Complaint, Part II (2018-2019)

In 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.

1. ​​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.
2. 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.