Franken Foods Research: Statement by Ignacio Chapela

[Guest guest]

GMW: Statement by Ignacio Chapela

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:12:11 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

EXCERPTS: " On 20 November, 2003, a decision was reached by the

Chancellor of UC Berkeley to deny tenure in my case, after a process

which

Berkeley's Academic Senate considers to be at least 400% longer than any

other case on the available record... The decision was reached in

opposition to an overwhelming record of legitimate evaluation as follows:

 

* 17 out of 18 world-wide experts recommended that I should be tenured

at Berkeley based on an analysis of my record and performance.

* 32 out of 33 (three abstentions) voting members of my department

recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley, based on their

observation of my record and my performance.

* Two secret expert committees independently and unanimously

recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley.

* There was no other legitimate reason to deny tenure in evidence.

 

The decision to deny tenure was therefore reached through illegitimate

means, and I claim that it was reached through the illegitimate

influence of individuals who stand to lose financially – as well as

politically and academically - from the results of my public

scientific and

policy work. "

 

" [i have come to] conclude that the mediaeval structures of academic

governance are now fully overrun by the overwhelming power of commercial

forces that drive our historical moment.

 

What was created as an area of freedom from the normal rules of the

land in order to protect the freedom of inquiry and education represented

by this campus and by the very concept of a university, has been abused

and prostituted to become a safe-haven for the free-wheeling promotion

of personal and corporate gain beyond the gaze of the republic. "

------

Berkeley, California, 18 April, 2005.

 

Lawsuit Filed Against the Regents of the University of California

 

Statement by Ignacio Chapela

 

Contacts:

Ignacio Chapela, PO Box 10074, Berkeley, CA 94709

ichapela. (510)643 2452, cell (510)693 1611.

 

Daniel Siegel, Attorney at Law. (510)839 1200.

 

For updates and commentary see: http://www.pulseofscience.org (edited

by I. Chapela); http://www.tenurejustice.org (edited by Paulina Novo)

and http://www.chapelatenure.org (edited by Jesse Reynolds).

 

The Lawsuit

 

Today, I filed a lawsuit against the Regents of the University of

California with the California Superior Court in Oakland. This legal

action, entered on my behalf by Mr. Dan Siegel, contains three main

claims

relating to my 8-year-long history of relationship with the University.

 

First, I claim to have been the victim of retaliation by the university

for my role in exposing potential problems with the production and

release of genetically modified (transgenic) organisms into the

environment, as well as for exposing the insidious and illegitimate

influence of

commercial interests, inside and out of the university, in the operation

of the University. This whistleblowing complaint exposes a scandalous

and unacceptable level of compromise in the role and structure of the

university, particularly in the biological sciences.

 

Secondly, I claim to have been the victim of discrimination by the

university with regards to the treatment of my promotion leading to the

denial of tenure, as well as with regard to the highly irregular handling

of my tenure review process. This claim again exposes deep and

structural failure by the university to fulfill its mandate to

represent and

attend to the diversity of cultural, economic, ethnic, intellectual and

political inhabitants of the State of California in its educational,

research and extension functions.

 

Thirdly, a claim of fraud states that the administrators of the

University fail to disclose significant information about the criteria

required to obtain tenure, since information other than scholarship is

used to

make such decisions.

 

The filing of this lawsuit opens a new and more public chapter in the

8-year development of this case, which has received world-wide attention

within and outside academia as a path-defining case study of the

situation of public universities, the influence of private interests on

public research and education, the limits on dissent in scientific

research,

and the suppression of academic freedom in our times. This case also

highlights the role of biotechnology and the biotech industry in our

society.

 

The Historical Facts

 

On 20 November, 2003, a decision was reached by the Chancellor of UC

Berkeley to deny tenure in my case, after a process which Berkeley's

Academic Senate considers to be at least 400% longer than any other

case on

the available record. This decision meant that I must leave the

university, without the possibility of entering a similar position in any

other of the UC system campuses. The decision was reached in opposition

to an overwhelming record of legitimate evaluation as follows:

 

* 17 out of 18 world-wide experts recommended that I should be tenured

at Berkeley based on an analysis of my record and performance.

* 32 out of 33 (three abstentions) voting members of my department

recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley, based on their

observation of my record and my performance.

* Two secret expert committees independently and unanimously

recommended that I should be tenured at Berkeley.

* There was no other legitimate reason to deny tenure in evidence.

 

The decision to deny tenure was therefore reached through illegitimate

means, and I claim that it was reached through the illegitimate

influence of individuals who stand to lose financially – as well as

politically and academically - from the results of my public

scientific and

policy work.

 

Internal Grievance Status

 

With this knowledge, I filed a grievance with the internal faculty

governance body, the Academic Senate, in February of 2004. This

grievance,

which contained 14 claims, was duly and expeditiously processed by the

Academic Senate, leading to findings in my favour on two of my claims:

my claim of illegitimate influence by individuals with a conflict of

interest, and my claim of undue delay in the handling of a clearly

positive case only to reach a negative decision based on highly

questionable

and flimsy evidence.

 

The internal process of grievance was cut short earlier this year by

mutual agreement between the university and myself – had it been

continued to its conclusion, it would have implied lengthy hearings by

the

Senate on the two subjects found in my favour. The internal process,

however, could not deal with substantive questions which I am now able to

open in a court of law.

 

Specifically, the Academic Senate is unable to:

* Address questions of motive behind actions which I consider

illegitimate in the handling of my case.

* Assign personal responsibility on the part of officials and

administrators who I claim acted illegitimately.

* Provide any binding resolution or restitution if and when a violation

can be found.

* Provide a publically-transparent and accountable process of

investigation which can allow the public of California and the world

to observe

the state of the public university which they own and support.

 

All that the internal grievance process can provide is a statement of

violation of process when handling my case. Even when hearings are

considered, the Academic Senate does not have subpoena power to obtain

testimony or documentation to support its investigations.

 

It is because of these limitations that I have agreed to close the

internal grievance process. In true form to the lack of transparency

noted

above, the agreement through which the process was ended, which I have

signed, includes the following clause:

 

" Public comment by either party will be limited to the statement that

Professor Chapela's P & T grievance has been resolved to the full

satisfaction of both parties and that his candidacy for tenure will be

reconsidered pursuant to a review procedure agreed upon by the parties. "

 

My Employment Situation

 

I trust that it will not be a violation of the clause above to say that

the university has agreed to maintain my position and privileges as an

Assistant Professor in the department of Environmental Science, Policy

and Management until the end of the semester when the result of this

reconsideration will take place. No merit increases are envisioned in

this plan.

 

It is also not a breach of confidence to say that the choice by the

university to reconsider the final decision of 2003 by Chancellor Berdahl

may have been influenced – and I believe overwhelmingly so - by an

extraordinary current of public interest in Berkeley, California, the US

and the whole world, that has included steady and enormously powerful

affirmations of support to my case through letters, group-letters,

demonstrations, internet campaigns and individual financial support.

 

This support has been an essential element in the history of the case,

but also the source of my moral and intellectual sustenance. I am

personally grateful beyond measure to the concentric circles, the ripples

of humanity that have provided a life-support system for me through the

difficult times at Berkeley, going from my immediate loved ones and my

colleagues within the department and out through the campus, the city,

the State, the United States and Canada, Mexico and, quite literally,

the world beyond.

 

The Lawsuit Revisited

 

It is with sadness but bated optimism that I announce the opening of a

new chapter in my professional and personal life. Through the four

years of processing of my tenure case, and through the eight-and-a-half

years of my work at Berkeley I have worked with the best of hopes in the

capacity of the academic process to reach just and wise decisions.

Nevertheless, through the many visiscitudes of this time I come to

conclude that the mediaeval structures of academic governance are now

fully

overrun by the overwhelming power of commercial forces that drive our

historical moment.

 

What was created as an area of freedom from the normal rules of the

land in order to protect the freedom of inquiry and education represented

by this campus and by the very concept of a university, has been abused

and prostituted to become a safe-haven for the free-wheeling promotion

of personal and corporate gain beyond the gaze of the republic. What

was a privilege afforded the university by the public to conduct its

business in the shelter of privacy that would allow for freedom of

thought

and speech has been turned into a presumed right to secrecy where

individuals and corporations can operate beyond the rule of the

public. It

now appears too that the sacred claim to freedom of speech might be

invoked by the administrators of the univesity to protect their presumed

right to suppress and silence uncomfortable knowledge and inquiry,

uncomfortable Science.

 

This lawsuit is a statement against the current state of compromise and

prostitution of public inquiry and education in the university. It is

not a " fight against the university " , but rather part of a much broader

struggle for the university, and against those who have captured it for

their personal and corporate gain. At a time when science and the

search for truth have been suspended for political and commercial

interests, my hope is that the court of law will provide a forum where

fully

public account can be taken of the state of the university and that

measure can be provided of the illegitimate influence that has

penetrated its

structure to the core. If science –uncompromising questioning in full

view of public scrutiny - cannot be practiced in the university, then

perhaps we will perform science in the court.

 

This lawsuit is not intended to influence the outcome of the

administrators' review of my case. The decision to grant me tenure at

Berkeley

–and thereby to keep me on the job which so many agree I should be doing

as my life's profession- is one that remains the privilege of the

Chancellor of the university. The lawsuit seeks, first and foremost, to

provide a space where the public can reflect upon the state of their

university. Inasmuch as the university – and Berkeley in particular -

represents the testing grounds for what awaits our society, I hope

that this

lawsuit will add to the many efforts around the world to restore the

rule of the public in the public domain, and indeed to the growth and

strength of public spaces, landscapes and institutions.

 

 

 

 

 

----------