Complaint, Part IV (2020-2021)

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. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.