<![CDATA[My Site

<![CDATA[My Site - Blog]]>Tue, 19 May 2026 12:23:27 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[Malabar Parrot: Design & Progress]]>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 07:00:00 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/malabar-parrot-design-progressMalabar parakeets are from southern India, so we don't see them in Pakistan but the coloring is so stunning that I could not resist embroidering it. The photograph of the parakeet sitting on the branch is my color reference because it shows the shading in detail, but I'm basing its position on the second photograph of the parakeet taking off from a branch.

I've spent two days on this project so far. I matched embroidery floss & created the stumpwork structure on the first day & embroidered from the head towards the tail on the second. I like how it's coming along. I'm aiming to finish it & the third parrot before my birthday.

]]><![CDATA[Plum-Headed Parrot: Completed!]]>Sat, 26 Oct 2024 07:00:00 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/plum-headed-parrot-completed

The plum-headed parrot is finally finished! (It will receive an eye when I appliqué it onto the finished skirt, which won't happen until the two remaining parrots are finished as well.)

]]><![CDATA[Plum-Headed Parrot: Finished the Parrot's Head]]>Sat, 04 May 2024 02:11:49 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/plum-headed-parrot-embroidered-the-head

]]><![CDATA[Beetle Crazy Quilt WIP: Blocks 1 & 2]]>Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:00:00 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/beetle-crazy-quilt-wip-blocks-1-2

My shared workspace, a sunroom off the living room, is quite visible. I wanted to find an attractive way to cover up my pinboards when they're not actively being used that wouldn't spoiling the aesthetic of the living room and decided upon a crazy quilt.

The focal fabric is the beetle print & I've also utilized yellow & orange fabric that was left over from the living room cushions. Then, I added additional fabric scraps from various outfits, including red & green raw silk; blue embossed silk; red-blue, green-blue, & orange-pink two-tone katan silks; orange, green, & pink jamawar. I finished it with olive green and gold ribbon from the household gift-wrapping stash.

The quilt will consist of six 12"x12" blocks. The pictures above and below are of the first two pieced blocks. This was the first time that I've used the sewing machine, so there's a lot of experimentation happening, but I've been enjoying the challenge so far.

]]><![CDATA[Plum-Headed Parrot: Stumpwork Structure]]>Sat, 20 Jan 2024 08:00:00 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/plum-headed-parrot-stumpwork-structure

This is the stumpwork structure for the plum-headed parrot. Because it's going to be appliquéd onto a garment, I wasn't able to use wire to shape the wings and body. I experimented with cotton stuffing and felt instead, and have attached cut-away stabilizer to the back of the fabric. I've yet to make the beak and the claws; I'm planning to cut out two layers of felt for each.

]]><![CDATA[Plum-Headed Parrot: Design]]>Mon, 25 Dec 2023 04:29:47 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/plum-headed-parrot-design

I'm starting a new embroidery project! The plan is to embroider three different South Asian parrots, the first of which is the plum-headed parakeet, and then to appliqué them onto the lehenga that I will wear to my sister's wedding in December of next year. Using the reference images above, I've selected matching embroidery floss.

Skeins of embroidery floss in shades of white, grey, black, purple, blue, yellow, green, and pink laid atop a green evenweave fabric

]]><![CDATA[Complaint, Part IV (2020-2021)]]>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 08:25:56 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/complaint-part-iv-2020-2021In addition to the timeline of efforts to remove Dr. Driskill from OSU, I wanted to share the details of my contribution to the complaint that is being handled by OSU's office of Equal Opportunity & Access. The first installment made public the cover letter summarizing my complaint. The second installment covered my second year in the PhD program (2018-2019). The last post covered my third year (2019-2020). This final post covers the events of my fourth year (2020-2021).

While I anonymize the faculty members and students who were only tangentially involved in the events leading up to my departure from the program, I have chosen to name the faculty members and former students who were a part of the problem. I do so because my silence did not afford me any protection when I was in the program, and my naming people and describing what happened in no way approximates the level of harm that they caused that led me to give up the degree that I worked towards for a decade. One of the things that I have learnt from transformative justice movements is that there is a vast difference between holding oneself and others accountable and punishment.

GTA ASSIGNMENT: FALL 2020

Last term, Dr. Driskill had sent an email to the entire department requesting that students identify any teaching preferences; I responded promptly reminding Dr. Driskill that it was essential for me to receive Ecampus assignments because it would be very difficult to teach remote synchronously due to the time difference. I also stated that I would appreciate the opportunity to work as a research assistant, to engage in course development, and to explore alternatives to teaching two courses. Despite stating this explicitly in writing, my Fall 2020 teaching assignment included a remote synchronous course that required me to teach with a 12- hour time difference as I was visiting my family in Pakistan. This continued Dr. Driskill’s established pattern of retaliating against me for exercising my right to study remotely.

Despite the frank conversations about my deteriorating health and the fact that virtual administrative assignments were proven to be possible the previous term, my teaching assignment still consisted of two courses. GTA Assignment: Instructor-of-record for ES 101 and WGSS 414, with a total of 60 students.. Moreover, the specific course assignments included an introductory course in which enrollment is typically high and students require a lot of additional support as well as a writing-intensive course for WGSS seniors that required me to give detailed feedback on numerous writing assignments.

FINAL ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS ISSUES WITH
DR. DUNCAN, & THE LEADERSHIP TEAM (INCLUDING DR. DRISKILL)

On September 19, 2020, I wrote to Dr. Duncan. I said that I was strongly considering leaving the program permanently. Having considered taking a leave of absence, I explained that I was disinclined to this course of action because it would not address the structural issues that I was experiencing in the program. In particular, I contested the practice of assigning me to teach 2 courses because of the false reasoning that administrative work could not be completed remotely. Dr. Duncan replied on September 22nd, saying that she wanted to share my email with the WGSS Leadership Team, which consisted of Dr. Driskill, Dr. Shirazi, and Ms. Kryn Freehling-Burton. I gave her permission to do so.

Later that day, I received an email from Dr. Driskill telling me to withdraw from WGSS 611. They said that if I decided to finish the year, I could take it in the Winter or Spring. As I indicated in my reply, this seemed premature given that we had yet to discuss collectively how we could find a way for me to stay. It felt as though Dr. Driskill was eager for me to leave the program instead of committed to helping me find a way to finish.

Dr. Duncan also sent out an email, cc’ing the Leadership Team, to schedule a meeting for us to discuss a best path forward for me. I wrote privately to Dr. Duncan to request a private meeting so that we could get on the same page and she could help advocate for me; she said that she was too busy to meet with me, but I could send her my list of concerns. I stated the following concerns:

I wanted to receive a lighter teaching load, taking into account that there had been a highly inequitable division of labor for a prolonged period of time. I suggested that I be asked to teach one class only, and suggested several possibilities based on my knowledge of prior assignments in the department: co-teaching a course, doing administrative work, creating promotional materials, and course development.
I noted that each person who was coming to the meeting had a different degree of familiarity with the circumstances surrounding my current situation. I said that it would take a lot of effort to get everyone on the same page, and that I did not feel able to handle the emotional burden of fielding others’ feelings as expressed in statements like “Why didn’t you talk to us sooner?” or “We didn’t know” especially since I made multiple attempts in real-time to communicate with Dr. Driskill, Dr. Duncan, and Dr. Shirazi as most appropriate to the various issues that had arisen.

Dr. Duncan replied that she would do her best to advocate for me. However, she wished to warn me that several other PhD students had taught two courses in a term and that the administrative assignments were also overwhelming. (This was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the fact that I had been taught two courses a term for multiple terms the previous year, which was not standard practice. It also did not account for the false reasons that Dr. Driskill had given for why this was supposedly necessary.) My response stated: “Thank you for making this clear. To be more specific, then, I am under the impression that none of my cohort siblings have been asked to teach 2 courses/term at any point so far. Based on my previous experiences as Assistant to DGS, I completely agree that administrative positions are overwhelming in an entirely different way. However, at least in my experience, teaching is significantly more draining given that I am then responsible to students in a more immediate way than to a supervisor, that these students require heightened flexibility and support during a pandemic that necessitates more work on my part, and that I am almost constantly ‘presumed incompetent.’ I do feel that it was unkind to assign me 2 courses in the Spring (given that I spoke to you, Qwo-Li, and Mehra quite explicitly when I came to Oregon in February) and again in the Fall (since other students had proven that completing administrative assignments remotely was possible) -- though I do understand that this was within the bounds of my contract. While perhaps not likely for the Fall, I do not think that it is unreasonable to request an administrative assignment in Winter and Spring.”

During the Zoom meeting with Dr. Duncan and the Leadership Team, it became apparent that they would not be taking my concerns seriously and that they would not commit to taking any of the proposed measures that I had requested. After Dr. Driskill exited the meeting, Dr. Shirazi asked what I had meant by “structural issues.” I specified that I meant the ways in which I was treated differently by Dr. Driskill when I decided to work/study remotely as well as the ways in which my relationships with my peers suffered as a result. Then, Dr. Duncan revealed to Dr. Shirazi and Ms. Freehling-Burton—without my permission—the tensions between me and Andrés. Specifically, she sought for to pressure me to enter mediation with him. The fact that she brought this issue up during a meeting that was designed to find a way for me to finish the program despite the consequences I faced due to Dr. Driskill’s retaliation underscored, to me, the connection between Dr. Driskill’s harassment and the bullying by Andrés. I repeated, for the third time, the reasons why I was not willing to do this. I also added that it would be incredibly draining to attempt to do this at a time when I had already disclosed that I am completely burnt out and might not be able to finish my degree.

I was told that I needed to speak to Dr. Driskill about what had happened with Andrés, despite the fact that (a) Dr. Duncan was supposed to have done this in April 2019, and (b) that I had spoken to Dr. Driskill about difficulties with my peers on my last visit to Oregon and they had been disinterested. Due to the pressure placed upon me by Dr. Duncan, I wrote to Dr. Driskill on September 25, 2020. I described the situation with Andrés, stated that I had spoken to Dr. Duncan in real time with the understanding that she would share this information with Dr. Driskill, and further explained that I had felt uncomfortable approaching Dr. Driskill directly due to the very real power imbalance between Andrés and other PhD students including me. Further, I specified that I was uninterested in mediation with Andrés especially since my relationships with others in the department had been irrevocably altered by his actions in the ways that I had spoken about to Dr. Driskill, Dr. Duncan, and Dr. Shirazi on my last visit to Oregon.

On September 28, 2020, I received the following response from Dr. Driskill:

I hope you’re safe and doing as well as possible during these really hard times. I’m cc’ing Patti and the rest of the leadership team to avoid any unintentional miscommunication.

We deeply value you as a member of our community, your skills as a teacher, and your important scholarship and will continue to support you in completing your dissertation and degree.

As far as the interpersonal situation with Andrés, direct and clear communication with me at the time might have avoided difficulties. We can’t go back in time, and can only move forward. It’s best in these situations to be clear and direct with your mentors and program leadership.

I want to assure you that Dr. Shirazi, Kryn and I are very intentional about GTA assignments. We specifically wanted to have you have the opportunity to teach a 400- level course, one with relatively low enrollment, in addition to ES 101 because of your skills as a teacher and to enable our undergraduate upper-level majors and minors to have the opportunity to have you as their Instructor. We’ll continue to support you though your teaching. We always keep requests for specific GTA assignments in mind, balancing these with specific needs of the program and rotating students through different professional experiences.

We care about you, value your work and expertise, and are here to support you through your degree process and teaching.

I replied as follows:

I would urge the Leadership Team to consider why I, or any other graduate student for that matter, might not feel able to come speak directly to their Chair or DGS. I can think of at least 6 other MA and PhD students—across multiple cohorts—who have disclosed to me similar conflicts and concerns about a power imbalance (specifically relating to Andrés, though this isn’t truly about him). Five of these conversations took place before I developed concerns of my own. None of these graduate students felt comfortable discussing the issues they faced with their respective Chairs and/or DGS. This is indicative of a structural—not individual—problem within the department.

And they were right not to put their trust in the faculty, if my experiences are anything to judge by. As already stated, I did raise the issues in real time both verbally and in writing to Dr. Duncan in her capacity as my Chair. She indicated that this would be conveyed to Dr. Driskill promptly. If there was a silence that generated unnecessary difficulties, it was not mine and I do not appreciate that implication in the slightest.

To return to the subject of my GTA assignments, I ultimately expressed my concerns and asked for the help that I need. I have no doubt that it benefits the department and the institution for me to teach two courses each term. What is at stake, as I indicated as early as February, was my health, well-being, and ability to complete this degree.

It is clear that the matter is closed, so I thank you for your consideration. The purpose of this email is only to leave behind a written record, since I wouldn’t want my silence to be unintentionally misunderstood. To be clear, I neither require nor desire further communication about these matters. I hope that you each have the best possible term under the circumstances.

BULLYING BY CASSSANDRA HALL IN
CO-WRITTEN CHAPTER FOR NEUROFUTURES ANTHOLOGY

Another incident that occurred later in October 2020 illustrates how the hostile climate created by Dr. Driskill, who had identified me as a target for their displeasure, translated into bullying by other doctoral students.

I was revising a chapter for an anthology with three other doctoral students. During a virtual meeting about our revision process and timeline, Cassandra Hall (currently a professor at Portland State University) said that she wanted to get feedback from a WGSS/QS faculty member on the revised piece before sending it back to the editors. There were concerns amongst the other contributors, myself included, about involving our committee chairs (Dr. Driskill and Dr. Duncan) in this process. We collectively decided that we would approach a different faculty member who had expertise in this subject area and was not serving as a chair on any of our committees, for feedback on the article; simultaneously, Cassie could solicit feedback on her individual writing from Dr. Duncan or Dr. Driskill separately if she so chose.

Later, a conversation took place in the Google Doc comments. Cassie said that she would be emailing the draft of whole article to Dr. Duncan for feedback. I responded that this was a violation of my boundaries as well as the collective process that we had agreed upon; I made it clear that if she sent my writing to Dr. Duncan without my permission, I would refuse to accept the feedback or would withdraw from the article. It became swiftly apparent that Cassie had already spoken to Dr. Duncan about the article without the consent of the other contributors, and she said that she would forward the draft to Dr. Duncan but with my sections “absented” but “marked.”

On October 7, 2020, Cassie sent an email to the collective. She insisted that I either “amend” a paragraph that I had written about my experiences within the WGSS program or that I submit to having my sections reviewed by Dr. Duncan or Dr. Driskill, specifically.* She said If I refused, she said that she would withdraw from the piece that she claimed was primarily a product of her labor and that she would expect her contribution to be acknowledged in several ways. Crucially, Cassie appeared to be under the impression that her demands of me were sanctioned by the faculty (specifically Dr. Duncan and Dr. Driskill) and that she was acting in the department’s best interests. I replied that I refused to be censored and wrote to the editors explaining that I had no choice but to withdraw from the article on that basis; subsequently, the two other doctoral students also withdrew from the collaboration in solidarity with me over this issue.

* The relevant excerpt from my contribution to the piece: “Within a dominant collective imaginary of the pandemic, there is a division: the before times and the after times. These categories are blurred within my neuroqueer mind. I cannot easily distinguish between my life before and after COVID-19. Nine months before the pandemic began, I moved back to Boston from Oregon in order to accommodate my partner’s and my access needs. As a direct result of this decision, I was disposed of within dominant departmental kinship networks. There was no interest in creating remote access to departmental activities, even though this was entirely possible. As a result, I was already dealing with many of the challenges that the pandemic would later present: the rupturing of carefully crafted care webs, the adaptation to new ways of enacting kinship, the increased need to shift between different modes of kinship. When the pandemic forced the program to switch to remote instruction, I found myself suddenly being hailed back into the community in performative ways that made me profoundly uncomfortable. This disjuncture underscored that previous exclusions were entirely unnecessary in the first place: an access barrier. Even as I hope that the pandemic will serve as the impetus to “stitch a new garment [...] that fits all of humanity and nature” (Taylor n.p.), I am concerned about the reformed ‘normal’ that I see forming around me. As one left by the wayside, I refuse to be reclaimed in this way.”

ANOTHER INCIDENT DUE TO MY PRECARIOUS POSITION
BETWEEN THE WGSS & ES DEPARTMENTS

The ES coordinator accused me of making unauthorized changes to ES 101 and appealed to the WGSS department to discipline me. Dr. Driskill replied to offer some context for my history with not receiving appropriate materials for this course. I received the distinct impression that the ES coordinator and Dr. Driskill were vying with one another over this in a highly public way (Dr. Bernardin had been cc’d) as part of a competitive dynamic between WGSS & ES. It did not escape my attention that, once again, I was in an uncomfortable and precarious position between the two departments due to Dr. Driskill. In my response to this email thread, I explained that I hadn’t realized that the ES coordinator had wanted me to attend a faculty meeting in the early Fall, where apparently ES 101 was discussed, especially since attending faculty meetings was not one of my regular duties. I also reiterated that my ES supervisor had told me that I could change the readings and assignments until the course was standardized; I had not received notification that this had occurred.

CONVERSATION WITH DR. SHAW ABOUT MY OPTIONS

My Winter 2021 teaching assignment was to teach ES 101 (30-45 students depending on the section) and to work as a teaching assistant to Dr. Susan Shaw (50 students). I arranged a Zoom meeting with Dr. Shaw. After we discussed the details of the teaching assignment, I disclosed to her my negative experiences in the program, specifically the ongoing retaliation from Dr. Driskill and how it had impacted my relationships with other students and faculty members. Dr. Shaw was sorry to hear that I’d had such a negative experience in the WGSS PhD program and that other students were having similar experiences. She confirmed my suspicions that I was being used as a pawn between the WGSS and ES departments, who had pre-existing drama with one another.

Dr. Shaw pointed out that I could replace Dr. Driskill as a committee member, mentioning that she had served as chair for several graduate students who’d had negative experiences with other faculty members. I explained that I was reluctant to do this because (a) I had witnessed how Dr. Driskill, even when not on a committee, was able to interfere in their capacity as DGS; (b) Dr. Duncan had failed to intervene or advocate for me so realistically I would need to either ask her to step down into a minor role in my committee or to leave it entirely; (c) other faculty members had demonstrated that they would not or could not intervene or advocate for me so it was unclear who I would replace one or both of them with; and (d) I did not want to complete my dissertation in this toxic environment.

Dr. Shaw recommended that I take a FMLA, which I had been considering due to the deterioration in my heath. In addition to recovery, this would give me time to consider whether or not I wanted to return to the PhD program. Dr. Shaw emphasized that she would be there to support me in either case. Over the past three years, I have turned to Dr. Shaw whenever I needed a letter of recommendation or a reference because there were no other faculty members who I could trust.

MY FMLA WAS PROCESSED INCORRECTLY
RESULTING IN A LOSS OF HEALTH INSURANCE

My health was once again compromised due to the chronic stress caused by Dr. Driskill’s retaliation and the hostile climate of the PhD program. My rheumatologist told me that she thought it was essential that I take a leave of absence, and once I decided that she was right, she later completed the Medical Certification to authorize my FMLA leave.

On December 9, 2020, I sent an email to Dr. Patti Duncan and the WGSS Leadership Team. I notified them that I had decided to apply for a FMLA through Human Resources for Winter 2021. I did so as a courtesy so that they could make alternate arrangements for the courses that I was supposed to teach in WGSS and Ethnic Studies. I also asked which WGSS faculty member or instructor to forward students’ active incomplete contracts to. That same day, Dr. Driskill replied with a link that provided information and forms for the different types of leave to which GTAs were entitled including FMLA; Dr. Duncan replied with positive wishes for my recovery; and Ms. Freehling-Burton answered my question about incompletes.

On December 15, 2020, Dr. Driskill followed up with a link to an LOA form which the instructions stated were not to be used for FMLA. This was the first indication that there was a misunderstanding; however, I was not checking my email regularly because (a) I was very unwell; (b) I had severe anxiety about opening my OSU email, which was often a place of harassment; and (c) I was on break. Significantly, none of the other faculty members included in the email thread replied to ask for clarification or to make a correction. This seems to suggest that either the email in and of itself was not a clear indication of a brewing misunderstanding. The point remains that I never completed the LOA form, which is required to initiate an academic leave of absence.

As a result, I was unable to initiate my FMLA Protected Leave Case. Once I had received all the paperwork from my doctor’s office, I attempted to initiate the case in Emp Center on December 23rd. An error message popped up stating that I did not have an active assignment for the selected dates (01/04/21 -03/28/21). I attempted to view my current timesheet and received the same error message, although I could reference previous timesheets. I checked the Schedule of Classes, and found that my name had been removed as instructor of record from my Winter 2021 assignment.

I immediately left a voicemail with the Office of Human Resources summarizing the situation. On December 24th, I received a voicemail from Ms. Kristen Mozuch, Human Resources Consultant 1, providing the contact information for the FMLA sub-division of HR. That same day, I left a voicemail with the FMLA sub-division and I faxed the Medical Certification Form to the FMLA office. On December 28th, I sent the FMLA office an email summarizing the situation and asked how I should proceed. I received a response that same day from Ms. Lori Schmidt, an HR Officer in Protected Leaves; she instructed me to contact my supervisor to ask that they reinstate my employment.

On December 29th, I forwarded the email from Ms. Schmidt (cc’d) to Dr.Bernardin, Dr. Duncan, and the Leadership Team. I explained the situation, and asked them to swiftly reinstate my employment so that I could open a protected leave case. That same day, I received a response from Dr. Driskill stating that they were cc’ing Ms. Karen Mills to help facilitate this process. I left a voicemail with Ms. Mills. When she responded via email, Ms. Mills explained: “We were told you were taking a leave of absence, which is totally different than FMLA.” Although it is not clear who conveyed this to Ms. Mills, the fact of the matter is that I did not submit the paperwork for an LOA and so my employment was terminated in a way that was not consistent with department/school policy. Furthermore, the incorrect processing of my FMLA impacted my ability to access health care. I had a doctor’s appointment on January 4th, where I learned that due to my FMLA being processed incorrectly, my insurance coverage was no longer active. I had not received an email or letter notifying from Pacific Source or OSU notifying me that my coverage had suspended.

On January 4th, I received confirmation from Ms. Mills that HR was going to reactivate my GTA position. She inquired about my plans for Spring 2021 and I confirmed that my intention, at present, was to return in Spring 2021 at a reduced FTE though that would depend upon how my recovery progressed. She said that she would verify with me when the time came to make spring appointments. On January 6th, I followed-up to inquire when I could expect my appointment to be reinstated. I underscored that it was essential for me to establish a protected leave case as soon as possible, especially since me and my dependents were uninsured until this was sorted out. I received confirmation that this was in the final stages at HR, so it would be processed soon.

THE DECISION NOT TO RETURN TO OSU FOLLOWING MY FMLA

By the end of my FMLA, it was apparent to me that there was no point in returning to finish my PhD so long as Dr. Driskill held a position of authority. Ideally, I would have been able to formally resign and initiate a leave of absence that would have enabled me to return without readmission for up to 5 years if renewed annually. However, the thought of opening up my OSU email made me sick to my stomach with anxiety; I simply could not bring myself to do it and allowed myself to be terminated due to absence.

]]><![CDATA[Complaint, Part III (2019-2020)]]>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 07:52:57 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/complaint-part-iii-2019-2020In addition to the timeline of efforts to remove Dr. Driskill from OSU, I wanted to share the details of my contribution to the complaint that is being handled by OSU's office of Equal Opportunity & Access. The first installment made public the cover letter summarizing my complaint and the second installment covered my second year in the PhD program (2018-2019). This post covers my third year (2019-2020). The next post will cover my fourth and final year (2020-2021).

While I anonymize the faculty members and students who were only tangentially involved in the events leading up to my departure from the program, I have chosen to name the faculty members and former students who were a part of the problem. I do so because my silence did not afford me any protection when I was in the program, and my naming people and describing what happened in no way approximates the level of harm that they caused that led me to give up the degree that I worked towards for a decade. One of the things that I have learnt from transformative justice movements is that there is a vast difference between holding oneself and others accountable and punishment.

TEXT EXCHANGE WITH ANDRÉS LÓPEZ

Shortly after I moved back to Boston, I received the following text message from Andrés López: "Hey! Do you have some time today or tomorrow to chat? I'm feeling like things have been super awkward in the last several weeks and I just want to see if we can figure out what's going on." I had no desire to participate in a pretense. Knowing that word of this would get back to Dr. Driskill, to whom I assumed Dr. Duncan had since passed along my letter and concerns, I responded as follows: “No, thank you. We both know the circumstances that led us to take a step back from our relationship. To pretend otherwise frankly feels like gaslighting. You’ve had months to talk to me directly, but chose not to in ways that were hurtful and didn’t meet my expectations for kinship. If it feels awkward now, that’s because it is. It’s not my responsibility to perform emotional labor to make you feel better about it. I hope you have a good summer.”

DENIED VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION IN GTA MEETINGS

Despite the fact that I had verbally communicated to Dr. Driskill that I wanted to participate in the weekly GTA meetings virtually and that I had peers who were willing to facilitate this, the email with my Fall 2020 GTA Assignment stated that: “In lieu of weekly GTA meetings, you should take one or more free online workshops, equivalent to 10 hours of your total hours over the term.” This alternative in no way offered a substitution for the primary purpose of the weekly GTA meetings as described in the WGSS Handbook: “At these meetings, GTAs are provided with useful information and resources regarding OSU policies and teaching in WGSS, as well as a regular time to discuss specific classes, teaching strategies, and/or concerns. In addition, some meetings will be facilitated by WGSS faculty on specific themes of relevance to our program’s values and learning objectives.” The handbook also states that GTA meetings are mandatory for all graduate teaching assistants and were only to be missed in extenuating circumstances. There is no policy that proscribed an alternative course of action for remote students, and in fact, there were multiple instances of remote participation facilitated by peers that I had witnessed in previous years. In this way, Dr. Driskill prevented me from participating in a university activity that I was otherwise entitled to engage in. This point is underscored by the fact that, in subsequent years, the weekly GTA meeting took place virtually.

GTA ASSIGNMENT POSITIONED ME PRECARIOUSLY
BETWEEN THE WGSS & ES DEPARTMENTS

My teaching assignment was to teach WGSS 262 and ES 101, which consisted of 50 students total. Despite the fact that I had previously told Dr. Duncan and Dr. Driskill that I was uncomfortable with teaching ES 101 since I had never taken an Ethnic Studies course, I was assigned to teach in this department from Fall 2019 onwards. I was assigned an ES faculty supervisor. Since the email about my assignment did not include a syllabus nor did the Canvas course include a shell, I wrote to my ES and WGSS supervisors (including Dr. Driskill) but did not receive the requested materials. When I emailed Dr. Driskill at the end of September, I stated that I would be unable to fulfill my contractual duties if I did not receive these materials. Dr. Driskill cc’d Dr. Bernardin and many others became involved; I eventually received the necessary materials the night before Ecampus courses were expected to be published.

Through this process, it became apparent to me that my new GTA assignment placed me in a precarious situation between the two departments. In this specific instance, it manifested in confusion over whether my WGSS supervisors or ES supervisor were responsible for handling my assignments. In addition to the fact that that my workload had increased with two teaching assignments, the delayed response generated significant additional work on my part and prevented me from being able to fulfill my contractual duties.

This also became a pattern: Every time that the WGSS and ES departments corresponded with one another over my teaching, they would find fault with and try to place blame upon one another. Every time that Dr. Driskill intervened to my benefit it was in a public way (such as cc’ing Dr. Bernardin) that was designed to ‘one up’ an ES faculty member. It never escaped my attention that the only reason that I was in this precarious position between departments was that Dr. Driskill kept placing me there.

REPLACED AS A PEER MENTOR BY ANDRÉS LÓPEZ

Since the previous year, I had served as a peer mentor to a new doctoral student through the WGSS GSA’s peer mentorship program. Despite the fact that I continued to fulfill this responsibility (e.g., answering questions, regularly checking in, talking through writing ideas etc.), Andrés assigned himself to be this student's new peer mentor. I discovered this when this student called me, confused, to ask if I had initiated this change.

As a former officer in the WGSS GSA, I was fully aware that a detailed spreadsheet was maintained by Andrés documenting every mentoring partnership. As such, this was not an oversight (as Dr. Duncan later suggested). Through this petty action, Andrés signaled that: (1) as a remote student, I was no longer a member of the WGSS community—the very same assumption that Dr. Driskill had made when they tried to coerce me to remain in Oregon, and (2) that I was no longer an ‘acceptable’ mentor because I refused to submit to Andrés’ overtures as well as to Dr. Driskill’s demands.

A narrative about me not being a good community member was rapidly coalescing around me, and I saw no way to intervene. It was particularly troubling because this narrative erased the many ways that I was still actively involved in the WGSS community: peer-mentoring; virtual study sessions; working with other students on conference panels, workshops, and roundtables; co-writing articles for publication; and virtual attendance at events when possible.

TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY PEERS BEFORE/AT NWSA

In November 2019, I spent a few days in Corvallis before carrying on to the NWSA conference in Atlanta, GA. One of my goals was to participate in a pre-roundtable discussion with several peers prior to the conference, which I confirmed with fellow doctoral student Cassandra Hall in advance. At the last minute, I received a text from her stating that they had moved the meeting to the neighboring town of Albany because it was more convenient for two individuals; she said she understood that I would likely not be able to make it as a result because there was no time for me to find a ride. Cassandra had also told me that we would meet up at the NWSA conference. While I was in the audience at her conference presentation and she at mine, we were supposed to meet after. She made an excuse and this didn’t happen. It was then that I started to understand what was going on--Cassie was intentionally placing distance between me and her because it was no longer fashionable to remain friends with me if one wanted to be in Dr. Driskill’s and Andrés’ good graces. There was also a palpable distance between me and several other WGSS doctoral students that confirmed my suspicions.

AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES WITH DR. DRISKILL DIRECTLY

In November 2019, I attended the NWSA conference. There, I had my first meeting with Dr. Driskill since I transitioned to working remotely. I acknowledged that working remotely did indeed prove challenging as they predicted. I said that I was sorry that they had been hurt by my decision to leave against their judgement, and that I was troubled by the ways that our relationship had shifted negatively. I said that I hoped that we could find our way back to working together positively. Dr. Driskill seemed somewhat receptive, and so I left this discussion with the impression that we had cleared the air and feeling hopeful that things would improve. This hope proved to be short-lived.

GTA ASSIGNMENT: WINTER 2020

I received my assignment on December 17th, and in addition to ES 101, it included the following statement: “Because you had to do significant development work on this course [ES 101] last term, and will be continuing this labor this term, we are accounting for this additional labor from last term and for Winter by only assigning you one course. This work includes leading online class sessions, grading, holding online office hours, adding needed content to the Ecampus shell (including your own lectures), and maintaining contact with your teaching supervisors.” While I appreciated that my assignment reflected the extra labor I had been forced to do in Fall 2019, this measure did not, nor was it intended to, offset the increased workload of teaching two courses in previous and subsequent terms. My Canvas records indicate that I had 32 students.

DR. DRISKILL’S FEEDBACK ON MY DISSERTATION PROSPECTUS

In December 2019, I received feedback from Dr. Duncan on my dissertation prospectus. I made the requested changes quickly, and the revised prospectus was sent to my committee. In January 2020, Dr. Duncan forwarded me Dr. Driskill’s feedback on my prospectus. While I was grateful for Dr. Driskill’s detailed feedback, it nonetheless represented a major shift in the way in which Dr. Driskill engaged with my work. In the past, Dr. Driskill had always offered feedback in ways that were constructive and generative, but not unnecessarily critical. The feedback on my prospectus reflected the kind of meticulous scrutiny that professors usually reserve for reviewing other full-fledged scholars. This ran counter to how the dissertation prospectus had been described by Dr. Duncan as an initial proposal that we would have a generative conversation about in the defense. The comments were also overwhelmingly negative. As a teacher, I could tell that the feedback was not delivered in a way that was designed to maximize my ability to improve the project; it was designed to be as hurtful as possible while pinpointing areas for improvement. Later, I would also hear from several committee members that they agreed that the feedback was inappropriate for this stage of the dissertation process. Several graduate students asked to see the comments for themselves based on my description of the feedback. They were shocked by the difference between how Dr. Driskill delivered feedback to them (which was similar to the feedback I had received in the past) and the comments on my prospectus.

LOSS OF FELLOWSHIP OPPORTUNITY DUE TO
TENSIONS BETWEEN CHAIR & DGS

Dr. Duncan had encouraged me to apply for a pre-doctoral fellowship in Asian American Studies. The dissertation prospectus was a significant element in the required application materials, and Dr. Duncan indicated that my prospectus was sufficiently developed for me to use it in my application. After we received Dr. Driskill’s feedback on my prospectus, Dr. Duncan told me that I shouldn’t apply for the fellowship because my prospectus required a great deal of work. I was deeply confused by the inconsistency of her advice, which seemed to hinge upon Dr. Driskill’s feedback.
This incident conformed to the aforementioned pattern where Dr. Duncan would renege upon her agreements with me or alter her already stated opinion because Dr. Driskill had a different opinion. Since there was no diplomatic way for me to point this out in writing, I simply pulled my requests for recommendation letters from Dr. Duncan, Dr. Driskill, and Dr. Shirazi. I resolved to travel to Corvallis in order to speak to these three faculty members directly and figure out what was going on.

HEALTH COMPLICATIONS AS A RESULT OF THE HARASSMENT

At the same time, I began developing major health complications. In addition to increased pain and fatigue, I was experiencing brain fog, aphasia, slurring, fevers and temperature swings, dramatic weight loss, dizziness, nerve pain, loss of motor control of my arms/hands, and severe migraines. My rheumatologist stated in no uncertain terms that I was having a flare-up due to the stress of the harassment in the PhD program. Although she advised me against traveling to Oregon when I was so sick, I felt that it was essential for my degree progress to get to the bottom of why I was hearing so many contradictory things from committee members.

ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS ISSUES WITH DR. DRISKILL
BY TRAVELING TO OREGON AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE

I explained the major health consequences that I was facing to all three of the faculty members to whom I spoke. A summary of each individual conversation is provided below:

Dr. Duncan:

When I met face-to-face with Dr. Duncan, it became apparent that there was a juxtaposition between what my chair communicated to me verbally and what she communicated to me in person. Dr. Duncan revealed that there were disagreements between herself and Dr. Driskill about the extent of the feedback/revisions as well as the scope of what should be included in a dissertation prospectus. Dr. Duncan said that while she appreciated how detailed Dr. Driskill’s feedback was, she was of the opinion that it was too much critique offered too soon in the process. For this reason, she was concerned that Dr. Driskill’s feedback would stymy me—as, indeed, it had. Dr. Duncan said that she had asked Dr. Driskill to reserve some of their feedback for the oral defense and the actual dissertation, but they refused. In person, I received additional guidance on how to approach the revisions in a way that bridged both Dr. Duncan and Dr. Driskill’s different understandings of this process—guidance proved essential to my revisions and that should have been offered to me at the start. Specifically, Dr. Duncan said that she didn’t think I needed to enact all of Dr. Driskill’s suggestions at the prospectus stage. I said that I didn’t know how to gauge which comments were essential to address now and which I could save for a later stage. I disclosed that I was afraid that if I did not respond to every single one of Dr. Driskill’s comments, my degree progress would be further derailed—as I had witnessed happen to other doctoral students. It was incredibly frustrating to me that, once again, my ability to progress towards my degree was being impacted by these tensions between Dr. Driskill and Dr. Duncan.

For the second time, Dr. Duncan brought up the subject of mediation with Andrés López. I explained, once again, that mediation implies that these are individual issues when the events that I describe are actually symptomatic of, and firmly entrenched within, existing departmental power dynamics. I also did not appreciate that the onus for resolving this ‘conflict’ was placed squarely upon my shoulders in a way that it was not for the other individual involved. In response to the assertion that a mediated conversation would be ‘healing,’ I felt compelled to ask: “For whom?” I had no interest in expending time, energy, or emotional labor for a performance of collegiality that would in no way address the harm that had been done to my relationship with other students and faculty in the department. She suggested that my time in the program would be easier if I agreed to do this, which underscored that the issues with Dr. Driskill and with Andrés were linked. When I asked, Dr. Duncan revealed that she had never passed along my written complaint about the incident with Andrés to Dr. Driskill despite promising to do so last April. I felt betrayed by this lack of action on her part, but I stayed silent because I did not wish to alienate myself further from my Chair before my upcoming examination.

Dr. Shirazi:

I spoke to Dr. Shirazi on the phone. She said that, after speaking to Dr. Duncan, she had the impression that Dr. Driskill was impeding my dissertation prospectus timeline and process. She suggested that I should make an extra effort to thank Dr. Driskill for their feedback on my prospectus—which I had already done. Dr. Shirazi explained that under the new budget model, GTAs who were working remotely and had to receive Ecampus assignments put pressure on the department. She indicated that this predisposed some faculty members negatively towards me. To mitigate this impression, she recommended that during my visit I should attend that week’s GTA meeting and evening social to prove that I was an active member of the WGSS community. This comment struck me as a self-fulfilling prophecy because I had been systematically excluded by Dr. Driskill and Andrés López from several legible ways of being involved in WGSS community such as virtual participation in weekly GTA meetings and peer mentoring.

As another PhD student and I passed Dr. Shirazi in the corridor, she took us to the side and whispered that she recognized how the disagreements between WGSS faculty about the roles of the Committee Chair and the Director of Graduate Studies in the comprehensive qualifying examination process were generating inconsistencies that were impacting doctoral students negatively. Furthermore, she said that she recognized how these departmental dynamics were harming our health and well-being, specifically.

Dr. Driskill:

After speaking to Dr. Duncan and Dr. Shirazi, I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Driskill. I said that I had been picking up on a conversation about my role in this department. Dr. Driskill said that they were “not aware of a conversation about my role in the department.” The fact that they repeated back my phrasing word-for-word immediately struck me as suspicious. It seemed as though Dr. Driskill was trying to avoid an outright lie since other faculty members had, indeed, indicated that such a conversation was taking place and that Dr. Driskill was at the center of it. I said that there had been difficulties with my peers. I gave the examples of being removed as a peer mentor by the WGSS GSA (i.e., Andrés), noting that there was gossip about me that had led to awkwardness with new and returning students, and that overall my position within the department appeared to have shifted. Dr. Driskill remained silent. I said that I felt uncomfortable with the advice that I had received from other faculty members to suck up to Dr. Driskill. I offered the examples of being told to thank them for their feedback, to attend the GTA meeting, and to attend the social to prove something to Dr. Driskill. I was especially troubled by these assertions because I had hoped that we had straightened things out when I spoke to them at NWSA. Dr. Driskill said that there was nothing more to discuss about these matters, and I left.

GTA ASSIGNMENT: SPRING 2020

I was assigned to teach WGSS 325 and ES 101 as instructor of record, with a total of 54 students.

There are two significant changes that were made in the Spring 2020 term. Firstly, GTA meetings were now taking place virtually. 18 This revealed that it was always possible, but not desirable, for Dr. Driskill to include me. At this point, the thought of spending time in a virtual classroom with Dr. Driskill, Andrés López, and Cassandra Hall made me anxious. I could not bear to face a room of peers that had been fed gossip about me. Instead, I continued to complete the alternate professional development work that I had been assigned in lieu of GTA meetings at the beginning of the academic year. Secondly, students began completing their administrative work virtually. This meant that it had been possible to give me an administrative assignment all along, and Dr. Driskill’s reasons for assigning me two courses per term were false and arbitrary.

Since assignments had already been finalized for Spring 2020, I did not expect that one of the courses would be removed and replaced with an administrative assignment. However, I assumed that in the future the department would distribute the workload more equitably and take into account my previous teaching assignments.

]]><![CDATA[Complaint, Part II (2018-2019)]]>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 06:00:32 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/complaint-part-ii-2018-2019In addition to the timeline of efforts to remove Dr. Driskill from OSU, I wanted to share the details of my contribution to the complaint that is being handled by OSU's office of Equal Opportunity & Access. The first installment made public the cover letter summarizing my complaint. This is the second installment, which covers my second year in the PhD program (2018-2019). I have also posted the third (2019-2020) and fourth (2020-2021) installments.

While I anonymize the faculty members and students who were only tangentially involved in the events leading up to my departure from the program, I have chosen to name the faculty members and former students who were a part of the problem. I do so because my silence did not afford me any protection when I was in the program, and my naming people and describing what happened in no way approximates the level of harm that they caused that led me to give up the degree that I worked towards for a decade. One of the things that I have learnt from transformative justice movements is that there is a vast difference between holding oneself and others accountable and punishment.

INTERFERENCE WITH MY COMMITTEE CHAIR & DEGREE PROGRESS

I had arranged with Dr. Duncan (Committee Chair) to take my core examination in Fall 2018, since I had completed all of my core coursework. Dr. Driskill told Dr. Duncan that this was unacceptable, because I had not yet completed my concentration/minor coursework. Dr. Duncan said that since the PhD program was new, aspects of the examination process were still being worked out. While we could push back, she recommended that we cede to Dr. Driskill on this issue. Since this was a relatively small problem, I agreed to wait until next term to take my core exam. This would become a recurring pattern: I would discuss an aspect of my degree progress with Dr. Duncan, and then Dr. Driskill would interfere in their capacity as DGS and/or committee member (often by introducing additional hoops to jump through that were not listed in the program handbook), and Dr. Duncan would capitulate to their demands.

INQUIRY INTO STUDYING & WORKING REMOTELY

I asked Dr. Duncan if it would be possible to complete my dissertation remotely upon completion of my coursework. The two primary reasons that I cited for this move were (a) my partner and I, as a disabled person with significant health challenges, required the support of our extended family, and (b) that there were few employment options in Corvallis, OR for my husband in his career as a Class A/B commercial driver. Since the WGSS Department had no specific policies or procedures on this matter, Dr. Duncan began corresponding with the Graduate School in order to confirm that this was permissible.

COERCION TO STAY IN OREGON

On January 23rd, I received a text message from Dr. Driskill in their capacity as my direct supervisor stating that they wished to speak to me on the phone regarding my administrative work. During that phone call, it became immediately apparent that Dr. Driskill had an entirely different agenda: they aimed to coerce me into staying in Oregon. I was startled because I was not aware that Dr. Duncan had spoken to Dr. Driskill of this matter. Furthermore, I did not appreciate that Dr. Driskill used their position as my supervisor to trick me into speaking on the phone with them about this issue, which ensured that there was no written record of our conversation and that there were no witnesses present.

Dr. Driskill aimed to persuade me by rattling off statistics about how PhD students are more likely to fail when working remotely and saying that I would not give/receive adequate support through the WGSS community. When this proved insufficient, Dr. Driskill detailed the ways in which they would retaliate if I persisted.

Dr. Driskill stated that I would be forced to teach 2 courses for my .49 FTE. At the time, the standard practice in the department was to assign students 8 hours of administrative work and 12 hours of teaching work per week. By this metric, 2 courses would amount to 24 hours of work and exceed my contracted hours per week. The rationale that they offered was that it would be impossible for me to do administrative work virtually. This assertion was later proven false when the department provided virtual administrative assignments to other PhD students while still requiring me to teach two online courses.
Dr. Driskill said that if I were to teach remotely, they would continue to assign me to teach Disney: Gender, Race Empire (WGSS 325). Prior to this, I had already taught WGSS 325 4 times and had requested, with Dr. Duncan’s support, to be assigned to teach other classes that would strengthen my teaching portfolio. Dr. Driskill had been unreceptive to this prior request. In this way, Dr. Driskill leveraged teaching assignments to coerce me into remaining in Oregon. Although I was only assigned WGSS 325 once more, this comment did foreshadow how Dr. Driskill would use specific teaching assignments to retaliate against me.

PALPABLE DISPLEASURE THAT IMPACTED WORK ENVIRONMENT

Once I received the go-ahead from The Graduate School and Dr. Duncan, l confirmed that I would be moving back to Boston. From this point onwards, Dr. Driskill began treating me differently. They became cold towards me. My administrative work required regular meetings and correspondence with Dr. Driskill as my supervisor; these meetings became very uncomfortable and I dreaded them. The tension was palpable enough that another doctoral student, who was also required to attend these meetings, noticed. Overall, my status in the department shifted as it became evident that I was now one of Dr. Driskill’s unfavored students.

BULLYING IN THE GRADUATE STUDENT ASSOCIATION

Andrés López (now a professor at Carleton University) was a member of my cohort. He was Dr. Driskill's favorite student, as evidenced by the fact that Andrés received preferential treatment in several concrete ways:

In 2016-2017, Andrés sought to transfer from another PhD program back to OSU, where he had completed his Master’s. Dr. Driskill arranged for Andrés to be hired as an undergraduate instructor in the department for the remainder of the academic year, so that he could apply to the OSU PhD program.
Andrés received a highly coveted position on the Feminist Formations journal, which came with several perks like funding during the summer term and financial support to attend the NWSA conference. There was no application process for this position, despite requests from students, and it was not clear on what basis it was assigned.
Dr. Driskill invited Andrés to participate on conference panels and to co-author with them, and did not extend such invitations to other students in our cohort.

Over the summer, Andrés asked me to lead the revision of the WGSS Graduate Association (GSA) constitution. He recommended that I reach out to [FORMER DIRECTOR OF INA HAWS] to ask for a copy of the Indigenous student organization's constitution—this feels purposeful given his later accusations. At that time, I also consulted OSU’s guidelines and several other student organizations’ constitutions. When I later sent out sign-up sheets to graduate students to see if anybody else wanted to be involved, the only person who volunteered was Andrés’ partner, an MA student in the WGSS program. Despite their initial enthusiasm, they disappeared and didn't participate in the revisions--this was highly unusual behavior for this person and, again, feels significant given Andrés’ later accusations.

I heard separately from three doctoral students that Andrés had told all of the GSA officers, other graduate students, and Dr. Driskill that he was concerned that I had appropriated Indigenous cultures in the revised constitution and was going to have a conversation with me about it. Andrés never raised this concern with me directly despite the fact that provided feedback on the constitution draft at several points, including before it was sent to the other GSA officers and during multiple meetings in which GSA officers collaborated to revise it. Since he never spoke to me directly, I do not know where this concern about my work lay. Further, he disclosed to one individual that, because of his concerns, he had unilaterally decided to prevent the constitution from progressing to a vote. This was in direct opposition to the ratified constitution of the WGSS graduate student association.

In addition to irrevocably damaging our friendship, Andrés’ conduct undermined my relationships with WGSS faculty (Dr. Driskill) and students. Ultimately, it compromised my ability to participate in the GSA. I resigned from my position, citing personal reasons. I had a meeting with Dr. Duncan on 04/22/19, in which I gave her a letter that explained what had happened, why I had resigned, and how it was impacting my position in the department. I also stated that I was updating Dr. Duncan in case the situation developed further, and that this incident had made me very reluctant to return to Corvallis in the future. Dr. Duncan said that it was essential that Dr. Driskill be informed, and asked my permission to share the letter with them. I agreed. It was not until the next year that I would discover that she had failed to pass along the letter or my concerns to Dr. Driskill.

INEQUITABLE TREATMENT OF STUDENTS
TRANSITIONING TO WORKING/STUDYING REMOTELY

At the annual end-of-year WGSS Celebration, I spoke to a PhD student who was moving to their home state to complete their degree remotely because their partner had accepted a tenure-track position. They told me that Dr. Driskill had been supportive of this decision. This indicated to me that I was being singled out for Dr. Driskill’s displeasure, since my husband’s employment was one of the two major factors stated in my decision to move back to Boston. The only discernible difference this student's position and mine was that they were moving so that their partner could accept a white-collar position and I was moving so that my husband could pursue a blue-collar career.

]]><![CDATA[Complaint, Part I: Cover Letter/Summary]]>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 03:22:35 GMThttps://www.sashaakhan.com/blog/complaint-part-i-summaryIn addition to the timeline of efforts to remove Dr. Driskill from the Oregon State University faculty, I wanted to provide details about the complaint that I submitted to OSU's Office of Equal Opportunity and Access. This post is the first installment, which makes public the cover letter for my complaint. It was emailed to Ms. Roni Sue (OSU's Equal Opportunity & Access), Dr. Rogers (Dean for the College of Liberal Arts), and Dr. Bernardin (Director of the School of Language, Culture, & Society). Subsequent posts will cover events that took place in my 2nd year in the PhD program (2018-2019), my 3rd year (2019-2020), and my 4th and final year (2020-2021).

I was a PhD candidate in good standing in the Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies (WGSS) program at Oregon State University from 2017-2020. I am writing to file a formal complaint against Dr. Qwo-Li Driskill, who I interacted with in the following capacities:

Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) from 2017-2020;
Professor of seven WGSS/QS courses that I took from 2017-2018;
QS minor representative on my dissertation committee from 2017-2020; and
Direct supervisor of my graduate teaching assistantships from 2018-2019, when I worked as the QS Social Media & Outreach Assistant [Winter 2018 to Spring 2018] and the Assistant to DGS [Fall 2018 to Spring 2019].

I departed the WGSS PhD program in my final year because of the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation that I experienced from Dr. Driskill as and after I transitioned to working and studying remotely in 2019. In addition to targeting specific students for their displeasure, I also contend that Dr. Driskill created a hostile climate that promoted the bullying of unfavored graduate students by their peers. This culture of fear extended to the WGSS faculty, as there were numerous incidents in which faculty members were too intimidated to advocate for their students when doing so conflicted with Dr. Driskill’s wishes.

I would love nothing more than to re-enroll in Oregon State University to finish earning my doctorate remotely, but that is an impossibility so long as Dr. Driskill remains in a position of authority. They have used every one of their roles – DGS, professor, committee member, and supervisor – to engage in a pattern of abusive behavior that has only intensified as more graduate students have raised concerns. Furthermore, they have persistently avoided taking accountability for their pernicious actions. It seems likely that they would continue to behave inappropriately in any position that they might occupy at Oregon State University. For this reason, I do not believe that it is sufficient to replace Dr. Driskill as DGS and I advocate for their termination from the faculty.

]]>