2. Charge filed by EEB Interim Chair Professor P, April 2022
2.1 The charge
On April 20, 2022, Interim Chair Professor P filed charges against me with the UCLA Academic Senate. He claimed that I had violated Faculty Code of Conduct APM-015.C.1 (Intentional disruption of functions or activities sponsored or authorized by the University) and APM-015.C.8 (Serious violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty, including but not limited to policies applying to research, outside professional activities, conflicts of commitment, clinical practices, violence in the workplace, and whistleblower protections).
2.2 Allegations made in support of the charge
Professor P alleged that during the April 11, 2022 faculty meeting that discussed the on-time merit promotion of Q (a male Full Professor in EEB), I had made comments that undermined the integrity of Professor Q’s merit review, and introduced “inappropriate and prejudicial” information that would undermine Departmental climate and faculty sense of safety and collegiality.
2.3 What really happened
The purported comments pertained to Professor Q’s teaching. Professor Q had co-taught a graduate course in Winter 2021. Students who took his course felt that Professor Q had failed to provide a safe learning environment for minority students. Professor Q himself had acknowledged this issue in the statement of context he provided to the faculty, stating that he did not have a strong sense of how to deliver some parts of the material and the students had felt that he had not established a safe space for open discussion of DEI issues in the subject he was teaching.
On March 5, 2021, the entire cohort of students wrote a letter to EEB task force describing their experiences with Professor Q and suggesting ways to improve the course experience. One of my own graduate students was in this course, and I was therefore personally aware of how emotionally taxing the students’ experience had been. On March 21, 2021 I myself wrote to the EEB task force about the students’ experience (Exhibit 1). During my September 2021 disciplinary hearing, several graduate students testified to their experiences with Professor Q’s course. Some felt that the Department had not taken the students’ concerns seriously. (A faculty member on the task force testified that they could not take any action because Professor Q himself was on the task force.)
In his presentation to the faculty, the Personnel Committee Chair Professor X claimed that Professor Q’s had not been able to create safe learning environment for minority students because he’d had to teach them over Zoom.
I pointed out that this explanation was contradicted by Professor Q’s numerical teaching evaluations, which were higher for his Zoom teaching than for his previous in-person teaching. I also suggested that, as a department committed to the welfare of its minority students, that the faculty discuss the issue instead of ignoring it.
Because I knew that I might come to harm as a result of raising these issues, I pointed out that being a woman of color, my references to minority students’ learning experience and the harm they had suffered constituted protected speech of an individual belonging to protected categories.
No faculty present at the meeting objected to my comments, and the discussion proceeded with another faculty member speaking immediately afterwards to point out that it was brave of Professor Q to attempt to discuss difficult issues in the classroom, a strong positive comment that neither I nor anyone else present disagreed with.
Professor Q faced no consequences for his actions, and subsequently received the promotion as well as a salary increase. Barely a year later, he was appointed to a high-level leadership position in the EEB Department.
2.4 Analysis of Professor P’s charge
2.4.1 Mischaracterization of my comments
Professor P’s entire charge was based on his mischaracterization of the comments I had made at the faculty meeting. Despite the fact that Professor Q himself had referred to the students’ concerns about his failure to create a safe learning environment, Professor P alleged that my comments undermined the integrity of Professor Q’s merit review. This is a patently false allegation. At no time did I even imply that Professor Q should not be given the promotion because of the students’ concerns about his course performance. I simply suggested that the faculty discuss the issue instead of attributing it to Zoom.
In his complaint, Professor P claimed that my mentioning that the minority students in Professor Q’s course had been harmed by his failure to provide a safe learning environment constituted a violation of academic personnel policy because I was bringing in information that was not part of the candidate’s dossier. But, in his statement of context, which is in his dossier, Professor Q himself had acknowledged the students’ feeling that he had not created a safe learning environment. If the students had felt that way, it was because they had been harmed. My pointing this out did not constitute bringing in extraneous information because it is a matter central to his teaching performance. Raising an issue pertinent to Professor Q’s teaching is not a violation of academic personnel policy.
Professor P also mischaracterized my comment about belonging to protected categories as a minority and engaging in protected speech about other minorities:
“[Professor Amarsekare] responded, in part, that she ‘is a woman of color’, which she said is a ‘protected class.’ and that therefore her ‘speech is protected.’ She added that she can say anything without restrictions (almost her exact words).”
At no time had I ever said that I could say anything without restrictions but Professor P alleged that I had, without providing any supporting evidence whatsoever.
2.4.2 False allegation of introducing “inappropriate and prejudicial” information
Professor P also alleged that my introduction of “inappropriate and prejudicial” information would undermine Department climate and faculty sense of safety and collegiality. It was neither prejudicial nor improper to refer to an issue Professor Q had himself acknowledged in his statement of context. Since my referring to this issue was neither prejudicial nor improper, it could not have undermined Departmental climate and faculty sense of collegiality.
Moreover, had my comments been improper and prejudicial, the EEB faculty should have been able to support Professor P’s claims. Although nearly 20 faculty were present at the April 11, 2022 meeting, none was listed as witnesses in Professor P’s complaint to the Academic Senate.
2.4.3. False allegation that my comments were retaliatory
Professor P further alleged that my comments were an attempt to retaliate against Professor Q because he had testified at my September 2021 disciplinary hearing.
The University of California’s Anti-Discrimination Policy defines retaliation as an adverse action against an individual based on
(i) their report or other disclosure of alleged Prohibited Conduct to a University employee, or
(ii) assistance with the investigation, reporting, remedial, or disciplinary processes provided for in the Anti-Discrimination Policy
(Prohibited conduct here refers to harassment and discrimination.)
An adverse action is conduct that would discourage a reasonable person from reporting Prohibited Conduct or participating in a process provided for in the Anti-Discrimination Policy, such as threats, intimidation, harassment, discrimination and coercion.
Professor P’s claim does not qualify as retaliation under the UC Anti-discrimination policy.
First, Professor Q was not present at the faculty meeting that discussed his merit increase. Academic personnel discussions are confidential, and the candidate is not made privy to them without the participating faculty’s permission. Even assuming that Professor P or any other faculty present at the meeting had breached confidentiality to disclose my comments about teaching to Professor Q, this has not prevented him from participating in investigations of charges against me. Indeed, Professor Q is testifying against me as a witness for the UCLA Administration in June 11-12 disciplinary hearing against me.
According to the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, retaliation occurs when an employee engages in an activity protected by law and then suffers an adverse employment action as a result of that protected activity.
Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a retaliation claim must provide evidence that
(i) an individual engaged in protected activity of which the recipient was aware,
(ii) the recipient took a significantly adverse action against the individual, and
(iii) a causal connection exists between the individual’s protected activity and the recipient’s adverse action.
Applying the State of California and legal standards for retaliation to Professor P’s claim, Professor Q’s protected activity is his filing charges against me in October 2020 and participating in the subsequent disciplinary hearing in September 2021. The adverse action would be Professor Q being denied his merit increase as a result of the comments I had made about his teaching during the April 11, 2022 faculty meeting.
My comments about his teaching did not result in an adverse employment action for Professor Q.
Following the faculty discussion of Professor Q’s merit increase, the faculty voted overwhelmingly in support of his promotion. The Departmental letter for Professor Q even mentioned his colleague’s comment that Professor Q was brave to tackle DEI issues in the classroom. Professor Q subsequently received the promotion and a salary increase. I had no power to influence the outcome of Professor Q’s promotion, which was ultimately determined by the Dean, the University Committee on Academic Personnel, and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel. These decision-making authorities were not aware of the comments I had made during the faculty meeting because neither my comments nor my name was mentioned in the Departmental letter for Professor Q’s merit increase that was sent to these authorities.
While it is possible that Professor P may have confidentially disclosed to these the decision-making authorities his unsubstantiated opinion that I had made comments in order to undermine Professor Q’s promotion, any such disclosure clearly had no effect since Professor Q received the merit increase.
In sum, my comments about Professor Q’s teaching did not result in an adverse employment action for Professor Q. There is no merit to Professor P’s claim of retaliation.
2.5 Did I violate the Faculty Code of Conduct?
2.5.1 APM-015.C.1 - Intentional disruption of functions or activities sponsored or authorized by the University
Disruption is defined as an action that causes an interruption in the normal course or continuation of some process or activity. The process in this case was the faculty meeting to discuss Professor Q’s merit increase. The action was my pointing out that the Academic Personnel Committee’s explanation of Professor Q’s failure to provide a safe learning environment for minority students was not supported by data, and suggesting that the Department discuss the issue instead of ignoring it.
Was there an intention to disrupt? No because I had suggested that the faculty discuss the issues pertaining to Professor Q’s teaching rather than ignoring it, an attempt to facilitate discussion rather than to interrupt it.
Did my comments disrupt the faculty discussion of Professor Q’s promotion? The answer again is no. The discussion continued without a break, with another faculty member speaking immediately afterwards to point out that it was brave of Professor Q to attempt to discuss difficult issues in the classroom, a strong positive comment that neither I nor anyone else present disagreed with.
In sum, my comments were not intended to disrupt the faculty discussion of Professor Q’s promotion and indeed they did not do so. This charge has no merit.
2.5.2 APM-015.C.8 (Serious violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty)
Professor P alleged that I had seriously violated University policy by (i) making comments that undermined the integrity of Professor Q’s merit review, and (ii) introducing “inappropriate and prejudicial” information that would undermine Department climate and faculty sense of safety and collegiality.
As I have shown above, neither allegation has any merit. Therefore, they cannot be used to argue that I violated APM-015.C.8. This charge therefore fails.
2.6 Professor P’s allegations constitute a violation of my first amendment and academic freedom rights
University policy on academic freedom (APM-010) states that:
“Members of the faculty are entitled as University employees to the full protections of the Constitution of the United States and of the Constitution of the State of California. These protections are in addition to whatever rights, privileges, and responsibilities attach to the academic freedom of university faculty.”
Furthermore, that the First Amendment applies to the conduct policies of public university campuses is settled law*. I have the right to point out a problem in the Academic Personnel Committee’s argument that Professor Q’s failure to create a safe learning environment for minority students was due to Zoom. I have the right to suggest that the Department discuss the issue instead of ignoring it. As a minority female invested in the welfare of minority students in the EEB graduate program, I had the right be concerned about the harm to students from Professor Q’s self-acknowledged failure to create a safe learning environment. I had the right to attempt to prevent a recurrence by suggesting that the Department discuss the issue.
*In Healy v. James (1972), the Supreme Court declared that “the precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that … First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.”
Using my constructive comments and suggestions, made with the best of intentions and the desire to improve the minority students’ learning experience, to file charges against me is a violation of my first amendment rights and my right to exercise academic freedom.
2.7 Professor P’s previous actions
It is worth noting that Professor P had previously testified against me during my September 2021 disciplinary hearing. Professor P stated, in his capacity as a licensed psychologist, that he had diagnosed me as having a personality characteristic of narcissism, eight years before he had ever set eyes on me, based on conversations he’d had with Professor K, the former Life Sciences Dean, in 2013 (P&T Hearing Transcript 09.09.21 Vol. I: 78-80).
In addition, on January 23, 2022, following the EEB Department’s vote for my acceleration, which I had requested after being awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship and elected Vice President of the American Society of Naturalists, Professor P wrote a letter to the Interim Vice Provost, claiming that I had received a positive vote only because the faculty feared retribution if they did not vote favorably. Of note, voting is anonymous, and the fear of retribution had not prevented EEB faculty from voting against my previous promotions or testifying against me at my disciplinary hearing just two months previously. Moreover, my acceleration was approved by the narrowest margin seen in the previous 18 years (10 in favor, 6 against, 7 abstentions; Exhibit 2).
2.8 Outcome
2.8.1 Probable cause determination (April 2023)
The 2022-23 Committee on Charges found probable cause for Professor P’s charge on April 10, 2023 while I was still suspended and forbidden to participate in University activities.
Charges Committee 2022-23 made their probable cause determination based solely on Professor P’s mischaracterization of my conduct, without any witness or documentary corroboration.
2.8.1.1 APM-015.C.1(Intentional disruption of University function)
Charges Committee 2022-23 determined that there was probable cause that I disrupted University function because Professor P had alleged that “Professor Amarasekare repeatedly voiced “her view that EEB AP merit reviews routinely ignore important negatives.”” (Charges Committee 2022-23’s April 10, 2023 Probable cause determination, p. 3; emphasis added).
Charges Committee 2022-23 concluded that since I was repeatedly advocating for a more rigorous personnel review process, with accusations, and bringing up other cases during a colleague’s personnel review, along with the context that the disrupting the discussion of this particular case could be “a form of payback” (Charges Committee 2022-23’s April 10, 2023 Probable cause determination, p. 3), there was probable cause that I had violated APM-015.C.1 (Intentional disruption of functions or activities sponsored or authorized by the University).
2.8.1.2 APM-015.C.8 (Serious violation of University policy)
In his complaint, Professor P had failed to establish that the comments I had made regarding Professor Q’s teaching during a faculty discussion of Professor Q’s merit increase constituted a serious violation of University policy.
Charges Committee 2022-23 provided the explanation on Professor P’s behalf. They did so by admitting into evidence, the report of the P&T Hearing Committee’s (Hearing Committee 2021) March 7, 2022 report on my previous (September 2021) disciplinary hearing.
Charges Committee 2022-23 quoted from Hearing Committee 2021’s report’s regarding my protected speech (21.11.19 Respondent’s Post Hearing brief p. 29, 34, 37-39): “Claiming that her belief gave her a “higher purpose” did not give Professor Amarasekare license to violate policies by making public accusations.” (emphasis added). Although Hearing Committee 2021 had not found me to have “made accusations of wrongdoings during personnel reviews”, it warned in its March 7, 2022 report that “In particular, she [Professor Amarasekare] must refrain from accusing individuals of wrongdoing outside of the confidential processes in place for such allegations.” (emphasis added).
Despite the fact that I had not made any accusations of wrongdoing during the April 11, 2022 faculty meeting, Charges Committee 2022-23 cited the “ample warning and explanation of relevant policies” in Hearing Committee 2021’s March 7, 2022 report to find that I had engaged in serious violation of University policy (APM-015.C.8) by “knowingly violating policies for personnel discussions, and again, claiming a “higher purpose” for doing so” (April 10, 2023 Probable cause determination, p. 3; emphasis added). Charges Committee 2022-23 cited the Faculty Code of Conduct to further claime that “this constituted behavior that has now been made serious through its repetitions, or its consequences.” (April 10, 2023 Probable cause determination, p. 3; emphasis added).
As noted above, Charges Committee 2022-23 made its probable cause determination while I was suspended and forbidden to participate in University activities. Due process involves the right to be present when adverse evidence is presented to the fact-finder. Had I been able to participate, I could have countered every single one of Professor P’s allegations, including his preposterous claim about my saying that I had the right to say anything without restrictions.
By proceeding with a probable cause determination while I was unable to counteract the adverse evidence or present a defence, Charges Committee 2022-23 denied me my right to due process, in violation of UC Policy.
2.8.2 Charges filed with the Academic Senate (April 2023)
Following the probable cause determination, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel, formally filed charges with the Privilege and Tenure (P&T) Committee 2022-23 on April 28, 2023 (Exhibit 3). His Notice of Possible Sanctions stated:
“I am informing you that the sanctions that may be imposed against you are loss of employment with the University and loss of possibility of emeritus status, as provided for in APM-016. I reach this conclusion in view of the seriousness, repetitiveness, and continuous nature of the charged misconduct.”
2.8.3 Involuntary leave (July 2023)
Based on the probable cause determination made while I was suspended and unable to present a defence, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel placed me on involuntary leave immediately after my suspension ended on June 30, 2023. In his letter of June 23, 2023, the Vice Chancellor stated:
“I believe resumption of your continued assignment to regular duties or presence on campus, following the end of your one-year suspension without salary on June 30, 2023, poses a "strong risk" of an "immediate and serious harm" to the good functioning of the Department and the education of graduate and undergraduate students based on the aforementioned record of your conduct. Given the pendency of the current charges, as well as the involvement of a large number of your colleagues in the Department who participated in the September 2021 hearing and will be required to participate in the hearing on the current charges, and based on that same record of your conduct, your presence in the Department also poses a "strong risk" that you will "impede the investigation of wrongdoing."
2.8.4 Privilege and Tenure Disciplinary Hearing (June 2024)
I am now to undergo a disciplinary hearing on the charges that I “intentionally
disrupted the personnel meeting during a discussion of Professor [redacted]’s review", thus seriously violating University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty. By the time the hearing begins on June 11, 2024, I will have served one year of suspension and one year of involuntary leave.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Amarasekare’s March 21, 2021 letter to EEB task force
Exhibit 2. EEB Departmental voting record, 2015-2022
Exhibit 3. Charges filed by Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel with the 2022-2023 Privilege and Tenure Committee