· Weeding 101 at UCLA ·

To the Committee,
          In considering my case for reinstatement, this committee needs to be aware of a few problems with its initial decision to terminate my student status, that decision being based on a too-low GPA and 'so many incomplete and "F" grades.'  The first problem lies in the fact that I had submitted work and the forms for the removal of an incomplete for two classes but, due to an apparent paperwork shuffle, those forms either never made it to the instructors or from the instructors back to the registrars office.  (As the Committee knows, the student is not permitted to hand forward these forms, so the fact that these forms did not make it through the prescribed channels was wholly beyond my control.)  Consequently, my GPA was calculated with two 'F's where two, presumably passing, grades should have been.  This problem was at least apparent to Dr. Val Rust, as one work was turned into him; at that time he asked if I had submitted the form for the removal of an incomplete and I told him that I did.  As one of the heads of my division (SSCE), I am assuming that Dr. Rust was one of those looking over my grades—so it should have struck him as odd that his grade did not appear on my record, and he should have made this error known to the committee if, in fact, he was taking any part in the department's recommendation.  Had those Incomplete forms gone through the proper processing nearly a year ago there would have been no grounds for the probationary notices that I received, as my GPA wouldn't have fallen below the required 3.0, assuming that they were at least passing grades—and I had no reason to believe that they wouldn't have been passing grades, as I was in good standing in both classes.  (I've had the registrars office resubmit the forms, for the third time in the case of the other class.)  Because UCLA is obviously a huge bureaucracy, paperwork errors of this sort are practically unavoidable, so that as a matter of course any department considering a termination case would quite reasonably want to inquire about the possibility of such an error.  And it would seem clear that this inquiry would involve, at the very least, the student's advisor.
          The second problem therefore stems from the fact that neither my advisor nor I was contacted about a recommendation to terminate my student status.  It would seem obvious enough that a graduate department would understand that an advisor, as a central figure in a student's academic endeavors (and certainly part of the services paid for), is to be involved in any departmental proceedings concerning one of his or her students—and surely in a case of dismissal.  Indeed, my advisor took that to be the case; as he told me, in another department he is routinely made aware of any proceedings regarding any student that he has any connection with.  In this case, it seems quite clear that had someone had the simple sense to at least contact my advisor, the problem with the Incomplete forms would have come to light, and none of the departmental actions in question would have been taken.
          These two problems are central to my case, as much as they were a factor in both the head of my division and my advisor's recommendation to have me reinstated.  But while these problems were clear to Dr. Rust and Dr. Blurton-Jones, it seems that no one else has been much interested in them—as might be expected when no one in this committee finds it necessary to have all of the facts straight before bringing down the axe.  As such, nothing surrounding my case shows that this committee followed anything close to what might reasonably be expected in termination proceedings: the verification of facts and the involvement of the principal parties in the case.  And when subsequent efforts were made by my advisor to obtain an explanation on why the department suspended these normal procedures in my case, he received only silence on this issue.
          Yet it appears that while this committee has displayed evident disregard for seeking out both the facts and the principal parties involved in this case, others know very much about the nature of these proceedings.  For even before my advisor had received a response to his inquiry, another faculty member saw fit to call me into her office so that she could impress upon me the plight I was in and the demands on me that were to be forthcoming from this committee.  Now this professor is as unknown to me as I am to her, yet she knows more about my case than my own advisor.  Never minding this professor's contempt for respecting my privacy on a sensitive matter, this encounter strikes me as further evidence that this committee operates on its own whims, without any concern for justifying the actions it takes.
         
          I have received a letter from the Chair of this committee, asking for various statements and explanations if I am to be considered for reinstatement.  But, as I have tried to show here, this committee did not follow what might otherwise be seen as reasonable guidelines for termination in my case, and had those guidelines been followed none of these actions would have come about in the first place.  (While I don't pretend to inform this committee of its task, these guidelines would include, at a very minimum, an interest in verifying the facts the committee is basing its decision upon and the involvement of the student's advisor in a recommendation for termination.)  Furthermore, what the Chair's letter does show is that this committee finds it acceptable to start with its final decision and then look back to see what might have actually happened.  In other words, as is made clear in the Chair's letter, I am now to present my case before a committee that has already rendered a decision, so that I might convince the committee members to reverse that decision.  As I have made clear to Dr. Rust and Dr. Blurton-Jones, my case is being treated as one of guilty until proven innocent—i.e., the judgment has been made, and the sentence imposed, and now I am being allowed the apparent privilege of attempting to prove my innocence by presenting the facts, after the fact.  (Needless to say, the practice of execution first, questions later has fallen out of favor within those institutions that act as protectors of the principles of Education and Democracy.)  Thus, as my case presently stands, the demands that are now being made on me are irrelevant and the questions now asked of me are rendered moot.  In fact, given the course that this termination has taken, it is my advisor and I who should be receiving a statement and/or explanation from the Chair as to why this committee suspended my due procedural services when terminating me.
         
          The head of my division and my advisor have recommended my reinstatement, and, as I see it, these are the only two individuals who could possibly make such a recommendation, as they are the only ones qualified to do so—i.e., they are the only ones who know the details of this case and, more importantly, they are the only ones who have a valid idea of the particular intellectual path that I am taking in this program.  If, as the Chair's letter seemed to imply, their recommendation does not stand as a sufficient basis for my reinstatement then you have made it clear that you are either overtly unwilling to accord this department's own tenured professors the trust and respect that are implicit in accepting their recommendation as legitimate, or unwittingly undermining the very purpose for which the institution of tenure was created—to guard against summary dismissals that display no concern for factual accuracy and due process.  In either case, this committee is violating the principles on which the entire field of Education is founded.  (Rather stark irony here.)
         
          As a student, I am paying for services offered by this institution, and for the fair and justified performance of those services.  I am paying for the services of an advisor, and intellectual mentor of sorts who is to be involved in every aspect of my educational pursuits.  In the case of a termination, these services must include the verification of facts involved in a termination recommendation and the involvement of the student's advisor in that recommendation.  There was no attempt on your part to verify the information you used in making your termination recommendation and no attempt on your part to involve my advisor in that recommendation.  Nor has there been an explanation as to why this committee handled my termination in a manner that has been so clearly lacking in justifiable actions.  As such, the problems surrounding my termination, as outlined above, make it clear to me that the departmental services and procedures entitled to me have been abrogated.  Consequently, because this committee based its decision to terminate my student status on clearly erroneous information, and because a fair and justified performance of the termination proceedings did not take place, I should be reinstated.  Or, to put the matter more simply, there never were, nor are there as yet, any grounds for my dismissal.

Tom Wilde