Dear Graduate Council,
We are writing to inform you that the Graduate Student Association (GSA) has formed the Committee for Ethical Treatment of Graduate Students (CETGS), and to bring to your attention that committee’s recent work on establishing a graduate appeals process.
As a result of an article in the November issue of physics today (see attached), the Graduate Student Association began discussing the treatment of graduate students at the UCSC campus. We were shocked at the number of graduate students who felt that abuse of graduate students was a serious problem at this campus. Abuses included poor advising, lack of guidelines for resolving disputes, racial discrimination, faculty with unchecked power, faculty abusing students emotionally, and unequal treatment of women in the sciences.
Graduate students frequently mention that they had no avenue for redress should these abuses occur. Reporting abuses would likely end their graduate careers. Professors are reluctant to interfere with each other’s graduate students, and the department chair may be unwilling to take action against colleagues with whom he/she has personal or professional friendships.
As a result of these discussions, the GSA formed the CETGS,
and that subcommittee began to look into formal avenues for redress of abuses
of graduate students on campus. Our
first conclusion is that the appeals process for graduate student on campus
needs to be rewritten. The current
process (see attached) is extremely limited.
We, the CETGS, are in the process of writing a new graduate appeals
process, based on the appeals process at UC Berkeley and the
The limited scope and applicability of the appeals process on this campus has been illustrated by the recent case of Marina Sarran. The CETGS is following her case as an example of how the appeals process currently works.
The lack of appropriate avenues for redress has also been noted by the Graduate Student
Issue Task Force in 1999. The former Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, Geoffrey Pullum, proposed remedies to this “inherent weakness” in his letter to EVC Tanner. Unfortunately, the joint proposal by the GSA and Dean Pullum for a Chancellor's advisory committee to handle graduate students appeals (plus other proposals) was not adopted.
In conclusion, we feel that in order for the University to expand its graduate student population, abuses of graduate student by the faculty need to be openly discussed. We would like to open a dialogue with the Graduate Council on how to improve treatment of graduate students at this campus. We would also like to improve the graduate appeals process to begin to create formal, readily available avenues for redress on this campus.
Sincerely,
Gerardo Palafox
Allison Luengen
Lisa Downward
Ian Dobbs-Dixon
Alexander Hutko
Committee for Ethical Treatment of Graduate Students
Graduate Student Association
Email: gsa@ucsc.edu
Current procedure from http://www.graddiv.ucsc.edu/handBook.html#Heading%207
APPEALING ACADEMIC JUDGMENTS
The Graduate Council has reviewed and approved (on
Appealing Narrative Evaluations
An appeal may be filed if the student is persuaded that the instructor has given a grade notation or narrative evaluation based on: (A) inappropriate criteria such as race, politics, religion, age, sex or national origin; (B) capricious or arbitrary application of appropriate criteria in a manner not reflective of student performance in relation to course requirement.
An appeal must be initiated within one year from the date the evaluation becomes part of the student's academic record in the Office of the Registrar. The student must seek resolution of the disputed narrative evaluation sequentially from:
1. The instructor who provided the evaluation.
2. Either (a) or (b) as applicable:
(a) when the student's graduate program discipline and the department sponsoring the course are the same, then the student, instructor, and department chair (or her/his delegate) collectively will seek to resolve the matter.
or
(b) when the student's graduate program discipline and the department sponsoring the course are of different disciplines, then the student, the instructor, the chair (or her/his delegate) of the graduate program, and the chair (or her/his delegate) of the department sponsoring the course collectively will seek to resolve the matter.
3. The Dean of Graduate Studies (who also is a voting member of the Graduate Council).
4. The Graduate Council.
If the student appeals in writing to the Chair of the Graduate Council, the Dean of Graduate Studies will forward all pertinent documents to the Chair of the Council for her/his evaluation. The Chair may request additional information (e.g., course syllabus, TA reports, other narrative evaluations, etc.).
The Graduate Council will review the file and determine whether a prima facie case exists to justify a formal hearing.
If a hearing is to be held, the student and instructor will be notified in advance. Each party shall provide the other with relevant materials, including names of witnesses, which are to be introduced at the hearing. This material should be provided to the Graduate Council at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing.
A formal hearing will follow these procedures and conditions:
1. The student shall have the right to:
a. be present throughout the hearing;
b. be accompanied by a Senate member of her/his choice;
c. present evidence, including witnesses, first; and
d. examine all witnesses presented by the instructor.
2. The hearings will be confidential and limited to the principals (student, Senate member selected by the student, and instructor) and members of the Graduate Council (but see 3 and 5 below).
3. By prior arrangement, witnesses may be interviewed as part of the hearing process.
4. At the request of the Graduate Council or the student, all witnesses other than the student and the instructor shall be excluded from the hearing except when testifying.
5. Evidence may be oral or written, but must be limited to issues raised in the original written complaint. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, and evidence shall be admitted if of the type upon which reasonable people are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The Graduate Council will exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitive evidence. At its discretion the Graduate Council may agree to hear arguments as to the correct resolution of the matter.
6. The meeting shall be tape recorded, or, at the option of the student, a stenographer may be provided at the student's expense. The student shall have access to a copy of the tape recording and may copy the tape at her/his expense. All records pertaining to the hearing shall be kept by the Graduate Council for a period of three (3) years. Student records shall be retained beyond that time if there is an outstanding request to inspect and review them.
7. The Graduate Council will reach its decision at a subsequent time, but within thirty (30) days, and in private (see Appendix B, Academic Senate Regulation 16.3.2).