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) a critical failure by NSIDP and UCLA to provide reasonable and effective accommodations for his documented ADHD**, a violation of non-academic criteria under university policy, and **(2) significant and prejudicial procedural errors** that rendered the disqualification 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, the program did not engage in a proactive, interactive process to provide necessary programmatic accommodations for the executive-function-intensive demands of lab rotations and mentor selection. Crucially, Mr. Beaman documented that he **"did not know I could seek accommodations/adjustments to policy [beyond coursework/exams] until just after 5th rotation."** This represents a systemic failure in university guidance that directly prejudiced his ability to secure a mentor and constitutes a significant violation of non-academic criteria for appeal.
2. Significant, Prejudicial Procedural Errors & Arbitrary Actions
The appeal details multiple procedural flaws that created 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 unrelated benchmarks *after* the internal appeal was submitted. This post-hoc justification, which Mr. Beaman noted "feels both retaliatory and an admission of the initial grounds' insufficiency," prejudiced his ability to mount a focused defense.
- **Disparate Treatment & Inconsistent Standards:** The appeal alleges that other NSIDP students with mentors remain in the program despite more significant academic deficiencies (e.g., incomplete core requirements after 3+ years, or similar rotation histories). Furthermore, Dr. Bearden's emails suggest non-standard program intervention and her own uncertainty about program intentions, undermining the legitimacy of her academic assessment.
- **Impossibility of Completion:** A key deliverable for the final rotation ("Satisfactory" grade) could not be fairly assessed due to a two-month delay from external collaborators. Their response arrived on May 6, 2025, long after the rotation ended, making the "Unsatisfactory" grade a procedurally unsound basis for disqualification.
- **Improper & Delayed Notification:** Critical information regarding the initiation of the disqualification process was conveyed indirectly by an SAO, not the Program Chair, and only after significant delays and prior agreements to explore other options. This violated principles of direct, timely, and clear communication.
Requested Relief
Overturn the recommendation for academic disqualification. The preferred resolution is to facilitate a **Major/Classification Change** to a more suitable Ph.D. or M.S. program (e.g., Human Genetics, Computational Medicine, Bioinformatics) 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 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 or effort, but with Principal Investigators (PIs) consistently citing limitations in "funding," "space," and "mentorship bandwidth." This opaque process was critically compounded by CB's documented ADHD (registered with CAE on Feb 5, 2024) and severe medical crises during his third and fourth rotations, including a debilitating, months-long bout of Bell's Palsy. Despite these profound headwinds, CB demonstrated his academic capabilities by passing the demanding Written Qualifying Exams with **High Pass** marks in all sections 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 in a Feb 19, 2025 email to CB:
“I’ve never done one of these before for a rotation student but Jenny and Felix suggested documenting the expectations in writing, and I think it’s a good idea.”
This suggests a targeted, non-standard process from the beginning. The core of the appeal rests on 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, as it deprived him of essential support during the most challenging aspect of his program.
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. One such project, submitted to external collaborators on March 9, did not receive a response until May 6, 2025—two months after the rotation ended. The collaborators noted they were delayed by "staffing changes." This external delay made it procedurally impossible for Dr. Bearden to have fairly assessed "satisfactory completion" of all requirements by the grading deadline, invalidating the "Unsatisfactory" grade as a basis for disqualification.
- Shifting Grounds for Dismissal: The initial dismissal letter of April 28, 2025, cited a single reason: "insufficient degree progress based on 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 is a clear procedural error that prejudiced his ability to appeal the actual, specific reasons for his dismissal.
- Inconsistent Standards and Disparate Treatment: Dr. Bearden's April 2 email to Prof. Schweizer (accidentally cc'ing CB) revealed her own uncertainty about the program's intentions: "...when you say creative ideas I assume you’re not talking about something that would allow him to stay in the NSIDP? or is that still on the table?" This suggests 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, such as failing WQEs or requiring multiple attempts at core courses over a longer period.
- 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 (Jenny Lee) on April 1, 2025. This occurred after CB had already been told a group meeting would be coordinated to discuss options, constituting a lack of direct, timely, and clear communication from program leadership.
Interactive Event Timeline
A proportional timeline of key events. Pan by dragging and zoom with a scroll wheel (or pinch on mobile). Click on any event for detailed information and supporting evidence.