A Broken Process
Not only did HBS impose a new policy that hindered my ability to defend myself, it then did not follow its new policy correctly, further denying me a fair opportunity to refute the charges made against me.
Under either policy (see this policy and also this one), HBS was required: (1) to conduct a “thorough, fair, and objective” investigation, (2) to take into consideration the “rights and reputation” of the accused, including his/her confidentiality, and (3) to prove “research misconduct,” which required a showing of intentional misconduct. None of this happened in my case.
The new policy requires the investigating committee to investigate “carefully and responsibly” and for the process to be comprehensive and fair. Let me offer ten ways this did not happen:
The Committee summarily rejected some of my defenses and responses.
The Committee refused to investigate alternative explanations I presented.
Rather than weigh all the “evidence,” the Committee simply ignored information contrary to its conclusion.
The Committee improperly shifted the burden of proof onto me to disprove research misconduct.
The Committee ignored its obligation to make a determination, for each finding, of whether my actions were intentional, reckless, or negligent.
The Committee ignored its obligation to compare my work to others in my field.
The Committee recommended the harshest available sanctions with such haste and such superficial discussion as to fall short of its obligations.
HBS conducted a bad faith investigation into allegations of research misconduct that were not made in good faith, as required under the new policy.
HBS conducted a bad faith investigation into allegations of research misconduct that fell outside the stated “scope” of the new policy and should have been time-barred.
HBS failed to maintain the confidentiality required by its own policy.
Furthermore, contrary to the overarching focus on finding truth, HBS has impeded my efforts to get the data I need to prove my innocence – for instance, denying my requests for access to HBS records that could help me figure out what happened. If HBS truly wants to be thorough, fair, and careful, it should welcome all these efforts.
I have specific facts to support each of these serious allegations. I’ll provide details soon.
Invalidity of the New Policy in its Purported Authorization to Terminate a Tenured Professor
Unlike the old Research Integrity Policy, the new policy purported to supersede the Third Statute by expressly authorizing the HBS Dean to take actions up to and including termination. But the University’s Third Statute guarantees significant procedural protections to a tenured professor accused of wrongdoing. Where the accused is a tenured professor, the new policy’s purported grant of authority conflicts with a tenured professor’s rights under the Third Statute.
Harvard breached its contract by putting me on a two-year unpaid "administrative leave," a detrimental employment decision equivalent to termination, yet lacking the procedural safeguards due to me under the existing policy.