Condensed Summary of Appeal
Core arguments for the appeal to the Division of Graduate Education (DGE), grounded in UCLA policy for appeals based on procedural error and non-academic criteria (i.e., failure to accommodate a documented disability).
This appeal challenges the recommendation for the academic disqualification of Cooper Beaman, a second-year NSIDP Ph.D. student. It posits that the recommendation is not a reflection of his academic capability—evidenced by High Pass WQE scores and a strong research background—but is the direct result of (1) the program's failure to provide reasonable accommodations for his documented ADHD, a violation of non-academic criteria under university policy, and (2) significant and prejudicial procedural errors that rendered the process unfair and arbitrary.
Core Arguments for DGE Appeal
1. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations for ADHD (Violation of Non-Academic Criteria)
The central argument is that UCLA/NSIDP failed to meet its obligations under ADA/Section 504. Despite awareness of Mr. Beaman's ADHD diagnosis, the program did not engage in a proactive, interactive process to provide necessary programmatic accommodations for the executive-function-intensive demands of lab rotations. Crucially, Mr. Beaman was not aware such accommodations were possible until after his fifth rotation—a critical lapse in university guidance that directly prejudiced his ability to secure a mentor.
2. Significant, Prejudicial Procedural Errors
The appeal exhaustively details multiple procedural flaws creating an arbitrary and capricious process:
- Shifting Justifications: The rationale for disqualification was improperly expanded from a single reason ("failure to find a mentor") to three unmet academic benchmarks *after* the internal appeal was submitted, prejudicing his ability to mount a focused defense and suggesting a retaliatory motive.
- Inconsistent Standards & Disparate Treatment: Evidence suggests non-standard program intervention and inconsistent standards applied to Mr. Beaman compared to other NSIDP students with similar or more significant academic deficiencies who were not recommended for disqualification.
- Impossibility of Completion: A key deliverable 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 and invalidating it as a basis for disqualification.
- Improper Notification: Critical information about the initiation of the disqualification process was conveyed indirectly by an SAO following a significant delay by the Program Chair, violating principles of direct and timely communication.
Desired Outcome
Overturn the recommendation for academic disqualification. The preferred resolution is to facilitate a Major/Classification Change to a more suitable Ph.D. program (e.g., Human Genetics, Computational Medicine) where Mr. Beaman's demonstrated skills can thrive with appropriate support and programmatic alignment.
Exhaustive Case Overview
A detailed narrative weaving together the key events, evidence, and arguments that form the basis of the DGE appeal.
I. Foundation: A Capable Student Encounters Systemic Barriers
Cooper Beaman (CB) matriculated into the UCLA NSIDP in Fall 2023 with a strong record, including a 3.86 GPA and over two years of high-impact functional genomics research at UCSF. However, from the outset, the mentor selection process proved fraught with systemic issues. The first four rotations concluded not due to a lack of skill, but with PIs consistently citing limitations in "funding," "space," and "mentorship bandwidth." This process was further complicated by CB's documented ADHD (registered with CAE on Feb 5, 2024) and severe medical crises during his third and fourth rotations (a debilitating bout of Bell's Palsy and a bladder infection requiring hospitalization). Despite these profound headwinds, CB demonstrated his academic capabilities by passing the demanding Written Qualifying Exams with High Pass marks in September 2024.
II. The Flawed Academic Plan & Failure of Accommodation
On Nov 19, 2024, NSIDP issued an Academic Plan for a fifth rotation. This process was immediately marked by procedural irregularities. The PI, Dr. Bearden, was advised by program leadership to document expectations in writing—a step she noted as highly unusual: "I’ve never done one of these before... but Jenny and Felix suggested" it. This suggests a targeted, non-standard process from the beginning. The core of the appeal rests on what happened next: a critical failure of accommodation. The unstructured, high-stakes nature of the mentor search is precisely where CB's ADHD presents the greatest functional limitations. Yet, as he documented to the DGE case manager on March 31, 2025, he "did not know I could seek accommodations/adjustments to policy [beyond coursework/exams] until just after 5th rotation." This failure by the university to ensure he was aware of his rights under ADA/Section 504 is a central violation of non-academic criteria.
III. Procedural Unraveling: Shifting Justifications & Arbitrary Actions
The disqualification process itself was rife with procedural errors that were both significant and prejudicial:
- Impossibility of Completion: The Academic Plan required a "Satisfactory" grade from Dr. Bearden. Her own course description required timely completion of projects, including one submitted to external collaborators on March 9. Those collaborators did not reply until May 6, two months after the rotation ended, making it procedurally impossible for Dr. Bearden to have fairly assessed "satisfactory completion" of all requirements by the grading deadline. This invalidates the "U" grade as a basis for disqualification.
- Shifting Grounds for Dismissal: The initial dismissal letter of April 28 cited a single reason: "failure to identify a faculty mentor." After CB submitted a detailed internal appeal, the denial letter of May 30 suddenly expanded the rationale to three unmet benchmarks (the U grade, no mentor, and the dropped NEURO M203 course). This post-hoc justification "feels both retaliatory and an admission of the initial grounds' insufficiency" and is a clear procedural error that prejudiced his ability to appeal the specific reasons for his dismissal.
- Inconsistent Standards and Disparate Treatment: Dr. Bearden's email to Prof. Schweizer ("...I assume you're not talking about something that would allow him to stay in the NSIDP?") reveals her own uncertainty about program intentions, suggesting decisions were influenced by factors beyond CB's performance. Furthermore, the appeal argues disparate treatment, alleging that other NSIDP students with mentors remain in the program despite more significant academic deficiencies (e.g., failing WQEs, multiple attempts at NEURO M203).
- Improper and Delayed Notification: Following the 5th rotation, there was a multi-week delay in communication from the Program Chair, despite CB's repeated attempts to meet. The official notification that disqualification was being initiated came not from the Chair, but from the SAO, after CB had already been told a group meeting would be coordinated to discuss options. This lack of direct, timely, and clear communication from program leadership constitutes a procedural misstep.
Interactive Event Timeline
A proportional timeline of key events. Pan by dragging and zoom with CTRL+Scroll. Click on any event for detailed information and supporting evidence.