack O’berski, is working as a private therapist in Winston Salem. Jack O’berski is serving clients at Bird by Bird Therapy in Winston Salem. There are also some social media accounts on Flickr, YouTube, Etc where Jay has change his name to Jack, but the usernames are still Jay or Jaybird.
While I believe Jack / Jay / Jaybird has a right to live his life and earn a living, I also think it’s important that anyone choosing to work with him is aware of the past actions for which he, Jack O’berski, has still never taken responsibility for or been completely honest about. So if you are considering working with Jack O’berski at Bird by Bird Therapy, please read this blog and make sure you feel comfortable engaging so that you do not open yourself to unnecessary risk.
I’m posting Monica’s update below for visibility.
UPDATE, February 15, 2025: It’s come to my attention that Jay is going by the name “Jack O’Berski.” He is also currently or was recently employed by Old Vineyard Behavioral Services in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and is currently or has recently advertised for private clients under “Bird by Bird Therapy.”
I found the Google Maps listing for Bird by Bird Therapy with the same # as his flyer and left a review with his original name so folks can research it.
It seems like the Duke Cronicle article properly shut down any potential threat of legal action.
Given that the truth is a legal defense for defamation, I’m assuming, now that all that information is public, whatever case Jay was trying make is now dead.
I’ve also not heard from Jay’s lawyer since my posted response.
Hopefully I won’t have a reason to ever post here again and this public record remain here for anyone who needs it. It only costs me about $10 a year to maintain the URL.
Nadia Bey posted a very thorough article on the ongoing saga with Jay O’berski at the Duke Chronicle. It’s a fair and robust retelling that corroborates everything Monica and I have been posting about with details showcasing a lot of behind the scenes conversations. Please read and share widely.
I’m posting the whole of the text here for public record, just in case Duke takes it down for any reason.
Alumni say former theater professor behaved inappropriately with students, emails show administrators aware of allegations
The Rubenstein Arts Center’s von der Heyden Studio Theater, where Hoof ‘n’ Horn performed “Cabaret” in Fall 2019. Hoof ‘n’ Horn is one of many student performance groups whose spring programming has been canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic.Photo by C. Ray Walker | The Chronicle
Editor’s note: This article discusses a relationship between a former faculty member and a former student and contains other sexual references. Reader’s discretion is advised.
Walking down the corridor in the Bryan Center where the theater studies department hosts classes and rehearsals is a glimpse into the department’s history. On the wall are posters advertising the department’s productions — among these are posters for shows directed by Jaybird O’Berski, an assistant professor of the practice of theater studies until 2018.
He has also been accused of behaving inappropriately with students. One alumnus said O’Berski made them feel uncomfortable while directing a student production. Another told The Chronicle that she was in a relationship with O’Berski while she was his student, a violation of faculty policy.
People who knew O’Berski told The Chronicle that this alleged behavior with students was the reason for his departure. However, the University declined to release any records concerning alleged misconduct between students and faculty.
Kimberly Hewitt, vice president for institutional equity, declined to comment on whether the Office of Institutional Equity had ever opened an investigation involving O’Berski, citing privacy reasons. However, emails obtained by The Chronicle show that the University was aware of allegations against O’Berski and that Title IX officials had communicated with multiple people about him.
O’Berski wrote in an email to The Chronicle that the terms of his separation agreement prevent him from discussing his departure. However, a letter from O’Berski’s legal counsel to one person who published allegations against O’Berski characterizes the departure as “voluntary.” Neither O’Berski nor his legal counsel answered when The Chronicle asked them if the departure was voluntary.
Jeff Storer, who was chair of the theater studies department in O’Berski’s final years at the University, declined to discuss personnel matters with The Chronicle. Paul Grantham, assistant vice president for communications, declined to say whether it was typical for former employees to be unable to discuss their separation agreements.
Aside from basic details about his time at Duke, O’Berski directed inquiries to his legal counsel, Michael Pelagalli of Minc Law. However, after receiving a list of questions from The Chronicle, Pelagalli declined to comment, stating that the questions were either “inappropriate and irrelevant” or based on false assumptions. He also asserted that O’Berski was never found responsible for misconduct by the University.
It’s not clear how frequently faculty are accused of, or found responsible for, inappropriate behavior with students. A new report released by OIE says 15% of reports filed in the 2021-2022 fiscal year were filed against faculty, but it’s not specified how many of those reports were by students. It’s also not specified how many of those reports related specifically to sexual misconduct or consensual relationships between faculty and students.
‘Felt like his world revolved around me’
A former student of O’Berski, who requested anonymity because she feared professional repercussions and who The Chronicle will refer to as Jane Doe, said that she became romantically and sexually involved with O’Berski while she was enrolled in his class. The relationship continued after the student graduated in 2018.
At the time of the relationship, faculty were prohibited from pursuing relationships with any student under their authority, such as a student in their class. As of May 2018, faculty are prohibited from pursuing relationships with any undergraduate student. Doe said she never reported O’Berski to the University because she was afraid of personal and professional repercussions, but that she is now ready to share what happened.
“I had a good time while it was happening. It felt like his world revolved around me.” Doe said.
“He was very close with a lot of students, and that really worries me,” she added.
During their relationship, Doe said she and O’Berski often spent time with O’Berski’s wife, Dana Marks, and an unnamed professor who O’Berski “encouraged” the former student to befriend. Marks was also a faculty member in the theater department at the time.
Doe eventually realized there was a power imbalance in her relationship with O’Berski when he sent her a “threatening letter,” she said.
***
Doe shared a text thread from 2019 in which she and O’Berski appear to discuss the contents of a Facebook post by Adam Schultz, a former member of Little Green Pig Theatrical Concern, the theater company where O’Berski worked.
That post described Schultz’ experience at Little Green Pig as well as allegations about O’Berski’s conduct in the theater community. It was updated multiple times with information others shared in the comment section on the post.
On Oct. 10, 2019, Schultz posted on Facebook a message he reportedly received from an anonymous person, in which the person described their relationship with O’Berski.
“It was intoxicating and felt amazing at the time. Completely consensual and lovely. From where I stand now, I wish he had loved me enough to stand firm on an important boundary,” the message read. “Despite our feelings, we should not have engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship. I was his student. Now I’m left in a confused place, where I’m not sure where relational boundaries should stand.”
The text exchange between O’Berski and Doe, which took place on Oct. 24, two weeks after Schultz’ second post, suggests Doe was the original author of the anecdote Schultz shared. Doe confirmed that she was the original author of the anecdote.
Below is a subset of the messages exchanged between O’Berski and Doe. Conversation has been shortened for clarity and missing messages are denoted with […]
10/24/19, 3:46:51 PM — Now it’s your turn to be honest
[…]
10/24/19, 3:58:03 PM — Please send me your email before you share it with Adam
[…]
10/24/19, 4:08:34 PM — I have his phone number.. I was going to text him.
10/24/19, 4:09:57 PM — I need you to edit the post. Add a line at the top that says, “I AM NOT A VICTIM. I was not coerced into doing anything.” I would not like to be further contacted by you or Monica [Byrne]. Please respect my decision and privacy.
10/24/19, 4:10:01 PM — Is that okay?
10/24/19, 4:11:01 PM — I’d like this to be addressed from the Duke student and explain further why you shared this
10/24/19, 4:11:16 PM — What?
10/24/19, 4:11:47 PM — You should say that you are the Duke student who shared a text with Adam
10/24/19, 4:12:17 PM — Can you write out exactly what you want me to say to him.
10/24/19, 4:12:40 PM — No, THAT’S coercion
10/24/19, 4:13:05 PM — Write what you’d want me to write if I were you
10/24/19, 4:13:34 PM — You really don’t care what happens to me, do you?
10/24/19, 4:13:40 PM — Yes, I do.
10/24/19, 4:13:53 PM — Can you write what you would write to Adam if you were me, so I can be most helpful,
10/24/19, 4:14:23 PM — I’ll take that as legally binding permission?
10/24/19, 4:15:15 PM — I am the Duke student who shared my story with Adam. I’d like to add that I was not coerced into doing anything. I shared this because I was scared and confused, but now I understand my responsibility in the matter.
10/24/19, 4:15:20 PM — ?
10/24/19, 4:16:17 PM — Yes. Please add that you were pushed to make a statement and now regret doing so
10/24/19, 4:16:53 PM — I am the Duke student who shared my story with Adam. I’d like to add that I was not coerced into doing anything. I shared this because I was scared and confused, but now I understand my responsibility in the matter. I was pushed to make a statement and now regret doing so.
10/24/19, 4:17:28 PM — That sounds like the truth to me. Do you agree?
[…]
10/24/19, 4:19:54 PM — I lied to my wife and best friends to protect you and myself
10/24/19, 4:20:27 PM — I loved you and took care of you
10/24/19, 4:20:40 PM — And you think I’m a predator
10/24/19, 4:21:10 PM — I can’t control what other people say now that that’s out there. But, I will not talk to another soul if you promise me never to contact anyone?
10/24/19, 4:21:12 PM — You’re a rotten judge of people
10/24/19, 4:21:24 PM — I agree
10/24/19, 4:21:40 PM — Thank you.
10/24/19, 4:21:51 PM — Your voice was the only one I ever cared about and you betrayed me
[…]
10/24/19, 4:28:56 PM — What happens if [Schultz] doesn’t respond right away?
10/24/19, 4:35:10 PM — I’m not concerned with right away. It was only ever about you escalating a concentual [sic] relationship into a rape case
10/24/19, 4:38:44 PM — Okay. I won’t, because it wasn’t.
10/24/19, 4:40:16 PM — But you teamed up with people who need a scapegoat for their own disappointment. One day you’ll see how much damage you did.
[…]
10/25/19, 6:52:50 AM — Posted. Thank you for helping me fix this.
In the exchange, O’Berski told Doe that it was “[her] turn to be honest” and asked her to send him what she planned to say to Schultz in response to the message being posted.
The former student shared her response: “I need you to edit the post. Add a line at the top that says, ‘I AM NOT A VICTIM. I was not coerced into doing anything.’ I would not like to be further contacted by you or Monica [Byrne]. Please respect my decision and privacy.”
Doe then asked, “Is that okay?”
O’Berski then told the former student to include certain details in her message. When Doe asked O’Berski to write out exactly what he wanted her to say, he responded, “No, THAT’S coercion.”
Throughout the exchange, O’Berski made several emotionally charged statements, such as accusing the former student of betraying him.
“You really don’t care what happens to me, do you?” O’Berski wrote.
“Yes, I do,” Doe responded. She then sent O’Berski another draft of her response to Schultz.
“Please add that you were pushed to make a statement and now regret doing so,” O’Berski wrote. Once the former student did so, he wrote, “That sounds like the truth to me. Do you agree?”
“Yes,” Doe responded.
O’Berski then wrote that he was saving their conversation and that he would contact Doe’s parents and employer if “anything else comes up.”
On Oct. 25, 2019, Schultz shared Doe’s new statement: “I am the Duke student who shared my story with Adam. I’d like to add that I was not coerced into doing anything. I shared this because I was scared and confused, but now I understand my responsibility in the matter. I was pushed to make a statement and now regret doing so.”
The same day the new statement was posted, Doe texted O’Berski, “thank you for helping me fix this.”
***
On March 12, 2023, O’Berski sent Doe an email with the subject line “Apology.”
“I regret not respecting my role as your teacher and elder at the time,” O’Berski wrote in the email obtained by The Chronicle. “I have no excuses beyond the fact that I lost all clarity due to the love I was feeling from you and for you.”
Theater studies encounters
A Duke alumnus, who requested anonymity because they were previously doxxed for an unrelated matter, said they worked with O’Berski in Antic Shakespeare and eventually grew uncomfortable in that environment.
O’Berski tended to be very hands-on as a director, the alumnus said. Antic Shakespeare reportedly did not have any fight choreographers or intimacy coordinators, which are common in acting to ensure safety, but the alumnus did not push back because of “the pre-existing pressure of whatever the director says goes.”
“If things went too far, went scary, there was no way to stop the scene,” the alumnus said. “You were seen as being the character, but it was like, ‘no, I actually can’t breathe.’”
R. Darren Gobert, chair of the theater studies department, wrote in an email that all department-affiliated productions have had fight and intimacy coordinators since his arrival in 2019.
The alumnus said they started feeling uncomfortable around O’Berski after they were cast as one of two leads in an Antic Shakespeare production. The two leads were doing “light making out,” the alumnus said, but O’Berski kept pushing them to go further.
“At one point he was like, ‘Be louder when you cum,’ and I was like, I didn’t know that was what I was supposed to be doing,” the alumnus said. “He was basically asking me to fake an orgasm.”
O’Berski also allegedly called in another student to give the cast tips on having lesbian sex, the alumnus said.
“I think he’s brilliant and great at teaching theater,” the alumnus said. “But he’s also very attached to the idea of ‘the real,’ and he would trash talk students and faculty that weren’t ‘real.’”
The alumnus claimed that O’Berski believed other theater studies faculty were mounting a campaign to push him out of the University, and that it felt like “siding” with any of those faculty members ruined a student’s chances of working with O’Berski.
“There was definitely an element of isolation,” the alumnus said.
Scene Shop Supervisor David Berberian said that while his firsthand knowledge of the allegations was limited, he had witnessed O’Berski treat people “pretty poorly” while at the University. He said that a student he worked with in the Scene Shop frequently approached him in tears while working with O’Berski.
Berberian also said that when O’Berski left, the reason for his departure was not immediately clear.
“He was let go from Duke and it was all very hush-hush. We didn’t really know why,” Berberian said. “And then things started to come out.”
Title IX involvement and O’Berski’s departure
In March 2018, Monica Byrne, a former member of Little Green Pig, contacted University administrators about O’Berski.
“I’m approaching you–officials at the highest level of administration–because I know firsthand of his abusive behavior specifically toward those who have confronted him at Duke about his treatment of students; subsequently, those people fear reprisal for speaking out,” Byrne wrote in an email to President Vincent Price, then Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek and then Dean of Trinity College Valerie Ashby.
Byrne was motivated in part by her own experiences at Little Green Pig, where she says O’Berski made inappropriate sexual comments toward her. The company shut down in 2019 after multiple members left following allegations against O’Berski, according to former member Caitlin Wells.
A January 2019 email from Little Green Pig to company members obtained by The Chronicle references “departures by valued ensemble members” and “criticism of Jaybird that has at times been disruptive to Little Green Pig.”
“Little Green Pig often infuses its work with eroticism, sex, and dark humor,” the email reads. “In light of recent misunderstandings and miscommunications on our part, we are doing better to keep our cast/crew in the know, up to date, and safe while continuing to make work of this nature. If this sensibility makes you feel too uncomfortable, our recommendation is to work with a company whose work does make you feel comfortable and safe.”
Emails obtained by The Chronicle show that Wasiolek referred Byrne to former Provost Sally Kornbluth, who connected Byrne with the Office of Institutional Equity.
On March 5, 2018, Byrne met with Howard Kallem, former assistant vice president of Title IX compliance, and Cynthia Clinton, assistant vice president of harassment and discrimination prevention and compliance.
Six days after that meeting, Kallem emailed Byrne, noting that “a few other folks” had reached out to the Office of Institutional Equity but were “still thinking about whether they will share information.”
On March 27, Byrne and Kallem spoke over the phone, emails show. In a later email from Byrne to Kallem, Byrne claimed that Kallem told her over the phone that several people had come forward about O’Berski but declined to go on the record because the office could not guarantee confidentiality. Hewitt wrote in an email to The Chronicle that under the Policy on Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment, and Related Misconduct the office cannot guarantee confidentiality during formal investigations. Reporting to OIE does not automatically trigger an investigation.
In April 2018, Kallem notified Byrne that the office was still gathering information.
“Thank you for letting me know. I know that at least one former undergraduate has told you their story, name attached, and I was very glad to hear that,” Byrne responded on April 24, 2018. “But I was distressed to find out from a friend that not only is Jay not tenured, but his contract at Duke is up for promotion next week.”
As O’Berski was a regular rank non-tenure-track faculty member, he would have been subject to periodic reviews either to renew his current title or receive a promotion. The criteria for those reviews would be set by the theater department, according to the faculty handbook.
Since O’Berski was an assistant professor of the practice, he was required to be considered for promotion after eight years in the position according to theater studies bylaws. Given that he appeared to have held that title as early as 2010, this would align with Byrne’s statement that O’Berski was up for promotion in 2018.
If an assistant professor of the practice is not promoted to associate professor of the practice after eight years, department bylaws stipulate that the faculty member is to be dismissed. Pelagalli declined to answer a question about whether O’Berski was, in fact, up for promotion prior to his departure.
In June 2018, Byrne emailed Kallem, asking, “Are you aware that Jay has been let go?”
“We have been in contact with the department,” Kallem wrote back. He did not respond to emailed requests for comment from The Chronicle.
O’Berski wrote in an email to The Chronicle that he left the University in August 2018.
Erin Bell, Trinity ‘10 and Fuqua ‘11, and former webmaster for Little Green Pig, said that O’Berski told her his contract was not being renewed due to “not having enough international publications.” Pelagalli, O’Berski’s attorney, did not answer questions about whether this was the reason given for O’Berski’s termination or if O’Berski had told anyone that this was the reason.
According to the theater department bylaws, assistant professors of the practice that are up for promotion must show excellence in scholarship and creative research, which includes productions, performances and creative writing. Work with international impact is taken into consideration, but does not appear to be required.
Byrne believes that the University should have been more transparent about the allegations surrounding O’Berski and the reason for his termination.
“One would hope that institutions like Duke University, with their vast resources, would do the right thing by communicating the reasons for Jay’s termination to future places of employment and education,” Byrne wrote in a blog post.
Editor’s Note: Nadia Bey, Trinity ‘23, is a former reporter and managing editor for The Chronicle. Reporting for this story began in February 2023, when Bey was a senior.
I received the following letter from correspondence from Attorney Michael Pelagalli this week:
RE: DEMAND FOR DELETION
PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE
Mr. Schultz,
Please be advised that our firm represents Mr. Jaybird O’Berski relative to the false and defamatory statements that have been published about him online on multiple platforms, including but not limited to Facebook and jayoberski.org. Please allow this correspondence to serve as a formal and advance notification of our representation of Mr. O’Berski. If you are represented by legal counsel, I respectfully request you forward this correspondence to their attention.
Based on your own public postings and comments, we understand that you are thea dministrator of the blog, “The Unfortunate Truth About Jay O’Berski” (jayoberski.org), which has republished posts and comments from your Facebook profile.
Our firm wholly respects your First Amendment right to free speech in this country. Had you limited your publications about our client to speech protected under the Constitution, you would not be receiving this letter. That said, in light of the seriousness and falsity of your claims, Mr. O’Berski cannot stand idly by and allow you to baselessly defame his name on numerous platforms that all but appear to be intentionally designed to flood his online search results. Further, as recently as February 2023, you have written about your continued efforts to have Mr. O’Berski professionally ruined and even included contact information where members of the public, who may or may not have any knowledge whatsoever regarding your claims, could submit demands to attempt to stop him from ever working as a therapist. Notably, you also expressly claimed that Mr. O’Berski has engaged in blackmail efforts via threats of criminal conduct to attempt to silence someone speaking about him.
Our firm was retained, specifically, because disputes involving online defamation is our firm’s specialty practice area. At the outset, and to be clear, Mr. O’Berski vehemently denies the allegations contained in your posts that he has ever groomed, pressured, or sexually harassed anyone, ever. You have no firsthand, personal knowledge of same and your allegations of criminal conduct are false, baseless, and were published with malicious intent. Second, his voluntary separation from Duke University had absolutely nothing to do with allegations of any kind of misconduct whatsoever. Any allegation or even implication of the same present in your postings is unfounded and objectively disprovable. Our firm is in possession of documentary evidence that supports this completely. Third, Mr. O’Berski wholly denies ever threatening anyone in an effort to silence true speech or coerce untrue speech, especially by way of criminal threats as you described.
Making false statements online regarding Mr. O’Berski subjects you to potential civil liability for defamation. Repeatedly contacting Mr. O’Berski’s professional contacts and employer(s) based on nothing more than falsehoods and pure speculation constitutes tortious interference and also subjects you to potential civil liability. While you have already caused a great deal of reputational harm to our client, our goal here is simple: to work with you to effectuate as swift a resolution as possible to this dispute. To that end, Mr. O’Berski requests that you permanently delete the posts about him on Facebook and jayoberski.org.
Once you delete the posts about Mr. O’Berski active online, our office will send you a written proposal to resolve this dispute formally and mutually. This will demand no monetary compensation from you or public apology of any sort. Rather, Mr. O’Berski simply wants to move forward with his personal and professional life with some assurances that these posts and baseless allegations will not be republished by you in the future. If you agree not to post about him in the future, and if you agree not to contact his employers, school, colleagues, etc. now and in the future, he will agree to release all the legal claims he presently has against you for the above-described conduct.
If I do not hear from you and/or your legal counsel on or before Wednesday May 17, 2023, we will understand your silence and/or lack of response to indicate your desire to resolve this dispute via Court intervention. I am happy to discuss this situation further with you and/or your legal representative on the phone or via Zoom. I thank you in advance for your time and attention.
Very truly yours,
Michael Pelagalli, Esq.
I responded with the following:
I have your complaint. I will require more than 7 days. I will do my best to respond within 30 days.
To which Michael Responded:
Thank for you for the fast response. I am happy to afford you additional time to formulate a complete response and/or consult with counsel. That said, given the ongoing damage from your website being levied upon my client daily, I respectfully ask that you deactivate / de-list the website during this period of time that you and are in discussions about a potential resolution to this dispute. Is this something you are agreeable to?Thanks, and I look forward to working with you,
My last response to Michael was:
The website in question has my testimony and the testimony of others. 100% of those words are published on other publicly available platforms. I’m simply reposting that content in an attempt to maintain a central public record of this discourse. I make no claims for the words of others and will let them speak for themselves. If they ask for updates to their words, I will update them. I feel that those cases are clearly marked on the site.For my words, I will seek council and explore what if any of the claims of defamation you have made in your letter have merit. If any of them do, I will take clear and observable steps to update and correct the language to cure any potential defamation. For that, I require time to find and engage with council. Between now and then, I will leave everything as it is.
To be clear, I have no desire to personally post or host defamatory content. I take your complaint very seriously. As such and as a show of good faith, while I examine your general complaints, if there are specific items you’d like to see removed because you know those specific statements to be false and have proof to show that they are false, I will be happy to consider removing or editing those specific statements while we work this out. But I will not take down statements I believe to be true during that time. This is because I understand that the burden of proof is yours in this case.
Furthermore, I reserve the right to publish this letter and any communication we have in the future as a faithful record of his attempts to silence his detractors.
————————————
My feelings on the matter
For my part, I am looking for a civil litigator that can defend me if Jay does file suit against me. The good news is that the truth, is a legal defense against defamation. So, if you know any civil litigators, please send them my way.
Despite all the legal threats and vehement denial, Jay did the things I have claimed here and elsewhere. I have the emails and transcripts for each of my claims. I trust Monica to be telling the truth about her own experience, the evidence she has, her assessment, and the stories she has heard from Jay’s victims.
In any case, I’m not super concerned, but I would like to speak to a lawyer about it as soon as I can just to be safe. If Jay does make good on his threat and sues me for defamation, all of the evidence I, Monica and others have would be open to discovery as part of the legal process.
Furthermore, his lawyer hasn’t yet taken me up on my offer to remove anything he can prove isn’t true yet, and I’m not expecting him to. If he does, I’ll make the necessary updates.
Interestingly, most of this has been on Facebook since 2018, but he didn’t feel it was necessary to threaten me with legal action untill I posted it where google could find it.
Thanks for reading, I’ll post more when I know more.
Update 10/10/19: I posted this as a comment, but wanted it here as well so it’s easier to find.
This is from a person who wishes to remain anonymous. I have personally confirmed their identity: “I met Jaybird as an undergraduate student. He was my professor at Duke. We spent a lot of time together outside of the classroom. He spent time with fellow classmates outside of the classroom as well, so it didn’t seem out of the ordinary. He made me feel understood and loved. I was quite conservative, which changed when he introduced me to a world in which sexual relationships appeared limitless (as he engaged in these intimately with cast members and friends). It was intoxicating and felt amazing at the time. Completely consensual and lovely. From where I stand now, I wish he had loved me enough to stand firm on an important boundary. Despite our feelings, we should not have engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship. I was his student. Now I’m left in a confused place, where I’m not sure where relational boundaries should stand. I worry that my current partner will lose patience as I try to figure out what this experience meant. If I was the only one. If it was real. I also dread how easy it became to lie to and deceive those closest to me.”
She later asked for this update on 10/25/19: “I am the Duke student who shared my story with Adam. I’d like to add that I was not coerced into doing anything. I shared this because I was scared and confused, but now I understand my responsibility in the matter. I was pushed to make a statement and now regret doing so.”
4/15/23: I have seen proof that this update from 10/25/19 was coerced and Jay was blackmailing her by threatening to send a letter with embarrassing material of a sexual nature to her Family, Boss and others if she didn’t do what he said.
Update 11/22: Erin Bell just added this brave testimony to the comments.
“Hello everyone,
For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Erin Bell. I have been LGP’s webmaster for 5 years and on their board for 2. Over the years I have also stage managed and acted for LGP as well as photographed their shows.
Jaybird recently confessed to me that he did in fact have sex with an undergraduate student. I’m not cool with that.
This morning the straw that broke the camel’s back was Jaybird threatening to call someone’s employer as a consequence for them speaking out against him.
Fuck Jaybird and the horse he rode in on.
That is all,
Erin”
Update 11/24: From Adam Schultz
In a series of emails with me today, Jay admitted that he had a conversation with Erin Bell and Cuquis about contacting Housing for New Hope, the non-profit I was on the board of, about my attempts to get them blacklisted from Durham venues. I’m not sure if he ever actually did this or not. I stepped off the board last month to persue other community affordable housing efforts. He continues to deny having any relationships with students or employees other than the 3 that are publicly known, which he denied before they were publicly known. He also denies ever blackmailing anyone though I’m not sure he thinks the things he has done qualify as such.
I worked with Mr. O’Berski (then just named, Jay) in 2009 as a guest artist playing Blanche Dubois in “A Streetcar Named Dire” by Tennessee Williams, at Commonground Theater in Durham, NC. I witnessed several abusive rehearsals where he threatened actors and intimidated actors and technical staff. He kicked and actor in the rear and caused him to fall down, humiliated in front of the whole cast and some Duke University professors who were watching this early “open rehearsal”. I was shocked that none of the cast, including the actor who was kicked, refused to say anything and acted like this was normal. I ended up writing Jay a lengthy letter explaining why I thought he was a bully and abusive to the artists who were donating their time to his production. Instead of a personal reply in person or on paper, he chose to show my letter to some of the cast and ask them if this were true. (So juvinile!) The cast chose to pledge their allegiance to him and inflate his ego with more praise and denial of my accusations. But the most amazing and puzzling end to my experience was when Dana, his partner, who was also in the cast, pulled me aside and told me that I should “be careful” about what I was saying or I would “never work in this town again.” It was as if they believed they RULED the Durham theater community. This abuse is not abnormal in the 30+ years I was pursuing an acting career from 1980 -2014, but I applaud your mission to remove Mr. O’Berski from his current position. Thank you, Adam, for writing a very articulate and accurate portrayal of the real Jay (bird).
A reporter at Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, is looking to connect with former undergraduates or employees that interacted with O’Berski in any capacity. If you’re willing to share your experience, please reach out to nadia.bey@duke.edu. You do not have to be on-the-record.
UPDATE, February 10, 2023: I’ve been notified that the clinic that had employed Jay as an intern has cut all ties with him. Therefore, I’m removing their contact information from the post, though still naming them for the sake of public record.
~
I’m writing this public, searchable account about Jay O’Berski’s history so that no one can claim in good faith any longer that they “just didn’t know.”
Background.
To summarize: Jay O’Berski is a former professor of theatre at Duke University, and the founder and former Artistic Director of the now-dissolved Durham theatre company Little Green Pig Theatrical Concern. As of February 9th, 2023, he is training as a therapist at Wake Forest University and practicing at Art of Wellness in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, specializing in sex addiction.
To those of you who don’t know me: my name is Monica Byrne. I’m a novelist and playwright. I was a friend and collaborator of Jay’s for ten years (2007-2017), a member of Little Green Pig, and a Resident Playwright of that company. Jay directed two of my plays (Nightwork and Tarantino’s Yellow Speedo), and directed me as an actor in two (Fistful of Love and Richie), among countless other smaller-scale gatherings over a decade—readings, consultations, cabaret shows, auditions, company dinners, and so on.
At a reading of my new play in January 2017—then called Wild America—Jay, who was slated to direct, was triggered by the subject material (women’s responses to the recent election of Trump). He demeaned and belittled me at length in front of everyone present, repeatedly speaking over me and anyone who tried to intervene. Though I’d seen him treat others this way, I’d thought that our friendship somehow made me immune. (I regret this deeply and have made apologies for it. Some folks in the community are right to be, and remain, angry with me.) Afterward, via email, I asked that Jay step down as director, and that a woman in the company direct instead. He responded by canceling the production. I responded by leaving the company.
In the year afterward, I began reaching out to other company members who’d left. I expected stories of bullying, as well as racist, sexist, and sexually suggestive comments (especially to women of color). I’d experienced it also—this is a text he sent me, just before the reading of Wild America, to which I did not respond. I generally laughed it off and maintained boundaries and thought that was enough. I wanted to continue the production relationship, which are very hard to come by in theatre.
I did hear the stories I expected.
But I also found out that Jay had been grooming, pressuring, sexually harassing, and sleeping with his undergraduate students in the theatre program at Duke University, and also in his theatre workshops in Durham and abroad; specifically in China, where he used sexualized direction as a way to “open [them] up.”
I know this because I talked to these students; talked to those who talked to these students; was forwarded emails between him and a student he was in a sexual relationship with; was forwarded sexual pictures and video of him with a workshop student; and was forwarded email exchanges where he admitted to the relationships. I’m not at liberty to share the pictures or video, both to protect privacy, and for legal reasons (doing so could constitute a felony).
~
Given the extent of these abuses, one would think that there would be public record of them, from academic, journalistic, and/or legal sources. I’m now going to explain why this is not the case here.
Academic.
In March 2018, I wrote to the President, Dean, and Associate Dean of Duke University with my concerns. They referred me to the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), which oversees Title IX compliance (i.e. gender equity and sexual harassment). I met with Howard Kallem and Cynthia Clinton. They immediately informed me that they couldn’t guarantee the confidentiality of anything I told them, nor could they guarantee the confidentiality of any student who told them anything. I was stunned at this. However, I’ve since learned this is common practice: this study in Nature, while focusing on the sciences, details how universities like Duke circumvent Title IX protections by constructing policies that first protect themselves from legal liability—at the expense of students’ safety.
This is why almost none of Jay’s former students spoke to the OIE, though many expressed to me and others that they would have, if their confidentiality had been guaranteed.
From what I understand second-hand, Duke still did not renew Jay’s teaching contract, which (coincidentally) was up for review shortly after this. However, they did pay him a large sum of severance money, presumably in exchange for not pursuing a lawsuit. This is why the reasons for Jay’s contract at Duke not being renewed are not public—not “Google searchable,” not appearing on a background check, and not available from Duke as his former employer. There are several Facebook posts by his former collaborators (e.g. here from Adam Schultz, here from Caitlin Wells, here from me), but those are also not searchable.
Journalistic.
Two reporters at IndyWeek worked on a story for over a year, but came up against similar issues to Duke: none of his former students wanted to go on record. The reasons were:
They feared retaliation, and rightly so. Jay threatened the employment of at least two whistleblowers (which is illegal), including one of the women he’d had a sexual relationship with;
Jay had conditioned them to believe that there was no abuse of power involved, that they were equally responsible for the relationships, despite his having power over them, as their professor;
They were recently out of college, beginning to build their careers, and didn’t want to be known for being whistleblowers;
They were traumatized by their experiences and didn’t want to revisit them.
Again, I know this because I spoke to the students, or spoke to people who spoke to them.
However, word did spread among members of Little Green Pig Theatrical Concern, especially when Jay admitted to sleeping with students in an email exchange with an LGP member. He shut down the company in December 2019. Before the website was shut down, the webmaster changed the homepage to this image.
Legal.
As for legal records, there’s only one that I’m aware of: in September 2019, Jay threatened to sue me for defamation, for nonspecific “statements made on social media.” My lawyers asked his lawyer to name a single instance of a defamatory statement (i.e. one that was false and malicious). They could name none.
I’m happy to provide that email exchange upon request.
~
To reiterate, those who are unfamiliar with #MeToo cases are often under the impression that if someone has a history of abuse, that information must be public. This is not true (to put it mildly). As the last five years have shown, there are many obstacles particular to #MeToo cases that prevent histories of abuse from becoming public.
But because nothing has been published—because of institutional cowardice and abdication of responsibility, especially on the part of Duke University—Jay was free to leave quietly and enroll in a graduate program in Santa Barbara, and then another at Wake Forest University. I’d heard rumors that Jay was studying psychology, but not more than that. I learned that Jay was actually training and practicing as a therapist specializing in sex addiction three weeks ago. I was horrified, and remain horrified, that someone with such a history was allowed to simply start over again—in the same community. (I also reject the suggestion that Jay’s becoming a therapist constitutes a “healing journey” on his part. Accountability begins by reaching out to those you’ve harmed and taking responsibility for your actions, and having the humility to step away from power. Not immediately placing yourself in another position of authority where you have even more intimate access to even more vulnerable people. I’ve never heard of Jay taking responsibility for any of the above; on the contrary, as with me, only that he becomes belligerent when anyone suggests that he does.)
One would hope that institutions like Duke University, with their vast resources, would do the right thing by communicating the reasons for Jay’s termination to future places of employment and education. But as I’ve described, this is rarely the case.
Which means that, again, all of the legal risk and responsibility falls on individuals. Usually the same few individuals.
This is not sustainable.
It cannot keep falling to the same handful of people to do this work. It takes a community.
If you’re part of that community—past or present—and you have concerns, please consider expressing them.
Here is the contact information for Art of Wellness, the clinic where Jay is currently practicing:
Update February 10, 2023: I’ve been notified that this clinic has cut all ties with him.
Therefore, I’m removing their contact information from this post.
And here is the contact information for the director of the Graduate Program in Counseling at Wake Forest University, where Jay is enrolled:
Presently, Jay is seeking a degree in Counseling from Wake Forest University and IS NO LONGER interning with the therapy office in Chapel Hill. The purpose of his internship is WAS to run group for men struggling with sex addiction.
I have already called Dr. Ivers, the Dean of the department at WFU and sent him a link to the facebook post from 2019 and expressed my concerns about their training him to be a councilor. Dr. Ivers said they did a background check and googled Jay’s name and found nothing of concern before admitting him to the program. (this is why we created this blog). I emailed Dr. Ivers earlier today asking him for an update on what if any action has been taken from my previous conversation.
We also shared the same information with the therapist in Chapel Hill a couple weeks ago and recently heard back from her. She called WFU and they did not report having taken any action or even speaking to Jay about the post or his past behavior. She also hasn’t heard from anyone in the community with concerns about him and so decided to allow him to finish his internship through April. She also reported doing a basic google search and finding nothing of concern before agreeing to sponsor Jay’s internship at her practice in Chapel Hill.
UPDATE 2/23/23: Many of you reached out to the therapist with your stories and experiences, as a result she has reported that she has cut ties with Jay and is no longer sponsoring his internship.
To be fair, we absolutely think he should be able to earn a living, but given his history for compulsively abusing power dynamics for personal satisfaction, we don’t think he can be trusted to work as a therapist with any population, let alone such a sensitive population where clear boundaries and strong ethics are vital.
Based on what we are hearing from Dr. Ivers and the therapist, it’s important that we not be the only people reaching out to share concerns with them if we expect action to keep Jay from working as a therapist in our community.
If it concerns you that he is attempting to put himself in a position of power with a highly vulnerable population, and you have personal experiences with him of a coercive or abusive nature, I suggest you contact the remaining organization presently supporting his training to share your experiences and express your concerns.
Here is their publicly available contact information:
1. The Therapist is NO LONGER sponsoring his internship
contact info removed
Updated April, 2025 2. Wake Forest University did eventually allow him to complete his studies.
Contact information removed because it doesnt matter anymore
So this is what happens when Duke quietly lets go a theatre professor (Jay O’Berski) with a history of grooming and sleeping with his students, and pays him off not to sue them: he enrolls in the counseling program at Wake Forest and sets himself up as a therapist in Chapel Hill, specializing in “sex addiction.”
This is not a case of him “working on himself.” Sorry. Compulsive sexual abuse of power can’t be cured in three years. And even if it could, you know what that looks like? Taking responsibility for the abuse and making amends to the people you’ve harmed. Not immediately seeking ANOTHER position of authority where you have even MORE intimate access to even MORE vulnerable people. If you think that’s what healing looks like…!? I don’t know how to help you.
Here are the questions I keep getting and I’ll answer them here: 1. “Why did Duke not fire him publicly?” Because Duke’s harassment policies are deliberately constructed *to protect the institution from lawsuits,* not to protect students from the abuser. Which of course means protecting the abuser. I learned this by going through it firsthand. Anyone who speaks to Duke’s Office of Institutional Equity—the body responsible for sexual harassment complaints against faculty—is first informed that anything they say will be then be told to the faculty member. This is so that the faculty member “has a chance to respond,” i.e. so that the institution can protect itself from lawsuits. This is actually very common in universities (see this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05404-6). So of course, fearing retribution—which Duke would have no way to control, despite its lip service to “not tolerating” it—almost none of the students spoke to them.
2. “Why was there never an IndyWeek story about it?” Similar reasons. Because none of Jay’s students would go on record, because of grooming (i.e. he conditioned them to believe that they were equally responsible) and fear of retribution (Jay threatened the employment of at least two whistleblowers, which is illegal). Not to mention what communities do to young women who speak up about predators, period.
3. “Why are there no lawsuits related to the abuse?” Again, similar reasons. If university policy is bad, the law is worse. The entire legal system is stacked against survivors and they know it. This is #MeToo 101, y’all.
Those of you who write me privately, thanking me for speaking up: you know you can too, right? You know you wouldn’t be risking any more than we already have? Jay tried to sue me for defamation. My lawyers asked his lawyer to point out which statements I’d made on social media were defamatory (i.e. untrue and malicious). They came back with literally nothing. Except a vague warning that they’d continue to “monitor my social media.” (They’re…welcome to? It’s all public and always has been.)
When people tell themselves that abuse is “not their business,” predators thrive. They get to pick up, move somewhere else, and start all over. Keeping a community safe cannot depend on a handful of vulnerable people taking on all of the risk. It takes the whole community.
(Redacted section)
If you disagree with me or my approach, say it elsewhere or unfriend me. I’ve been through too much hell cleaning up this man’s messes to have any patience left for his defenders/enablers/dissemblers. I’m done.
This was originally posted to facebook on September 19, 2019 by Adam Schultz: The original post can be found here. I strongly suggest you read all of the comments on the post.
https://www.facebook.com/boldadam/posts/pfbid02puwuszuigYWZvdBzZu48MuMAPD3gAzCc3aTKNy2BZBA8rHpfJkqsmGD7jgcdrqpflI’ve always enjoyed performing and improv. Until recently, the last production I was in involved a high school play about a group of teens who were unaware that they recently died in a car crash. The performance had a “Twilight Zone” meets “Hotel California” vibe. Since then, I got my performance fix from meeting facilitation, leading trainings or entertaining my friends with impressions. I also read to my three kids most nights before bedtime. Many of the book’s characters would have their own distinct voices and accents. Hagrid from the Harry Potter series remains their favorite, although I find his voice challenging without the lines in front of me.
The other important way I expressed this part of myself was through attending local performances. Over the years I’ve enjoyed productions from the Triangle’s many theatre companies, but I found nothing to be quite as fun, creative, and immersive as the powerhouse that was Little Green Pig Theatrical Concern (LGP). Over the past three years, I’ve attended as many shows as possible and got to know many of the players. Not every performance was remarkable, but each one was always fun, interesting and unexpected. Most importantly, the players always appeared to be having an amazing time performing. Eventually, I became a Patreon supporter and was slowly working up the nerve to email the Artistic Director, Jaybird O’Berski, about upcoming auditions.
About a year ago, I came across Jaybird by chance as we were walking along Chapel Hill Street in Downtown Durham. We engaged in a quick conversation while passing each other. I was thrilled, when out of nowhere, barely breaking stride, he extended an invitation to join LGP’s improv group. I couldn’t believe it! I never asked why I was lucky enough to get an invitation to join the group, I was just excited to flex this muscle with a real audience. It felt like the Universe was honoring my intentions and provided me with an open door. I just needed to walk through it. Apparently, there was a reason they were recruiting and needed new talent in their network, specifically, talent not already integrated into the larger theatre community.
So I went for it. My oldest kid was 13, so I had more freedom to leave the house in the evenings while he babysat. Initially, I had my insecurities about whether or not I had the chops to perform alongside professionals. Soon, however, I was holding my own and was performing improv on a regular basis. It felt great to make strangers laugh, and the group had a lot of genuine fun performing together. The experience helped show me that I held talent as a performer and that it was worth putting more time and energy into honing that craft.
A few months later, the improv performances ended around the time LGP held open auditions for the upcoming season. I was looking for a way to continue to explore this new creative outlet, so I took the chance to audition and try something scripted. Despite my nerves, I prepared my monologue and apparently, I absolutely crushed the audition. The other players were laughing the entire time, and the feedback I received was steller. I was really excited at the thought of landing a role in one or two of their upcoming performances, and it felt like a dream of finally becoming a “real” performer was coming true. A couple of weeks passed without any news about the audition results, and I had a chance meeting with a fellow Bull City arts and community advocate. During our conversation, I shared with her my excitement about the upcoming LGP season and my hope of securing a role or two.
There was silence, and the color from her face drained and upon my urging, she shared a story about her personal experience with LGP involving her leaving the company, and then told me that she had seen proof of Jay having or pursuing affairs with LGP company members, LGP incubator students and at least one former undergraduate student. She was unable to share the details with me, for legal and ethical reasons, which I totally support.
I felt shocked and deflated, but believed her experience and felt very concerned about the accusations, even though I had not seen the evidence myself. It was all very troubling and I was determined to learn more before taking any specific action. If ANY of the accusations were true, LGP was in a mountain of hurt and members of the performance community were at risk. On the other hand, I had not seen any evidence, so I felt that Jaybird deserved the benefit of the doubt, which added to my feelings of conflict. She offered to connect me with another performer to gain a different perspective.
So I followed up with a second source and her experience matched what had been previously relayed to me. Still, the most damning allegations involved individuals I didn’t know or were not named. Worse, I had heard about inappropriate behavior coming from someone in a position of power without any confirmation from the victims due to privacy concerns. As a result, I decided the best thing I could do in the interim was to take a step back and reflect more on how best to approach this unsettling situation. One the one hand, I get it. It’s easy to blur the lines in an industry where we are applauded for pretending to be someone we are not. Our relationships are fluid as well. Sometimes company members are students, and students are company members. A director in one performance might be receiving direction in another. Players spend a lot of time together rehearsing, performing and celebrating. Friendships form, and relationships can grow out of that.
On the other hand, as the Director of the company and teacher/organizer of the classes, Jaybird is always in a position of power, and this behavior, even with full consent, if true, would be wildly inappropriate. That is the responsibility you take when you are in a position of power. If you can’t handle that responsibility, or don’t understand that distinction, you have no place in leadership. Period. Another few weeks went by, and I still felt horribly conflicted. I was trying to reconcile my love for LGP and its players with being fundamentally opposed to how their leader allegedly conducted himself with students and employees. My belief of the validity of what I had been told, with the recognition that it was all hearsay. If I couldn’t find a path forward with LGP, I wanted more information supporting my decision to cut ties.
I grew impatient and reached out to a personal friend and fellow player with LGP. This friend was also close with Jaybird, so I was hoping that she would be able to shed more light on the situation. Although it appeared that the allegations were news to her at the time, I later found out that she knew about them all along and didn’t feel that it was right for her to speak about them.
Not long after, Jaybird contacted me via email, let me know that our mutual friend had informed him about our conversation and asked to grab a drink so we could “clear the air.” Here’s the second line from that email: “I heard from [mutual friend] that you’ve spoken to some erstwhile friends of mine about my behavior. If you’d like any clarity there please let me know. I’ve been trolled for three years now and am tired of losing good friends like you based on rumors and lies.”
We coordinated a time and place to meet. He bought me a drink and sat down across the table. So I asked him outright, “have you ever had sex with company members or students”. He said, “no, never” and vehemently denied it in a number of other ways as I asked more specific versions of each question based on some of the details that were shared with me. When his performance wasn’t enough to assuage my skepticism, his tone and tactics changed wildly.
He first started out saying that were friends and that friendship mattered to him. Then concluding, after some back and forth, that he was never my friend and that I was a fool for thinking so. He called me a coward for not coming to him directly, but then it was ok, because I came to someone he trusted. He lauded my talent as a performer, saying that he wanted to work with me, even had specific roles picked out for me, then asserted that I was untrustworthy because I was unsure of whose stories to believe. As a result, I was out of the company for least two-to-four years. This seemed oddly specific, as if he was dangling an opening for me to redeem myself and earn back his trust. Throughout it all, I felt that he was twisting my words and at one point, even invoking my ex when discussing empathy and what it feels like to be accused and judged unfairly. It all felt very manipulative, purposefully disorienting, and punitive. He even went as far as to intimate that I was an asshole for ever thinking that he could be capable of that kind of monstrous abuse of power. How could he even consider working with someone who thought he was capable of such predatory behavior. Unthinkable.
Throughout our conversation, Jaybird was also wildly critical of his accusers. To him, they were talentless hacks who were completely unable to make their way in the world without his guidance and tutelage. I felt like the conversation was a sort of performance for him, with the spinning and crafting a long form storyline, making edits and building in circular references based on my responses and inputs. I know being accused of these things has been difficult, but there is absolutely no excuse for how he behaved. He showed no patience or compassion towards me. It became clear that I was either with him or against him. It felt like the entire meeting was in an effort to figure out whose team I was on. This type of manipulation and abuse of power seemed particularly evil in it’s nuance and tenacity. It felt like a slow and patient assault that ultimately aimed to shame me for failing into its trap.
I’m fortunate that acting and improv is a hobby and not what I rely on to make a living. However, many of my fellow players do rely on their performance work to pay their bills. I have the privilege to step back and disengage for a while, where others who were (and are) impacted by this situation would have a much tougher time doing so without hurting their ability to earn a living. After all, LGP is a company and its players are employees.
More recently, it has come to light that Jaybird was, in fact, having sex with a company member and student. Dana, his wife, admitted as much in part of an email to company members and colleagues, notifying them that the company’s Managing Director, Jessica Flemming, was resigning: “Jay and I have been talking about an open relationship for a while. Jay and a fellow company member (who has given us permission to disclose this) consensually engaged in a relationship that was discovered by other company members to their dis-ease, and upset. Jessica sees this engagement as an abuse of power and position. And while we understand how that can be seen that way, we think differently. Jaybird in no way used his position to coerce, force, or intimidate this person into doing something they didn’t want to do. The company member in no way was coerced, forced, or intimidated into a relationship. It developed organically.
These were two, adult, consenting people engaging in a private relationship.” Last week, I emailed Jaybird and asking point blank why he lied to me back in July. His response was short and sweet. “I lied to you because I don’t know you. You’re a tool, Adam. Please fuck off.”
So there it is. They openly admit that on at least one occasion, Jaybird had a sexual relationship with an employee and student. Why Dana is the one sending messages of public defense and spin to the community I can only guess. Since then, there has appeared to be no additional public fall out or discourse. Jaybird continues to work with LGP and the other allegations remain unaddressed. This is not ok. This can’t be ok.
Regardless of your affiliation or familiarity with LGP, know that this is happening here in Durham, and that our amazing local theatre community is in need of both light and love. Light so that victims are able to step forward without fear of retribution, all allegations can be explored, the facts can be made public, and so unsafe communities can be made safe again. Love so that any potential victims can find closure and heal, the community can rebuild, and LGP gets a chance to thrive without being destroyed by these un-addressed allegations.
Given his recent admission of guilt, we, as a community, must call for Jaybird to remove himself from any involvement with LGP and the Durham theatre community until all the facts can be known about the remaining allegations so we can be assured that LGP students and employees can work and learn in an environment free from predatory abuse of power.
Update: I’ve been receiving messages of support, solidarity and validation from folks who have had similar experiences with Jaybird. If you read this, have had similar experiences or worse, and are willing to speak out about your experience, please do publicly. Either on this thread or in your own space, and then link to it from here. We need as many voices to tell their stories as possible if we are going to discover the full extent and impact of his behavior. Now is the time to bring your story into the light. If you’d like to post anonymously, you are welcome to PM me. I’ll post it to the thread on your behalf, with your identity withheld.
Update 10/10/19: I posted this as a comment, but wanted it here as well so it’s easier to find. This is from a person who wishes to remain anonymous. I have personally confirmed their identity: “I met Jaybird as an undergraduate student. He was my professor at Duke. We spent a lot of time together outside of the classroom. He spent time with fellow classmates outside of the classroom as well, so it didn’t seem out of the ordinary. He made me feel understood and loved. I was quite conservative, which changed when he introduced me to a world in which sexual relationships appeared limitless (as he engaged in these intimately with cast members and friends). It was intoxicating and felt amazing at the time. Completely consensual and lovely. From where I stand now, I wish he had loved me enough to stand firm on an important boundary. Despite our feelings, we should not have engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship. I was his student. Now I’m left in a confused place, where I’m not sure where relational boundaries should stand. I worry that my current partner will lose patience as I try to figure out what this experience meant. If I was the only one. If it was real. I also dread how easy it became to lie to and deceive those closest to me.”
She later asked for this update on 10/25: “I am the Duke student who shared my story with Adam. I’d like to add that I was not coerced into doing anything. I shared this because I was scared and confused, but now I understand my responsibility in the matter. I was pushed to make a statement and now regret doing so.”
Update 11/22:Erin Bell just added this brave testimony to the comments. “Hello everyone, For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Erin Bell. I have been LGP’s webmaster for 5 years and on their board for 2. Over the years I have also stage managed and acted for LGP as well as photographed their shows. Jaybird recently confessed to me that he did in fact have sex with an undergraduate student. I’m not cool with that. This morning the straw that broke the camel’s back was Jaybird threatening to call someone’s employer as a consequence for them speaking out against him. Fuck Jaybird and the horse he rode in on. That is all, Erin”
Update 11/24: In a series of emails with me today, Jay admitted that he had a conversation with Erin Bell and Cuquis about contacting Housing for New Hope, the non-profit I was on the board of, about my attempts to get them blacklisted from Durham venues. I’m not sure if he ever actually did this or not. I stepped off the board last month to pursue other community affordable housing efforts. He continues to deny having any relationships with students or employees other than the 3 that are publicly known, which he denied before they were publicly known. He also denies ever blackmailing anyone though I’m not sure he thinks the things he has done qualify as such. He does however accuse me of blackmailing the women who have come forward and is convinced that I’m the bully in this story. I’m not sharing any quotes from his emails because each message, save for the first, included a note not to.
This site exists to ensure that anyone who inquires about Jay Oberski to do any kind of background check or to enquire if he, Jay Oberski, who also goes by Jaybird Oberski and Jack Oberski, has done any harm to any of the communities he has been a part of in the past, is able to easily find this information.
For instance, when he was a Professor at Duke University and thought engaging in sexual relationships with vulnerable students was ok (he later admitted that he knew it was not ok at the time but couldn’t help himself). Or when he was the Director for Little Green Pig Theatrical Concern, where he also taught acting classes, and would often engage in sexual relationships with people he was directing, teaching, booking shows for and casting in performances.
We hope that you, our dear reader, are able to quickly become informed of the harms he has perpetrated and never fully accepted responsibility for or made any attempt to make amends so that you are better equipped to make informed decisions about how to best to or not to engage with him.
This site is not meant to bully, harass or otherwise target Jay/Jaybird/Jack. It’s simply a truthful retelling for the public record as a public service. As you will see as you read this blog, all of these claims have been validated journalistically by a 3rd party who interviewed at least one victim and posted evidence of his engagement and manipulation. Further, Jay had threatened me with a defamation lawsuit, but when that article came out, I never heard from his lawyer again, although he did attempt a parlay through a mutual friend.
If you find his response website, you’ll notice that he claims to be accused of much larger and more defamatory things so that he can deny them, but if you read this site carefully, hopefully, you will see the truth through the attempted manipulation.
