My UCLA Experience
On July 1, 2022, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block suspended me without pay or benefits for a year and reduced my salary by 20% for two subsequent years (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00207-w,
In January 2023 when Professors Andrew Dobson, Peter Chesson and Simon Levin organized a petition to the UC President and Regents on my behalf, 500 scientists from all over the world signed it, without knowing why I had been suspended and taking it on trust that I had not engaged in improper or illegal activity.
After it came to light that the Chancellor had rejected a faculty hearing committee’s recommendation for minor sanctions and suspended me instead (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00473-8, https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-faculty-committee-recommended-censure-but-she-was-suspended-and-banished-instead),
the scientific community supported me in every way, contributing to the Go-Fund-Me that Professor Sally Otto had organized, reaching out with words of support, letting me know that you were there if I needed to someone talk to or a respite from my traumatic circumstances, seeking me out at conferences, inviting me to seminars. My colleagues reassured me that I still belonged to the community, despite the accusations against me and the harsh punishment.
It was because of my colleagues' kindness and generosity that my children had enough to eat and did not become homeless, and I was able to cling to my sanity during that time of darkness when I had lost everything --- my livelihood, my research, my students, my good name.
There are not enough words to express my gratitude, except to say that I shall never forget your kindness and generosity of my colleagues in the scientific community. It is not a debt I can repay, but I want to try my utmost to serve the community in every way that I can.
As much as I wish that I had been able to come before you today with joyful news of rebuilding my career and my life, it is not what I have to impart to you. The news I have to share with you is bleak.
Since facing the disciplinary hearing in September 2021, which resulted in my suspension, further charges were brought against me. Probable cause was found for two of the three complaints while I was suspended and prohibited from participating in University activity, in violation of my right to due process. These probable cause findings were used to place me on involuntary leave immediately after my suspension ended on June 30, 2023 (https://www.chronicle.com/article/when-a-professor-disappears-and-no-one-will-tell-you-why?sra=true&cid=gen_sign_in).
Now I am to face yet another disciplinary hearing for alleged multiple violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct. I participated in the first disciplinary hearing in good faith that the process would be fair and impartial, and that UC policy governing these procedures would be followed. I incurred $62,000 in legal fees, only to find numerous procedural violations that amounted to a mistrial of the proceedings. In March 2022, I informed UCLA Chancellor Gene Block of these violations and pleaded with him to dismiss the charges (read letter). He suspended me instead.
I have already been harshly punished for this alleged misconduct. Now I am facing yet another disciplinary hearing based on further allegations of misconduct.
Is it possible for me to defend myself against these new allegations? The University has the legal might of the General Counsel’s Office behind them. They are represented by a principal legal counsel for the UC President’s Office, and have many other UC and UCLA attorneys at their disposal. I, on the other hand, cannot even afford to obtain legal representation, having been driven to destitution by the by the one-year suspension followed by a 20% reduction in salary for two more years. Even if I were to somehow raise the funds, it would be futile because there is no possibility of a fair and impartial hearing within the University.
Since my initial disciplinary hearing in September 2021, I have discovered that the Academic Senate Judicial proceedings are fraught with numerous conflicts of interest, and subject to constant and pervasive interference by the UCLA Administration.
Regrettably, instead of maintaining the integrity and impartiality of Judicial Committee proceedings, the Academic Senate faculty serving on these committees have, either willingly or unwillingly, supported the Administration’s agenda of destroying the career and reputation of a minority female. The findings of probable cause and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against me have been part of that cooperative effort between the Judicial Committees and the UCLA Administration.
Given this cooperative effort, the outcome of the forthcoming disciplinary hearing is inevitable if not predetermined. I have already been informed that the recommended sanctions include dismissal and loss of emeritus status. Given the continued violation of my rights to due process, my participation in this hearing will only ensure the Administration’s goal of terminating my employment with the University.
The veil of secrecy surrounding the proceedings that resulted in my suspension has severely damaged my reputation. The possibility that there might be additional, hidden, maleficence has cast aspirations on my integrity, character and conduct, making it impossible for me to find employment elsewhere. Further findings of fault, no matter how flawed, will permanently destroy my reputation, and force me out of academia and the science I have devoted my life to doing with such dedication and passion.
I have no power to ensure that internal University proceedings are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. What I can do is to publicly respond to the charges against me and provide supporting evidence do the degree I am legally able to do, so the community can decide whether these charges have merit and whether I should be further punished.
I have informed the Privilege and Tenure Hearing Committee that I will not participate in an internal disciplinary proceeding that violates my right to a fair and impartial hearing (read letter). I have requested that the Hearing Committee dismiss these proceedings given the pervasive and non-correctible violations of my right to due process, which make it impossible to see justice within the University’s systems.
There are three complaints against me, each alleging multiple violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct. The first charge (Charge 1) is on harassment and serious violations of University policy. The second (Charge 2) is on intentional disruption of University functions and serious violations of University policy. The third (Charge 3) is on breach of confidentiality in personnel procedures and serious violations of University policy.
For each charge, I summarize the allegations and describe the true nature of events, followed by an evidence-based analysis to show that the allegations have no merit. I provide, as exhibits, documents that I have the right to release because (i) they are in my personnel file, (ii) the charge file of the discrimination and retaliation complaint I filed with the EEOC, which has been released to me under the Freedom of Information Act, or (iii) because the documents were sent to my private gmail account which operates outside the University’s secure server.
I have informed the UCLA Administration and the Academic Senate Judicial Committees that by sending notifications of disciplinary hearings/actions and other related material/correspondence to my private gmail account, which operates outside of the University's secure server, in violation of the University’s own privacy and security rules, they are waiving any rules of confidentiality applicable to the contents of these notifications and attached documents.
Finally, the system of shared governance gives UC faculty, operating through the Academic Senate, a voice in the operation of the University. By disclosing the pervasive administrative interference and conflicts of interest that violate the shared governance principle at UCLA, I hope that steps will be taken to restore the policy to its original state of integrity and impartiality. Most of all, I hope that by coming forward, I will make it easier for other minorities who come after me to make their voices heard without fear of persecution. I have already paid a terrible price, and there will certainly be more to pay. But, if my efforts make it easier for those who come after me to stand up for their rights without fear losing their livelihoods and careers, then it would still have been worth it.
Why has this happened to me?
During my nearly 20-year tenure at UCLA, I made a genuine effort to promote equity and fairness in faculty hiring and advancement, to improve the graduate program, to teach more conceptually-oriented courses, all with the goal of elevating the Department’s standing. But my efforts were misconstrued as attacks on others. When I made suggestions for improving the graduate curriculum based on student input, I was accused of fabricating student comments to insult faculty teaching the courses; when I suggested that there be a consistent standard for evaluating faculty advancements, I was accused of trying to undermine others’ promotions. When I spoke of my pain and humiliation at being denied promotions and ignored for leadership positions on a listserv established for the Departmental community to talk about ways in which they had been hurt by the Departmental culture, my words were misconstrued as personal attacks on colleagues and used to file charges against me.
Why did my colleagues react this way?
Perhaps they were threatened by my forthright manner; perhaps they did not want to change things they had long been accustomed to.
Why did I persevere in the face of resistance?
As a minority female who had gained some recognition from her peers, I thought I had a responsibility to ensure equitable treatment of minorities and contribute to improving the department. I saw the graduate program declining; I saw graduate students who were unhappy with their educational and research experience turning to me for advice and guidance. I tried my best to help. I pointed out things that needed to be improved.
In the end, the person who pointed out the problem was identified as the problem, and steps were taken to force her out of the workplace.