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 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.