An Open Letter to All MIT Faculty

A Plea for Integrity of the Grievance Process at MIT* Referendum on corporate retaliation for
whistleblower and discrimination complaints

Chi-Sang Poon

In an open letter to then-Provost Rafael Reif published in the February 6, 2007 issue of The Tech titled "A Plea for Fairness at MIT," a group of MIT faculty took the MIT Administration to task by questioning the integrity of MIT's grievance process in a racial discrimination complaint brought by an African-American faculty member James L. Sherley. Among the cosignatories of that open letter, I was the only non-tenured Principal Investigator at MIT who joined in support of Sherley's complaint, just on the cusp of his historic 12-day hunger strike protest that brought widespread attention to the issues of race and the failings of the grievance process at MIT. In a second open letter I explained the reason for supporting Sherley's protest:

"I am putting my career at MIT on the line to speak out on these important issues challenging the administration and President Hockfield for the good of the Institute because they may significantly impact the future governance of the Institute on many levels."

It was, and still is, no secret to many of the disenfranchised that the Institute's perfunctory grievance process is a futile exercise, and could be fraught with potential dire consequences. This longstanding dark side of MIT governance is revealed in vivid detail in a disturbing story of corporate reprisal "Tyranny Against a Whistle-Blower at MIT. " Another report ("MIT’s Missile Defense Cover-Up") on a decade-long faculty grievance against MIT at the national level raises the specter that corporate misconducts are often covered up for institutional gains at the expense of scientific integrity or even national interests. What's wrong with the Institute's grievance process to permit such tyrannies in cover-up of all these iniquities – and how to bring about reforms for the good of the Institute, its students, its faculty and its staff? Those are the questions raised earlier by some concerned faculty ("Troubling whistle-blower article"; "Academic Expectations," and in my second 2007 open letter ("MIT scientist calls for changes after Sherley protest: MIT's missing ticket to diversity.")

Answering these questions calls for a close examination of the inner workings of the grievance process. For one thing, integrity (as generally taken for granted) of MIT's grievance process hinges solely – and thinly – on the Institute's avowed commitment to "providing a prompt, fair and impartial process" for complaint resolution (see "Complaint Resolution Policies and Procedures" and the Institute's 2007 open statement following Sherley's protest "Professor James Sherley ends fast"). But unbeknownst to many, this widely publicized core provision in the complaint resolution process is fundamentally corrupted by a subtle tagged-on qualification that opens the door to potential conflict of interest:

"MIT tries to address concerns [through the complaint resolution procedures] while taking into consideration the interests of all involved – those raising a concern and those against whom the concern is raised, as well as co-workers and others who may be involved." [emphasis added]

This oxymoron raises a dilemma: how could the complaint resolution process be "fair and impartial" if it also takes into consideration individual interests – including (and especially) those of the Administration itself, which would be necessarily involved in any complaint either directly (as the complainant, respondent, or adjudicator) or indirectly (as "co-workers and others who may be involved")? As much as the Administration may "try" to address concerns, the reality is that the final verdicts would inevitably be skewed one-sidedly in favor of the Administration's vested interests, never mind whether justice is served.

The root of the problem is that, absent any checks and balances to guard against such inherent conflict of interest in the grievance process, the Administration is indulged with unfettered latitude to dictate the adjudication in its favor always.

As the creator and final arbiter of all MIT Policies and Procedures and as a monarchy with total executive authority and legal advantage, the Administration can easily manipulate the grievance process high-handedly with absolute impunity – no matter how unreasonable or wrongful it is. Under this top-down governance scheme, any grievance against the Administration or members of its inner circle for unfair treatment or violation of policies or laws is simply a lost cause that is doomed to backfire. The resultant chilling effect completes a vicious cycle that further suppresses the utterance of whatever little remaining dissenting voices from the faculty (as lamented in the following reflection excerpted from the MIT Faculty Newsletter letter "Academic Expectations"):

"Yet the most difficult issue to understand is probably the failure of faculty to question the administration. . . . My concern is the increasing gap between administration and faculty. Whenever faculty, and for that matter students, question the administration, few, if any, colleagues join the discussion. This is worse than the environment in private industry or government. I worked many years for both and found a much greater freedom, involvement, and mutual responsiveness. For me, these are ominous developments that do not bode well for the future of academic inquiry, research, and learning."

To be sure, the Institute's "Complaint Resolution Policies and Procedures" does allow for an Independent Investigation Panel (IIP) comprised of faculty members to address complaints of harassment and discrimination in lieu of the normal grievance process. This option may be requested provided the complainant or respondent has reason to believe that an impartial investigation will not be possible in the department or local academic unit of the respondent. However, this alternative route is rarely practicable in that, by the time a complainant finds out the hard way that the normal grievance process by default is really not as "fair and impartial" as promised, it would be already too late to opt for an IIP, as this process cannot be evoked as an appeal of an investigation that has already been completed. In the James Sherley discrimination case, for instance, an IIP was apparently inaccessible for these reasons, prompting a drastic hunger strike protest as the last resort. Moreover, the current IIP provision is rather restrictive and is not applicable to complaints of other unfair treatments or other violations of policies or laws such as in the above-mentioned tyranny-against-whistleblower case and missile defense cover-up case. Why can't a faculty-led IIP be made a primary grievance procedure (as with MIT's counterpart just "up the river")? Further, why can't the IIP mechanism be extended to the investigation of other faculty or corporate malfeasances, in stewardship of the core values of the Institute as a leading institution of higher learning and research?

In the end, integrity of the grievance process – and of the Institute as a whole – can only be upheld by the faculty collectively, not by the Administration autocratically. The MIT faculty deserves better.

This is why I am reaching out to ask your help in a joint effort to uphold integrity in the appeal of an ongoing grievance against the Administration (as the respondent) that is pending a final decision by the Administration (as the adjudicator) with an obvious conflict of interest in the process. The case concerns integrity issues at the Institute and at a federal research funding agency (the National Institutes of Health [NIH]) with potential far-reaching implications at MIT and at the national level. Because threats to the integrity of the grievance process strike at the heart of the core values and integrity of the Institute and the NIH, there is a fiduciary obligation to inform and consult the faculty at large (and for that matter, the entire MIT community) for advice and possible recourse.

Back to top

In sum, my grievances in chronological order are as follows:

• May-June 2018: I was retaliated against by the Administration after I expressed concerns that some NIH officials might have violated certain NIH policies and Federal regulations regarding the handling of grant applications. The retaliatory actions included:

(1) prohibiting my further expression of concerns with NIH officials;
(2) leveling trumped-up counter-accusation at me alleging my "dishonesty" in "misrepresenting" the NIH officials' statements. Even though the allegations were said to be not about research misconduct, an ad hoc review of the allegations was conducted hastily within the Vice President for Research (VPR) Office without adhering to due process for a formal review as stipulated in MIT’s own Policies and Procedures for screening and investigating such allegations.

• August 2018: After I filed a grievance with the President requesting a formal review of the retaliatory counter-accusation against me, the Administration further heightened the retaliation by abruptly suspending my principal investigator status without providing any legitimate reason, causing severe damages to some of my NIH-funded projects and grant applications.

• September 18, 2018: After I requested the President's assistance to protect me from retaliation and facilitate my continued employment during the investigation of my grievance as per MIT’s own Policies and Procedures, the Administration did just the opposite by summarily terminating my MIT appointment instead (on 9/18/2018) citing the Administration's counter-accusation of "dishonesty" as the ostensible cause, while ignoring my ongoing complaints that I had brought to the President regarding such trumped-up counter-accusation.
  
  In addition, the termination letter evinced an animus against me relating to my previous complaints of discrimination at the Institute as an ulterior motive of the discharge.

• October 2, 2018: It would not be until two weeks after terminating my MIT appointment did the Administration issue a belated after-the-fact decision (dated 10/2/2018) on my grievance, retroactively denying a formal review of my complaints about the trumped-up counter-accusation and other retaliatory treatments that were used as pretext for my discharge.

• October 31, 2018: After reviewing my case, Massachusetts State Government officials rejected the Administration's trumped-up counter-accusation of "dishonesty" against me and ruled that the wrongful termination of my MIT appointment was a violation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 151A, §25(e)(2). The ruling stated that:

"You discharged [Dr. Poon] for allegedly violating company policy regarding dishonesty. You have failed to provide any separation information in order to establish [Dr. Poon's] discharge was attributable to deliberate misconduct in willful disregard of the employing unit's interest or a knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced company rule or policy."

The favorable ruling by the Massachusetts State Government against the Administration's trumped-up counter-accusation is a vindication of my innocence. More importantly, it points to an underlying bankruptcy of the Institute's grievance process:

• How could an innocent Principal Investigator be subjected to such harrowing retaliations ending in wrongful discharge for expressing concerns of misconduct by federal officials, without being allowed due process under the Institute's Complaint Resolution Policies and Procedures?

• How could a complainant be subjected to such harrowing retaliations ending in wrongful discharge after filing a grievance against the Administration, again without being allowed due process under the Institute's Complaint Resolution Policies and Procedures?

By way of this Open Letter I am appealing to you to join in my appeal of the Administration's decision on my grievance against the Administration itself, with the following requested remedial actions:

1. Reconsider my grievance with a Formal Review by an IIP comprised of MIT faculty members and non-MIT scholars with no conflict of interest.

2.  Reinstate my MIT appointment immediately pursuant to the Massachusetts State Government's ruling.

After 30+ years serving as a Principal Investigator at MIT with continuous NIH funding support, my career should not end in this manner with my reputation being tarnished without a due process, and with students and staff in my lab being unfairly penalized as collateral damages.

I ask your help to address this problem, which I expect is also adversely affecting the careers and lives of other faculty members and staff at MIT. Only the faculty can set it right.

*Original letter dated November 26, 2018 was sent to all MIT faculty via email.

Chi-Sang Poon, PhD
Visiting Associate Professor, MIT (1988-1989)
Principal Research Scientist, MIT (1989-2018)

	Back to top
	Send your comments