Women's Voices (or: Why I'm posting my stories, Part 2)

In the summer of 2017, a long screed written by a twenty-something Google employee was getting much more press coverage than it deserved. It seemed to me that the writer hadn't studied or understood the issue of why there aren't many women in tech in sufficient depth to warrant such massive media attention.

Over the years, books and articles by scholars who thought deeply about the subject were not getting the media attention they deserved. It looked to me as if the media tended to ignore the voices of women who knew more, in favor of rehashing provocative claims, stereotypes, and musings of random people. It fed a harmful "outrage culture."

Each time the media promoted a dubious claim about the superiority of men, women in STEM scrambled to rebut it.

Repeatedly debunking discredited theories feels like whack-a-mole. We have better things to do with our time.

Why do I post my stories? For many years I've documented some of the interesting things I've observed, and told them to friends and colleagues. Some of the information could be helpful in understanding a piece of the history of places such as Harvard, Princeton, Ohio State University, the University of Cambridge, and the University of California, and perhaps academia in general (or at least math departments). I don't want my stories to be forgotten when I die.

Writing about and posting some of what I've learned and seen seems more useful than fuming about misplaced priorities of the media.

People can choose what to read. I hope that people will read my stories and essays and, rather than feeling outrage, ask "What can I learn from this? How can I use it to make things better?" 

The Cheating University Strikes Back

This post is the last in my series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"

The Cheating University Strikes Back

The Dean who hired me lured me to UCI with various promises, including that I would receive University of California health coverage during my retirement "at no cost".

When I looked into taking early retirement because my hostile work environment was affecting my health, no-cost health coverage didn't seem to be an option.

I met with the Faculty Retirement Liaison (who was a science professor), and I showed him the Dean's 2004 email. The Liaison's advice was that I contact the relevant Vice Provost. The Liaison told me that a commitment from the Dean is a commitment from the university. He said I'm entitled to rely on a university official, the Dean is a university official, the university will agree with that, and it would stand up in court. But start out low key; you don't want them to call in the lawyers, since life becomes hell after that. Worst case scenario? Nothing happens. They won't retaliate against you.

I met with the Vice Provost. She was friendly. When I said I wanted reassurance that UCI would honor a commitment it made to me when it recruited me, she said something about things changing. I pointed out that if the Dean had written, "of course, this might change" I wouldn't be there asking her this.

She asked what I'll do after retirement. I told her I would continue doing my research. She said cheerily, "But you won't have to teach." I told her I like to teach, but I was thinking about retiring early since the bullying and sexism were making me physically ill, and had reached a level where it wasn't tolerable; I shouldn't have to put up with that sort of treatment. She replied, "I know".

I repeated my statement in various forms, trying to get an appropriate reaction from her, such as contrition, or regret that the university hadn't done its job, but that never happened. She made it clear that she knew about everything I was telling her, and she agreed it's awful.

She asked if I'll stay around Irvine after I retire. I told her about invitations to semester-long programs at the Simons Institute and MSRI in Berkeley. She said that hopefully I'll be treated better there. I was astonished, and gave a confused look. She explained that since I was being invited to Berkeley, they must want me, so hopefully they'll treat me better than here. Was that an admission that they don't want me here?

What shocked and upset me most was that she never said she regretted not having done anything to help, and she expressed no sense of responsibility for the administration's inaction, even though she had known there were serious problems that were at an intolerable level. She seemed to think I was wise to leave. She didn't say that UCI should try to mend a hostile climate.

I had given them plenty of opportunities to fix the problems, and they refused to take them.

I wiped tears from my eyes as she escorted me out.

About the request that UCI honor the commitment, she asked me to send her my relevant correspondence with the hiring Dean so she could run it past the lawyers. In my short cover letter I reminded her that I had had many competing offers with attractive salaries and perks. Promises from the Dean were material in my turning down those attractive offers to instead go to UCI. In addition, the Dean, in his email, used UCI's "generous" retirement system perks to convince me that a lower salary from UCI was comparable to my higher offers elsewhere. I reminded her of the urgency due to retirement deadlines that she had set.

Her denial of my request came five weeks later, in an email that the Retirement Liaison agreed came across as cold, with a disappointing lack of empathy, sympathy, or apology.

Had I known how I would be treated at UCI, I would have gone elsewhere.

The Retirement Liaison offered to talk with the Vice Provost to attempt to resolve the conflict. He told me later that the Vice Provost immediately accepted his phone call and they had an extended conversation.

When I met with him afterwards, he pointed out that university administrators treat him well; he doesn't get the sort of treatment I described getting. I didn't really need him or the Vice Provost to remind me that I don't get treated well at UCI.

The Retirement Liaison suggested wording I could use to pursue the issue. I reminded him that he told me that a commitment from the Dean is a commitment from the university, and no one would give serious disagreement to that. I asked if I could say he told me that. He told me not to use his name. He said that he doesn't make a clear distinction, even in his own mind, of what he's saying in his official capacity, and what he's saying in an unofficial or private capacity. He had spoken to me in an unofficial capacity.

I reminded him that I had gone to him in his official capacity, based on the Dean's email to all faculty saying what the Faculty Retirement Liaison's official role was. (Before our first meeting, he and I were total strangers. He told me he was officially appointed to that job by the Provost.) I had sat across from him, holding a pad of paper and a pen, and he saw me taking extensive notes while he spoke, especially about a commitment from the Dean being a commitment from the university. I had assumed everything he told me was in his official capacity. I was disappointed that he was nervous about my using his name.

If he were worried about retaliation, should I be? He had told me I shouldn't, and he reiterated that point.

I mentioned that I've been posting stories about my experiences at UCI, and this seemed like a story worth posting. He said something like, "Well, then they will retaliate against you for that!" Astonished by the quick about-face, I pointed out that I generally write about things I can prove or document, and it didn't seem fair (or legal) to retaliate when I tell true stories.

I asked how I'm viewed by the Vice Provost. He said, "persistent". He seemed to be having trouble finding a diplomatic way to say more, so I offered "stickler for the rules?" and he agreed. Curious, I asked what he would have said if I hadn't offered that. He replied "non-compromising," but said that word wasn't right. He added that I have a "literal interpretation," and that most good scientists do.

Looking up the leadership chain

This post is the next-to-last post in a series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"

Looking up the leadership chain 

On August 9, 2018, based on rumors that the Dean of the School of Physical Sciences was planning to step down in a year, I emailed the Provost:

I wanted to let you know of my interest in serving on the next search committee for Dean of the School of Physical Sciences.  I feel that I have ideas, perspective, and experience that would be useful on the committee.  I hope that you will keep me in mind to serve.  Thank you.

He wrote back:

 

Thank you for your email, Alice; we are still early but will keep it in mind,  best regards,  e

Another senior woman in the department also asked to serve on the Dean search committee. Neither of us was chosen, while much more junior men were.

When the names of the 15 committee members were announced, the math department had less representation than any other department in the School, was the only department with no women on the committee, and the 1.5 FTE representation from the math department was all in math biology. The Equity Advisor told me she was not consulted about representation on the Dean search committee, and that many people had concerns about the process.

I eventually emailed the Provost:

I was wondering if you would be willing to share with me your reasons for not appointing me to the Dean Search committee. Feedback and information are always helpful! Thanks.

A couple of days later he replied:

Dear Alice,

 

When assembling a search committee, my office sends a potential list of names to the Senate for those who we are considering. The Senate then sends us an independent list of nominees.

 

For the final list, we select some from each group with an eye toward making sure the committee has broad expertise and both gender and ethnicity balance. There were many outstanding potential committee candidates to represent the school (like yourself) who were not included due to the limited number of slots since the larger the committee, the more unwieldy it becomes.

 

I want to assure you that you were not purposefully excluded.  I hope that you will provide input to the committee regarding the candidates for dean, as your views are very important in their deliberations.

 

Sincerely,

e

That evening I attended a dinner for Distinguished Professors on the grounds of the official Chancellor's house. While we were standing around eating hors d'oeuvres before dinner, the Provost initiated a conversation with me by saying that I'll get an email reply from him about why he didn't choose me for the Dean Search committee. He didn't realize that someone had already sent it for him. I said it wasn't that I had to be on the committee, it's that many people in the School had concerns over the composition of the committee.  He kept saying that they need to balance gender, field diversity, etc., and I pointed out that the math department's representation on the committee in no way succeeded in doing that. We argued about other recent problems in the department. The conversation soon degenerated into the Provost getting annoyed with me and belittling me.

The other senior woman who had asked to be on the Dean Search committee was nearby, and I invited her into the conversation. She repeated what I had said. The Provost repeated what he had told me and (a bit angrily, it seemed to me) told us we were wrong about the math department issues.

Eventually, I calmly but directly told the Provost that I didn't see the point in staying somewhere where I wasn't valued or taken seriously or listened to. I said that we were trying to help, and tell him about things he didn't know, and to make sure that he talked more widely to people and learned the facts. I said it would be nice if he approached it as "What can I learn from this?" rather than just telling us that we're wrong.

Although at dinner I was seated at the same table as the Chancellor, I didn't think that was an appropriate time or place to bring up the contentious issues that we had discussed with the Provost. But on the receiving line as I was leaving, when I had him alone, I told the Chancellor that there are problems with the math department, things have gotten really bad (hostile climate, bullying, etc.), I decided I shouldn't have to put up with it so I'm considering taking early retirement, and other female math faculty were unhappy and were thinking about leaving. He sounded legitimately concerned. I told him I had mentioned it to the Provost and he hadn't taken it well.

The Chancellor asked if I had talked to the Chair. I said that the Chair, the Dean, and the Dean's office were part of the problem. He asked if I had talked to the Title IX folks. I said that I had gotten advice from several people one reports things to, and it was uniformly "never go to them; it will take over your life". Given the choice of that or retiring, it seemed easier to retire. He said that there were other routes that didn't require going through the OEOD reporting process. He'd ask around and let me know.

I emphasized that I didn't want to cause trouble, I just wanted to help and make things better. He said that he understood that.

I told the Chancellor that I wanted to make sure he knew about the problems and had a chance to do something about them. I didn't want him/them to find out later and say "But you should have told us. We didn't know."

I went back to the Chancellor's house the next night, as a plus-one at a dinner for Endowed Chairs. I was seated at the Provost's table. The Provost spent the entire dinner in a private conversation with a donor and the donor's wife. He never opened it up to a conversation with the whole table. It came across to me as extremely rude.

In the notes I sent myself, I wrote that the only thing that the Provost's behavior those two nights seemed consistent with is that he was feeling disaffected, either because things weren't going well for him at UCI or in some other aspect of his life, or because he was on his way out to a position elsewhere. His behavior was not normal for someone in his position, towards faculty at an official event. (Indeed, within a year the Provost was made to step down "pending an investigation by external authorities ... related to [his] academic and research activities." Despite UCI's being a public university, no further information has been made public to this day. I don't know whether the Provost knew he was under investigation at the time of those dinners.)

On that night's receiving line, I told the Chancellor that after thinking about it, I believed it would be good to talk to him directly. He said he didn't think that was possible; there are channels one has to go through. I said that's part of the problem. He said something vague about the Vice Provost.

He added that if I didn't hear anything in several months I could get back to him.

I reminded him that I might be retired by then.

Much to my shock, he replied, "that's OK."

Hot Potato

This post is the thirteenth post in a series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"

Hot Potato

Jocelyn Bell Burnell gave a Women in Science talk in a large auditorium at UCI on March 14, 2019.

In the Q&A, someone asked the moderator (a UCI physicist) what UCI was doing to counter the discrimination against women in science. The moderator said she'd hand it off to the experts, and quickly handed the mic to the Equity Advisor for the School of Physical Sciences. The Equity Advisor worriedly said it's an institutional question. She ran over to the Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, who was seated in the front row, and handed him the mic. 

It looked like a game of hot potato. 

The Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion stood up, faced the audience, and gave a variant of his usual spiel that came across to me as meaningless public relations for UCI (my contemporaneous notes used a less flattering term for it).

I turned to K and asked him if I should raise my hand and say that UCI has a hostile climate and I'm taking early retirement due to the bullying and sexism.

He said he was pretty sure I shouldn't say that.

I raised my hand.

They eventually called on me.

I said, "in response to the question about what UCI is doing, I'm a Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at UCI, having been here for 15 years, with 20 years before that at a different state university. UCI has a serious problem with the climate and it's getting worse. I've been talking to more and more senior women around the campus who say they are considering taking early retirement because they don't feel they should have to put up with what they've been putting up with. This will be a problem for hiring women, since women considering job offers from UCI will talk to the senior women, and after talking to them, they'll go elsewhere. UCI needs to listen to the women. We know what's wrong and how to fix it, and we've been offering you advice and trying to get you to listen, but you aren't listening to us or taking our advice. [If you want to solve the "women in science" problems you're talking about here,] you need to listen to us."

My Dean and Associate Dean were at the far end of the row in front of me, and at least the Associate Dean turned and looked at me as I spoke.

No one offered any follow-up.

I turned to K and said "I was channeling Vera." 

"It's the only thing they'll listen to"

This post is the twelfth post in a series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"

"It's the only thing they'll listen to"

After feeling bullied at the Chair's Advisory Committee meeting, I wondered what to do about it. Recalling my senior colleague's admonition to never take anything outside the department and her complaining about me to the then-Dean, I didn't want to be a snitch. But I was mindful of the Provost's angry accusation, "why didn't you report it?"

The Provost had told me to report things to the Equity Advisor.

When I arrived at UCI, the first Equity Advisor was great (except for forwarding my report of an incident to an unsympathetic colleague without asking me).

The rumor was that the next Equity Advisor got the position since the Dean wanted someone who wasn't going to delay searches to ensure that they're done fairly. The one time I was on the Hiring Committee, that Equity Advisor stood us up when he was supposed to train us about good hiring practices and never rescheduled, so we never got trained. (That meant that I couldn't say "we were told we're not allowed to do that" the many times it should have been said.) He also told me there aren't any good female chemists.

Then there was the period when neither I nor the Dean knew who the Equity Advisor was.

Equity Advisors have told me they have no leverage to get anyone to do anything, especially not the Dean. The Equity Advisors report to the Dean, who makes decisions on their salaries and promotions, so they're unwilling to risk antagonizing him.

Nevertheless, I arranged to meet with the Equity Advisor. I told her about the Chair's Advisory Committee meeting and my chest pains afterwards. I said I was reporting it to her since I'm required to do so, and I wanted to go on record as having reported it so they can't say they didn't know or that I never told them.

I told her that I advise others that when things get so bad that it makes them ill, it's time to get out. I said that I shouldn't have to put up with the hostile environment I was subjected to at UCI, and I would probably need to take early retirement for my health. I felt I was being pushed out.

I added that I knew she couldn't do anything to help. While I think she would have liked to have helped if she could, she agreed that there was nothing she could do (especially since the Dean she reported to didn't like me).

She said that the only thing that might work would be something external, outside the university. That's the only thing they'll listen to.

I asked what she meant. She said the media.

She mentioned a case that I then pointed out involved not just the media but also lawyers. She agreed, and said maybe it was the lawyers who went to the media. She said that the higher administration only cares about the money.

We discussed how at UCI, the people who behave badly and break the rules get rewarded for it, while those of us who do the right thing get punished.

I told her that I drafted an email to the Dean that tried to explain to him how his public mistreatment of me sets a bad example for how to treat women, but I didn't send it since someone who knows the Dean better said that he would react badly and it would do more harm than good. The Equity Advisor said that I was correct not to send it; the Dean would not have reacted well.

She advised me to protect myself.

When I asked her later what other solutions she could suggest, she said to wait until "the leadership changes".

What I found saddest was that she eventually requested confidentiality for everything she said. While I like her and I feel very conflicted about revealing what she told me, my rationalizations for doing so are:

• I didn't promise to keep it confidential.
• The leadership has changed. That Dean and Chair have left the university, and the Provost stepped down (under a cloud whose cause, true to UCI's lack of transparency, has never been explained to the faculty), so it's unlikely she'll be retaliated against.
• I met with the Equity Advisor in her official capacity, not for personal advice. When I do my job and officially report something that I'm required to report, and the people whose job it is to help me can't or won't do so, I shouldn't have to keep that secret.
• The advice she gave me and her fear that the leadership might find out that she gave it are important parts of my story about why I retired early and why I'm disappointed with UCI. A crucial point I want to make is that there is something wrong with a university in which the people I'm supposed to go to to get things fixed are themselves afraid of being retaliated against for the advice they give me.

Codes of Conduct

 This post is the eleventh post in a series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"

Codes of Conduct

When I was hired at UCI, the Dean told me that as a senior hire I would be able to build a group in my area. That didn't happen. I wasn't in the clique that held power in the department. For the most part, I was kept off the important committees.

After requesting year after year to be on the Chair's Advisory Committee, and pointing out at a faculty meeting that I had never been appointed to it, I was finally appointed to that committee by a reluctant department Chair.

The committee didn't meet at all in the fall. Or if it did, I wasn't notified about the meetings. I started to wonder whether it would ever meet.

Eventually, the department Chair asked his Chair's Advisory Committee to meet asap due to "the current state of the department". While the agenda was vague, the need for a meeting arose from very divisive faculty meetings about hiring. 

The math department's committee meetings tended to be poorly run and contentious. I often felt physically ill after faculty meetings. Standard rules for how to run a meeting were almost never followed, leading to chaos and unfairness. I was used to having my comments interrupted, talked over, yelled at, or ignored.

The attendees of the Chair's Advisory Committee meeting were the department Chair, me, and the two other committee members whom I'll call X and Y.

X began the discussion by saying that the solution to the (unspecified) problem is to restrict the faculty mailing list so only certain administrators and staff can post to it. The department Chair added that it was important to have "unity".

After everyone else spoke, I saw my opportunity. I came prepared with a script, which I read.

Taking advantage of the fact that no one had specified what problems we were trying to solve, I identified the current problems as a sense of unfairness and a loss of autonomy.

I suggested that the department meetings use Robert's Rules of Order, which is an efficient way to run meetings, designed to make everyone feel that everyone is treated fairly and has a chance to be heard.

I said it would help if meeting agendas arrived before the meeting, and minutes were sent in a timely manner. That would help us understand what we're voting on before we vote. Good communication, transparency, and equal access to information help people feel that everything is done fairly and not just imposed on them.

If the administration takes away a power usually held by the faculty and imposes its will from the top down (for example by telling us what fields to hire in), or if people get rewarded for not following the rules (e.g., one group bypasses the department and goes straight to the higher administration to get what it wants), that leads to a sense of unfairness and a loss of autonomy.

As I spoke, Y kept interrupting, rather aggressively at times. At his insistence I gave examples of what I meant, and explained words he claimed not to understand.

I also pointed out that some faculty were distressed that the female job candidates were discussed as if they were commodities instead of human beings, and that some felt that it demeaned and belittled the contributions of the women in the department, made us feel unwelcome here, and set a bad example for how women should be discussed and treated. The administration tells the department to hire women. If the way our hiring is done not only leads to a sense of unfairness but also causes the female faculty to feel disrespected, that makes it harder to attract and retain good female faculty.

That point seemed to go in one ear and out the other.

I also conveyed some concerns and solutions that other faculty had told me, and ended with, "We can do better. I believe we're better than that."

This led to a discussion the likes of which I had never seen.

X, Y, and the department Chair identified the problem as our colleague W, and her insubordination. They considered her emails to be "disrespectful" and harmful.

W had been appointed to the Hiring Committee by the department Chair, but had resigned from the Hiring Committee due to what she perceived as inappropriate procedures and decisions, and sexism.

While W and I didn't always agree, we were among the few faculty who stood up to the powerful clique when we felt it behaved unfairly.

I asked for examples of what they meant about W's disrespectful and unacceptable emails so we would have something concrete to talk about, but they didn't give any. I pointed out that W had documented the statements she was challenged on.

The goal of X, Y, and the department Chair seemed to be to shut down W, and shut down opposition to their own agenda. They wanted to be able to tell the department that the four of us unanimously agreed to restrict who could post to the faculty mailing list.

They repeatedly interrupted me when I tried to respond to their questions. The department Chair and Y yelled at me angrily, frustrated because I wasn't agreeing to do what they wanted.

Y said angrily that there have to be "standards of behavior"; there are things that can't be said, and we need to codify it and make clear that people can't say these things.

I asked what he meant by "standards of behavior". He got angry, and tried to deny having said that. I turned to the others for confirmation, since we had all just heard it, but they wouldn't react.

It was clear that they were targeting W and the others who fought against them in the hiring battles. If they had actually been concerned about harmful speech or behavior, they wouldn't have yelled at me the way they did.

I didn't say it out loud, but I felt this was an example of the people in power trying to use a Code of Conduct as a weapon to silence the opposition.

I said that I felt pressured (I would have said "bullied" but I was afraid the word would trigger them) to have my name on a statement to restrict freedom of speech. I said I was not willing to do that. The way to counter speech you don't like is to use your own right to freedom of speech and counter it with more speech. If you don't like what W writes, you could write a rebuttal.

The department Chair (who did not grow up in a democracy) gave this analogy for why we need to obey him: "Trump is President. You may not like it, but he's the President, so you have to do what he says." X and Y responded with silence; they were astute enough to realize that such an argument wasn't going to convince me.

At one point the Chair stared at me so aggressively and for so long, while X was speaking, that I felt threatened. I laughed awkwardly and asked, "Why are you looking at me?" When he didn't reply, I said, "I don't understand. What am I missing? Why are you looking at me like that?" His reply was, "I'm listening to X."

X was more diplomatic than the others. When he noticed that his colleagues' anger wasn't having the desired effect, he turned to me and said, "So can we all agree to restrict the mailing list to [a small list of administrators and staff], and everything would be filtered through them?"

I took a breath. I turned to the department Chair and said that one reason Robert's Rules of Order works so well is that everyone addresses the Chair; there isn't cross-talk, with people interrupting each other. I pointed out that my understanding was that the purpose of the Chair's Advisory Committee was to give advice to the Chair. I was there to give advice to the Chair, and I had done so.

I was glad I had arrived well prepared and stuck to my script; that helped me stay focused and made it harder for them to push my buttons.

But when one of them said it's good that I came with suggestions, and it's good they were written down, he said it in a way that sounded like a threat, as if he planned to take the sheet of paper from me and use it against me. I had to restrain myself from grabbing the sheet so they couldn't take it; I knew that if I did, it would be clear that I was afraid of them, and I instinctively felt that showing fear would make things worse.

Their angry outbursts and interruptions left me feeling bullied and abused. By the meeting's end, my heart was racing and I had chest pains that continued into the next day.

The Rowland Hall Asbestos War

This post is the tenth post in a series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"

The Rowland Hall Asbestos War

It began innocently enough with an email on October 23, 2018 saying that new sprinklers would be installed in my hallway during the week of November 5th through 9th, and "If you have your office in these rooms, Facilities is suggesting that you may want to put away anything on top of your desk that may easily break during that week."

I asked the department manager how to ensure I could use my computer, phone, and printer that week without their getting broken, and he said he'd check with Facilities.

Three days later I pointed out that people in my hallway were getting worried, since the floors already had bubble wrap on them. Did we still have until November 4 to clear our desks?

The reply was an assurance that construction wouldn't begin before November 5. But our worries were well-founded. The work was completed on November 2.

This didn't inspire confidence in either the construction project or the university's communication skills. It was a foreshadowing of things to come.

My office was in a new part of Rowland Hall, the building that housed the Math department and parts of the Chemistry and Physics departments.

The incident led my colleagues to think about things we hadn't quite noticed, but should have. Such as that most of the ceiling tiles in the central (old) part of Rowland Hall's fifth floor had been missing for perhaps a half year or longer. The soft material above the missing tiles was disintegrating and falling down, and looked rather unhealthy.

We had heard about the asbestos debacle at Paris's Jussieu campus and we began to wonder whether the disintegrating fibers we saw above us were asbestos. We learned that "Very small amounts of asbestos can give you mesothelioma. Asbestos workers' families have gotten mesothelioma from the dust the workers brought home on their clothes" and "There is no 'safe' level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber."

After we were informed of the work's "completion", my hallway still had debris that our shoes were grinding into the carpet, and many ceiling panels were still missing. My computer normally sat under what was now three holes in the ceiling, in anticipation of the eventual installation of a sprinkler. To try to keep it safe from surprise construction activity, I moved my computer to a nearly inaccessible corner, which made it hard for me to work.

I asked for an update on when the hallways in the new part of the fifth floor would be put back together. From then on the replies came from higher up, with cc's to people I didn't know.

Taking advantage of the fact that the Building Manager emailed me, I asked him when the ceiling tiles in the old part of the building would be put back, and whether there was any asbestos in the disintegrating stuff that was now exposed.

The reply was "To address your concern there is absolutely no asbestos materials in the new additions that includes the ceiling tiles." "New additions" meant the new wings that housed my office. But I had asked about the old part of the building, not the new additions. And I hadn't asked whether the missing ceiling tiles had asbestos, I had asked whether asbestos was above where those missing tiles used to be, in the material falling on our heads. I pushed him for a direct answer.

His reply began, "To clarify on my previous statement there is no ceiling tiles that contain any asbestos in any part of Rowland Hall.  Over the years there's been many asbestos abatement project.  Where possible, the ACM has either been removed and/or encapsulated." He went on to ensure me that "At no point in this project is any occupants in harms way. All involved parties from the design to performing the work are trained professionals and understand the intent of maintaining the occupants safety in an occupied building." He ended with "If you need further clarification you can call Environmental Health and Safety Services directly and state your concerns. Have a nice day."

His cc list had grown noticeably longer. I went to the Math department manager to get his take on why my question wasn't getting a direct answer. He said that he had noticed the change to a colder tone in the Building Manager's emails. (Curiously, the Building Manager later pointed out to me that P, the supervisor in my earlier story, is his sister.)

Dutifully following the Building Manager's suggestion, I looked up the website for Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S). The only way to communicate with them seemed to be to click on "Report an Injury/Safety Concern" so I did, and I asked whether there is asbestos in Rowland Hall that is now exposed.

The reply from someone at EH&S was: "I have been assigned this investigation. Please contact me at you earliest convenience to discuss."  I left a phone message and wrote her an email asking if there is asbestos in Rowland Hall that was now exposed due to the removal of the ceiling tiles. She replied "There are asbestos containing materials in Rowland Hall".

Since the EH&S representative wanted to meet in person rather than respond by email, we arranged to meet. The Math office manager and I notified people we thought might be interested. On November 15, the EH&S rep met with a sizable group of Math and Chemistry faculty and staff, who expressed ongoing concerns about poor air quality, falling debris, and exposure to harmful substances.

The EH&S rep told us that, as required by law, UCI sends an email to everyone at the beginning of January every year about asbestos in the building. None of us could remember ever receiving such an email (and the following January, we noticed the lack of notification).

Some of us tagged along on a tour of the visible "encapsulated asbestos" above us that was exposed by the removal of the ceiling tiles. The encapsulation was supposed to protect us, but a colleague told me later that it looked to him as if the encapsulation didn't fully cover an asbestos-covered cross beam.

After the meeting some questions remained, which the EH&S rep had promised to follow up on. I sent her an email reminder. Regarding the finite but unknown lifespan of the encapsulant, she replied that the Building Manager "was going to forward this question to UCI Design and Construction Services who led the project to request the product information". (After further requests and no answer, someone told me months later that no one knows how long the encapsulant lasts.) About her promise to provide us with the "Clayton Report" and its updates (a "comprehensive asbestos investigation report" that "has floor plans plotting identified asbestos-containing materials and also lists room numbers and names"), she said I had to make an appointment to go and view them at EH&S the week after Thanksgiving. I felt as if I were being given the runaround.

As the faculty saw and learned more over the next few months, we grew more concerned. 

Some faculty and grad students had to climb over rubble to get to their offices, where they found their desks and floors covered with debris, and confidential student exams taken out of their offices and left in public places, without any warning or notification. Some people noticed large slashes in the plastic tenting that was supposed to protect us. The workmen walked through our hallways in protective gear and respiratory masks, but we had no such protection.

The restrooms were undergoing the most serious-looking asbestos-related construction work. The restroom vents had presumably vented the air to the outdoors before the new wings were added (as buttresses to meet earthquake requirements). These vents now connected the restrooms to the wings. As the Chemistry Department Chair amusingly wrote, "It is vaguely unnerving to be in the men’s room and to be able to hear what is going on in and see into the math hallways. I would imagine that it is no more appealing being on the other side of the goings on in the restrooms." We mathematicians didn't know much about architecture, but we didn't think there should be open vents between a restroom and the hallway our offices were on. After we complained, translucent sheeting was taped over the vents.

We learned by searching the Internet, and not from the university, that access to the restroom ceilings is "prohibited" due to non-encapsulated asbestos. This presumably explained the cryptic warnings attached to plastic sheeting taped around the restroom doors when sprinklers were being installed in the restroom ceilings.

The large plastic tube that funneled air out of the restrooms, along a long corridor, through some propped-open doors, to hang over a balcony before finally sending the restroom air into the open air outside my office window, was unsupervised and could easily be accidentally or intentionally torn.

Colleagues were afraid to spend time in the building.

On January 9, the Dean came to the beginning of a Math department faculty meeting to tell us about pressure "from above" to hire based on "Inclusive Excellence". After the Dean finished, I, at the urging of some colleagues, pointed out some of our health and safety concerns, and I (having warned the Dean before the meeting that I would ask him this) asked if he could have a look at the fifth floor with us that day. The Dean refused. Some colleagues backed me up, but others who had told me they would back me up, didn't. Afterwards, one such junior colleague told me he was shocked by how the Dean completely blew me off; he lost all respect for the Dean at that moment, so he didn't see any point in supporting me publicly. Without thinking, I shot back, "Oh, the Dean has always treated me that way. He has a problem with senior women. That's why I was hoping that some men would back me up. The Dean would respect you more than me, and he might have listened to you."

Some people from the Chemistry department contacted the grad students' Union, which sent off a letter expressing health and safety concerns and asking for greater transparency and better communication. It pointed out that the building occupants weren't notified that the work involved asbestos.

An email that led to even greater concern was sent by the Dean, on January 18, to staff and senior faculty (but not to postdocs, students, new faculty, and other researchers who work, take classes, or have offices in the building). His message read:

Dear Team:

I am passing on the report from the air quality managers regarding the work going on in Rowland Hall. The essence of the report is that the air is being continuously monitored for fibers. So far, the highest reading is a factor of 10 below the recommended maximum. Most of the readings are well below this. I circulated the  report to our air quality faculty members, and they had so suggestions for how the monitoring could be even better.

My understanding is that the fifth floor work should be complete this month.

KCJ

The message did not mention asbestos. One had to open and read the attachment to find out it was an Asbestos Air Monitoring Summary Report for certain dates between December 4 and 28.

The Report was not reassuring. No measurements had been done in the wings in which the mathematicians had offices, or in the restrooms that were connected by open vents to those wings, where unencapsulated asbestos was being disturbed.

On short notice, over a holiday weekend in which mathematicians were flying back from the Joint Mathematics Meetings, a petition to the Dean was signed by 70 members of the math department (including the Chair), the grad students' union, and 7 named union representatives. The petition respectfully asked for additional asbestos air quality monitoring in the areas about which we were especially concerned, and asked that we be given the results in a timely manner. Grad students with few resources offered to chip in for independent air quality monitoring. Fear of asbestos had united a factious Math department.

As the signatures poured in, colleagues noticed that, while the Report claimed that the results "did not exceed" the limit, the data in the Report seemed to contradict that claim. Rather than the highest reading being a factor of 10 below the recommended maximum, as claimed by the Dean, a number of readings were several times over the limit, including one that was 5.5 times the limit. Those high values were around the time that several people had reported tears in the protective plastic, during the week when students were taking their final exams in Rowland Hall. The high fiber levels were measured and known to the contractors on December 7 and 12, but we only found out if we very carefully read the attachment to the Dean's January 18 email.

A student raised concerns on social media and it went viral, causing the university to react. A Chemistry professor responded to a query about it by saying that "the student is absolutely incorrect," the building is safe, and "we literally just got a report from the dean last week on asbestos levels and we are 10x lower than the safety requirements. The student screwed up and is now causing a panic for absolutely no reason. ... If anyone says anything just reassure them that the levels are safe as promised by the dean."

On the other hand, a message to Chemistry students from their Department Chair to assure them that "appropriate safety measure are being taken to prevent exposure to asbestos" pointed out that "The air is being monitored for asbestos fibers, and almost all readings have fallen well below the EPA limits. Although one high reading was recorded outside of a contained area on December 12, when labs were no longer in session, we are confident that all areas outside of the enclosed containment areas are now safe." At least someone was admitting that there were high readings.

In addition to 8 values above the limit, including 2 in hallways "outside of a contained area", there were 4 "overloaded" results, which we learned much later meant that there was such an abundance of particles in the sample that it was rendered unreadable, including at least one in a hallway with "no containment" that we had walked through unawares.

At 1:22 pm on January 22, in reaction to that day's viral social media posts, the Dean sent an email, signed by the Campus Architect and by the Assistant Vice Chancellor for EH&S, and addressed to "Rowland Hall Faculty, Staff, and Students" but not sent to students, postdocs, new faculty, or visitors. The email notified us that there would be "a town hall meeting today in Rowland Hall" from 4 to 5 pm.

This was exactly the time of a job talk that math faculty and grad students were supposed to attend. Since the job candidate was in my field, I certainly couldn't go to the town hall meeting.

Afterwards, I learned that the the person who ran the "town hall meeting" was UCI's Chief Financial Officer and Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration.

A couple of days later the Dean sent out an email that began "The health and safety of the UCI community is of paramount importance. Contrary to recent social media postings about the air quality in Rowland Hall, we want to reassure you that Rowland Hall is safe" and ended "This experience reminded us of the importance of clear and timely communication. Therefore, we have created awebpage dedicated to information about the Rowland Hall Fire Life Safety Improvement project [2] that we will update with new project information as it becomes available." He soon resent it with "[2]" replaced by a link for a Division of Finance and Administration website.

Some of us didn't find it reassuring that our wellness was being handled by the Division of Finance and Administration. (Though perhaps that was better than the Associate Vice Chancellor for Environmental and Facilities Services, who had been promoted to that position soon after being the rude Assistant Dean in the Scene at the Breakfast Lecture in part 9 of my Retaliation story.)

Meanwhile, the Dean hadn't responded to or even acknowledged receiving our petition. I eventually emailed him to ask if he'd received it and whether our requests were being considered. He replied:

Dear Professor Silverberg:

Yes, the letter was received. The campus is responding. As you know, a town hall was organized, and a web page is being created that will have constantly updated information. Yesterday extensive monitoring was performed in public areas and no violations were detected. I believe this new data will be on the web shortly.

Please let me know what other information you would help address your concerns. 

Ken

Later that day he wrote:

Dear Alice:

In addition to my previous, more general response, EHS is preparing a more detailed response with results of specific measurements. They hope to complete that one by tomorrow.

Sincerely,

KCJ

The next day the Assistant Dean (who was the math department manager in my vacuum cleaner and "Alice, Professor X is here" stories, before she was promoted) forwarded me a letter from the Campus Architect and the Assistant Vice Chancellor for EH&S. They said that the ducts between the restrooms and the wings transfer air from the office wings into the restrooms, not the other way around. The translucent plastic temporarily taped over the vents was only a "visual barrier". When some plastic sheeting was reported as torn, it was repaired, and it wasn't a hazard since the air had gone through a HEPA filter. They planned to increase air monitoring and share a summary of the findings. Their response to our request to be sent in a timely manner the results of the specific extra monitoring we had requested was, "We can have our independent consultant meet with you to go over the report results."

Later that day the Assistant Dean emailed me to ask, "What is your opinion about the best way to circulate this information to other people such as those [who signed the petition]?" I replied that I thought the information should be put on a website, and everyone who works in Rowland Hall should be sent a link, and told when new information is posted, and official reports containing full data on all measurements should be posted or sent to the occupants of Rowland Hall promptly, without needing to go elsewhere to find it, or make appointments to see it. I pointed out that some people who work in Rowland Hall hadn't received any of the Dean's emails.

People who worked in Rowland Hall continued to send me concerns they had about things that didn't look right. On February 4, I forwarded someone's concern about a possibly-urgent asbestos exhaust issue, complete with a photo, to the Dean and the Vice Chancellors on the Dean's cc list for them to handle, and reminded them that some of the students and faculty hadn't received any information on where to report problems. Five hours later I got the reply:

Alice,

 

Kelly, Director of Strategy, is working on preparing a response, which should be ready by tomorrow.

 

Best Regards,

 

Ronald S. Cortez, JD, MA

Chief Financial Officer

Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration

I don't know why he thought I would want to hear from a Director of Strategy. In any case, I never got a response from anyone named Kelly. And as far as I know, no one contacted the person with the safety concern to try to understand the concern and deal with it.

On February 12, the Dean forwarded to Senate faculty and staff a message to him from the Assistant Vice Chancellor for EH&S and the Campus Architect saying that the December 2018 "air monitoring report" is now posted on a website, and future monthly reports will be posted by the 15th of the following month. And as of late January "all asbestos-related construction is being performed during non-peak building hours" (whether to protect us, or to hide from us evidence of activity that would worry us, wasn't specified).

On February 19, the Math department Chair emailed the following to the Chancellor, Provost, and Dean, with cc's to four Associate Vice Chancellors and one Assistant Vice Chancellor:

FROM: Chair of Mathematics Department, on behalf of the Mathematics Department

SUBJECT: Requests Regarding Rowland Hall Asbestos

Faculty, students, and staff in our department are very concerned about possible health risks as a result of the ongoing asbestos-related work in Rowland Hall.  There are members of our department who do not feel safe in the building and who are concerned because they are not being provided with the actual current and recent data on the asbestos levels in a timely manner.

During finals week of fall quarter, while math students were taking final exams in Rowland Hall, levels above the .01 fibers/cc limit, and an "overloaded" result, were measured in hallways that we were walking through at the time.  We only learned of this by carefully reading an attachment that we were not sent until January 18, over a month after the fact.  Especially concerning was that the high values coincided with at least 3 separate reports of rips in the protective plastic.

We request the complete and full official measurements of all the asbestos air monitoring in Rowland Hall conducted since the December report, and the daily measurements as they come in.  Given the health risks involved, we are requesting that the results of the measurements be sent to us promptly, and posted online within 24 hours of the measurements.

We request that those results include the results of daily monitoring in the hallways and office areas, including in particular the hallways and offices of the 540, 510, 440, 410, and 340 wings, and the hallways, offices, and restrooms in the interior of the building, during and soon after the periods in which work is being done on those floors of Rowland Hall.

We further request that surface testing be done to determine whether asbestos has been left on surfaces.

In addition, we request that UCI formulate and inform us of a plan to inform and evacuate the building's occupants, including students, faculty, and staff, when levels are elevated above 0.01 fibers/cc outside of the "regulated work areas".

A lengthy reply came from Ronald S. Cortez, JD, MA, Chief Financial Officer, Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration. He claimed that "in all cases the results met or exceeded applicable air quality standards" since "air samples outside the work containment area that contained fiber levels in excess of the EPA’s clearance criteria of 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeters were observed to be the result of non-asbestos related construction, and the samples were taken in high traffic areas. For example, in one situation, construction workers were in a hallway cutting new ceiling tiles that did not contain asbestos. Since then, non-asbestos related construction is being conducted in ways that will not confound air monitoring results."

On March 22, some of us noticed that not only had we not been getting the daily reports that the bureaucrats said they would give in a timely manner, we also hadn't yet gotten the February report. The university seemed to be learning the data quickly, but not sharing it with us. We wondered why. If asbestos levels were high, how soon would we learn about it, and how many hundreds of students, faculty, and staff would attend classes or work in labs or offices while levels were high? There didn't seem to be a clear plan to alert or evacuate the building occupants. In true UCI fashion, the protocol seemed to be that staff would tell other staff, and no one would think to tell the students and faculty.

When was it safe to go back in the restrooms? After the construction work was done in the restrooms that housed non-encapsulated asbestos, we were let back in before we saw any fiber levels.

A "February report" that only covered 7 dates in late January and early February was finally posted on April 6, and recorded a January 29 value in my hallway that exceeded the EPA limit. It wasn't clear whether they were telling us all the measurements that were done, or holding some back.

The university continued to euphemistically name the asbestos-related construction activity "the Life Safety Enhancement project", "the fire life safety improvement project", and eventually the "Rowland Hall Tenant Improvement Project 2020", avoiding the word "asbestos".

What would make the university take our asbestos concerns seriously, besides viral social media posts? I imagined a headline in a large font in the Los Angeles Times: 

UCI tarnishes the legacy of Nobel Prize winner Sherwood Rowland

Rowland was a UCI Chemistry professor for nearly half a century. The university is justly proud of his fight to save the ozone layer. Rowland bravely stood up to special interest groups who tried to discredit him. Rowland's office was around the corner from mine, in Rowland Hall itself. It would be sad if UCI's treatment of the occupants of Rowland Hall were to tarnish the legacy of the man for whom the building was named.

UCI is also proud of the high marks it gets for "sustainability". One reason it's "green" is that the indoor air is largely recirculated, rather than well ventilated to the outside. That's not necessarily what one wants during asbestos disturbance or the COVID pandemic.

Should we trust that UCI followed COVID ventilation recommendations, and should we believe what it told us about it? Would you? 

"Proposition whatever-it-is"

This post is the ninth post in a series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"

"Proposition whatever-it-is"

The math department Chair informed the faculty that the Mad Hatter Dean was coming to a faculty meeting to give us a "speech about the importance of inclusive excellence and diversity in faculty recruitment".

At the meeting, the Dean told us that the important words in the message he's getting "from above" are "inclusive excellence," "preferably URM [underrepresented minority]".

He told us that there's an "inclusive excellence supplement" that for each advertised job can give an extra position, and URM is more important than female. He let us know that there's a 100% chance of getting an extra position if the department proposes two URM candidates for the position, and 90% if one is URM and the second is female. He was not sure what would happen if one were female and neither were URM, but he thought that probably wouldn't qualify for an extra position.

He said that the pressure from "across campus, Janet Napolitano [then-President of the University of California], and the legislature is unprecedented".

He ended with "That's all I know how to say legally." He told us he came with written notes (which he held in his hand), to make sure he didn't misspeak.

I asked why what he had already told us was legal. He said he didn't know.

After questions from others, the Dean said that "`officially' the position is wide open and there are no strings attached. There is no discrimination." He said it with a smirk that made it clear that he didn't believe that at all.

He said that "the university walks a fine line on Proposition whatever-it-is." (He presumably meant California Proposition 209.)

He added that politically he's generally on the left, and he agrees with some of the university's goals on diversity (making clear by implication that he didn't agree with all of it).

He really should have stuck to his written notes.

Fallout

This post is the eighth post in a series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"

Fallout

One Thursday afternoon, everyone on my campus received an astonishing email, whose subject was "Important Message from Chancellor Gillman". The email stated that four members of the university community, whose names were listed, had "bravely reported incidents of sexual harassment" against an individual who was also named. The email stated that a thorough investigation by the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) substantiated a number of claims. The Chancellor reminded us that the individual was not only a UCI professor, but also a major donor whose name was prominent on campus, including on a library, a major academic division, fellowships, and endowed chairs. "Given the number and breadth of the substantiated allegations, along with the power differentials at play," the individual's name would be removed throughout campus.

After the initial shock, I (jokingly) wondered how much I could get on eBay for the chapstick I had gotten at some health fair, whose label had an academic division's now-former name.

While many people have tried to judge the case themselves, what I was interested in were the process, how the university behaved, and what I could learn from this.

A month later, as everyone stood around eating fancy desserts at a reception after the groundbreaking ceremony for a new building, the Chancellor and I had a friendly chat. The Chancellor again lauded the four named women as being "brave" to report it, since of course they have a valid concern about retaliation.

When the Chancellor tells you that of course you need to be brave to report wrongdoing since you should expect to be retaliated against, that is by no means reassuring.

Alluding to a furious colleague who (based on the university's handling of this case) lived in fear that women would falsely report him for sexual harassment, I pointed out that if male colleagues refuse to talk to female colleagues because the way the university handled the case makes them angry and afraid, that in itself could lead to a hostile climate for women.

The Chancellor replied that UCI couldn't just do nothing, because of the #metoo movement. The implication was that without the #metoo movement, they would have done nothing. It sounded like an admission that their concern wasn't to do the right thing, it was to do what was in their best interest.

Was UCI really turning away the $10 million that the donor-professor had promised to give? That would indeed be astonishing. No, the university had verified that the money was committed in an irrevocable way.

The Chancellor hoped that the details of the case would be made public via a Freedom of Information Act request. He was confident that everyone who read the report by the UCI Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) would agree that UCI did the right thing.

The 93-page OEOD "Findings", when posted on the website of the journal Science, did not reassure everyone. If anything, it added to campus polarization about how the case was handled.

At an earlier Q&A for a campus Sexual Harassment Prevention Training session, I had pointed out that I had never heard of people who were glad they had reported something to OEOD, but I had heard of cases where people regretted it. I asked for information that might reassure us that at least some people didn't have regrets. The response did not reassure me.

Did the "Findings" reassure me? According to the Findings, one of the named "complaining witnesses" reported that the matter had "taken up a great deal of her time and energy" and she felt "her life would be easier if she had never complained about Respondent's behavior."

I was horrified by how much detail about who said what was made public. Did the interviewed "witness" who called the Respondent pompous know that OEOD would include it in a report that would be given to the Respondent and could be made public? The identities of witnesses were barely concealed in the public version.

The Vice Provost hosted a panel discussion for the School of Physical Sciences "regarding the campus’ SVSH (sexual violence/sexual harassment) investigation and adjudication process" (without naming the case, but everyone knew what she meant). At the meeting I asked some questions (not all of whose responses did I find informative enough to record):

(1) What means has UCI used to protect a Complainant from retaliation by someone in a position of power, other than firing the person in power or having them resign? 

(2) Is it correct that there are no guarantees of confidentiality for anything you say to OEOD, since anything that you say during a UCI OEOD investigation could be released by UCI and posted on the Internet (e.g., due to a Freedom of Information request)? 

 Their answer was yes, this is correct.

Curiously, one panelist said that he guesses that the vast number of cases don't go to OEOD --- even though Deans and Chairs are mandatory reporters, they don't report it. He thought that it usually stops with the Chair or Dean. I was surprised that he said it so openly. My Dean was there and was essentially asked to confirm it. He obliquely replied that he has very good staff who deal with that.

(3) When UCI makes public an OEOD report, a witness's name might be replaced by a number, but many other identifying features might remain, leaving them open to retaliation by the people they mention (who might be the Respondent or a Complainant). What does UCI do to protect witnesses from retaliation? 

They pointed out that they can even make the names public, and might have to.

(4) Concerning faculty rights, can UCI place a professor on an involuntary leave of absence based on an accusation, before any investigation is done? If so, under what circumstances can it do that? My concern was that if so, then any bully can make an unfair accusation and cause real and lasting harm. Bullying was already a big problem at UCI.

(5) If you are accused of sexual harassment, which things that you do to defend yourself will count as retaliation, and which won't? For example, if you say that the allegations are false, can that be considered retaliation? If defenses can be considered retaliation, that seems problematic, and a potential violation of faculty rights.

A panelist's response was that saying that allegations are false would not be considered retaliation. But the "Findings" were not entirely reassuring. The OEOD seemed to have held against the Respondent that he "engaged in a campaign with the highest University officials to influence the outcome of this investigation." Whether one views such letters on high as a misguided though acceptable attempt by a desperate person to defend himself or a "tendency to wield his influence in an intimidating manner" could be in the eye of the beholder.

(6) It appeared as if the university took the recent allegations more seriously after lawyers got involved. It's important that UCI treat complaints by people who don't hire lawyers as seriously as complaints by people who do hire lawyers. Can we have the administration's assurance that complaints will get the same consideration regardless of whether the Complainant hires a lawyer?

They responded that having a lawyer doesn't necessarily help you. They know cases in which having a lawyer hurt the person who had one, so the outcome might be worse for you if you hire a lawyer.

So the outcome can depend on whether you have a lawyer. Shouldn't the outcome be based on the merits of the case, not on whether or not you have a lawyer?