Straightening out grievance allegations

Monday, April 22, 1996

Current university procedures fair for graduate apprenticesBy
Robin Fisher

In an April 2 Daily Bruin viewpoint titled "Administration
tightens the screw," Steve Alexander raised a number of issues
regarding grievance procedures available to graduate apprentice
appointees at UCLA. With no factual evidence presented, Alexander
made serious allegations of real and potential institutional
misconduct to question the integrity and credibility of the
university in such matters.

To simply set the record straight, there is no evidence that any
of these allegations are true.

The system of formal and informal grievance procedures used at
UCLA for academic apprentice appointees is time-tested, simple and
workable. It meets the highest requirements of the law. It meets
the professional commitment of the faculty and administration of
the university to support graduate students with fairness and
justice. It meets the needs of graduate students because they have
used it to achieve changes when such changes were necessary and
appropriate for the progress of their education.

This viewpoint is meant to address the reality of Alexander’s
principal concerns.

It is alleged that our formal grievance procedures are not
democratic and are subject to unilateral alterations by the
university. Contrary to these allegations, the grievance procedures
have always been determined by democratic means, and they have
never been modified in an arbitrary, capricious or unilateral
fashion.

The formal grievance procedures detailed in the Graduate
Division’s "Academic Apprentice Personnel Manual" (pages 11-12)
derive from the University of California Academic Senate’s
"Academic Personnel Manual" (Section 140). The procedures were
adopted by and amended upon occasion through democratic means by
the Academic Senate of the Faculty of the University as part of its
responsibility to the exercise of shared governance particularly in
academic and academic personnel matters.

Academic apprentice personnel policies other than formal
grievance procedures are adapted to the local conditions at UCLA by
the democratic action of the Academic Senate which includes
graduate student participation in its deliberations and as voting
members of its standing committees with specific reference to the
Graduate Council.

It is alleged that the university fails to adhere to formal
grievance procedures, meet procedural deadlines and engages in an
unfair practice because the final power of arbitration rests with
the chancellor. Contrary to these allegations, formal grievance
procedures are followed exactly and procedural deadlines are always
met except when good and substantial cause can be shown for
continuance.

The dean and associate deans of the Graduate Division are
charged to act to ensure that procedures are followed in a timely,
fair and non intimidating manner in formal grievance procedures
which invariably begin at the departmental level. Upholding these
procedures is taken very seriously because they are central to
maintaining the process and high reputation of graduate education
at UCLA. The Chancellor also serves as a final arbitrator in formal
faculty grievances. The option of litigation in the civil courts is
always open if formal grievances of merit are not resolved to the
satisfaction of the academic apprentice appointee.

It is implied that abuses and exploitations of academic
apprentice appointees are widespread and ignored because of
imbalanced power relationships within the university. Contrary to
these implications, the facts lead to a very different conclusion.
Our graduate students are selected from the brightest and best in
the world. They are adults, and they are treated as such by their
senior colleagues in the faculty and administration of the
university.

Approximately 4,500 graduate students receive academic
apprentice appointments in any given year. During the last five
years at UCLA, the formal grievance procedures for graduate
apprentice appointees was rarely invoked and gave rise to only one
case. Informal grievances initiated through the Graduate Division,
the Campus Ombud’s Office or the Graduate Student Association have
also been infrequent with only seven known cases during this
period.

A systematic canvas of the campus by the Graduate Student
Association and the Graduate Division in 1993-94 uncovered under
confidential circumstances no latent problems of abuse or
exploitation that could have escaped our attention. Finally, none
of the sexual harassment cases mentioned for the 1990-93
settlements involved a graduate apprentice appointee.

We have found that departments move rapidly to correct problems
when cases of merit are brought to their attention by either formal
or informal means. These people really are listening and they want
to deal with their graduate students in a just manner based on
mutual professional respect.

We have found that either individuals or groups of individuals
can successfully initiate the resolution of informal grievances.
The standing of a person who brings a problem to light is
unimportant. The correction, by collegial discussion, negotiation
and action, of a legitimate problem that could impair the education
of our graduate students is important and provides the compelling
reason for our continuing efforts.

We have also found that formal and informal grievances of
questionable merit can arise when academic judgments and practices
reserved to the discretion of faculty are questioned. For example,
workload up to the 20-hour half-time weekly limit is determined
locally by the prevailing practices, customs and reasonable
expectations of the faculty of a department. Similarly, course
content, curriculum and instructional methods are decided entirely
by the member of the faculty charged with the responsibility to
teach a course.

Finally, unless determined otherwise by civil litigation, the
departmental files of an academic apprentice appointee should be
made available (for self-inspection by the student) in a redacted
form designed to preserve only the confidentiality of academic
referees.

In the same way, administrative actions regarding the
enforcement of eligibility requirements and legal regulations such
as federal withholding taxes are also not subjects for
grievance.

Administrative errors in stipends are generally corrected within
24 to 48 hours after notification. Special arrangements are
regularly devised to provide for continuity of financial support
whenever such problems cannot be resolved in a rapid manner. We
know that people depend on the financial support associated with
their work, and we aim to deliver these resources correctly, on
time and with due consideration of basic human needs and
expectations.

Fisher is the associate dean of the graduate division and a
professor of psychiatry and neurobiology.