Case Dossier

Cooper Beaman

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

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

  • 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 which 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 were not recommended for disqualification, suggesting an inconsistent and arbitrary application of program standards.

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. His initial lab rotations were consistently terminated not for lack of skill, but for PI-cited systemic issues of "funding," "space," and "mentorship bandwidth." This 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.

II. A Flawed Academic Plan & The Failure to Accommodate

NSIDP instituted a high-stakes Academic Plan for a fifth rotation. The process was marked by irregularities, including the PI being advised by program leadership to document expectations in writing—a step she noted was unusual:

“I’ve never done one of these before for a rotation student but Jenny and Felix suggested documenting...”
The central legal 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. The university's failure is underscored by CB's own documented statement 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 necessary support, constituting a clear violation of ADA/Section 504.

III. Procedural Unraveling & Arbitrary Actions

  • Impossibility of Completion: The 'Unsatisfactory' grade in the 5th rotation is invalid as a basis for dismissal. A key deliverable submitted to external collaborators on March 9 was not acknowledged until May 6, 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." The denial letter (May 30) expanded the rationale to three distinct benchmarks. This post-hoc shift is a classic procedural error that prejudiced the appeal.
  • Disparate Treatment: The appeal alleges that other NSIDP students with similar or more significant academic deficiencies were not recommended for disqualification, suggesting an inconsistent application of program standards.
  • Inconsistent Standards & PI Confusion: The PI's own emails reveal confusion about the program's intent, asking the chair if keeping CB in the program was "still on the table," suggesting that factors beyond academic performance were driving the decision.
  • Denied Accommodation Requests for Appeal Process: CB's requests to the CAE for a disability-based extension for the internal 10-day appeal deadline were denied, with CAE conflating an internal departmental deadline with a formal Grad Division process, representing a failure to engage in the interactive accommodation process for the appeal itself.

Interactive Event Timeline

A responsive timeline of key events. Pan by dragging, zoom with scroll or pinch. Click any event for details. Use the legend to toggle categories.