June 10, 2024

 

In my letter to the Privilege and Tenure Hearing Committee (see letter), I requested that the committee dismiss the disciplinary proceedings given the pervasive and non-correctible deficiencies in the due process being afforded.  These included a severe and irreconcilable conflict of interest involving the committee chair, who knows one of the Complainants (Professor R) has worked with him on a campus

committee (https://www.chicano.ucla.edu/about/csrc-faculty-advisory-committee) and and a joint project (All Bruins Belong) since 2021.   

 

The Hearing Committee has informed me that it does not find a basis to dismiss the case and will proceed with the hearing. The Committee’s response stated: 

“Chair [Redacted] has reviewed these objections carefully and does not find that there is any basis for the request that she recuse or otherwise not chair the Hearing Committee.”  

 

The Committee further states that I am raising the Chair’s conflicts of interest for the first time, implying that I, as the Respondent, am responsible for identifying and objecting to such conflicts.  The Committee is doing so despite UC Policy being unambiguous that “Hearing Committee members shall disclose to the Hearing Committee any circumstances that may interfere with their objective consideration of the case and recuse themselves as appropriate.” (Bylaw-336 F.1.c; emphasis added).

 

The Committee did not respond to the fact that the Chair is not a current member of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure and is therefore not qualified to preside over this disciplinary hearing “the Chair of the Hearing Committee shall be a current member of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.” (Bylaw-336 F.1.a; emphasis added)    

 

This latest instance of the Hearing Committee’s year-long practice of ignoring and contravening University policy serves to affirm my concerns about the outcome of these proceedings being predetermined and inevitable.  

​

June 11, 2024

​

The disciplinary hearing is proceeding despite my objections and without my participation.  Testifying for the Administration are LS Dean and Professor R (Complaints of Charge 1), Professor P (Complainant of Charge 2), and Professor K (Complainant of Charge 3).  

 

Witnesses for the Administration include former EEB Chair Professor W and EEB Professors D, T, S and U (Charge 1), Professors J, Q and X (Charge 2), and Professor C, who was EEB Chair prior to Professor W.   

 

Apart from Professor Q, all other EEB professors (C, D, J, K, R, S, T, U, W) testified for the Administration at my previous hearing, the entire record of which has been admitted into the current proceedings.  

 

Save for two Latino Professors, no minority faculty are testifying against me at the current hearing.  In fact, no faculty member below the rank of Full Professor is testifying for the Administration. 

​

June 24, 2024

​

I receive a copy of a notification/request submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the federal agency that funds my research on climate change.  The UCLA Administration is requesting Long-term disengaged of the Principal Investigator on the basis that the involuntary leave has been extended until December 31, 2024 "to enable completion of the ongoing formal process.” (emphasis added) 

​

There are several troubling aspects to this notification.  First, the University has informed NSF that I will be disengaging from the research because of the six-month extension of the involuntary leave, but has not informed me of the the extension of leave.  This is a violation of both UC policy and employment law.  I have already served 12 months of involuntary leave.  The extension makes it a total of 18 months, an extraordinary length for a person who has not engaged in sexual or scientific misconduct or any other illegal activity.  

​

Second, the University's statement that involuntary leave needs to be extended to "enable completion of the ongoing formal process", is misleading if not false because the formal investigation was completed on June 11-12 (see the June 11, 2024 update above).  All that remains is for the hearing committee to make its recommendation and the Chancellor to act on the recommended sanctions.  Since the hearing was one-sided, these matters can easily be concluded before the Chancellor steps down on July 31st.  They does not justify extension of the leave by six more months.  

​

Third, involuntary (administrative) leave is a precautionary measure enforced pending disciplinary investigations.  However, the University's request for my long-term disengagement from the NSF-funded research suggests that the University is using the leave as a punitive measure to stop me from conducting my research on climate change that has already made important discoveries and promises to yield more.  This research has involved over 100 undergraduate students over three decades, giving them an unparalleled opportunity to participate in addressing one of the most consequential environmental problems of our time.  Depriving future generations of scientists of participating in this research is a loss to both science and society.