EXCERPTS: "On 20 November, 2003, a decision was reached by the Chancellor of UC Berkeley to deny tenure in my case, after a process which Berkeley's Academic Senate considers to be at least 400% longer than any other case on the available record... The decision was reached in opposition to an overwhelming record of legitimate evaluation as follows:

* 17 out of 18 world-wide experts recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley based on an analysis of my record and performance.
* 32 out of 33 (three abstentions) voting members of my department recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley, based on their observation of my record and my performance.
* Two secret expert committees independently and unanimously recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley.
* There was no other legitimate reason to deny tenure in evidence.

The decision to deny tenure was therefore reached through illegitimate means, and I claim that it was reached through the illegitimate influence of individuals who stand to lose financially as well as politically and academically - from the results of my public scientific and policy work."

"[I have come to] conclude that the mediaeval structures of academic governance are now fully overrun by the overwhelming power of commercial forces that drive our historical moment.

What was created as an area of freedom from the normal rules of the land in order to protect the freedom of inquiry and education represented by this campus and by the very concept of a university, has been abused and prostituted to become a safe-haven for the free-wheeling promotion of personal and corporate gain beyond the gaze of the republic."
------

Lawsuit Filed Against the Regents of the University of California
Statement by Ignacio Chapela
Berkeley, California, 18 April, 2005.
Contacts:
Ignacio Chapela, PO Box 10074, Berkeley, CA 94709
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. (510)643 2452, cell (510)693 1611.
Daniel Siegel, Attorney at Law. (510)839 1200.

For updates and commentary see: http://www.pulseofscience.org (edited by I. Chapela); http://www.tenurejustice.org (edited by Paulina Novo) and http://www.chapelatenure.org (edited by Jesse Reynolds).

The Lawsuit

Today, I filed a lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California with the California Superior Court in Oakland. This legal action, entered on my behalf by Mr. Dan Siegel, contains three main claims relating to my 8-year-long history of relationship with the University.

First, I claim to have been the victim of retaliation by the university for my role in exposing potential problems with the production and release of genetically modified (transgenic) organisms into the environment, as well as for exposing the insidious and illegitimate influence of commercial interests, inside and out of the university, in the operation of the University. This whistleblowing complaint exposes a scandalous and unacceptable level of compromise in the role and structure of the university, particularly in the biological sciences.

Secondly, I claim to have been the victim of discrimination by the university with regards to the treatment of my promotion leading to the denial of tenure, as well as with regard to the highly irregular handling of my tenure review process. This claim again exposes deep and structural failure by the university to fulfill its mandate to represent and attend to the diversity of cultural, economic, ethnic, intellectual and political inhabitants of the State of California in its educational, research and extension functions.

Thirdly, a claim of fraud states that the administrators of the University fail to disclose significant information about the criteria required to obtain tenure, since information other than scholarship is used to make such decisions.

The filing of this lawsuit opens a new and more public chapter in the 8-year development of this case, which has received world-wide attention within and outside academia as a path-defining case study of the situation of public universities, the influence of private interests on public research and education, the limits on dissent in scientific research, and the suppression of academic freedom in our times. This case also highlights the role of biotechnology and the biotech industry in our society.

The Historical Facts

On 20 November, 2003, a decision was reached by the Chancellor of UC Berkeley to deny tenure in my case, after a process which Berkeley's Academic Senate considers to be at least 400% longer than any other case on the available record. This decision meant that I must leave the university, without the possibility of entering a similar position in any other of the UC system campuses. The decision was reached in opposition to an overwhelming record of legitimate evaluation as follows:

* 17 out of 18 world-wide experts recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley based on an analysis of my record and performance.
* 32 out of 33 (three abstentions) voting members of my department recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley, based on their observation of my record and my performance.
* Two secret expert committees independently and unanimously recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley.
* There was no other legitimate reason to deny tenure in evidence.

The decision to deny tenure was therefore reached through illegitimate means, and I claim that it was reached through the illegitimate influence of individuals who stand to lose financially as well as politically and academically - from the results of my public scientific and policy work.

Internal Grievance Status

With this knowledge, I filed a grievance with the internal faculty governance body, the Academic Senate, in February of 2004. This grievance, which contained 14 claims, was duly and expeditiously processed by the Academic Senate, leading to findings in my favour on two of my claims: my claim of illegitimate influence by individuals with a conflict of interest, and my claim of undue delay in the handling of a clearly positive case only to reach a negative decision based on highly questionable and flimsy evidence.

The internal process of grievance was cut short earlier this year by mutual agreement between the university and myself had it been continued to its conclusion, it would have implied lengthy hearings by the Senate on the two subjects found in my favour. The internal process, however, could not deal with substantive questions which I am now able to open in a court of law.

Specifically, the Academic Senate is unable to:
* Address questions of motive behind actions which I consider illegitimate in the handling of my case.
* Assign personal responsibility on the part of officials and administrators who I claim acted illegitimately.
* Provide any binding resolution or restitution if and when a violation can be found.
* Provide a publically-transparent and accountable process of investigation which can allow the public of California and the world to observe the state of the public university which they own and support.

All that the internal grievance process can provide is a statement of violation of process when handling my case. Even when hearings are considered, the Academic Senate does not have subpoena power to obtain testimony or documentation to support its investigations.

It is because of these limitations that I have agreed to close the internal grievance process. In true form to the lack of transparency noted above, the agreement through which the process was ended, which I have signed, includes the following clause:

"Public comment by either party will be limited to the statement that Professor Chapela's P&T grievance has been resolved to the full satisfaction of both parties and that his candidacy for tenure will be reconsidered pursuant to a review procedure agreed upon by the parties."

My Employment Situation

I trust that it will not be a violation of the clause above to say that the university has agreed to maintain my position and privileges as an Assistant Professor in the department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management until the end of the semester when the result of this reconsideration will take place. No merit increases are envisioned in this plan.

It is also not a breach of confidence to say that the choice by the university to reconsider the final decision of 2003 by Chancellor Berdahl may have been influenced and I believe overwhelmingly so - by an extraordinary current of public interest in Berkeley, California, the US and the whole world, that has included steady and enormously powerful affirmations of support to my case through letters, group-letters, demonstrations, internet campaigns and individual financial support.

This support has been an essential element in the history of the case, but also the source of my moral and intellectual sustenance. I am personally grateful beyond measure to the concentric circles, the ripples of humanity that have provided a life-support system for me through the difficult times at Berkeley, going from my immediate loved ones and my colleagues within the department and out through the campus, the city, the State, the United States and Canada, Mexico and, quite literally, the world beyond.

The Lawsuit Revisited

It is with sadness but bated optimism that I announce the opening of a new chapter in my professional and personal life. Through the four years of processing of my tenure case, and through the eight-and-a-half years of my work at Berkeley I have worked with the best of hopes in the capacity of the academic process to reach just and wise decisions. Nevertheless, through the many visiscitudes of this time I come to conclude that the mediaeval structures of academic governance are now fully overrun by the overwhelming power of commercial forces that drive our historical moment.

What was created as an area of freedom from the normal rules of the land in order to protect the freedom of inquiry and education represented by this campus and by the very concept of a university, has been abused and prostituted to become a safe-haven for the free-wheeling promotion of personal and corporate gain beyond the gaze of the republic. What was a privilege afforded the university by the public to conduct its business in the shelter of privacy that would allow for freedom of thought and speech has been turned into a presumed right to secrecy where individuals and corporations can operate beyond the rule of the public. It now appears too that the sacred claim to freedom of speech might be invoked by the administrators of the univesity to protect their presumed right to suppress and silence uncomfortable knowledge and inquiry, uncomfortable Science.

This lawsuit is a statement against the current state of compromise and prostitution of public inquiry and education in the university. It is not a "fight against the university", but rather part of a much broader struggle for the university, and against those who have captured it for their personal and corporate gain. At a time when science and the search for truth have been suspended for political and commercial interests, my hope is that the court of law will provide a forum where fully public account can be taken of the state of the university and that measure can be provided of the illegitimate influence that has penetrated its structure to the core. If science uncompromising questioning in full view of public scrutiny - cannot be practiced in the university, then perhaps we will perform science in the court.

This lawsuit is not intended to influence the outcome of the administrators’ review of my case. The decision to grant me tenure at Berkeley and thereby to keep me on the job which so many agree I should be doing as my life’s profession - is one that remains the privilege of the Chancellor of the university. The lawsuit seeks, first and foremost, to provide a space where the public can reflect upon the state of their university. Inasmuch as the university and Berkeley in particular - represents the testing grounds for what awaits our society, I hope that this lawsuit will add to the many efforts around the world to restore the rule of the public in the public domain, and indeed to the growth and strength of public spaces, landscapes and institutions