UCLA Ombuds Meeting Synthesis – Day 1

The most important conclusion from Day 1 is that Day 2 should not be another case-history presentation. Thomas himself effectively set tomorrow’s agenda: identify the specific resolutions, determine the authority for each, evaluate which options are realistically worth pursuing, and build a decision tree. He also identified what is probably the single most important practical variable in the entire prospective-remedy analysis: even a successful appeal or reinstatement does not solve the problem unless there is a viable faculty-mentor pathway. The Day 2 packet therefore reorganizes the meeting around that issue rather than simply continuing the original Day 1 agenda.

The highest-yield Day 2 shift

Your strongest opening tomorrow is:

“I took seriously your concern that reinstatement without a viable PI does not solve the underlying problem.”

Then refine one point from yesterday. Thomas perceptively challenged the implicit proposition that academic outcomes should depend only on variables within your control. I would not defend that proposition tomorrow. Replace it with the more precise causal argument:

“I reflected on your question about factors within and outside my control. I would state my concern more precisely now: I did not intend to imply that academic decisions should only consider factors within my control. I am saying that mentor non-placement is a mixed outcome. Student performance matters, but so do faculty willingness, capacity, funding and research fit. I am seeking a prospective resolution structure that can distinguish those causes by enabling DGE to meaningfully assess my academic ability without faculty mentor guarantee or a reduction of academic standards.”

That is both more defensible and more aligned with UCLA’s own documentation. The applicable Neuroscience requirements say mentor approval considers the student’s choice and the “ability of the faculty to serve in this capacity.” And CRO’s adverse report itself attributed Bearden’s decision to funding deficiencies and student performance, meaning that even UCLA’s adverse characterization does not reduce that mentor-placement outcome to pure academic performance.

Your own UCLA Faculty Outreach Matrix independently reinforces this mixed-cause point. Its entries document Brunilda Balliu reporting no available funding/positions; Lucina Uddin reporting insufficient funds for another graduate student while remaining open to co-mentorship; and Michael Wells attributing non-placement to funding, planned projects and laboratory needs despite positive remarks about your rotation. Those should be used as examples of causal heterogeneity, not as claims that any particular faculty member was obligated to accept you.

A major new authority question surfaced from current UCLA policy

The current Major/Classification Change rules materially sharpen tomorrow’s conversation.

UCLA says a student using the internal change-of-major/classification route must be currently registered and enrolled and in good academic standing. For someone who satisfies those conditions, a doctoral-to-doctoral move into another UCLA program is explicitly contemplated through the Major/Classification Change Petition rather than ordinary new admissions.

That means your internal-transfer remedy has an important structural dependency:

A willing receiving program alone may not be enough. Some status-restoration, remand, or equivalent mechanism may first be necessary to make the ordinary internal transfer mechanism administratively available.

Do not tell Thomas UCLA is therefore obligated to restore you. Ask him the much better Ombuds question:

“If a receiving program and faculty sponsor were genuinely willing, but my present academic-status posture prevents me from using the ordinary change-of-major petition, who could authorize a temporary restoration, remand, or other status mechanism that makes the normal petition process available again?”

That is exactly the kind of authority-mapping problem Ombuds is institutionally equipped to help untangle. UCLA says Ombuds can identify appropriate people, facilitate communication, negotiate or mediate settlements, bring matters to those with authority, meet with deans and vice chancellors, and help expedite processes—while remaining neutral, informal and outside the formal adjudication process.

Tomorrow’s four resolution branches

The packet therefore organizes the Day 2 decision tree around four branches.

Branch A: structured NSIDP continuation. This becomes attractive only if an actually plausible PI pathway can be identified. The proposal is not unconditional reinstatement: it is a finite status-protected period, objective prospective milestones, individualized CAE/programmatic consideration, early verification of faculty willingness/capacity/funding, and an identified administrator coordinating implementation.

Branch B: status-protected internal program change. This may be at least as important as Branch A given your genetics background. The Day 2 question is no longer simply “could Human Genetics take me?” It becomes: if a receiving faculty member/program wants me, who can solve the status prerequisite required to permit an internal change?

Branch C: an existing alternative degree objective. The applicable Neuroscience requirements expressly list no Master’s degree, so Thomas’s terminal-master’s question should not become a demand that NSIDP create an individual degree. The appropriate question is whether an existing UCLA program could accept a change of major/degree objective under an appropriately restored status.

Branch D: new Fall 2027 application/readmission. This is a parallel hedge, not a concession that the appeal should be abandoned. One particularly useful piece of current research is that the next UCLA Neuroscience application deadline is December 1, 2026 for Fall admission. So Thomas’s concern yesterday that it might already be too late for the next application cycle does not require confrontation; tomorrow you can simply say that you checked after the meeting and at least some Fall 2027 UCLA programs remain open for applications this fall. That creates several months in which his suggestion—building genuine faculty relationships—can be implemented.

Thomas’s PI point should occupy substantial Day 2 time

This is probably the biggest change I made from the original Day 1 architecture.

The first meeting strongly suggests that Thomas believes the faculty relationship is the practical gateway variable. Fighting that premise tomorrow would reduce the value of Ombuds. Instead, make it operational.

Ask him:

“Would you agree that before treating any future rotation or faculty conversation as a viable placement opportunity, I should distinguish scientific interest from actual willingness, trainee capacity and funding feasibility?”

Then ask:

“Is there a neutral UCLA academic administrator or faculty-governance contact who can advise me on the appropriate way to approach faculty in another UCLA program while my current status remains in appeal—without asking prospective faculty to take a position on the grievance?”

That turns Thomas’s Day 1 advice into something administratively useful.

Your faculty search should now run along two parallel tracks: internal-resolution faculty who could support either NSIDP continuation or an internal program change, and Fall-2027 faculty who could support a new application/readmission if internal resolution ultimately fails.

The single highest-value question tomorrow

If time becomes constrained, prioritize this:

“If you were in my position and wanted to ask one person one neutral feasibility question first, who would that person be and what would you ask them?”

Then:

“If I identify a genuinely willing faculty sponsor or receiving program, what is the shortest legitimate administrative path from that willingness to restored or protected academic status?”

Those questions force the Ombuds discussion from general institutional structure into actionable authority mapping.

If Thomas concludes that an informal inquiry would help, do not immediately say “please contact them.” First establish the recipient, purpose, level of detail, whether your identity is disclosed, whether the pending hearing is mentioned, and whether any remedy is specified. UCLA expressly says its Ombuds response is tailored to the circumstances and the visitor’s informed consent.

A neutral Ombuds inquiry could conceptually ask whether UCLA has an administratively available, standards-preserving resolution pathway where a finite continuation/remand or status-protected program transition could be considered if a viable faculty/program option can be identified. That asks Ombuds to facilitate feasibility—not advocate for your position.

Do not turn tomorrow into an accommodation-law argument

Thomas spent significant Day 1 time probing whether what you wanted would be a reasonable accommodation and whether faculty concerns could legitimately relate to future performance. You responded constructively by shifting toward the process question. That should continue tomorrow.

Use:

“I’m not asking Ombuds to decide what accommodation UCLA legally owed me in 2025. The prospective question is narrower: if an academically viable path is restored or protected, is there a mechanism to ensure CAE and the academic program actually engage together in an individualized process concerning the structure of that path?”

The March–April chronology becomes supporting context: March 20 DGE guidance surfaced the possibility of further/programmatic CAE help; March 31 you pursued reevaluation; April 1–2 accommodation, alternative-path and disqualification communications overlapped; and April 10 the CAE determination and DGE explanation of the committee/transfer posture occurred in the same period. The CRO report itself captures much of that chronology. The Google Drive record containing the full July 29 Notice/Report is also available.

That supports the restrained proposition:

The programmatic-accommodation inquiry, alternative-placement exploration and terminal academic-status process were developing concurrently rather than sequentially.

It does not, standing alone, prove retaliation.

DGE remains an important reason a prospective agreement is rational

UCLA’s published Standards preserve a separate nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification inquiry after the investigatory process. DGE’s question is whether the Investigation Materials reflect substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance.

That supports an especially useful Ombuds message:

“My goal isn’t to use Ombuds as a second CRO appeal. I’m trying to determine whether there’s a rigorous prospective academic solution that could make sense even if UCLA does not revisit every historical liability determination.”

That gives UCLA more room to resolve the matter without requiring anyone to “admit” the Investigation Report was wrong.

One Day 1 point to use tomorrow with restraint: other students’ additional rotations

Thomas specifically reacted positively when you told him that other NSIDP students had taken five or six rotations.

Do not upgrade that into:

“Another student got six, therefore I am entitled to six.”

Use:

“I want to be careful not to overstate the comparator. I don’t assume the circumstances are identical. I think it is relevant because it shows that additional-rotation flexibility has existed as an academic tool when mentor placement takes longer. Does that make a finite additional opportunity administratively more realistic if we solve the PI/capacity issue first?”

This is a much stronger Ombuds formulation.

The master agenda is also available separately:

Day 2 master agenda

And the three documents I would actually keep visible during the call are:

Decision tree · Authority/questions sheet · Remedy ladder

The remaining requested supporting materials are here:

Chronology · Investigation Report quick reference · March 20–April 10 accommodation chronology · Funding/capacity correspondence · Neuroscience requirement · DGE mitigation standard · Parallel PI/program plan

One limitation is worth making explicit: I did not duplicate the entire confidential 44-page Investigation Report into the downloadable packet. Instead, I created the meeting-specific quick reference and located the existing complete July 29 report in your Google Drive record, so you should have that original open separately if Thomas asks to see it. I also searched for a relevant presentation but did not identify a case-specific Slides deck; the highest-value underlying material was in your Docs, PDFs, the faculty-outreach spreadsheet, and existing Library records. Your Google Drive Faculty Outreach Matrix was particularly useful in grounding the selected funding/capacity examples rather than relying on retrospective characterization.

For the actual hour tomorrow, I would have only four tabs/windows immediately visible: the master agenda, decision tree, authority sheet, and remedy ladder. Everything else should remain backup. Thomas already understands the history. The maximum value of Day 2 comes from getting him to help convert “I want to continue graduate study” into “here is the most feasible branch, here is the person with authority over it, here is what must become true for that person to say yes, and here is the first action tomorrow afternoon.”

Day 2 Source Map / Immediate-Use File Index

UCLA Ombuds Meeting — Day 2: Maximum-Value Preparation and Agenda

Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026
Time: 11:00 AM–12:00 PM PDT
Ombudsperson: Thomas Griffin, Campus Ombudsperson/Director of Ombuds Services; Ombudsperson, UCLA Health and Health Sciences
Matter: UCLA Procedure 230.2 / DGE academic-disqualification appeal — prospective academic-access resolution
Primary objective: Leave Day 2 with a concrete decision tree, authority map, and next-step action owner—not merely further discussion of the history.

Day 2 governing principle: Do not spend the hour trying to persuade Ombuds that CRO was legally wrong. Use the hour to convert the dispute into an administratively feasible academic-resolution pathway while preserving every formal right.

0. What changed after Day 1

Day 1 established rapport and gave Thomas enough background to understand the problem. Most importantly, Thomas himself identified the unresolved work for Day 2:

1. define the specific resolutions under consideration;
2. determine who has authority for each;
3. evaluate which resolutions are realistically worth prioritizing; and
4. potentially build a decision tree.

Thomas also identified the practical bottleneck that should organize Day 2:

Even if a formal appeal produces reinstatement, continuation is hollow unless there is a realistic path to a faculty mentor.

That is the point to embrace, not resist.

The most important refinement from Day 1

Avoid framing the case as “decisions should depend only on things within my control.”

Use this instead:

My concern is causal attribution and remedy design. A permanent-mentor outcome is produced by both student-side performance and faculty-side conditions such as willingness, funding, capacity, research fit, and availability. A fair prospective remedy should distinguish those causes rather than treating every non-match as equivalent evidence of academic inability.

This directly answers Thomas’s thoughtful challenge while preserving the strongest structural point.

I. Day 2 success criteria

By 12:00 PM, aim to have answers—or a concrete route to answers—to these five questions:

• Which resolution branch is most administratively realistic right now?
• Which person/office/faculty body has actual authority at each step?
• What faculty/PI work can I begin immediately in parallel without prejudicing the hearing?
• Is there one limited, neutral Ombuds-facilitated inquiry that would materially clarify feasibility?
• What are my next 3 actions, and what—if anything—will Thomas do after I expressly authorize it?

A merely sympathetic or informative second meeting is not enough. The target is operational clarity.

II. 60-minute sequence

Minutes 0–4 — Reconnect and explicitly adopt Thomas’s Day 1 concern

Opening

Thomas, thank you again for meeting with me so quickly. I thought carefully about your main concern yesterday: even if the formal process eventually restores my status, that does not solve the underlying problem unless there is a realistic faculty-mentor path.

I agree with that. I would like to use today much more concretely than yesterday: first, build a decision tree around the actual academic options; second, identify who has authority for each branch; and third, decide whether there is any narrow informal step that I or Ombuds could take now to test feasibility while I continue preserving the formal hearing and DGE processes.

Then make the key conceptual correction

I also reflected on your question about factors within and outside my control. I would state my concern more precisely now: I am not saying academic decisions should consider only factors within my control. I am saying that mentor non-placement is a mixed outcome. Student performance matters, but so do faculty willingness, capacity, funding and research fit. My goal is a prospective structure that can distinguish those causes and give UCLA a meaningful test of my academic ability without guaranteeing me a mentor or lowering standards.

Stop. Let Thomas respond.

Minutes 4–10 — Lock the decision variables before discussing remedies

Ask Thomas to help separate four questions that became entangled in the prior process:

1. Academic qualification: Can I meet UCLA’s essential scientific and degree-progress standards?
2. Faculty feasibility: Is there actually a willing, suitable, eligible, and realistically resourced mentor or host program?
3. Disability access: If I am given another prospective academic opportunity, what individualized process can determine reasonable programmatic supports without predetermining the result?
4. Administrative status: What status is required for an internal major/classification change, continuation, rotation, or other path to be legally/administratively available?

Suggested language:

Would it make sense to evaluate the possible resolutions against those four separate variables rather than treating “reinstatement” as one all-or-nothing outcome?

Why this is high yield

The published UCLA Major/Classification Change process presently requires a student to be currently registered and enrolled and in good academic standing; a currently enrolled doctoral student moving to another UCLA graduate program uses the Major/Classification Change Petition rather than the ordinary new-admission route. Therefore, “transfer” is not just a question of whether another program likes the idea—it may require a status-restoration or status-protection mechanism first.
Official source: https://grad.ucla.edu/academics/graduate-study/major-classification-change-petition/

Do not tell Thomas that this proves UCLA must restore status. Ask him to help identify whether a negotiated remand/status mechanism exists.

III. Minutes 10–25 — Build the decision tree together

Put the attached Remedy Ladder and Decision Tree on screen or beside you.

Branch A — Structured continuation within NSIDP

Trigger condition

A plausible faculty-mentor path exists or can be developed within a defined period.

Ask

If I identify one or more genuinely plausible faculty members, who would need to agree to a finite status-protected continuation period—and who could actually authorize it?

Desired structure

• defined bridge period (e.g., one or two quarters, subject to UCLA’s judgment);
• objective written milestones established prospectively;
• individualized CAE/programmatic accommodation process;
• neutral or clearly identified administrative coordinator;
• faculty candidates screened for willingness, scientific fit, current capacity, and funding feasibility;
• no forced mentor;
• if the student meets academic milestones but a PI cannot take a student for capacity/funding reasons, that fact is not automatically treated as a student academic failure.

Thomas-specific follow-up

You mentioned yesterday that chairs sometimes voluntarily take a student but are not required to. I agree that forcing a particular PI would not be realistic. Is there a more ordinary faculty-governance mechanism by which the program can facilitate introductions or verify which faculty are actually available before I invest in another rotation?

Branch B — Status-protected internal major/classification change

This may be the highest-value Day 2 authority question.

Known official constraint

UCLA’s published process says a continuing graduate student seeking a different UCLA graduate program must be currently registered/enrolled and in good academic standing to use the Major/Classification Change Petition.

Ask Thomas

If a receiving program and faculty sponsor were genuinely willing, but my present academic-status posture prevents me from using the ordinary change-of-major petition, who could authorize a temporary restoration, remand, or other status mechanism that makes the normal petition process available again?

Follow with:

Is that primarily a faculty/program decision, a DGE decision, a joint decision, or something that would require a recommendation from Graduate Council/CDP?

Do not assume the answer. This is exactly the kind of institutional authority mapping for which Ombuds may add value.

Strong supporting fact from Day 1

The prior Human Genetics inquiry was reportedly blocked by capacity/resources at that time, not an identified substantive conclusion that Cooper was academically ineligible for genetics.

Use cautiously:

I do not treat the 2025 Human Genetics answer as a continuing offer or entitlement. What it shows to me is that at least one alternative path failed for an institutional capacity reason. I would like to know whether the right strategy now is to develop a willing faculty/program relationship first and then solve the status mechanics, or vice versa.

Branch C — Alternative degree objective / master’s pathway

Grounding

The applicable 2023–24 UCLA Neuroscience program requirements state “Master’s Degree: None.”

Therefore, do not ask Ombuds to “award a terminal master’s in NSIDP.”

Ask:

Could an existing UCLA graduate program accept an internal change into a master’s or other degree objective if a program wanted to do so and my status were restored sufficiently to use the ordinary petition process?

And:

Has NSIDP actually created any terminal-master’s mechanism since the period discussed in my appeal, or would that require a new program policy rather than an individual resolution?

This keeps the request administratively honest.

Branch D — New application/readmission as a parallel hedge

Thomas raised this path. Treat it respectfully as a parallel risk-management route, not as a substitute for the appeal.

I took seriously your suggestion that I should begin building relationships with faculty even while the formal process continues. I would like to distinguish two things: a negotiated internal remedy, and a new admission/readmission path if the first is unavailable. Can we identify what faculty relationship-building I can start now that is useful to either path?

Current timing

As of August 24, UCLA’s published 2026–27 Neuroscience application deadline is December 1, 2026 for Fall admission. That means the next-cycle route is not already foreclosed by time, although other programs have their own deadlines.
Official source: https://grad.ucla.edu/gasaa/deptinfo/deptinfo.asp?academicyear=20262027\&code=004F

Do not say

“Thomas was wrong that it may be too late.”

Say:

I checked the current calendar after our discussion. At least some Fall 2027 UCLA programs still have applications due this fall, so I do have a parallel window to work with. I would like to use that constructively without treating it as a concession that the internal appeal should end.

IV. Minutes 25–38 — Make the PI/mentor problem actionable

This should be the largest new addition relative to Day 1.

A. Ask Thomas to help define what counts as a “viable PI”

A viable PI is not merely someone whose research is interesting.

For present purposes, a high-value target ideally has:

• research overlap;
• willingness to speak with Cooper;
• eligibility to serve in the relevant program;
• current or foreseeable trainee capacity;
• credible funding pathway;
• willingness to provide clear expectations and feedback;
• no institutional conflict that makes the placement unrealistic.

Ask:

Would you agree that I should screen for all of those variables earlier, rather than treating an informational meeting or rotation invitation as evidence that a permanent place is actually available?

B. Turn Day 1’s advice into a 2-track faculty plan

Track 1 — Internal-resolution targets

Faculty/programs that could plausibly support:

• NSIDP continuation; or
• an internal UCLA major/classification change.

Track 2 — New-cycle targets

Faculty/programs at UCLA or elsewhere that could support a Fall 2027 application/readmission path.

Day 2 request to Thomas

Is there a neutral academic administrator or faculty-governance contact who could tell me which route is appropriate for approaching prospective faculty while my status is in appeal—without asking them to take a position on the grievance?

C. Recommendation-letter problem

Thomas correctly identified letters as a practical variable.

Ask:

From an institutional-navigation standpoint, are there appropriate ways for me to approach former UCLA or UCSF mentors for letters without involving current respondents or asking anyone to take sides in the grievance?

This is a process question, not a request for Ombuds to procure letters.

V. Minutes 38–48 — Authority map: insist on names/functions, not generalities

Use the separate Authority & Questions Sheet.

For each branch, ask Thomas to identify the likely decision-maker or the next person who can identify the decision-maker.

Critical question

If you were in my position and wanted to ask one person one neutral feasibility question first, who would that person be and what would you ask them?

This is likely the single highest-yield question of Day 2.

VI. Minutes 48–55 — Decide whether to authorize a limited Ombuds action

Do not ask Thomas to become your advocate.

Ask whether he believes a limited neutral inquiry would be useful.

Preferred version

Based on what we have discussed, do you think it would add value for Ombuds to make a narrow, neutral inquiry to an appropriate decision-maker simply asking whether UCLA has an administratively available path for a prospective academic-resolution discussion? Or would you recommend that I make the first contact directly?

If Thomas says Ombuds outreach may help, clarify before authorizing:

• recipient;
• purpose;
• exact level of detail;
• whether your name must be used;
• whether the pending hearing is mentioned;
• whether a specific remedy is mentioned;
• whether Thomas will report the response back to you before further contact.

Suggested neutral message concept

A graduate student with a pending formal process is exploring whether UCLA has an administratively viable, standards-preserving academic-resolution pathway. The student is not asking Ombuds to challenge the formal process, but wants to know which authority could consider a finite continuation/remand or status-protected program-transition option if a viable faculty/program path can be identified.

This should remain a concept, not text you pressure Thomas to use.

VII. Minutes 55–60 — Close with explicit action ownership

Before the meeting ends, summarize aloud:

Let me make sure I captured the next steps correctly.

Then state:

Cooper

• begin targeted PI/program relationship-building immediately;
• preserve hearing deadlines independently;
• continue counsel recruitment;
• contact CAE only if/when the purpose is clear and doing so will not muddle the pending formal record;
• pursue any specific person/process Thomas identifies.

Thomas / Ombuds — only if he affirmatively agrees

• identify the appropriate authority;
• make one limited inquiry, if useful and authorized;
• provide a follow-up meeting or feedback after that inquiry.

Close

My main goal is to avoid spending months proving historical blame if there is a rigorous prospective solution UCLA could implement. At the same time, I do not want informal discussions to cause me to miss or waive anything in the hearing or DGE processes. If we can leave today knowing the most realistic branch and who can actually act on it, that would be extremely valuable.

VIII. Remedy ranking for Day 2

Tier 1 — highest priority

1. Structured doctoral continuation if a realistic PI path can be identified

Best fit with the user’s primary goal; institutionally defensible because it is finite and standards-preserving.

2. Status-protected internal program change if a receiving program/faculty sponsor is identified

Potentially strong because it directly addresses the mismatch between neuroscience rotation history and Cooper’s prior genetics background—but the published petition’s current-status/good-standing requirements make authority mapping essential.

Tier 2

3. Neutral status-preserving remand

Useful if UCLA will not predetermine NSIDP versus another program but will restore a process in which options can be evaluated meaningfully.

Tier 3

4. Existing master’s/degree pathway in another UCLA program

Potentially valuable if an actual receiving program exists. Do not frame a nonexistent NSIDP master’s as an available entitlement.

5. New application/readmission

Parallel hedge and constructive faculty-networking route. It should not require abandoning the pending formal appeal.

IX. Evidence to use only when it answers a Day 2 question

The Ombuds meeting should not become a mini-hearing. Use the attached evidence only if it resolves a practical disagreement or helps Thomas identify an authority/pathway.

Highest-yield facts

A. UCLA’s own mentor rule is bilateral

The applicable program requirements state that mentor approval considers the student’s choice and the “ability of the faculty to serve in this capacity.”

B. CRO itself found funding + performance

Even the adverse Investigation Report says Bearden’s mentor decision rested on funding deficiencies and student performance. This is useful not as proof of discrimination, but because it confirms mentor non-placement was not treated as a pure performance variable.

C. Native faculty correspondence confirms capacity can defeat conversion independently of poor performance

Examples:

• Michael Wells cited current funding, planned projects and lab needs while also expressing positive regard for the rotation.
• Brunilda Balliu cited no funding / no available positions.
• Lucina Uddin cited lack of funds to accept a new graduate student while expressing willingness to co-mentor after a primary lab was found.

D. The accommodation pathway was surfaced late

March 20 DGE case-management guidance → March 31 explicit CAE reevaluation request → April 10 no-additional-accommodation determination while the academic-disqualification process continued.

E. The formal DGE question is different

DGE later asks whether Investigation Materials reflect “substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected a disqualified student’s academic performance.”

That is why a practical prospective resolution can remain rational even if CRO’s historical liability finding stays adverse.

X. Comparator evidence: use with restraint

At the end of Day 1, Thomas explicitly noted the relevance of your report that other students received five or six rotations.

Day 2 formulation:

I want to be careful not to overstate the comparator. I am not saying the circumstances were identical or that another student’s six rotations automatically entitle me to six. I think it is relevant only to show that additional-rotation flexibility has existed as a programmatic tool when mentor matching took longer.

Then ask:

Does that make a finite additional opportunity more realistic as a negotiated academic remedy, provided we solve the PI/capacity problem first?

XI. Accommodation framing for Day 2

Do not ask Thomas to decide whether UCLA violated disability law.

Use:

I am not asking Ombuds to decide what accommodation was legally required in 2025. The prospective question is narrower: if UCLA restores or protects a viable academic path, is there a way to ensure that the CAE and academic program actually engage together in an individualized process about the structure of that path?

Clarify the historical record only as needed:

I had conventional exam accommodations earlier. What was surfaced late was the possibility of accommodations operating within research rotations/mentor placement rather than exams alone.

XII. Counsel / no-counsel branching

If still unrepresented tomorrow

Ask Thomas:

If an informal resolution conversation becomes concrete before I retain counsel, can Ombuds help me identify the right institutional counterpart and keep the discussion at the option-exploration level while I obtain legal review of any actual agreement?

Do not ask Ombuds for legal advice on waivers/releases.

If counsel is retained later

Ask:

If I retain counsel, would Ombuds still be willing to facilitate a later resolution conversation, and would attorney participation be compatible with the format you use?

The optimal division of labor:

• Ombuds: authority mapping, neutral feasibility testing, communication.
• Counsel: legal rights, written settlement terms, hearing strategy, releases/waivers, record preservation.

XIII. Guardrails

Do not:

• ask Thomas to find that discrimination/retaliation occurred;
• ask him to criticize the CRO investigator;
• ask him to influence the Hearing Officer, DGE or CDP;
• ask him to force a PI to serve;
• characterize the 100% placement language as a binding guarantee;
• treat six-rotation comparator evidence as automatic entitlement;
• claim the March 31 accommodation request necessarily initiated the ADQ process;
• ask for indefinite continuation;
• agree orally to withdraw, stay or narrow the hearing.

If anyone proposes pausing formal proceedings, obtain the terms in writing and, ideally, obtain legal review.

XIV. Five lines to keep visible during the call

1. I took seriously your concern that reinstatement without a viable PI does not solve the problem.

2. I am not asking UCLA to lower standards or force a faculty mentor.

3. My concern is causal attribution: mentor non-placement reflects both student performance and faculty-side capacity/funding/fit.

4. I want to identify the most realistic prospective academic path and the person who can actually authorize it.

5. If one neutral Ombuds-facilitated feasibility inquiry would help, I am open to considering it after we define its recipient and purpose.

XV. Source anchors

• UCLA Ombuds — Principles: https://ombuds.ucla.edu/principles
• UCLA Ombuds — FAQ: https://ombuds.ucla.edu/faq
• UCLA Neuroscience program requirements (applicable 2023–24 page): https://grad.ucla.edu/graduate-program-requirements/program-requirements-for-neuroscience-6-2-2-2-2-2-2-2/
• UCLA Major/Classification Change: https://grad.ucla.edu/academics/graduate-study/major-classification-change-petition/
• UCLA Standards & Procedures for Graduate Study: https://grad.ucla.edu/academics/graduate-study/standards-and-procedures-for-graduate-study/
• UCLA 2026–27 Neuroscience admissions: https://grad.ucla.edu/gasaa/deptinfo/deptinfo.asp?academicyear=20262027\&code=004F

Working-record sources used in this packet: Day 1 agenda/transcript; July 29 CRO report; DGE/CDP strategy record; Grievance Hearing evidentiary matrix; UCLA Faculty Outreach Matrix; DGE/CAE correspondence archive.

Day 2 Decision Tree — Use Live with Thomas

START

|

|– Q1: Is a realistic NSIDP faculty-mentor path identifiable in the near term?

| |

| |– YES --> Branch A: finite structured NSIDP continuation

| | - Who authorizes status?

| | - Who verifies PI willingness/capacity/funding?

| | - Who coordinates CAE/programmatic process?

| |

| |– NO --> Q2: Is a faculty sponsor / receiving UCLA program realistically willing?

| |

| |– YES --> Branch B: status-protected major/classification change

| | - Published petition requires current registered/enrolled

| | + good-standing status.

| | - Who can create the necessary remand/status mechanism?

| |

| |– NO --> Q3: Is there an existing alternative degree pathway?

| |

| |– YES --> Branch C: existing master’s/degree objective

| | with receiving-program approval.

| |

| |– NO --> Branch D: new application/readmission

| + PI relationship building for Fall 2027.

|

|– AT EVERY BRANCH:

      \- preserve Procedure 230.2 hearing rights;

      \- preserve DGE appeal;

      \- continue counsel recruitment;

      \- do not force a PI or lower academic standards;

      \- use verified faculty feasibility before treating a placement as real.

Ask Thomas to pressure-test each node

1. Is the branch administratively real?
2. Who is the first decision-maker?
3. What must be true before that person can say yes?
4. What can Cooper do himself this week?
5. What, if anything, could Ombuds neutrally clarify?

Single-Page Authority & Questions Sheet — Ombuds Day 2

Primary Day 2 goal: Determine who can actually say yes to each component.

Highest-yield question

If you were in my position and wanted to ask one person one neutral feasibility question first, who would the person be and what would you ask?

Second-highest-yield question

If I identify a genuinely willing faculty sponsor or receiving program, what is the shortest legitimate administrative path from that willingness to restored/protected academic status?

Potential limited Ombuds action

Do you think it would add value for Ombuds to make one neutral inquiry to the relevant authority about whether a prospective academic-resolution pathway exists, or would you recommend that I contact that person directly?

Before authorizing Ombuds outreach, clarify:

• recipient;
• purpose;
• whether your name is used;
• whether pending hearing is mentioned;
• what remedy is described;
• what follow-up is contemplated.

Single-Page Remedy Ladder — Ombuds Day 2

Use: Put this in front of you when Thomas asks, “What specific resolution do you have in mind?”

Governing constraint

I am not asking UCLA to:

• guarantee a mentor;
• force a PI to take me;
• waive essential academic standards;
• erase all prior history;
• award a degree I have not earned.

I am asking whether UCLA can create a finite, standards-preserving academic pathway that gives a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate continued qualification.

Tier 1A — Structured doctoral continuation in NSIDP

Ask: Restore/protect status for a defined period—potentially one or two quarters—if a realistic PI pathway can be identified.

Core safeguards

• objective written milestones established in advance;
• individualized CAE/programmatic interactive process;
• verified PI willingness + scientific fit + capacity + funding feasibility;
• regular feedback/check-ins;
• neutral/identified administrative coordinator;
• no forced PI;
• capacity/funding non-match distinguished from academic failure.

Best if: a plausible NSIDP PI emerges quickly.

Tier 1B — Status-protected internal change of major/classification

Ask: If a receiving UCLA program and faculty sponsor are willing, restore/protect the status needed to use the proper internal program-change mechanism.

Why high-value: aligns with prior genetics background and avoids requiring NSIDP continuation if the academic fit is better elsewhere.

Critical unknown: UCLA’s published change-of-major process requires current registration/enrollment and good academic standing. Who can create the status/remand mechanism that makes the petition administratively available?

Best if: a receiving program/faculty sponsor is identified.

Tier 2 — Neutral status-preserving remand

Ask: Restore/protect status long enough for a neutral academic process to decide between:

1. NSIDP continuation;
2. another UCLA doctoral program;
3. an available UCLA master’s/other degree objective.

Best if: UCLA will not precommit to one academic destination but accepts that a meaningful reconsideration requires status.

Tier 3 — Existing alternative degree pathway

Ask: Determine whether an existing UCLA master’s/degree objective could accept a change if a willing program exists.

Important: The applicable Neuroscience program requirements state “Master’s Degree: None.” Do not ask Ombuds to invent an NSIDP terminal master’s.

Parallel hedge — Fall 2027 application/readmission

Begin PI/program relationship-building now for the next admissions cycle without abandoning the hearing/DGE appeal.

Purpose: reduces dependence on a single administrative remedy and directly responds to Thomas’s PI-feasibility concern.

Best settlement formulation

“I am asking UCLA for a controlled academic test, not an unconditional restoration. If I cannot meet objective doctoral standards under a prospectively defined and reasonably accessible structure, UCLA retains its academic judgment. If I meet the standards but a permanent placement fails because of faculty-side capacity or funding, that outcome should trigger neutral alternative-path review rather than being treated automatically as evidence of individual academic inability.”

Single-Page Chronology — Ombuds Day 2

Purpose: One-page factual orientation. Use only if Thomas asks for the timeline.

One-sentence case frame

The final academic outcome arose from a mixture of genuine student-performance concerns, disability-linked functional barriers, and institutionally controlled mentor-placement variables; the prospective question is whether UCLA can now create a finite, rigorous path that separates those causes and tests academic viability fairly.

Programmatic Accommodation Chronology (March 20–April 10)

Purpose: Explain the timing and process without asking Ombuds to decide whether any legal violation occurred.

Precise framing

I already knew about and used conventional CAE exam accommodations. What was surfaced late was the possibility that disability accommodation could operate prospectively within the research-rotation and faculty-mentor-placement requirements themselves.

What this chronology supports

• Ombuds: a practical question—can a prospective individualized process be created now if a viable academic path is restored?
• Hearing: knowledge, chronology, decision formation, treatment of alternatives, and the difference between initiation versus continuation/formalization.
• DGE/CDP: a possible mitigating circumstance—the relevant accommodation mechanism was identified only when the placement/ADQ windows were already narrowing.

What it does not prove by itself

• that the March 31 request initiated the ADQ process;
• that retaliation occurred;
• that any specific requested accommodation was reasonable;
• that UCLA had to guarantee a sixth rotation or a mentor.

Day 2 sentence

“Whatever one ultimately concludes about liability, the programmatic-accommodation inquiry, alternative-path search and academic-disqualification process were developing concurrently rather than sequentially. I would like the prospective remedy to prevent that same collision from recurring.”

Faculty Funding / Capacity Correspondence — Day 2 Selected Evidence

Purpose: Demonstrate a narrow proposition: permanent mentor placement can fail for faculty-side resource/capacity reasons even when the student is not being rejected solely for poor academic performance.

Do not use this document to argue that any PI was obligated to take the student.

1. Michael Wells — June 13, 2024

Context: Prior rotation PI.

Native correspondence, as captured in the UCLA Faculty Outreach Matrix, states that the decision not to offer an open spot was based on:

• current funding;
• planned projects; and
• laboratory needs.

The same message also conveyed positive regard for the rotation and future potential.

Proper inference

At least one rotation-to-permanent-placement failure involved material non-performance variables.

Improper inference

Wells “should have” taken Cooper.

2. Brunilda Balliu — June / October 2024

The Faculty Outreach Matrix records two availability responses:

• June: no available positions in that academic year;
• October: no funding available to hire more students, with multiple students already rotating.

Proper inference

A scientifically relevant faculty target can be unavailable because the lab has no funded trainee capacity.

3. Lucina Uddin — June 10, 2024

The Faculty Outreach Matrix records that Uddin stated she did not have funds to accept a new graduate student in the fall, while indicating willingness to work as a co-mentor after another primary lab was identified.

Proper inference

Scientific willingness to interact or co-mentor does not necessarily mean a funded primary-mentor position exists.

Day 2 synthesis

“I am not offering these emails to excuse every unsuccessful rotation. I am using them to show why the outcome ‘no permanent mentor’ must be disaggregated. In this training model, the result can reflect student performance, faculty fit, funding, capacity—or some combination.”

Why this matters to the remedy

A future placement process should distinguish:

1. PI interest from PI capacity;
2. rotation availability from permanent-placement availability;
3. student performance failure from faculty funding/capacity non-conversion.

The high-value prospective safeguard is therefore early feasibility screening, not a guarantee of acceptance.

Source used: UCLA Faculty Outreach Matrix (Google Sheet), searched for funding/capacity entries on Aug. 24, 2026.

Applicable UCLA Neuroscience Program Requirement — Day 2

Applicable cohort source: UCLA Graduate Programs, Neuroscience program requirements page for the relevant admission era.
Official page: https://grad.ucla.edu/graduate-program-requirements/program-requirements-for-neuroscience-6-2-2-2-2-2-2-2/

Two points to have ready

1. Degree offered

The applicable page lists the Neuroscience graduate program as Ph.D. only and states:

Master’s Degree: None.

2. Faculty mentor approval is not purely unilateral on the student side

The program describes first-year laboratory rotations and says that the advising committee considers the student’s mentor choice and the:

“ability of the faculty to serve in this capacity.”

Strategic use

This does not prove:

• a guaranteed permanent lab;
• entitlement to unlimited rotations;
• discrimination.

It does support a narrower institutional-design point:

Successful mentor placement depends not only on what the student wants or how the student performs, but also on whether a faculty member is actually able to serve.

That is the correct basis for asking UCLA to verify willingness/capacity/funding earlier in any prospective continuation plan.

Day 2 question

“Given that the program itself recognizes faculty ability to serve as part of mentor approval, what UCLA mechanism is best suited to ensure that any future mentor opportunity is genuinely available before it becomes another academic benchmark?”

DGE Substantive-Mitigation Standard — Day 2

Official source: UCLA Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study
https://grad.ucla.edu/academics/graduate-study/standards-and-procedures-for-graduate-study/

Controlling distinction

The Procedure 230.2 hearing and the DGE academic-disqualification appeal ask different questions.

CRO / grievance hearing

Whether the in-scope disability-discrimination/retaliation allegations are established under the applicable University standard.

DGE nondiscrimination-based ADQ review

After the investigatory process is completed and DGE receives the Investigation Materials, DGE evaluates whether those materials reflect:

“substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected a disqualified student’s academic performance.”

If DGE identifies possible substantive mitigation, the published Standards provide for referral of the written appeal and Investigation Materials to the Graduate Council’s Committee on Degree Programs (CDP); the student may request a personal appearance, and CDP makes a recommendation concerning disposition to the Graduate Dean.

Why this matters to Ombuds

A prospective academic resolution does not require Ombuds—or even necessarily UCLA—to agree with every historical civil-rights allegation.

The more practical question is:

Can UCLA create a finite academic-access pathway that addresses circumstances already reflected in the institutional record and tests future performance under clearer conditions?

Cross-stage mitigation categories

1. Student-side performance: acknowledge genuine deficiencies rather than deny them.
2. Disability-linked execution: organization, planning, time management and related functional barriers.
3. Mixed-cause performance: project dependencies, shifting priorities, funding expectations, rotation structure.
4. Institution-controlled conditions: faculty willingness, funding, capacity, mentor availability, and status-dependent transfer mechanisms.
5. Timing/process effects: programmatic accommodation and alternative-path possibilities surfaced while terminal-status processes were already developing.

Day 2 sentence

“My aim is not to use Ombuds as a second CRO appeal. I want a practical resolution that would make sense even under DGE’s different question—whether the record contains substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance.”

Investigation Report — Day 2 Quick Reference

Source: UCLA Civil Rights Office Investigation Report dated July 29, 2026
Full report: Use the existing redacted report / the Google Drive document titled “CRO_Email_Notice_of_Outcome_and_Redacted_Investigation_Report_07292026.”
Day 2 purpose: Backup only. Do not walk Thomas through the 44-page report unless he requests a specific point.

Hearing scope

The pending Procedure 230.2 hearing is limited to Findings 2–5:

• Finding 2 — Bearden / disability discrimination;
• Finding 3 — Schweizer / disability discrimination and/or request for accommodation;
• Finding 4 — Bearden / disability harassment;
• Finding 5 — Schweizer / disability harassment.

Finding 1 (Bisley / M203 accommodation) is not being submitted for hearing review.

Five report facts useful to Ombuds resolution design

1. Documented disability and CAE registration are undisputed.
2. The report recognizes that Bearden’s decision rested on both funding and student performance.
3. The report records that on March 11 Bearden was described as open to mentorship if financial support and organizational/time-management improvement were achieved.
4. The report records March 20 DGE guidance that CAE might be able to provide further help outside conventional exam accommodations, followed by a March 31 CAE request.
5. The report records April 10 communications in which the accommodation determination and the academic-disqualification committee process were occurring concurrently.

Methodology context — use only if Thomas asks

• Cooper was interviewed multiple times.
• The report says Bearden, Schweizer and Bisley were not interviewed because interviews were deemed unnecessary to reach factual findings.
• Twenty-three additional identified individuals were not interviewed.
• The report states numerous other documents spanning hundreds of pages were not relied upon as insufficiently relevant and/or redundant and were not individually itemized.

Do not argue to Ombuds that this automatically invalidates the report.

Day 2 formulation:

“The hearing is the first formal stage where the principal decisionmakers and other direct witnesses may be able to supply testimony. My Ombuds goal is not to relitigate that today; it is to determine whether a forward-looking academic solution can be explored before or alongside that process.”

Full-report lookup anchors if needed

• Investigation Methodology
• Fifth Rotation / NEURO 596
• Primary Faculty Mentor
• Post-Winter Quarter Efforts
• Academic Disqualification
• Finding 2 / Bearden disparate-treatment analysis
• Finding 3 / Schweizer disparate-treatment analysis

Confidentiality: Treat the report as confidential UCLA case material. Show or transmit only if Thomas says it would be useful.

Parallel PI / Program Feasibility Plan — Day 2

Purpose: Directly implement Thomas’s most important Day 1 recommendation.

Objective

Build faculty relationships that are useful under both:

• a negotiated internal UCLA remedy; and
• a new Fall 2027 application/readmission path.

Target-screen criteria

Prioritize faculty for whom all or most are true:

• strong research overlap with genetics / imaging genetics / psychiatric or neurodevelopmental genetics;
• plausible training fit with prior UCSF and UCLA work;
• eligible to mentor in a potentially relevant UCLA program;
• willingness to meet;
• current or foreseeable trainee capacity;
• credible funding pathway;
• willingness to discuss expectations transparently.

First contact objective

Not:

“Will you rescue me from an appeal?”

Instead:

“I am exploring the most scientifically coherent path for continued graduate research and am very interested in your work on [specific topic]. Would you be open to a brief conversation about your current research direction and whether you anticipate mentoring graduate students in the upcoming cycle?”

Information to learn before treating a target as viable

• Are they taking students?
• Through which UCLA program(s)?
• Do they expect a rotation first?
• Is permanent placement realistically funded?
• Could they support an internal transfer if academically approved?
• Could they support a new application?
• What background/skills would make the fit compelling?
• Would they be comfortable providing candid expectations before any formal commitment?

Day 2 question for Thomas

“Is there a neutral UCLA person who can advise me on the correct etiquette/process for approaching faculty in another program while my current status remains in appeal, so that I do this constructively and do not inadvertently ask faculty to weigh in on the grievance?”