|
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: October 21, 2011 4:19:06 PM PDT
To: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hi Cameron,
Thank you for offering additional thoughts on the case.
In fact I'm quite pleased with what I've gathered from the host of other UC folks I've cited (including what I've gathered from you). After all, through this effort, I now have what I think are several priceless UC faculty gems, including this brilliant one (from a UCLA Distinguished Professor): "[A] random collection of faculty (however distinguished) has no status within the university power structure. No one would be obliged to pay any attention to us." (And this certainly has to be a candidate for the most outlandish statement, made by one of UCLA's own "Distinguished Professors," about "the most popular campus in the nation," to quote from UCLA's marketing department).
And I also see some real gems in your own statements, including this one: "the Academic Freedom Committee exists precisely to take up issues such as those you confronted." Ostensibly, the AFC also exists so that when academic freedom issues arise (as you state they do in my case), one single person is not left alone to make an assessment that then prevents others in the Committee from also considering these issues. Thus the question I already put to you still stands for the entire Committee: How is it that these issues were not taken up by the AFC when the Committee's Chair has stated that "the Academic Freedom Committee exists precisely to take up issues such as those you confronted"?
Of course nowhere have I ever claimed and/or asserted a student's (or my own) "rights" (your word) to academic freedom. Indeed, nowhere have I asserted on behalf of myself any "rights" (again, your word) whatsoever. In our exchange, I've stated where and why serious academic freedom issues arise in my case, and I have made it clear that I have no part in these issues.
But regardless of what I say here, now others will be able to see for themselves whether I've made assertions and/or claims to academic freedom "rights" as you say, or whether you're simply pulling these "rights" out of thin air and merely adding them here to further deepen the muddle you have created from virtually the beginning of our exchange on this case.
As for "want[ing] a different outcome," I am in fact getting just such an outcome through engaging you and numerous other UC faculty members, and it's one far different from how the UC advertises itself globally, and therefore far different from anything the public would imagine is part of the functioning of a public university of UCLA's stature. And surely a deeper understanding of how the university actually functions beneath this corporate-style marketing propaganda is the most desirable outcome for anyone wanting to then provide this understanding to the public that both currently owns and fills the UC system. Indeed, I see this "outcome" as precisely the type of durable contribution a student of education would most want to make.
Finally, in my lengthy pursuit of this case I have obtained facts and UC faculty statements that now allow this student termination at UCLA to be put forth as a Chomskyan "ideal case" on how the university's faculty functions as "the secular priesthood": with blind servility to power.
And many thanks again for your own valuable contribution to this case.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: October 19, 2011 8:00:13 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
Yes, the role of the AFC is to consider possible violations of academic freedom, but in your case, it was my assessment that the academic freedom “rights” of the faculty completely trumped your “rights”. As I also pointed out, there are those who justifiably argue that students do NOT have academic freedom rights for the simple fact that students are NOT members of “the academy” (the professoriate). Although I am not a proponent of that argument, I can assure you that in matters where faculty academic freedom butts up against a student’s claim of academic freedom concerns, my bias will lie with the faculty. In a nutshell, what this means is the faculty in Education have the rights and power to effect a student’s termination and there is not the slightest chance that I or any other faculty will question this right. Ergo, it is your assertions that are outlandish. And, more to the point, if you want a different outcome, you must engage the faculty in Education, because they alone (not the host of other folks you have cited) are the ones who can do anything about this matter.
Cameron
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: October 18, 2011 6:39:14 PM PDT
To: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hi Cameron,
Thank you for your permission to post our exchange.
Indeed, yours will be joining exchanges I've also posted from UC faculty members Ben Bagdikian, Erwin Chemerinsky and Carlos Otero, all of whom are widely recognized as exceptional scholars (and whose scholarship I, too, admire). The difference here is that Chemerinsky and Otero's were posted against their directives (Bagdikian apparently just didn't bother to respond to my request).
And we may do well to wonder why we find nothing "outlandish" in a UCLA student termination when one UCLA faculty member has said this termination "is a wrong to right," and when another who has chaired UCLA's Academic Freedom Committee has said that the AFC exists precisely to take up issues as those found in this termination but then did not move as its Chair to have the AFC take up this case.
As it stands, I'm going on a vintage line from Chomsky that if you could see how outlandish this case is, you simply wouldn't be sitting where you are within the university.
And my hope now is that others out there may find your responses to me on this case as outlandish as I do.
Sincerely,
Tom
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: October 18, 2011 8:36:21 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
Sorry for the delay in responding. In retrospect, there is nothing too outlandish in those exchanges, so by all means, you’re welcome to post them!
Cheers,
Cameron
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: October 17, 2011 8:49:18 PM PDT
To: Cameron Gundersen <cgundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Fwd: UCLA
Hi Cameron,
I'm hoping that you've been able to look over our exchange and are now able to let me know what (if anything) you'd like redacted prior to my putting the exchange on the website.
Cheers,
Tom Wilde
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: September 26, 2011 9:50:21 PM PDT
To: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hello Cameron,
Thanks for your message. I'm attaching here a pdf. of our exchange exactly as I have it (without any editing). As I said, for my part, I'll edit out the bit about [ redacted ]; otherwise, what you see here is what I'd post on the website.
Your message here now prompts me to ask if you brought up my case to the AFC during the time you were both chairing this Committee and discussing my case with me, since, as you say here, "the Academic Freedom Committee exists precisely to take up issues such as those you confronted." And as you then had the pleasure of setting the agenda for this committee, I'd be all the more interested in knowing why not (if not), or (if so), the reasons the committee gave for finding that academic freedom wasn't relevant to this case. Now I'm wondering, too (now that I know you were on this committee), if any other AFC faculty members brought up my case in your committee discussions, because the email that you first responded to (which also included my first email to UCLA Faculty from the previous year) was also sent to Seana Shiffrin, Christopher Looby, and David Teplow, who appear with you on the AFC member list for 2010-2011. (Russell Jacoby also knows of my case through an exchange I had with him some five years ago.)
In any case, I'll look forward to your reply once you've looked over our exchange, at your convenience.
And many thanks again for your serious consideration of this case.
Sincerely,
Tom
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: September 26, 2011 9:16:06 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
My knee jerk reaction, of course, is yes. But, I also think it would be fair if you could send me the material you plan to post in case there is anything that I feel would be necessary to redact. I cannot think of anything that might fall in that arena, but as another old saying goes, it doesn't hurt to check.
By the way, the Academic Freedom Committee exists precisely to take up issues such as those you confronted. And, as you can imagine, our deliberations often concern whether academic freedom is relevant to a particular case. The arguments can be intriguing. But, since I have passed the chair's torch, I no longer have the pleasure of setting the agenda for this committee.
Cheers,
Cameron
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: September 23, 2011 11:07:51 AM PDT
To: Cameron Gundersen <cgundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA
Hello Cameron,
As the old saying goes, it doesn't hurt to ask.
Notwithstanding the "important warning" appended to each of your emails to me, I would like to ask for your permission to post our email exchange on my website.
I would like to post it because I think at its core our exchange on the case of my termination from UCLA involves serious issues of academic freedom. I know you don't think so (as you said as much in the exchange itself), but I think we both owe it to ourselves (and to academic freedom) to find out which of our positions holds (more) water; and we can only do this by allowing others to scrutinize our respective arguments therein.
As our exchange sits now, I cannot see that it contains any personal details or reveals private matters unrelated to the case, but you might see something that I don't. I would, however, edit out my parenthetical comment on [ redacted ], as that's no doubt a [ redacted ] private detail that doesn't need to be there.
So let me know what you think.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
By the way, subsequent to our exchange, I saw that you were the Chair of UCLA's Academic Freedom Committee at the time we were discussing this case. I likely would have pressed the academic freedom issue harder still if you had let me know at the outset that you were then holding this important position.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: April 27, 2011 6:45:32 AM PDT
To: Cameron Gundersen <cgundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hi Cameron,
You've summed it all up rather tidily here, and I especially appreciate your putting the word facts in quotes (as if facts themselves belong in the realm of astrology) and your scolding me for my "whining" (as aren't uppity students always whining to their university professors about something or other?).
Many thanks again for your valuable work here, as it adds considerably to my own work on this ongoing research project on how our university system's secular priesthood functions.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: April 26, 2011 8:35:18 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
Different people will draw different conclusions from the same “facts” (a prime example is Darwinism vs creationism), so in the end it’s still opinion. In your case, Ms. Dorr offers the clear solution: re-apply. That is the very best outcome my (or anyone else’s) intervention could conceivably achieve at this point, and you have already been encouraged to take this path. What more do you want? From the “facts” you’ve given me, UCLA wrongfully terminated you because of a clerical error. For reasons that are still a bit unclear (a preoccupied mentor?), you were unable to reverse this ruling in a timely fashion (nevertheless, it was 100% your responsibility to see to it that the right documents got to the right places at the right time, so don’t whine to me about forms getting lost in the ether). Now, you’ve decided that this is a gross injustice. Frankly, I disagree (just my opinion). If you are seeking financial compensation for this alleged wrongdoing, you’ll probably need to retain a lawyer. If you’re still interested in a formal education, re-apply here (or, elsewhere). As with any educational institution, UCLA provides a structure within which you can get an education. But in the end, you (and everyone else) will only get out of it what you put into it. Thus, I hardly view your situation as a malignant reflection on UCLA or the educational process that UCLA (or any other University) provides, because, in the end, if you want to put in the effort, UCLA can still provide you with a pretty good education.
Cameron
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: April 25, 2011 10:07:37 PM PDT
To: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hello Cameron,
In an effort to quell your only lingering curiosity, I'm attaching a pdf. of the last word I received from the Graduate School of Education, which in your view houses the only "folks who can do something about this." As you'll read there, from the department dean herself: "As far as the University is concerned, the matter regarding your termination has been settled." (3/5/2007) Her letter was the last response I received from one of my many efforts to "confront" faculty in the education department. In any case, I have no special powers that would compel people there to deal with this matter when they have either not responded to my inquiries, or have written that as far as the university is concerned, this matter is settled. So perhaps your use of the word "confront" is mistaken. I suppose I could simply accost them, as your word perhaps suggests I do, but that approach still cannot compel them to act on a matter that "has [long ago] been settled" as far as they're concerned.
As for your surgeon analogy involving "opinions," it's simply wrong: there's a crucial distinction between 'opinions' and conclusions drawn from facts, as surely as your opinions here do not even hint that this surgeon performed the wrong surgery in the first place. In fact, I got conclusions from UCLA faculty members that UCLA performed the wrong operation when it terminated me. So in this case, and to continue your analogy, the only thing left for the surgeon to do is to put me back where I was before s/he performed this surgery. The surgeon doesn't want to do this (as stated in the attached letter), so s/he must be compelled to do so by the larger force of those within the institution who are responsible for seeing to it that these operations are carried out according to ethical codes and principles.
Moreover, the fact that this is (still) a public institution also allows the public to intervene to compel the university to reverse this improper operation when those within choose to dodge their serious duties and responsibilities—much in the manner that you've done over the course of our exchange here.
And frankly, I don't think the public would find any merit whatsoever in the stances you're offering here for your inaction on this case. For certainly, as stewards of this public university system, all UCLA faculty members "are the ones with the rights, duties and responsibilities to act" when facts show that UCLA has wrongly terminated a student. And to hopefully make this point clearer, you'd certainly face severe university and public criticism (at the very least) if you had facts—perhaps found within "ancient documents"—showing that a graduate student outside your department had received her/his doctorate by violating the university's academic codes and ethical principles, but you then went on to defend your inaction (and silence) on the case by saying that you had no right to "meddle" in the affairs of another department.)
Thanks again for your time and efforts here.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
Ps. If the pdf. letter attachment below doesn't show up clearly, just let me know and I'll resend it in another format.
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: April 21, 2011 9:35:57 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
My only lingering curiosity is why you will not confront the folks who can do something about this. If a surgeon missed a chunk of a tumor and you got opinions from a pediatrician, urologist, psychiatrist and dermatologist that you needed to get the rest of the tumor removed, you’d still need to go see the surgeon. In other words, if you want more than opinions, you need to see the folks in Education who can act in this matter (and, indeed, are the ones with the rights, duties and responsibilities to act).
Good luck,
Cameron
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: April 21, 2011 7:35:56 AM PDT
To: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hi Cameron,
Many thanks again for your views, advice, and conclusions on this case.
And who knows, maybe someday you'll grow curious enough to want to know not only how UCLA terminates students, but also how your colleagues can say such terrible things about how UCLA does this and yet remain silent in the face of all UCLA faculty members' serious duties and responsibilities to this public university's students, and the public itself.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: April 20, 2011 11:28:49 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
This situation is not that complicated. I have told you repeatedly that if you want it resolved, you need to :
1) Get your academic adviser or the authorized faculty in Education to sort this problem out with grad division.
2) If your adviser or Education won’t do this, get a lawyer.
Because you refuse to take this advice, I conclude that you are not serious about resolving this matter. Those remain the only relevant facts that I see in this case.
Cameron
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: April 19, 2011 8:36:06 PM PDT
To: Cameron Gundersen <cgundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hi Cameron,
Please pardon my delay in thanking you for your reply.
I'll wrap up our exchange here with a few final thoughts on the matter.
Since you say here that how I've pursued this case over the years means to you that I "view this as a quixotic adventure rather than a serious matter," I'll make a last effort here to explain how I actually do view this case of a student termination at UCLA, and why I think it's extremely serious.
I view this case as experimental research, and have been pursuing it as such for at least the past few years. That is (as I've also explained it a bit on my website), I think the thing to do to test for the presence, strength, and operation of Isaiah Berlin's "secular priesthood" within "the most popular campus in the nation" (in UCLA's words), a person would assemble facts and documents showing conclusively that the University readily dismisses crucial facts and disregards its own Faculty Code of Conduct when operating in its central function of weeding out students—and, crucially, that during this operation its faculty members do not stand up with these facts to defend those core academic principles which the university uses to great propagandistic effect in its global marketing campaigns. And this particular experimental research is vital, since the mythology of the American university has now grown to such immense proportions that the public believes this public university actually operates as it proclaims in its global marketing campaigns—using such heady slogans as "Integrity" and "Accountability," and issuing its equally heady Statement of Ethical Values and Standards of Ethical Conduct. (And the fact that this has developed into longitudinal experimental research, wherein I've had this long time to obtain and pursue facts through numerous University of California offices and channels, only serves to further strengthen this research.)
Consequently, you too have been participating in this research, and I must say that I greatly appreciate your input on this case. And to give you an idea of how very valuable I think it is, I'll just take a few bits from your last message here. You state, "If there are NEW facts in this case, not ancient documents, I could perhaps be persuaded differently." In making this statement, you are, at the very least, implying that "ancient documents" are somehow less credible than new documents, and/or that the facts contained within those "ancient documents" have gone well past their expiration dates. And your statement is all the more remarkable because you work as a research scientist at UCLA. You also state that "it is possible that the folks who wrote those letters long ago may have different views on this situation today." My, oh my, how UCLA would love to hear these different views on this situation today—i.e., UCLA, for all its powers of persuasion, evidently hasn't been able to get these "different views" out of its own faculty in order to show conclusively that the case I am making (in public) is wholly without merit, and thereby hang me out for public ridicule. In other words, if these faculty members did indeed have these different views on this situation today, UCLA itself would be loudly announcing these views (with the very considerable publicity power that it has) in an effort to fully discredit a mere commoner who is attempting to reveal the reality at this public university via an end run (with the help of the U.S. Constitution and FIRE) around the university's armada of attorneys, who are highly paid "to protect its trademarks and reputation" (UCLA's lead council, Patricia Jasper).
In fact, I think the extreme seriousness of this case is found in the fact that (so far?) no faculty members at the University of California have stood up to publicly challenge and/or refute what I'm posting on the UCLA Weeding 101 website. And the fact that these faculty members are public servants at a very powerful public university makes their silence quite deafening, indeed.
But perhaps you'd be willing to publicly make your case against my case? For as you know, there's simply no better way to test the strength of the position your taking on this case than by putting it out for public scrutiny. (And by the same token, you'd then be able to see whether the case I've made here withstands scrutiny—beyond just you—and whether others see the points I'm making, but that you say you cannot.)
In any case, for this public university to remain in the hands of the public, the public (that's you and me) must be willing to think and act publicly on a matter as serious as how this public university—and "the most popular campus in the nation"—terminates its students. And though this point may be lost on you (given your final line here), there still exist at least a few ways the public can show that it is truly serious about this matter without having to "consult an attorney."
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: April 10, 2011 11:30:42 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
The point remains that the only academic freedom issues that I see here weigh against you. If there are NEW facts in this case, not ancient documents, I could perhaps be persuaded differently. This is very relevant, because it is possible that the folks who wrote letters long ago may have different views on this situation today. Meanwhile, your reluctance to sort this out with the ONLY faculty (in Education) who have any responsibility and power in this matter means to me that you view this as a quixotic adventure rather than a serious matter. And, if you were truly serious, you would consult an attorney.
Cameron
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: April 9, 2011 3:26:06 PM PDT
To: Cameron Gundersen <cgundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hi Cameron,
Thank you for your reply; in fact, I believe it warrants some serious scrutiny so I'll ask you to please bear with me for a bit here.
To be clear from the outset, a university would be unable to function as such if professors exercised a right to call outside of their own department in order to question a student's education and/or evaluation in another department, for the very reason you state: they have no competence on which to base their intervention in such a case. Accordingly, I've never even hinted (let alone suggested) that you (or any other professor) should contact the Education Department's faculty in order to question them on their evaluation of my academic work. And thus your saying that "they HAVE NO RIGHT" to do so and that you've "NEVER" been contacted by outside faculty regarding your evaluation of students is entirely irrelevant to this case.
What I have been saying (for some time now) is that faculty members do have duties and responsibilities to each other (and to students) in order to maintain the proper functioning of the university. Accordingly, when at least a few faculty members make statements that call into serious question how the university is terminating its students, the entire faculty (as members of the university's governing body) does have a clear obligation to examine the questions of fact that are raised by these UCLA faculty statements:
"I will argue that it [this student termination] indicates that you have been made to pay with your academic career for department error (...), professor and university disorganisation (...), [and] carelessness by whoever (...) issues the dismissal notice (for their failure to verify the situation)." (Dr. Nicholas Blurton-Jones; faculty advisor, Education Dept.)
"The case is clear-cut: they had no basis for dismissing you, as you met the formal qualifications. Moreover, they gave no other reasons, so any further reasons they give now are beside the point. All this is obvious." (Dr. Robert Brenner; UCLA History Dept.)
"This [student termination] is a wrong to right." (Dr. Val Rust; then-Division Head, Education Dept.)
Clearly, these faculty statements say nothing whatsoever about me and/or these faculty members' evaluation of my academic work. And equally clearly, these statements are directed solely at UCLA, and they raise extremely serious questions of fact about the operation of the university itself. These faculty statements also raise the crucial issue of academic freedom simply because UCLA faculty members are making clear conclusions that the university has improperly terminated a student, but the faculty appears to be unable to pursue the questions of fact (and academic principles) raised by their colleagues' statements. (And my guess is that you've never before heard faculty statements like these following a UCLA student termination.)
In fact, your reply below shows an apparent inability to see these UCLA faculty statements as the damning conclusions on the operation of the university that they most certainly are. Or how else is one to understand a reply in which your reasoning and rebuttals are so irrelevant to this case? For instance, you say that you "have never been contacted by another faculty (who was not also an instructor in a course I was teaching)," but even a quick glance at the faculty statements here (and on the website) shows that UCLA faculty members outside the Education Department have contacted Education Department faculty and faculty in other departments regarding this student termination.
You state that "it's your problem and if you want it resolved, you need to talk to the principals." Yet the facts and faculty statements I've gathered so far in this case demonstrate that there is a very serious problem within UCLA's student termination operations, and that in order to resolve it, UCLA faculty members must first talk with one another, regardless of their departmental affiliations. Of course, this serious problem within the university can remain seemingly mine only as long as faculty choose not to talk to one another about a case bearing directly on their academic duties and responsibilities to UCLA students. However, this choice must rely on the sort of fallacious rebuttals you've offered here; or this choice merely follows out of the faculty's utter disregard for how the university terminates students; or this choice is simply what's necessary as the university's faculty members go about perpetuating the intellectual tradition's servility to power (to paraphrase Chomsky).
(Your use of the word "meddle" in asking "what right they [UCLA faculty] had to meddle in the internal affairs" of another department calls to mind a meeting I had a while back with UCLA Distinguished Professor Edward Keenan, in UCLA's Linguistics Dept. He used the same word to question my efforts to bring faculty together to examine this case. I'll attach my letter to him pointing out how flawed was his use of this word in this case, in the hope that you might see this point, too.)
Regarding your not taking the initiative to contact professor Chomsky (described by the NYT as "one of the most important intellectuals alive"), one would hope that university researchers do not sit passively waiting for views that might not have crossed their minds to come to them through the initiative of others; rather, one expects that these researchers actively seek out these views, if not out of their own sense of curiosity then perhaps merely as part of the work they're paid to do.
In any case, I hope you're willing to consider the views I've offered here, since your reply below indicates they might not have crossed your mind.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: April 6, 2011 12:06:36 PM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
First, I have been contacted by the ombuds office when it was acting on behalf of students who felt that there was some problem in my (or my department’s) evaluation of students. I have NEVER been contacted by another faculty (who was not also an instructor in a course that I was teaching). If I had been contacted by another faculty (say, from the Law School, or Psychology), I’d have asked them what right they had to meddle in the internal affairs pertaining to student education in Pharmacology. In fact, they HAVE NO RIGHT. And, there is a very good reason for this: they have no competence in Pharmacology. End of story. Flip the argument: I have no competence to question the faculty in Education. Tom, it’s your problem and if you want it resolved, you need to talk to the principals.
Second, as I noted before, I’m regularly involved with colleagues in discussions of academic freedom (and, whether it extends to students). But, since I perceive such a weak link here (to the point that AF arguments favor the faculty, not you), if you can drum up some better arguments on your behalf, I’d be happy to listen. I will not take the initiative to contact Prof. Chomsky, but if he wants to initiate a dialogue, I’m willing to consider views that might not have crossed my mind.
Thanks,
Cameron
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: April 5, 2011 8:47:17 PM PDT
To: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hi Cameron,
Thank you for your message.
Of course the surest and quickest way to failure is to foreordain failure (and as you also know, it's also the easiest thing to do because it means that one does nothing at all).
Also, if you read back through this exchange, you'll find that you have already plainly (and in places, sharply) questioned these faculty members' judgment regarding my termination. And I may also remind you that nine years after my termination (in 2005), one of these education department faculty members, Val Rust, did state: "This [student termination] is a wrong to right." So while you have already questioned their initial handling of this case, you're still able to contact Val Rust to verify his statement and then perhaps ask him why he took no subsequent action when he evidently still sees this case as a wrong to right. Of course I'm not suggesting or asking that you contact him on my behalf; rather, faculty would do this out of their own concern for each other and how the university is operating—i.e., wouldn't common ethics alone compel a professor to contact another regarding such a significant statement on their university as this one?
Please allow me to pitch an idea: A year or so ago, MIT professor Noam Chomsky wrote to tell me that he would seriously consider providing written support to a UCLA faculty member willing to take up this case and push for UCLA to re-examine it. And I think if you were to contact him regarding this case, he just may offer you not only this support, but also some sharp ideas on how to approach such a case as this. (He has told me that he's had his fair share of direct involvement in student termination cases, which is why I think it might be very interesting for you to ask for his ideas/suggestions on this case.) Furthermore, over many years Chomsky himself has evolved into a one-man international organization, so I think that if you were to ask him to support you in this case, his support would surely "'light a fire' under this issue" of far greater intensity than even FIRE could (given Chomsky's international status).
Would you be willing to consider this idea?
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: April 5, 2011 8:51:02 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
So, let’s take a best case scenario that the AF committee looks into your situation and decides there is an issue relevant to academic freedom. The very best we could do is to write a letter of complaint to the administration (something we have done in other circumstances). Because the administration has already washed its hands of this matter, I am virtually certain that they would ignore our letter in terms no less blunt than what they communicated to you. But, if an independent body like FIRE were to “light a fire” under this issue, it might get a little more action (though, my guess is that the administration would ignore FIRE the same way they would ignore the AF committee by saying that this is a closed matter). However, the administration could not so easily ignore your mentor or other faculty in Education. They are the ones who had primary (and sole) authority over assigning grades and monitoring your progress. If they wanted to effect changes in your record/status, the initiative must come from them. As I pointed out before, I am NOT going to question their judgment in this matter (in fact, as a matter of academic freedom, I support them). If you cannot get the Education faculty to act in this matter, then it means to me that they support the record as it stands.
As I also noted before, because I have no formal legal training, if I found myself in a similar situation, I would have consulted an attorney by now. I urge you to do the same.
Sincerely,
Cameron Gundersen
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: April 4, 2011 8:51:28 PM PDT
To: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hi Cameron,
I surely meant no offense to you in saying that people become institutionalized in their thinking (after all, most of the corporations I'm aware of wouldn't want or keep us any other way).
If, following your termination, you were told by one of your colleagues, "the case is clearcut: they had no basis for dismissing you, as you met the formal qualifications. ... All this is obvious," I have no doubt that you would think you had compelling grounds to proceed.
Last year I was told by the UCOP the position I'm in, vis-à-vis any information I might want to hear from faculty in the university: "Be advised that no further action will be taken by UCLA or the Office of the President on your concerns and that the issues that were adjudicated and resolved over 10 years ago will not be revisited."
Which inescapably brings us back to this serious question regarding professors' apparent inability to exercise their academic freedom: Why have several UCLA faculty members made compelling (and damning) conclusions on my termination, but this faculty has not taken any action on these conclusions? And relatedly, why would UCLA faculty ask that an outside organization (FIRE) try to compel the university's faculty members to do their job? (To answer your question, FIRE offered me no recommendations and/or assistance concerning my termination.)
Certainly as a scientist you are bound by your profession (and scientific integrity) to speak up when you find data leading you to conclude that a stated research outcome is incorrect/improper. That is, you cannot then defend your silence by saying that it is not your responsibility to look into this case because the burden rests on the researchers involved whose job it is to ensure that the data are correct. (I strongly suspect that any scientist taking this stance wouldn't last long in the field.)
In any case, when faculty members do not reach across their campus to assist one another in righting the inevitable wrongs of the university's administration ("the 'executive' branch"), we're no longer dealing with a university.
And as I said before, my termination could provide you and other UCLA faculty members with an excellent test case for your academic freedom, given that the UCOP has said that no further action will be taken by UCLA—which means you and your colleagues—even before you and your colleagues have seen this case. That is, when your "executive branch" says that no further action will be taken by you before you've done anything at all, you've surely got compelling grounds to proceed—straight to the AF committee.
Many thanks again for your willingness to put time and thought into this matter.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: April 1, 2011 8:28:15 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
Look, as part of the ossification I may have suffered from my years at UCLA, I’ve also come to realize that there are places where I just have to agree to disagree. In this instance, I feel it is not the responsibility of the AF committee to look into cases where there may have been a procedural screw up involving communication between the faculty and the administration (in this case, vis a vis your academic record). Rather, the burden rests on the faculty involved whose job it is to ensure that the administration’s record is correct. So, again, I urge you to contact your advisor/division head about this.
But, I’m also more than willing to entertain contrary arguments. It’s just that I have not found compelling grounds to proceed. As I suggested before, I have considerable respect for the folks at FIRE, and they still may be willing to help you resolve this matter. They also may be able to make a more convincing case for a violation of your academic freedom. I thought they were pretty forceful in responding to UCLA’s demand that you shut down your website. Sorry if I missed it, but what was their recommendation concerning the original problem??
Sincerely,
Cameron Gundersen
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: March 31, 2011 5:26:05 PM PDT
To: Cameron Gundersen <cgundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Hello Cameron,
Thank you for your efforts here.
I think what happens is that "after many years of experience in seeing how this institution operates," those inside are themselves institutionalized in their thinking—and I don't mean this as a jab at you. What I mean is that if you were able to step out of this thinking (and able to put yourself in my shoes, perhaps), you'd likely be astonished by much of what you've written here, and perhaps even more astonished by what you're acknowledging, and therefore allowing, among the lines in your message.
For instance, you write that you are "extremely perplexed at their [my advisor and division head's] reluctance to provide further support," and that "it really was incumbent on the faculty" to provide this support, and that "their failure to do so remains a puzzle." You go on to say that it appears to you that "they dropped the ball on this matter," because it was "their responsibility to see to it that the administration handled things properly." What you didn't write, for instance, is that faculty members don't appear to you to have failed to carry out their responsibilities and that in this case it doesn't look to you that anyone dropped the ball or that the administration failed to handle things properly. In short, you didn't write that as far as you can determine from what you've seen here, there are no puzzling facts, actions, and/or circumstances in this case.
As I said earlier, I've been trying for some time "to find out why they dropped the ball," but I haven't received any explanations for this extremely "puzzling" student termination decision (to borrow one of your words). In fact, I'm simply not in a position to obtain this information from apparently unwilling faculty members, who've nonetheless already produced these documents and statements plainly showing that this termination was highly problematic at best and likely illegal at worst (given that my advisor does make a reference to "due process?" in his letter to the Ombudsman). However, UCLA faculty members (like you) are not only in a position to ask about this student termination; they also have a "responsibility to see to it that the administration [has] handled things properly," at all times—i.e., this much is just part of their work at this public university.
You also write of an apparent "reluctance on the part of your mentor and possibly some diffidence on the part of the ombuds office." Again, keeping in mind that the individuals in these positions are dealing here with the severest decision UCLA can make against a student, your characterization of this apparent behavior itself points to a crucial failure by UCLA in this case. In other words, we should be astonished that we're even acknowledging "reluctance" and "diffidence" on the part of these faculty/administrators when it comes to a student termination decision—unless, of course, we're to accept that student termination decisions (and hence, students) just don't merit attention, and adherence, to facts and UCLA's own academic codes and principles.
At the end, your message shows that you're wrongly conflating two very different things: workplace duties/responsibilities and academic freedom. I agree with you that professors are exercising academic freedom when they take this or that position on many given issues; however, it is certainly not an exercise of their academic freedom when faculty members fail to carry out their duties and responsibilities set forth in the University's Faculty Code of Conduct. That is, faculty members surely cannot even hope to argue that they chose not to follow these codes (i.e., "go to bat," to use your expression) in the case of a student termination because "they are/were (tacitly) exercising their academic freedom in this matter." This much is absurd on its face.
On my website I quote well-known educator, Paulo Freire: "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." Yet given the Regents of the University of California is indeed an extremely powerful corporation (and this student is powerless), it appears that you are doing just that when you end your message by saying, "At this point, I'm not going to question their [faculty members'] judgment in this matter." In fact, your message is nothing if not a huge questioning of their judgment; indeed, you are surely questioning their judgment when you write that you are "extremely perplexed at their reluctance to provide further support," and that "their failure to do so remains a puzzle."
I trust that if you were terminated from UCLA, you wouldn't sit quietly with the UCLA faculty members' judgments found on my website, and now in your message. And over these many years I've never been able to see how my sitting quietly with these many troubling faculty judgments on my termination somehow strengthens this valuable public university. To the contrary, it should be clear to all of us that our allowing this student termination to go unexamined not only weakens the positions of all within UCLA—faculty and students—it also further emboldens this public university to abuse its power in a way that resembles that of other powerful private corporations: "weeding out people who might threaten them" (to borrow Chomsky's words).
This public university cannot thrive in your silence. Therefore, I urge you to speak up—not on my behalf, but on behalf of crucial facts and UCLA's own academic and ethical principles, without which UCLA surely cannot properly function.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
Ps. Alas, your encouraging me to contact FIRE shows that you've overlooked more crucial documents (and pages) found on my website. You might want to take a look at them.
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: March 28, 2011 9:26:02 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
I know that some of what I’m about to write is going to sound like a “dodge” to you, but after many years of experience in seeing how this institution operates, it’s my humble appraisal of where some key issues remain:
1) Your mentor and division head: I am extremely perplexed at their reluctance to provide further support. As I mentioned before, had this situation unfolded for one of my students, I’d have pursued this problem via every avenue available. Indeed, it really was incumbent on the faculty in Education to carry this torch. Their failure to do so remains a puzzle. It might behoove you to find out why they dropped the ball on this matter. You were their student and consequently it was their responsibility to see to it that the administration handled things properly. If they failed to follow through, you should find out from them why they decided not to act.
2) Ombuds office: I apologize if I missed the documentation of their involvement; I had recalled seeing some reference to ombuds involvement, but then when I was composing the note to you, a cursory check to the documents you posted did not readily refresh my memory. Regardless, I still think that they should have been more pro-active, and as I mentioned earlier, I know of instances where they have been very effective in resolving disputes. Of course, there no doubt are effective personnel in the ombuds office and others who are not effective. You may have gotten a lemon, or you just slipped through the cracks. Regardless, if your original ombuds officer did not provide you with a satisfactory resolution, it was entirely within your rights to request that your case be assigned to someone else. Again, I’m surprised that your advisor did not push this avenue, too. After all, as a faculty member, I have had problems with the administration where I have sought and received help from the ombuds office. Your advisor should have been working shoulder-to-shoulder with you on this. Concerted efforts by you, your mentor and the ombuds office should have worked. Yes, the administration can be implacable, but if they had been confronted with a sustained effort by your mentor and the ombuds office, you should have gotten to the bottom of this matter. Again, this points to reluctance on the part of your mentor and possibly some diffidence on the part of the ombuds office.
3) Legal: Yes, I realize that employing a lawyer is a costly option, and certainly not a first choice for a student. At the same time, there are organizations that provide pro bono legal advice, and that would certainly have been worth investigating. In this context, I’d now encourage you to contact the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.com). They might be able to offer advice.
Academic freedom: Just to keep the field level, the faculty SHARE governance of the University (with the administration) and our roles are pretty well codified. Thus, we (faculty) can recommend that the administration take certain actions (for instance, we can recommend that students be accepted into programs, that new faculty be hired or that curriculum changes be adopted). But, the administration then makes its decisions independently. In the vast majority of circumstances, the administration will hew to faculty recommendations. But, there can be cases where the administration deviates. In those circumstances, if the faculty feel that the administration has acted incorrectly, they can and should seek redress. But, the administration remains the “executive” branch. Thus, in your case, your mentor and your division head were the folks to go to bat. If they chose NOT to go to bat, there may be reasons that they deferred. In point of fact, they are/were (tacitly) exercising their academic freedom in this matter. This is where I mentioned to you earlier that there can be sticky issues. At this point, I am not going to question their judgment in this matter. You can and perhaps should.
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cameron Gundersen
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: March 27, 2011 7:18:02 PM PDT
To: Cameron Gundersen <cgundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Dear Cameron,
Many thanks for the time and considerations you put into your reply. I'll do my best here to respond to each of your thoughts, queries, and inferences.
It has never been clear to me (nor has anyone ever made clear to me) why my advisor and division head did not advocate more strongly to review this termination given the facts they had at their disposal at the time. As you can see from the documents, they did in fact recommend my reinstatement and a review of the termination decision; and, as you can see from the Kathleen Komar email document, the Graduate Division (i.e., Kathleen Komar) responded that there would be neither a review of the termination decision, nor my reinstatement; again, based on the written policy that there is no review of a student termination based on an insufficient GPA—which of course puts the matter back into the obvious, and obviously unethical, the catch-22 described on the website. It appeared to me at the time that once Kathleen Komar sent that 3/9/97(!) email to my advisor, he simply stopped his efforts; indeed, I clearly recall going to his office to speak with him shortly thereafter and his politely but resolutely ending this attempt to engage him again on the matter: he stood in the space of his half-opened office door and in a few words simply said there was nothing more he could do, and then he shut the door (though it might be worth bearing in mind that by this time he and I had already been pushing on this matter for over five months, and during this time [redacted]). That was the last time I spoke with him. I sent several emails to him in the few years following that time, but I never got a reply.
I, too, would very much like to know if there were other factual issues that precluded further action on the part of my advisor and/or my division head. Indeed, I've never understood how it is that a tenured UCLA faculty member can apparently stop such efforts after writing to his advisee that he would be willing to argue that his advisee had been made to pay with his academic career for departmental error, professor and university disorganization, and carelessness by whoever issues the dismissal notice, "for their failure to verify the situation." (You can find this document on the website.)
In fact, my division head revisited the case in 2005, at the request of another faculty member, Robert Brenner, whom I had contacted a year earlier regarding my termination. They both examined the available materials ("in excruciating detail," in the words of Brenner) and made their conclusions, which are there on the website's homepage: "This [termination] is a wrong to right," as Val Rust, my then-division head put it, nine years after my termination. Brenner stated that the case was "clear-cut: they had no basis for dismissing you, as you met the formal qualifications. . . . All this is obvious."
So your question can be restated to more accurately reflect more recent facts and circumstances in this case: Why have UCLA faculty members made statements concluding that my termination from UCLA was improper, but these statements have apparently not led to any faculty action (as surely as this termination decision still stands today)? Of course, this question is not properly directed at me; rather, it's to be directed at these faculty members by other faculty members, merely as an exercise of governance of their university, as this right to governance is set forth in the UCLA Faculty Code of Conduct.
Your question on why the Ombudsman's Office was not involved indicates, unfortunately, an apparently cursory look at crucial documents on the website. My advisor and division head's 12/16/96 letter to the Ombudsman is found there, wherein they write that "[m]ore importantly, neither of us had been asked for any background information on Mr. Wilde's case. Nor apparently was much effort taken to verify the apparent facts of Mr. Wilde's academic record. Incompletes that had been cleared were listed as Fs and no enquires about their real status or about the student's general progress were made." They end with, "We would like to know whether there is any rapid intervention that you can instigate that makes it possible for him to regain his student status pending a review of his case."
What I can add here is that their letter led to my meeting with the Ombudsman a few weeks after they sent it, during that year's Christmas break. (Had I gone into that meeting knowing the actual function of a university Ombudsman—as opposed to his advertised function—I would have known to wear a wiretap. I'd happily recount some of my vivid recollections of this meeting upon request.) As it was, we went round and round for a time, and ended by his telling me that he would follow up with my advisor. My advisor later told me that he never got a response from the Ombudsman to his letter or this meeting. Accordingly, the point you make at the end of your message is, I agree, crucial: Why was there no apparent follow-up and/or further action taken by the Ombudsman's Office? For a least two more months following this meeting I was engaged in discussions with my advisor, division head, and a few other faculty members who'd been part of the the termination decision; yet the Ombudsman was apparently allowed to disappear from view. I would add now that the Academic Senate's reply to my submission to this office does, in my view of the facts, provide some important leads to help answer your question about the functioning (or lack thereof) of the Ombudsman's Office.
It would have taken a more careful reading of the documents on the website to know that I tried my hand at the legal route, "pro se" as it's called. (As you might surmise, a freshly terminated student with no money doesn't present himself as the most attractive client to attorneys, especially when the foe is as formidably armed as the corporation known as The Regents of the University of California. All the same, I made real efforts in this regard, but it's only retrospectively that I can see how futile they were.) My 1/17/2000 letter to then-Graduate Division Dean Claudia Mitchell-Kernan, found on the website, allows you to understand how I approached the matter, and the outcome.
There's an apparent misunderstanding here on the issue of academic freedom, and perhaps a misreading of what's meant by "the secular priesthood." But rather than put still more length onto this message, I'll just make a point to one of your own and then conclude with how and why I think academic freedom has been drawn into this case. Thankfully indeed are "faculty the sole arbiters of what goes into educational programs and what constitutes satisfactory progress"; the alternatives, which you offer, would spell the demise of the university's stated mission and throw us all back into the dark ages. Therefore, since we're in wholehearted agreement on this point, here's how and why I see academic freedom as an issue in this case, put into the simplest questions I know how to formulate:
1. How is it that UCLA faculty members have concluded from the facts available to them that "this [student termination] is a wrong to right" (to take just one of their statements), yet I remain terminated from UCLA?
2. Why haven't UCLA's own faculty members gathered to govern their university (as is their right) when it appears from their own colleagues' conclusions from the facts of this case that the UCLA administration is improperly and/or unethically terminating a student?
I myself know of no other way to explain the answers to these two straightforward questions except by saying that faculty members are afraid to exercise academic freedom when it comes to actually gathering to govern how the university terminates students, and actually intervening (as a governing body) to right the wrong that one of their colleagues has brought to their attention—via me and my website. (Indeed, there's deep [and extremely dangerous] irony in a public university's professor's refusal to speak out when this public university has made a student termination decision that he [though not alone] has concluded is "a wrong to right.")
Finally, I strongly suspect that if you were thrown out of your academic career and one of your superiors then told you that your termination was "a wrong to right," you too would put some significant time and energy into working to bring the university's faculty to right this wrong.
Many thanks again for the time and thought you've already given to this matter. And of course I'm here to answer questions and/or provide further information as I'm able to.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
[contact information deleted]
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: March 27, 2011 2:40:33 PM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
Here is my initial read on the situation: while I certainly appreciate your frustration with the evolution of this process, I am perplexed by several developments and I am sanguine about the “academic freedom” component of this matter. Here are my thoughts, queries and inferences:
First, it is not clear to me why your advisor and the divisional head did not advocate more strongly on your behalf at the time this was originally happening. Were their efforts as circumscribed as indicated on your web page, and were there other factual issues that precluded their further advocacy on your behalf? Just for the record, if I were the mentor of a student who had been dismissed in the fashion you describe, I would have left no rock unturned in ensuring that the student was re-instated. I would not have stopped at one measly letter. Thus, I’m perplexed why they appeared to drop this matter. If they made further efforts on your behalf, why were they rebuffed?
Second, I would have thought that the ombuds office should have been consulted and I am quite confident that they would have acted on your behalf to correct what you are presenting as essentially a clerical error. A major function of the ombuds office is to resolve such matters, which as you clearly recognize can bedevil large bureaucracies. I realize that you put stock in other efforts to rectify the situation, but it is unclear to me why you did not solicit help from the ombuds office. If I were to encounter a case like this today, my first recommendation would be to approach the ombuds office. Can you explain why they were not involved?
Third, given that this appears to be, at least from your description, a rather vexing instance of an administrative catch-22 that precluded you from reversing the dismissal, did you ever consider seeking legal advice? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if UCLA’s rules are written in a way that prevents you from appealing a very devastating outcome, it may be that a lawyer could have served as a better advocate for you either in discussions with the administration, or elsewhere. Have you gotten any formal legal advice on this matter?
Then, in the context of academic freedom, my take on this matter is that academic freedom cuts on both sides of this case, but it is a peripheral issue. Remember that one of the key components of academic freedom is that it makes the faculty the sole arbiters of what goes into educational programs and what constitutes satisfactory progress (at the same time, if you try to imagine who else besides faculty should do this job, the alternatives are NOT pretty; you chastise the “secular priesthood”, but would you prefer to have these decisions made by administrators? politicians? real priests?). Faculty also then report to the administration concerning student progress. It is the role of the administration to chart this progress. Your argument is that the administration failed in its role to keep abreast of developments regarding your academic progress. This is a technical issue that has very little to do with academic freedom. The very tenuous argument is that your dismissal prevented you from continuing your studies. But, unless there are issues that I missed, your dismissal was not based on arguments that involve academic freedom. Rather, there appear to have been procedural issues that fall perfectly within the purview of the ombuds office. Although you may be reluctant to believe this, I am aware of numerous instances in which the UCLA ombuds office has resolved matters similar to yours. If their services were not enlisted, then I think this was a grave oversight on your part. If they were enlisted and failed, I’d be very curious to know why they failed.
Sincerely,
Cameron Gundersen
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: March 25, 2011 9:38:46 AM PDT
To: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: UCLA
Dear Cameron,
Thanks for your message.
I'll add here another bit to throw into your cogitations: "Be advised that no further action will be taken by UCLA or the Office of the President on your concerns and that the issues that were adjudicated and resolved over 10 years ago will not be re-visited." This quote was taken from a message I received about a year ago from Director of Investigation, John Lohse, at the UCOP's Office of Ethics, Compliance & Audit Services. (His message, along with my messages to his office, are posted on my website.)
Indeed, this bit from the UCOP should allow you and your colleagues to test "the breadth of the academic freedom umbrella" there, as it seems to me that Lohse's message means that the University of California itself will now simply tell its faculty members to shut up if they start to ask around about the facts of this student termination. Of course you'd have to try this to find out for sure—but a try that would, in my mind, be very worthwhile for any faculty member interested in academic freedom at the UC.
And yes, I fully agree with you that there are instances where conflicts arise that do not offer clear-cut solutions. All the same, my guess is that if you were thrown out of your academic career and your colleagues then provided you with the statements found on my website's homepage ("This [termination] is a wrong to right," for one), you'd likely want to raise your voice in an effort to gather people around to examine the facts of your termination.
I'll look forward to your reply at your convenience.
Thanks again,
Tom Wilde
From: "Gundersen, Cameron" <CGundersen@mednet.ucla.edu>
Date: March 25, 2011 8:05:23 AM PDT
To: 'Tom Wilde' <email address deleted>
Subject: RE: UCLA
Hi Tom,
Give me a couple days to look into this and I’ll get back to you. I have been having some rather animated discussions with my colleagues regarding the breadth of the academic freedom umbrella, and although I subscribe to a rather liberal view, there are instances where conflicts arise that do not offer clear-cut solutions. Thus, I may need a little time to cogitate on this, but if you’ve not heard from me by next Monday, please send me a gentle reminder.
Thanks,
Cameron Gundersen
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: March 24, 2011 6:40:07 PM PDT
To: cgundersen@mednet.ucla.edu
Subject: UCLA
Dear Cameron Gundersen,
About a year ago I sent you an email concerning my termination from UCLA (see forwarded message below).
Since that time, I've added documents to the website mentioned there, and I think these documents should interest you.
Specifically, I've posted my email exchanges with three eminent scholars from the University of California: UC Berkeley's Ben Bagdikian, UC Irvine's Erwin Chemerinsky, and UCLA's Carlos P. Otero. A quick Google search with their names followed by "email" will take you to these documents, or you can quickly find the webpage with: "The University of California and The Secular Priesthood"
I've also posted my email exchange with the University of California Office of Ethics, Compliance & Audit Services, which operates under the University of California Office of the President (UCOP). Another quick Google search with "UCOP email" will take you to the document; or you can find the webpage with: "The University of California Office of the President as The Wizard of Oz"
And nationally recognized education historian Diane Ravitch sent me a few lines, which I've also posted along with my response. A search with "Diane Ravitch email" will quickly bring it up.
To find these documents, you can also go straight to the website: ucla-weeding101.info
Through the case of my termination from UCLA, I hope you'll be able to better understand how this vital public university system is operating—in your name—and that how the University of California terminates its students is of central importance to us all.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom Wilde <email address deleted>
Date: February 16, 2010 6:56:11 AM PST
To: cgundersen@mednet.ucla.edu
Subject: UCLA
Dear Cameron Gundersen,
I am sending you and other colleagues in your department an open letter I recently sent to UCLA Vice Chancellor & Dean of Graduate Studies, Claudia Mitchell-Kernan. The contents of the letter will hopefully allow you to understand why I think sending you this letter is necessary, but I'll make a few remarks here that I think are pertinent to all UCLA faculty members.
I believe the facts of my termination from UCLA's Graduate School of Education & Information Studies indicate that UCLA faculty members are not aware of how UCLA is operating in one of its central functions—in their names. I believe these facts also show that faculty members who are aware of how the university is functioning when terminating a student either cannot or will not participate in the governance of their university in this case, though their right to engage in this governance is set forth in UCLA's Faculty Code of Conduct.
More importantly, this case now appears to raise an especially serious issue of academic freedom at UCLA. That is, when a few faculty members conclude from the facts in this case that I was wrongly terminated from the university and I nonetheless remain terminated, the freedom of all UCLA faculty members to pursue facts and adhere to academic principles is called into serious question.
I urge you to read my letter to the UCLA Vice Chancellor and Dean. I also urge you to examine the pages and documents on the website mentioned in this letter: ucla-weeding101.info. I created this site (with some pages still under construction) to offer the case of my termination to UCLA faculty members as well as to the public supporting this university. And of course I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about this case.
Sincerely,
Tom Wilde
Note: the attachment is a pdf.; if you cannot open it, the letter can be read on the website.
| |