|
Academia:
Things you ought to know!
What
it is like to be a junior faculty member at Oregon State University
|
| Visit my professional website www.docbob.ca |
|
|||
|
As part of the settlement, Dr. Uttl was promoted to Associate Professor (retroactively to March 2003); Oregon State University and all individually named defendants (John Gillis, Lawrence Ryan, and John Edwards) agreed that they never had any cause for Dr. Uttl's termination; and agreed that there was never any substantiated complaint filed against Dr. Uttl. In addition, Oregon State University and individually named defendants paid substantial amount of money to settle the suit. Dr. Uttl is presently Associate Professor of Psychology at Oregon State University on a voluntary leave of absence from OSU in Japan (visit my professional site www.docbob.ca). (Note: I resigned from Oregon State University effective April 30, 2006.)
If this is your first time to this site, the background story is that I was hired in 1999 as a tenure-track assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at OSU, over the objections of Dr. Lawrence Ryan and even though my hiring was not favored by Dr. Gillis, Chair of Department. Subsequently, I was given "a notice of non-renewal" on November 13, 2002, ostensibly without a cause, but after I had repeatedly complained about repeated violations of the OSU Faculty Handbook, Oregon State laws, national origin discrimination, retaliation for filing grievances and retaliation for filing a BOLI/EEOC complaint (something I have a right to do and something I must do if I do not want to forever forfeit the opportunity to seek redress in the courts). Shortly after I filed my second grievance about an unjust, discriminatory, and factually wrong evaluation of my performance, conducted by Dr. Horowitz (husband of Dean Kay Schaffer), Dr. Derryberry, and Dr. Gillis -- the grievance which was decided in my favor by Provost White -- Drs. Horowitz, Gillis, and Derryberry (coincidently President of a local chapter of American Association of University Professors that would presumably not approve of his behavior) have already characterized me as "uncollegial", in writing, solely because I had filed a grievance against them. Dr. Gillis even cited my grievances and my request for assistance from American Association of University Professors as examples of my "uncollegiality" in his letter regarding my promotion and tenure (to be sure, Dr. Gillis later explained under oath in Uttl v. OSU, et al. that "grievances" were "evidence" of my uncollegiality). After I had exhausted all venues available to me within Oregon State University, I sued. As you can see, the lawsuit has been settled in my favor. This site is to tell my side of the story and to serve as a warning and cautionary note for other assistant professors attempting to navigate the tenure-track process at Oregon State University and elsewhere. I also hope it will serve as a source of inspiration for anyone anywhere who has been treated unfairly, discriminated, and retaliated against as well as for anyone whose free speech was being suppressed by their place of employment. Epilogue: Was it worthwhile?... Opportunities for redress (out of courts) Frequently Asked Questions
EPILOGUE: WAS IT WORTHWHILE? WAS IT ALL NECESSARY? SHOULD I HAVE AGREED I WAS A WITCH? THE COURTS, CREDITS, AND THANKS Was it worthwhile? Yes. I could have "rolled over and died" and left OSU and maybe academia. Others before me and after me made different choices when faced with OSU and its legal resources; they chose to exit Oregon State University Psychology Department while on a tenure-track appointment (e.g., Beverly Wilson and Walter Charles who left to another universities before reaching P&T) or even after getting through P&T over Dr. Ryan's opposition (Patti Watkins moved to Women Studies). Yet, another faculty member simply retired earlier than she planned to (Carol Saslow) and gave a detailed list of reasons (among them discrimination against women, lack of standards, lack of procedures, shifting standards, favoritism) for her resignation to Dean Schaffer in her resignation letter. Given that we are talking about a small department of ~8 people, these exits are significant. I chose to pursue what I believed to be a just fight and perhaps make the Psychology Department a better place for others who came or are to come after me. A significant factor in my decision to fight rather than "to roll over and die" was my belief that my case and recorded evidence were so strong that I could not lose except due to a fluke and that I would never have to personally pay attorney fees at approx. USD $250.00/hour. Was it all necessary? No. If Dean Schaffer had not reinstated Dr. Gillis as Chair over the objections from the faculty; if OSU had stopped Dr. Ryan's attacks against me immediately; if Dean Schaffer wasn't biased towards her husband Dr. Horowitz (she admitted that much on her deposition); if OSU had followed its own rules and regulations; if OSU enforced its own rules and regulations; and if..., these events did not need to happen. Should I have agreed I was a witch? Definitely no. Dean Schaffer claimed that she had never heard me accepting responsibility for the conflict in the department. However, she could not quite explain what it was that I did that caused any conflict in the department apart from the grievances and complaints. To make sure, Dr. Gillis explained on his deposition that my grievances and complaints were "evidence of" my uncollegiality (even the ones decided in my favor). Let's face it: Is there any pleasant way to file a grievance against someone? Is there ever any pleasant way to demonstrate that a witness is lying and ought not to be believed? Will that ever lead to more fuzzy-warm feelings? To sum it up (the way I understand it now): So while using the state law sanctioned grievance process and federally sanctioned EEO process is your right, professor, you shall be uncollegial if you use these processes set up for your protection! And if you use them and if you do not accept what we say, your grievances and complaints are evidence of your uncollegiality. And since you are uncollegial and since the word "collegiality" is conveniently tucked away somewhere in our P&T Guidelines, we will have valid grounds to fire/non-renew/terminate you! Now, if you refuse to admit that your grievances are uncollegial and creating conflict in the department that really shows that you are argumentative and refusing to accept responsibility for your actions. And since we must stop the conflict for the good of the department, we must fire you. I can only guess that if I admitted and confessed that I was "a modern witch", "uncollegial kind of a guy", they would fire me much faster. The lawsuit and the courts The lawsuit adds yet another visible record of Oregon State University's unwillingness to ensure that OSU's employees are treated fairly without regard to race, sex, national origin, and accent (see sidebar).. More importantly, this lawsuit adds to the visible record that Oregon State University's manner of dealing with complaints is to retaliate (see the side bar for another example...). So what are the options to obtain redress for an assistant professor without a job? There really are only two options: sue or "roll over and die". The second option is easy, in some sense, as it requires no money. You can always jump off of the nearest bridge... The first option is harder. A competent lawyer costs, on the average, USD $250.00/hour; a day of depositions costs approximately $1,000; and the total cost of a discrimination/retaliation lawsuit against the university quickly runs up -- it ranges from USD $100,000 to 500,000. But there is a way. You can sue the state university if and only if your case is so strong that you can persuade a competent lawyer that you have a good business proposition: You will win or they settle for so much that a 20% to 33% contingency fee will be worth the lawyer's time and expense (of course, you can also sue if you have an infinitely wealthy uncle or a sponsor who agrees to pay for it all). I sued because I could find an attorney for a contingency fee. And that was the beginning of OSU's fall. If they thought it was a joke and I could never afford to sue them, the joke was over. Having said that, the lawsuits are not for the faint of the heart. They have huge emotional and personal costs. But they also have their positive sides. For once, I can finally put on my C.V. that I am Associate Professor of Psychology on voluntary leave of absence from OSU and the individual defendants and OSU are forever barred from saying false defamatory things about me. Credits and Thanks First and foremost, I wish to thank to all the students (some 150+ of them) who had the courage to oppose OSU administration's attempts to paint me as having problems with students and not speaking understandable English by testifying before the grievance committee, by writing protest letters (see sidebar), by organizing petitions and signing them, by showing up in my public grievance hearings, and by exposing the harassment of them by Dean Kay Schaffer's staff. Second, I wish to thank Peter Graf who has supported me through this 4-years plus ordeal, to my brother Jan for his support and for high quality recordings of the grievance hearings so useful in keeping John Gillis, John Edwards, Dean Schaffer and all others pegged down to the words they spoke, and to my wife Amy who stood by me through thick and thin. Third, I wish to thank to my attorney Mr. Goode who does well what he does and does it with conviction! Fourth, I wish to thank several OSU Psychology Department faculty members for their support (I will not name anyone as the upper level administration is still the same). Fifth, I also wish to thank to two brave Faculty Grievance Committee members (whose identity I do not know for certain) who wanted Dr. Gillis to remove statements that violated Oregon law from my 2001-2002 performance review but were overruled by Professor Oriard and by other members of the committee who found violation of the Oregon law but denied the grievance nevertheless ("the grievance committee recommends that you deny Dr. Uttl's grievance..." although "Dr. Uttl is entirely correct... The Committe concurs with Dr. Uttl... " and "Two members of the Committee would like to see those statements removed from the evaluation altogether." It violates the law but so what?) And sixth, I wish to thank to all the other various people who have helped me through this ordeal, by listening and giving opinions, and hanging in there with me. OPPORTUNITIED FOR REDRESS (OUT OF COURTS) There are three major bodies/agencies that may help: American Association of University of Professors (AAUP), Bureau of Oregon Labor and Industries (BOLI) -- state agency charged with investigating discrimination, retaliation and other labor laws violations; and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) -- federal agency charged by US Congress with investigating and prosecuting violation of discrimination and retaliation laws. American Association of University Professors AAUP's goal is "to advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education's contribution to the common good" (AAUP). I joined AAUP. Since I was an AAUP member, naturally, I turned to the national AAUP for assistance relatively early in the process. However, AAUP did not offer any assistance even though I provided it with sufficient record that I was being treated differently and that I was treated in violation of at least OSU Faculty Handbook and state laws. I turned in confidence to Dr. Rubin Landau, a vice-president of local OSU AAUP chapter, because Dr. Derryberry who was the president of the same OSU AAUP chapter told me previously that he would vote against my P&T unless I withdrew my grievance against him (and I did not withdraw it). Dr. Rubin Landau replied to me that he cannot help and copied his response including my confidential inquiry (that raised Dr. Derryberry's threat) to Dr. Derryberry (read Dr. Landau's reply to my inquiry). According to his own testimony, Dr. Derryberry told Dr. Gillis that I contacted AAUP and Dr. Gillis subsequently gave my contacting AAUP as an example of my "uncollegial behavior." AAUP was not helpful. I learned later that KC Johnson who was labeled "uncollegial" at Brooklyn College at about the same time as I was found no help from AAUP either. Dr. Derryberry explained in one of his emails to the psychology department that AAUP is there to protect tenure. Since I was untenured, I suppose there was nothing to protect in my case... He also explained in writing that he believed my grievance against him and Drs. Horowitz and Gillis to be uncollegial and an abuse of the process even though it was decided in my favor (read Provost White's decision). Questioned before the faculty grievance committee, Dr. Derryberry explained that he thought my grievance against him was an "abuse of the grievance process" and that he told me he would vote against me because of collegiality issue (because I filed this grievance against him). Now, contrast that with the (National) AAUP's statement On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation. Consequently, I let my AAUP membership expire. Bureau of Oregon Labor and Industries It is my experience that the state agency charged with investigating illegal employment practices (Bureau of Oregon Labor and Industries or BOLI) is either incompetent or chooses to look anthe other way and let discrimination and retaliation by other state agencies happen. In my case, Mr. Dan Gardner, Commissioner of BOLI, wrote to me only a month or so before I filed this lawsuit that "After thoroughly discussing your [my] file with staff, I concur with staff that THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM AND TO CONTINUE OUR INVESTIGATION [emphasis added]. Thus, I concur with our investigator's decision to dismiss the case." What was that? There was substantial evidence of discrimination so we dismiss the case? Did you just re-read that? I did too... The commissioner, the highest person in the state charged with upholding Oregon as well as Federal anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws concurs that there was substantial evidence to support my discrimination and retaliation claims but then dismisses the case? Yes. If you think this is impossible, read the commissioner's letter yourself (for the sake of accuracy, Mr. Valverde did not interview all identified witnesses, for example, he did not interview Dr. Carol Saslow). Perhaps this cavalier attitude of the highest Oregon State's public officials towards substantial evidence of unlawful employment practices is simply reinforced by their knowledge that competent lawyers cost a lot of money and that the State of Oregon lawyers can always make you go bankrupt faster than you can pay for your lawyer to get to the trial. But there is more: According to BOLI's records, Mr. Valverde from BOLI interviewed Dr. John Gillis, Dr. John Edwards, Dean Kay Schaffer, and Dr. Erlinda Gonzales and he summarized what these individuals told him in written investigative interviews. However, when Dr. John Gillis, Dr. John Edwards and Dean Kay Schaffer were questioned under oath about the accuracy of these investigative interviews they (Dr.Gillis, Dr. Edwards, Dr. Schaffer) have all distanced themselves from their testimony as recorded by Mr. Valverde. To illustrate, Mr. Valverde, BOLI's investigator, had Dr. Edwards saying X, Y, Z but Dr. Edwards stated under oath that he did not say X, Y, Z to Mr. Valverde. So now, either Dr. Edward's under oath testimony is false or Mr. Valverde's investigative record of what Dr. Edwards told him is false. There is no way to reconcile it because BOLI did not record the interviews (at least no one knows about it if they did). So what are we to make of that? Were Drs. Gillis, Edwards and Schaffer lying under oath or was Mr. Valverde incompetent and made up the stuff these individuals claim they did not tell him? Make your guess, flip your coin. I know, and have evidence, that Drs. Gillis, Edwards, and Schaffer made false statements about me many times during the grievance hearings and other internal proceedings. But I also know that Mr. Valverde's 12-line long record of his 22+ minutes interview with me is painfully incomplete although mostly accurate. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Once you file your complaint with BOLI, EEOC defers to their judgment. So I was out of luck once I realized BOLI was looking other way. If I was doing this all over again, I would not file with BOLI initially but I would go directly to EEOC because it is less likely that EEOC public officials are friendly with Oregon State agencies. For once, penalties for public officials' corruption under federal laws appear to be stiffer. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WHY? WAS IT A CONSPIRACY? We know Dr. Ryan did not like me from the day of the job interview. We know he never went for coffee, beer or discussions with me despite the fact that I invited him for such social "collegial" occasions. Dr. Ryan admitted that much on his deposition. We know that Dr. Ryan's claims that one of my emails to him was "condescending" was not true as Dr. Ryan admitted under oath facing a lawsuit that the email was not condescending after all. When asked to explain what was so "condescending" to students about my syllabi, he explained, under oath, that the content of my syllabi (i.e., words themselves) was just fine but that the problem was the font size (too large) and use of bold print (really, and under oath, no less). When questioned about what departmental regulations I violated (as he alleged), he admitted that he does not know about any departmental regulation I violated. Etc.. In essence, Dr. Ryan agreed with much of the letter the senior faculty wrote in my defense when Dr. Gillis failed to stop Dr. Ryan's attacks against me. Despite Dr. Ryan's dislike of me, to his credit, he admitted that I have always been courteous to him and greeted him even though I might had just open yet another of his email attacks on me. This part is not too difficult to understand: One person is out to get some other person because of his/her sex, color of his/her skin, national origin, cultural background, color of his socks or whatever. The rest of the story is mind boggling, however. How did we get from Dr. Ryan's dislike to a massive discrimination, retaliation, and civil rights lawsuit that took only three days of depositions of the named defendants and one day of deposition of Dean Schaffer to settle? Oregon State did not even try to dismiss it... (Of course I should mention that I spent two days on my own deposition answering questions such as: How was living in communist Czechoslovakia different from living in Canada and USA? Was it really such a big problem when Dr. Gillis would not provide you with a toner and transparencies? Aaaah, let me think: Oh, yes, I could not print and I had nothing to print on.) One option is that the events in OSU were the result of a conspiracy -- several individuals acting in concert -- to destroy me and my career. Following up on his threat to vote against my P&T if I did not withdraw the grievance against him, Dr. Gillis, and Dr. Horowitz for discriminatory and factually wrong performance evaluation (the grievance decided in my favor by Provost White), and perhaps helped along by Dr. Ryan's continous efforts to terminate me, Dr. Derryberry became a willing participant in the denial of my promotion and tenure. However, later, listening to Dr. John Edwards ' testimony during the grievance hearings regarding my termination, Dr. Derryberry exclaimed that it was a conspiracy, resigned the next day as a Chair of Personnel Committee, and wrote to Dean Kay Schaffer that because of Dr. Edwards' "character assassination" of me during the public grievance hearings he was unable to support Dr. Edwards for the post of the chair of the department (Dean Kay Schaffer hired Dr. Frank Bernieri, a long time friend and collaborator of Dr. Gillis, to head the department). Another option to explain these events is extreme (very extreme) incompetence, nepotism, and favoritism. Of course some pundits would label two or more individuals acting in concert because of nepotism as conspiracy too. Dean Kay Schaffer spontaneously admitted during her deposition that she was biased for her husband Dr. Horowitz. She as well as others knew Dr. Horowitz was a running buddy of Dr. Gillis. Dr. Ryan was a friend of and one of a few supporters of Dr. Gillis and wrote a recommendation letter for Dr. Gillis' application for a Fulbright Fellowship at the same time that Dr. Gillis was to act to stop Dr. Ryan's attacks against me. Despite his knowledge and later acknowledgment that Dr. Ryan's attacks were unjustified, Dr. Gillis did not stop Dr. Ryan's attacks against me despite senior faculty members asking him to rein Dr. Ryan in (read faculty members' letter defending me from Dr. Ryan's attacks) while there was still time. But then what are we to make of Dr. Edwards' actions? Was he simply incompetent, acting in concert, or what? Here is a small sampler from Dr. Edwards' many actions:
Conspiracy? Or "only" extreme collusion of randomly incompetent acts by Dr. Ryan, Dr. Gillis, Dr. Edwards, and others, combined with Dean Schaffer's admitted bias/nepotism (see sidebar and note that Dean Schaffer invoked 505 -- husband/wife privilege -- during her deposition in order not to be questioned about what she discussed with Dr. Horowitz about me)? And what about the actions of the grievance committee headed by Dr. Michael Oriard that prevented me from introducing a witness (Dr. Carol Saslow), comparative evidence of discrimination including the dossiers of previously promoted faculty (including the dossier of Dr. Patti Watkins who agreed in writing to have it introduced) as well as evidence that administration witnesses and administrators themselves were, simply put, lying, and therefore, not believable? Take your pick. However, it is hard to believe that a series of random incompetencies would generate this collection of events at Oregon State University, and it is hard to believe that even outside agencies would look the other way (e.g., Oregon Board of Higher Education, Bureau of Oregon Labor and Industries). Either way but most importantly the administration commencing with Dean Kay Schaffer and going all the way up to the public officials charged by the governor Kulongoski with investigating these events chose not to intervene even though they knew illegal events were probably taking place at the Oregon State University or even acknowledged that the evidence of discrimination was "substantial" as Commissioner Gardner did. WHY THIS WEB SITE AND WHY IS IT STILL UP? Ever since my face appeared spread over a front page of the OSU newspaper (Barometer) as well as in a local paper (Corvallis Times Gazette), I have been contacted by a number of individuals telling me their stories of Oregon State University's mistreatment of them. My face made the front page of the Barometer the first time a day after the first day of the public grievance hearings about my termination. A day after the first day of the grievance hearings regarding my termination, Peter Graf and I were sitting in a local Corvallis bar, just outside of the university grounds, when we were approached by a man asking us if we were the two guys on the front page of Barometer. He told us his story about OSU. He told us that his department's chair required him to take a psychiatric examination because, after many years of teaching at OSU, he told the chair he was a gay. He warned me that I had to file my claims with BOLI and EEOC within 180 days of discriminatory events otherwise I would loose my right to sue. He told me he went through the OSU grievance process only to find out at the end of it that he had missed the deadline to file a complaint with BOLI or EEOC and therefore his right to sue. I remember that I could not believe that anyone would be asked to take a psychiatric examination before being allowed to teach again in the college where Dean Kay Schaffer, a psychologist, was the dean. I remember the day I was contacted by a member of the previous grievance committee who told me about their efforts to make the grievance process meaningful at OSU, about their recommendations to make the playing field for aggrieved faculty member more even. However, as he/she told me those efforts were squashed by the subsequent grievance committee and its new chair, Dr. Michael Oriard. Point is: Knowing about OSU's ways of dealing with discrimination and retaliation allows one to make a more informed judgment on how OSU will likely deal with one's own grievance, complaint or lawsuit. And, while any lawsuit against Oregon State University must stand on its own merit (it won't get you a competent contingency lawyer otherwise), jurors dislike liars and they dislike nepotism and favoritism. More often than not, evidence of such behavior on anyone's part is admissible in the court of law. More importantly, a person who can be shown to be a liar is a useless witness in the eyes of almost any juror. The notion that the universities are free of discrimination, retaliation, and all sorts of illegal activities is dead. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a dream. Anyone who believes that whoever sues his university and his colleagues is a "bad" person blames the victim and has not taken the time to stop, think, and realize that the options for any faculty member targeted for discrimination and retaliation are surprisingly limited once he or she has exhausted all the available options for redress venues within the university (e.g., discussions, grievance process) and within the state (e.g., BOLI and EEOC). One only needs to visit and read the stories in Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, Fire, Erin O'Connor's Critical Mass, or browse through the current and past lawsuits to change his/her mind and to see what is really possible in today's universities. I will keep this site up because I believe that the "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." (whoever said that first -- please let me know if you know). I hope it will diminish the chances that OSU will conduct itself in such incomprehensible fashion ever again. Another reason for keeping this website up is that I have become all too aware of what false statements by Dr. Ryan, Dr. Gillis, Dr. Edwards, Dean Schaffer and other OSU public officials has cost me. Although OSU, Dr. Gillis, Dr. Edwards, Dr. Ryan, Dean Schaffer and other OSU employees are forever barred from claiming that they ever had any valid cause to terminate me or from claiming that there were ever any substantiated complaints against me, the cost of defamation seems to last forever... Some people will continue to blame a victim for becoming a victim, for his or her very existence, rather than blaming those who victimized the victim. The only thing I can do is to provide the information for those who care to make their own informed judgment. If you happen to be faced with evidence that any of the named defendants, any OSU employee or agent acting on behalf of the named defendants, or OSU, has said anything contradicting the terms of the settlement described above (see the first paragraph of this page), please contact me. (b o b . u t t l @ a l f a l a b . c o m) LINK TO ORIGINAL WWW.UTTLLAW.COM To enter the original www.uttllaw.com site put up in 2003 and updated until shortly after the settlement, please follow this link. POSTSCRIPT I have decided to replace the original www.uttllaw.com site by this overview of the events for several reasons. One is that I found out that it is still popular to blame the victim rather than the perpetrator. Some people in academia still believe that things like these do not happen in academia (I admit that my case is extreme and I would have hard time believing it too had I not lived through it). Another reasons is that Drs. Gillis, Edwards, and Schaffer have all claimed, under oath, that they did not say to Mr. Valverde from the Bureau of Oregon Labor and Industries what he claimed they told them. |
Discrimination,
Retaliation, and Academic Standards at Oregon State University Bernard Malamud's A New Life (not so fictional story about Oregon State University's English Department -- home of Dr. Michael Oriard, Chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee during my times) Barry Greer's The only good writer is a dead writer (Barry Greer on OSU's relationship with Malamud and his own experiences at OSU English Department some 20+ years after Malamud had left -- with appearances by both Robert Frank and Lisa Ede who were both involved in Ms. Krebs' matter in my own case) Former OSU employee awarded $322,251 (secret personnel files yet again... Was the same OSU counsel, Caroline Kerl, providing advice on the "mechanics" of termination in my and Mr. Brown case?) Citing "serious issues with the quality of education at OSU" and "a declining moral ethics", Clemens foundation suspends grants to students who go to Oregon State University News Coverage of Uttl v. Oregon State University, John Gillis, Lawrence Ryan, and John Edwards (before it became that...) Professor's career in question (Feb 6, 2003) Fired prof. fights OSU, files $1M suit (Feb 24, 2003) Critical Mass: Reading between the lines (Feb 25, 2003) Praise for the prof, Letter to the Editor (Feb 25, 2003) OSU professor files lawsuit against former student (Feb 25, 2003; Associated Press) Uttl hearings continue (Feb 26, 2003) Critical Mass: Uttl update (Feb 27, 2003) Inspiring teacher, Letter to the Editor (Apr 2, 2003) Academicsatire Significant Sleaze award winner for 2002-2003 (May 23, 2003) Excerpts from Depositions Taken in Uttl v. Oregon State University et al.
18 complaints from one or more students, written 19 complaints, placed in Dr. Uttl's department 20 file, personnel file? 21 A. The Jennifer Krebs thing I don't know about. I 22 don't know if that ended up in the file or not. 23 To my knowledge, there weren't any. I 24 mean, I can't remember any. Maybe three years 25 ago there was one, but I can't remember any. 0191 1 Q. Didn't the university, during Dr. Uttl's 2 nonrenewal hearing, claim that there were 3 complaints from students, plural? 4 A. Didn't the university claim that? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. I don't remember that.
2 Dr. Uttl, which are probably the closest 3 courses to compare. 4 A. I think Bob's ratings are good. 5 Q. Okay. Didn't you rate Dr. Horowitz as an 6 excellent teacher? 7 A. Rate him as an excellent teacher? 8 Q. Yes, don't you believe he is an excellent 9 teacher? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And he's your husband? 12 A. Yes. Am I biased? You bet. But he is an 13 excellent teacher. But I'm more impressed -- 14 Q. He's not the husband of all these students who 15 rated him a 2.9. 16 A. Well, you could talk to him about the -- how 17 tough that course is, perhaps. I don't know 18 why he got a 2.9.
4 unauthorized collaboration? 5 A. I don't recall if he used those words or not. 6 Q. Well, if they weren't supposed to turn in the 7 paper with both their names on it, you know, if 8 they weren't supposed to do that, isn't that, 9 in fact, what it was? 10 MR. BRADY: I'll object to the form, calls 11 for speculation. 12 Go ahead and answer. 13 THE WITNESS: I don't know what 14 "unauthorized collaboration" means exactly. 15 BY MR. GOODE: 16 Q. You're not allowed to collaborate on what you 17 wrote. Each of you are to turn in papers that 18 you write independently, and each of you are to 19 be the author of the work you do. 20 The paper that comes in says it's written 21 by Mary and Jane. They put their names on it, 22 and that's the way it's submitted. Isn't that 23 an unauthorized collaboration? 24 MR. BRADY: Object to the form, calls for 25 speculation. 0050 1 Go ahead and answer. 2 THE WITNESS: I don't know. One possible 3 interpretation, I suppose. Dr. John Edwards denies under oath that he advised Ms. Krebs to write a letter about me 22 Q. Now, down at the bottom of that second page the 23 first sentence reads, "At the end of the term 24 the student who had received the zeros later 25 asked if she could put in a letter to the 0069 1 department describing her experiences with 2 Dr. Uttl, as she did not get to complete the 3 final formal course evaluation for the class." 4 That's referring to Jennifer Krebs, isn't it? 5 A. That's right. 6 Q. And did you suggest to her to write a letter? 7 A. No, I didn't. 8 Q. Haven't you seen documents that indicate that 9 she claims that you suggested that she write a 10 letter? 11 A. Have I seen documents? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. No, not that I recall. 14 Q. So you're not aware of any conflict in your 15 statements versus hers? 16 A. During the grievance hearing Dr. Uttl said that 17 she claimed I told her to write the letter. 18 Q. Okay. And so if she, in fact, were to testify 19 that you told her to write the letter, you 20 would disagree with that statement? 21 MR. BRADY: I'll object to the form, calls 22 for speculation. 23 Go ahead and answer. 24 THE WITNESS: I did not tell her to write 25 the letter. Dr. John Edwards, Acting Chair of Psychology Department, on the two assignments by Student A and Student B and his own understanding of what plagiarism is [to plagiarize: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source (from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)] 25 Q. Okay. Now, in this particular scenario here, 0072 1 you saw their written assignments that they had 2 prepared, right? 3 A. I don't recall if I saw them or not. 4 Q. Well, did you ever form an opinion as to 5 whether or not there was plagiarism on this 6 particular assignment by these two students? 7 A. No, I didn't think it was plagiarism. 8 Q. Okay. Well, in order to draw that conclusion 9 wouldn't it have been necessary for you to 10 review the assignments themselves? 11 A. No, because the reasons didn't have anything to 12 do with the particular assignment. 13 The reasons were, first in a class of seven 14 students if you're turning in identical work as 15 someone else you will certainly get caught, 16 which suggests it wasn't the intent. 17 The second was that this was a joint 18 conversation. They were both contributing to 19 it. An e-mail or computer chat, but both of 20 their words were there, the principal. And all 21 parties agreed that -- my understanding was all 22 parties agreed this was the case. You can't 23 plagiarize from yourself. 24 Q. Well, in relation to collaboration, according 25 to the Oregon State University's policies -- 0073 1 this is a test -- if two or more students are 2 collaborating on some work, and the work is 3 going to end in submission of a paper or 4 papers. And, in fact, the work was written by 5 more than one person, but one person turns in 6 the work and puts only their name on it, is 7 that plagiarism? 8 MR. BRADY: Object to the form of the 9 question, calls for speculation, also calls for 10 a legal conclusion. 11 Go ahead and answer, if you know. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't know what the 13 guidelines say in there. I can't recall. I do 14 know that first line of academic misconduct 15 guidelines is intent to cheat, intent to 16 deceive. 17 BY MR. GOODE: 18 Q. Well, I'm not asking about academic misconduct. 19 I'm asking about the university's policy on 20 plagiarism. Are you familiar with it? 21 A. Plagiarism in the form of academic misconduct. 22 It's under academic misconduct guidelines. 23 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with what the Oregon 24 State University's definition of plagiarism is? 25 A. Well, you've just stated it to me, correct? 0074 1 Q. I don't know, I'm asking you. 2 MR. BRADY: Don't believe what he tells 3 you. 4 BY MR. GOODE: 5 Q. Yeah, don't believe me. I'm not on your side 6 of the table. I'm asking you, do you know what 7 it is? 8 A. I don't specifically recall how they frame that 9 in the written guidelines. 10 Q. Okay. Let me give you a hypothetical. Let's 11 suppose that you and Dr. Weary were working -- 12 doing some work that you did together, okay. 13 And then a paper was written. And then you 14 took the paper and submitted it somewhere for a 15 publication, and it had only your name on it. 16 Would you consider that plagiarism? 17 MR. BRADY: I object to the form of the 18 question, it calls for speculation and legal 19 conclusion. 20 But go ahead and answer. 21 THE WITNESS: So the situation is we both 22 worked on whatever the work was? 23 BY MR. GOODE: 24 Q. You both worked on it, you both wrote it, you 25 both contributed to the text of what's written. 0075 1 When it gets to a publisher only your name is 2 on it. 3 A. I don't know. I suppose one could be cited 4 within the paper. 5 Q. Is that plagiarism, in your mind? 6 A. I don't know. It depends on the circumstances. 7 MR. BRADY: Let me just object to the form 8 of the question, object that it calls for legal 9 conclusion. 10 But go ahead and answer. 11 BY MR. GOODE: 12 Q. If you've got legal conclusions floating around 13 in your mind, that's fine. But that's what I 14 am asking for. 15 You put your name to it, she did some of 16 the writing, in your opinion, is that 17 plagiarism? 18 MR. BRADY: Same objection. 19 THE WITNESS: I don't have a legal 20 conclusion. 21 BY MR. GOODE: 22 Q. Well, have you ever done that? 23 A. Not that I recall. 24 Q. Why not? 25 A. It's simply never come up. 0076 1 Q. Have you ever taken work that a student's done 2 and put your name to it and submitted it 3 somewhere as if it was yours? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Would that be an ethical thing to do? 6 MR. BRADY: Object that it calls for 7 speculation and a legal conclusion. 8 But go ahead and answer. 9 THE WITNESS: Probably not. 10 BY MR. GOODE: 11 Q. It wouldn't be ethical because it would be 12 plagiarism, wouldn't it? 13 MR. BRADY: I object that it calls for 14 legal conclusion and speculation. 15 But go ahead and answer. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't know if it's 17 plagiarism or not. 18 BY MR. GOODE: 19 Q. Would it be dishonest? 20 A. It might be. 21 Q. Well, let me change the hypothetical slightly, 22 just so I can try to explore what you consider 23 plagiarism or not even more. 24 Same scenario as before regarding 25 Dr. Weary. Only in this case she wrote the 0077 1 entire article. She dies. You hand it in as 2 your own. You put your name on it. Is that 3 plagiarism? 4 MR. BRADY: I object to the form of the 5 question, calls for speculation, legal 6 conclusion. 7 But go ahead and answer. 8 THE WITNESS: That's a difficult question 9 to answer, actually, because -- well, 10 posthumous papers are difficult to handle. 11 I could imagine a situation in which you 12 put your name on it, but you also gave credit 13 to the deceased person. 14 BY MR. GOODE: 15 Q. I'm saying only your name is on it. 16 MR. BRADY: I object to the form of the 17 question. 18 BY MR. GOODE: 19 Q. There's only two people in the world that know 20 it's hers and not yours and one of them is 21 dead. And you put just your name on it; is 22 that plagiarism? 23 MR. BRADY: I object to the form, calls for 24 speculation and legal conclusion. 25 Go ahead and answer. 0078 1 THE WITNESS: Sure. ***** Dr. John Gillis, Chair of Psychology Department, explains his views of plagiarism (he is being questioned about the same two student assignments Student A and Student B as Dr. Edwards above) 22 Q. Wasn't that, in fact, plagiarism? 23 A. Dr. Edwards didn't think so. 24 Q. Do you know what the scenario was? 25 A. I know -- sure. I don't know if I can remember 0078 1 all the details. But I talked at length with 2 these students about it. One of the students 3 about it. 4 Q. Basically, wasn't the scenario that a student 5 turned something in that was -- the manner in 6 which the student turned it in characterized it 7 as her own, when, in fact, it was a 8 collaboration with another student? 9 A. Yeah. 10 Q. So wouldn't that be plagiarism? 11 A. You have to speak to Dr. Edwards about the 12 details. He thought the kid simply made a 13 mistake. 14 Q. Would you consider that plagiarism? 15 A. Probably not. If he didn't I probably 16 wouldn't. 17 Q. Wouldn't the university's written policies 18 consider that plagiarism? 19 A. I don't know if the girls were ever labeled as 20 plagiarists. 21 Q. Wouldn't the university's policies consider 22 that plagiarism? 23 A. I have no idea. 24 Q. So you're not familiar with the university's 25 policies of plagiarism? 0079 1 A. I don't have it memorized. What I would do in 2 a suspected case of plagiarism is get the 3 policy out, sit there and read it. My Teaching Record At Oregon State University Student Petition & Sampler of Student Letters Student Petition Jeff Clark Luke Deavers Andrew Ko Christina Newman Carolyn Pilkenton-Taylor Melissa Satterwhite Cory Van Alstine And many others are available upon request Syllabi PSY 201 General Psychology PSY 301 Research Methods PSY 340 Cognition PSY 444/544 Learning & Memory PSY 470/570 Psychometrics & Psychological Testing Student Assessment of Teaching PSY 201 General Psychology PSY 301 Research Methods PSY 340 Cognition PSY 444/544 Learning & Memory PSY 470/570 Psychometrics & Psychological Testing |
|
|
