Complaint, Part III (2019-2020)

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 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.