Condensed Case Summary

A high-level overview of the core arguments for the appeal to the Division of Graduate Education (DGE).

Cooper Beaman, a second-year UCLA NSIDP Ph.D. student with a strong research background and documented ADHD, faces academic disqualification. The recommendation stems from "failure to identify a faculty mentor" after an extended series of five rotations, compounded by significant medical issues. After an internal appeal, the program expanded its justification to include an "Unsatisfactory" rotation grade and a dropped course. The appeal to the DGE argues this outcome is not due to academic failing, but rather a result of systemic procedural errors and a failure by the program to provide legally required accommodations.

Core Arguments for DGE Appeal

1. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations for ADHD

The central argument is that UCLA/NSIDP failed to meet their obligations under ADA/Section 504. The program was aware of Mr. Beaman's ADHD but did not engage in a proactive, interactive process to provide necessary programmatic accommodations for the non-classroom-based, executive-function-intensive demands of lab rotations and mentor securement. Mr. Beaman was unaware such accommodations were possible until after his fifth rotation, a critical lapse in university guidance that directly prejudiced his ability to succeed.

2. Significant, Prejudicial Procedural Errors

The appeal details multiple procedural flaws that created an unfair and arbitrary process:

  • Shifting Justifications: The rationale for disqualification was expanded from a single reason ("failure to find a mentor") to three reasons only *after* the internal appeal, prejudicing his ability to mount a defense.
  • Inconsistent Standards & Disparate Treatment: Evidence suggests non-standard program intervention in his final rotation and alleges that other students with similar or greater academic deficiencies were not recommended for disqualification.
  • Impossibility of Completion: Key deliverables for the final rotation could not be fairly assessed due to a two-month delay from external collaborators, making a "Satisfactory" grade procedurally impossible to achieve within the required timeframe.
  • Systemic Failures: Pervasive lack of transparency in PI funding/availability and a failure to provide direct, actionable feedback created an unstable and inequitable environment.

Positive Contributions & Desired Outcome

Despite systemic barriers, significant medical issues, and unaccommodated disability, Mr. Beaman passed his Written Qualifying Exams with High Pass marks, secured external scholarships, and consistently produced high-quality research. The desired outcome is for the DGE to overturn the disqualification and facilitate a Major/Classification Change to a more suitable Ph.D. program at UCLA that aligns with his demonstrated strengths in functional and computational genomics.

Comprehensive Case Overview

A narrative account of events, from matriculation to the current appeal.

Admission and Initial Promise

Cooper Beaman (CB) entered the UCLA NSIDP in Fall 2023 with over two years of high-impact, full-time research experience in functional genomics from UCSF and a strong academic record, including a 3.86 GPA. His admission came with a full financial support package.

A Series of Unsuccessful Rotations and Mounting Crises

Over five rotations, a pattern of systemic issues emerged. Rotations with Drs. Wells, Geschwind, and Hernandez concluded with PIs citing limitations in "funding," "space," and "mentorship bandwidth," rather than deficits in CB's capability. During the third rotation, CB's progress was severely impacted by a debilitating bout of Bell's Palsy and a bladder infection requiring hospitalization. Despite these challenges and his documented ADHD (registered with CAE on Feb 5, 2024), he passed his Written Qualifying Exams with High Pass marks in September 2024.

The Academic Plan and a Flawed Fifth Rotation

On Nov 19, 2024, NSIDP issued an Academic Plan, formalizing the search for a fifth-rotation mentor. The chosen PI, Dr. Bearden, was advised by program leadership to document expectations in writing—a step she noted as unusual. This rotation was fraught with procedural issues. CB dropped the concurrent NEURO M203 course after failing the midterm to prioritize the high-stakes rotation. The rotation concluded with an "Unsatisfactory" grade, which the appeal argues was procedurally improper. A key project deliverable was submitted on March 9, 2025, but the external collaborators did not provide feedback until May 6, 2025—two months after the rotation ended—making a timely and fair assessment of "satisfactory completion" impossible.

Critical Failure of Accommodation

A crucial element of the case is CB's late awareness of his rights. On March 31, 2025, he documented to the CAE and DGE that he "did not know I could seek accommodations/adjustments to policy [beyond coursework/exams] until just after 5th rotation." This represents a failure by the university to ensure a student with a known disability was aware of and could access accommodations for the most critical and challenging aspects of his program.

Disqualification and Shifting Justifications

The initial disqualification letter of April 28, 2025, cited a single reason: "failure to identify a faculty mentor." However, after CB submitted his internal appeal, the program's denial on May 30, 2025, expanded the rationale to three unmet benchmarks from the Academic Plan. This post-hoc shift in justification is a central procedural argument, suggesting a retaliatory motive or an admission of the initial grounds' insufficiency.

Grounds for DGE Appeal

The appeal to the DGE is founded on permissible grounds under university policy: (a) significant and prejudicial procedural errors and (b) a failure to provide reasonable accommodations for a documented disability, a violation of non-academic criteria. The appeal seeks to demonstrate that the outcome was a result of a flawed, inequitable process rather than a reflection of Mr. Beaman's academic potential.

Desired Outcome: Overturning the disqualification and facilitating a Major/Classification Change to an aligned program.

Interactive Event Timeline

A proportional and interactive timeline of key events. Pan by dragging and zoom with CTRL+Scroll.