UCLA Administration Reply
The following is an email exchange between my advisor and then-Associate Dean Kathleen Komar of the UCLA Graduate Division: Komar's reply / Blurton-Jones email. In his message, my advisor was pointing to administrative problems in my termination and therefore said that he "hop[ed] very much that you will examine the sequence of events very carefully and give Tom a sympathetic and thorough hearing."
Associate Dean Kathy Komar's response contains these statements:
"A department may terminate a student ANY time teh [sic] student falls below 3.0. [. . .] There is no appeal process for a termination based on a student's being below 3.0. So I will not be speaking to Mr. Wilde about an appeal."
Associate Dean Komar's statements demonstrate that the university does in fact use an obvious—and obviously unethical— catch-22 to terminate students: students terminated for a GPA below 3.0 have no appeal process to show that their insufficient GPA was caused by administrative errors because "there is no appeal process for a termination based on a student's being below 3.0." Here we can see Associate Dean Komar using this catch-22 to reject the grounds offered by my advisor for a review of my termination because this catch-22 allows her to instantly dispose of any facts showing that administrative errors had caused the insufficient GPA on my academic record.
On its banners throughout the UCLA campus and in its Statement of Ethical Values, the university advertises its commitment to Integrity, Excellence, Accountability, and Respect. Associate Dean Komar's unethical use of university policy in her reply offers us a lesson on how committed the university is to its Statement of Ethical Values when terminating its students.