The Time Has Come for the UW to Admit it Was Wrong.
A few days ago, a respected colleague dismissed Andrew Aprikyan’s case, saying that “of course” Dr. Aprikyan was and is guilty. I refused to comment, not because I know that Andrew Aprikyan is innocent but because I feel Dr. Aprikyan’s guilt ought not to be the issue .
The issue is simple. Dr. Aprikyan had a right to due process. That process has been violated by a UW administration. Our administration first chose to ignore and then to dismiss the faculty process created under the Faculty Code.
I do not believe that any of the administrators in this process intended to do harm. The responsibility to investigate the charges against Dr. Aprikyan was passed from the level most able to deal with scientific fact, his Division and his Department, to the Dean’s office. Presumably to protect the School, the Dean of Medicine, not a scientist himself, assigned this investigation to an Assistant Provost, an attorney with limited scientific skill. She ran the initial investigation. From that point on, the result was probably inevitable.
The process itself violated both the Faculty Code and NIH rules, both of which require a prompt review by peers. When, at Dr. Aprikiyan’s request, a formal faculty council was finally called, that panel did hear expert witnesses and concluded that Dr. Aprikyan had been denied his rights.
The Faculty Adjudication panel’s findings were rejected summarily with no explanation. President Emmert and then Provost (now President) Wise had the arrogance to dismiss these findings of a highly prestigious panel, convened under the established Faculty Code, as “arbitrary and capricious.”
The details of this issue have been discussed at length by our former Dean, Dr. David Dale, and others on this blog. There is also substantial documentation in THE-Ave public library.
Read all you want of these papers. You will find that the facts of how badly this process was handled by the University are very much as Dr. Aprikyan writes in his “Appeal” below.
Dr. Aprikyan’s case is now headed to the Superior Court. Even leading aside the possibility of major financial damage to the UW, no good can come of that hearing. A decision against Emmert and Wise would hurt the credibility of the entire UW, a very bad thing in these difficult times. A decision for Emmert and Wise could destroy the Faculty cCode. Either outcome is likely to leave the public with no confidence in this University’s ability to tell right from wrong.
An Appeal to His Colleagues by Dr. Andrew Aprikyan follows. Please feel free to comment or pass this link on to others.
A Request for Respect for the Faculty and for Faculty Code at the University of Washington
Andrew Aprikyan
My career has been virtually ruined by unfair treatment I received as a member of the faculty of the University of Washington. I petitioned for justice through an Adjudication Hearing conducted according to the UW Faculty Code and Handbook and established for resolution of disputes between the faculty and administration (http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH28.html). This nearly two year long review was overseen by a non UW attorney jointly appointed by the Chair of the UW Adjudication Panel, Professor of Law Tom Andrews, and President Emmert. Five senior UW faculty from across the university served on the Adjudication Hearing Panel. These proceedings exonerated me and pointed out numerous ways that my case was mishandled by the UW. Not long before leaving for the NCAA, President Emmert sided with the Dean of Medicine and the Provost and against the Faculty Adjudication Panel and me. My case is now in the courts and also the subject of discussion about resolution of the conflict between the faculty and the administration at the University. A factual review of this case written by Professor David Dale, former Dean of the UW School of Medicine, was published in The Ave in July 2010 (http://handbill.us/?p=256).
Seven and one-half years ago, a spiteful UW professor who was previously a research collaborator filed charge of scientific misconduct against me. He found an innocent error in one of my research reports, but blew it up into charges of scientific misconduct. He told a committee appointed by the Dean of Medicine that he could not reproduce some of our original findings, but our finding were subsequently corroborated by several other laboratories in the US and Europe.
From the onset, I clearly stated that there was no scientific misconduct involved and I have acknowledged the errors and imperfections of our research team. My research and my integrity have been supported by prominent expert witnesses, in writing, and through testimonies given under oath. Everyone who has worked with me during my 17 years at the UW supports my work, my integrity and my innocence.
The Faculty Code states that an investigation of scientific misconduct should be completed in 90 days. However, a three person Committee appointed by the Dean of Medicine and the UW Office of Scholarly Integrity operating under the auspices of the Provost Office spent nearly 3 ½ years reviewing my research and writing a draft report. They turned the process into a “witch-hunt.” Their report was full of an enormous number of errors of facts and interpretations. The Dean of Medicine spent more than six months reviewing this draft report and trying to decide what to do with it.
I filed my Adjudication Petition in July 2007 because I knew that there was no scientific misconduct involved, the report was incorrect and the decision was unjust and wrong. A special committee determined that the adjudication petition was timely and properly filed. An Adjudication Hearing Panel was then appointed consisting of 5 members selected from the UW Adjudication Panel, members of which are approved by the President of the UW. After nearly 2 years of review and hearing almost 110 hours of audio-recorded testimonies, the panel determined unanimously that
1. I had met the burden of proof of my innocence
2. the UW administration failed to meet its burden of proof that I had committed scientific misconduct
3. The UW administration made several substantive procedural violations of the University Faculty Code and Handbook Rules and Regulations including violations of the UW Policy on scientific misconduct.
The UW Provost’s Office and Dean of Medicine appealed the Adjudication Hearing Panel’s decision to President Emmert on the grounds that the University of Washington faculty members do not have rights to adjudicate the Dean’s decision on misconduct. (The Federal Regulations do allow adjudication of scientific misconduct proceedings by the faculty at their institutions, which indicates that Emmert’s decision is incompliant with Federal Policy.) The President then remanded the decision back to the panel, but the panel stood by its original conclusions and decisions. (The Federal Regulations do allow adjudication of scientific misconduct proceedings by the faculty at their institutions, which indicates that Emmert’s request is incompliant with Federal Policy.) The President reversed the unanimous decision of the UW Adjudication Hearing Panel that exonerated me and I had to seek further resolution in the court which may issue its decision by the end of this year.
President Emmert’s decision clearly violates the Rules and Regulations of the UW Faculty Code, which unequivocally grants the faculty rights to adjudicate any “injustice resulting from decisions, actions, or inactions of any persons acting on behalf of the University in an administrative capacity and affecting the terms, conditions, or course of employment of the faculty member by the University” (http://www.washington.edu/faculty/facsenate/handbook/Volume2.html, Section 28-32. Cases Subject To Adjudications). This specific quote was also clearly communicated by the UW Adjudication Hearing Panel in their unanimous denial of Emmert’s request to remand. I believe that President Emmert violated the Faculty Code by stripping the faculty of their adjudicative rights granted by the Faculty Code. He also violated the letter and spirit of Faculty governance by alleging that the Adjudication Panel’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.”
I understand that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee is discussing UW governance, prompted by the issues raised by the administration’s handling of my situation. I hope you will see this as an opportunity to support regulation and operation of the university by the Faculty Code and Handbook, rather than by arbitrary decisions by our administration.
Thank you for your interest and support.
Andrew Aprikyan, PhD
I will admit that when I first heard about this case it was through the Seattle Times and Seattle PI, and my first impression was that Dr. Aprikyan (whom I’ve never met) was guilty and should be dismissed. Naturally, this view came from the assumption that his dismissal followed a rigorous investigation conducted properly by the University, and supported by the Faculty Senate and other impartial evaluation panels along the way. The fact that this investigation went the way it has was a complete surprise to me, and as a young member of the faculty I am concerned both by the implications of these actions for the Faculty Code, as well as by the fact that I bought in to the message because the facts were not well-publicized to the rest of the faculty. I am just not sure what a young faculty member is to do when something like this happens, and the faculty code that is supposed to be my contract appears to be superfluous.