Summary of Appeal to the Division of Graduate Education

This appeal is grounded in UCLA policy allowing for appeals based on (a) procedural error and/or (b) non-academic criteria, including failure to provide reasonable accommodation for a documented disability.

Argument 1: Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations for ADHD (Violation of Non-Academic Criteria)

The central argument is that UCLA/NSIDP failed to meet its legal and ethical obligations under ADA/Section 504. Despite awareness of Mr. Beaman's ADHD, the program did not engage in a proactive, interactive process to identify and provide necessary programmatic accommodations for the executive-function-intensive demands of lab rotations and mentor securement. Crucially, Mr. Beaman documented his late awareness—"did not know I could seek accommodations/adjustments to policy [beyond coursework/exams] until just after 5th rotation"—a critical failure in university guidance that directly prejudiced his ability to succeed and constitutes a significant violation of non-academic criteria for appeal.

Argument 2: Significant, Prejudicial Procedural Errors & Arbitrary Actions

The appeal details a cascade of procedural flaws creating an arbitrary and capricious process that undermined fundamental fairness:

  • 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.
  • Impossibility of Completion: A key deliverable for the final rotation required external collaborator feedback. This feedback was not received until two months after the rotation ended, making a "Satisfactory" grade procedurally impossible to achieve and invalidating it as a basis for disqualification.
  • Disparate Treatment: The appeal alleges that other NSIDP students with similar or more significant academic deficiencies (e.g., incomplete WQEs, multiple failed courses, similar number of rotations) were not recommended for disqualification, suggesting an inconsistent and arbitrary application of program standards.
  • Improper Notification & Communication Breakdown: The official initiation of the disqualification process was conveyed indirectly and with significant delay, contravening principles of direct and timely communication from program leadership.

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.

Case Narrative & Argument Detail

This overview details the sequence of events and procedural failures that form the basis of the DGE appeal.

I. A Competent Student Encounters Systemic Barriers

Cooper Beaman (CB) matriculated with a strong research background, including co-authorship on high-impact papers. However, his initial lab rotations were consistently terminated not for lack of skill, but for PI-cited issues of "funding," "space," and "mentorship bandwidth"—systemic problems beyond his control. This period was compounded by significant medical crises (Bell's Palsy, hospitalization) and the challenges of his documented ADHD. Despite this, CB demonstrated academic excellence by passing his WQEs with High Pass marks, indicating his core competency was never in question.

II. A Flawed Academic Plan & The Failure to Accommodate

Following the standard rotations, NSIDP instituted a high-stakes 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 was unusual and not standard practice: “I’ve never done one of these before for a rotation student but Jenny and Felix suggested documenting the expectations in writing...” This suggests a non-standard, targeted process was applied to CB from the outset.

The central legal and ethical failure occurred here: despite awareness of his ADHD, the program did not engage in a proactive, interactive process to provide programmatic accommodations for the mentor search—a process that heavily taxes the very executive functions limited by his disability. The university's failure is underscored by CB's own documented statement to the CAE and DGE on March 31, 2025: "I did not know I could seek accommodations/adjustments to policy [beyond coursework/exams] until just after 5th rotation." This lapse prevented him from seeking and receiving necessary support, constituting a clear violation of ADA/Section 504.

III. Procedural Unraveling & Arbitrary Actions

The disqualification was procedurally flawed and executed in an arbitrary manner:

  • Impossibility of Completion: The 'Unsatisfactory' grade in the 5th rotation is invalid as a basis for dismissal. A key deliverable—a data pipeline submitted to external collaborators on March 9—could not be assessed for "satisfactory completion" because the collaborators did not provide feedback until May 6, long after the rotation ended. Their email confirms receipt and apologizes for the delay due to "staffing changes," making it procedurally impossible for CB to have met this benchmark in time.
  • Shifting Justifications: The initial dismissal letter (Apr 28) cited only "failure to identify a faculty mentor." After the internal appeal, the denial letter (May 30) suddenly expanded the rationale to three distinct benchmarks. This post-hoc shift is a classic procedural error that prejudices the appellant's ability to form a defense and suggests the initial grounds were insufficient.
  • Disparate Treatment: The appeal asserts that other NSIDP students in more severe academic standing (e.g., multiple failed courses, still in the program after 3+ years without completing WQEs) were not recommended for disqualification, suggesting CB was held to an arbitrary and capricious standard.
  • Communication Breakdown: The program's communication was delayed and indirect. After the 5th rotation, CB's attempts to meet with the Chair were met with a multi-week delay. The notification of disqualification proceedings was then initiated by the SAO, not the Chair, and conflicted with prior discussions about exploring solutions. This is exemplified by the Chair's apology email ("I deeply apologize that I did not respond") and the SAO's subsequent email referencing a disqualification that had not been formally communicated by the Chair.
  • Inconsistent Standards: Dr. Bearden's own communications reveal confusion about the program's intent. Her email to the Chair on Apr 2, inadvertently copying CB, asks: "...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 that factors beyond CB's academic performance, such as funding or a predetermined outcome, may have been driving the decision-making process, undermining the legitimacy of the academic assessment.

Interactive Event Timeline

An interactive and responsive timeline of key events. Pan by dragging and zoom with a scroll wheel or pinch-to-zoom. Click any event for detailed information. Use the legend to toggle event categories.