This conversation was re the tenure review and in particular, the effect of LA’s false claims on the tenure vote within the department. The following is a transcript of that conversation (excerpted from documents provided to the OCR, EEOC and other agencies investigating Cornell's actions against Prof. Vengalattore).
These statements during this conversation contradict Cornell’s narratives to the NY State Supreme Court, the OCR and the NYDHR, viz: that Cornell conducted an investigation into LA's claims, or that LA's claims had no effect on the tenure votes, or that the tenure decision was based entirely on assessments of Prof. Vengalattore's publication record.
RET : I could never figure out ... its hard - I can’t say more. Its very puzzling - there were other tenure cases which had more significant issues, but yours was the most confusing case. It was the most confusing case.
MV : That was where the appeals committee said - there should have been an investigation. Confidentiality of the tenure case is very important, but the rights of the faculty member are just as important.
RET : These are the things that came up - some of these inconsistencies came up. Do you know how many faculty commented on this?
MV : The appeals committee said it was very clear based on faculty summaries that the letter from [LA] had a substantial, or even over-riding impact on this tenure process.
RET : There were many such inconsistencies ... it was just very confusing.
MV : Then why did it have such a big impact on the tenure vote? If you are saying, simultaneously, everybody was confused, everybody knew she was lying, everybody knew she was being inconsistent, yet it had a huge impact on the vote ... what does it say about the department?
RET : There were certain people - with certain issues, agendas .... who tried to make sure this stink wouldn’t go away. I really don’t want to say more ...
RET : The fact is, If you pay attention to politics at all, thoroughly investigating the allegations does not make the stink go away, as long as there are people who don’t want the stink to go away. That’s unfortunately the reality around here. The way sensible universities or sensible people would have handled it, what could have happened perhaps in your case, the sensible way is to say, ok, there is this stink in the air - you are a great scientist, great teacher, but there is this concern. So we are going to put in some safeguards and look into it - just to make sure there is nothing here. So that’s the way it should have been handled. Most of the men in this department think the way I do, but they are afraid to speak up. There were certain individuals who really seized on this ... (i.e. the false allegations of LA).
...
RET : I don’t know what your family background is. People who are raised in professional families ... learn how to play games - right?
MV : Everybody in my family comes from a professional background ... this notion that I have to learn to play games and so on ... you know, one of the reasons that I am in this field is I was always told that academia is this place where hard work and merit stands out, there is a peer review process and all that stuff, how good of a scientist you are is all that matters - and that’s what I was taught. And both my parents, and my brother, are professors at Macgill and Maryland. So this notion that a professional learns to play games - I don’t believe that.
...
RET : What you’ve built down there is spectacular, what you’ve done with undergraduates is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the department. The grad student record is more complicated ...
MV : But that’s what I said, I haven’t been getting graduate students interested in my work. But look at [name redacted] .. how many people succeeded with him?
RET : I know, I know - I commented on that during the meetings. I know it. I feel you have, or maybe had to, take an unorthodox approach, but it was an approach that stuck me as completely valid. But there was this, kind of ... I’ll tell you what I said - I feel like I have many of the same personality traits as you. During the process, when we had this process with [name redacted] - you know, he actually did something wrong. And during that discussion, it was thought there was a complete lack of contrition.
MV : What exactly are you expecting me to be contrite about? I’ve told you the allegations are false - you yourself just said ...
RET : It is not exactly contrition ... it has nothing to do with you. There is no reason for you to be do anything like that. But, I listen to you, and I hear myself ... I know I have anger issues. The way you responded, complained about the department ...
MV : Let’s be careful here with using such language. You can’t provoke someone with such false allegations, use it to deny tenure and then say look, they are getting angry ...
RET : Yeah, maybe ... Look I agree with everything you are saying. There was just this, kind of, you know - (tapers off)
RET : The sad fact of the matter is, its the way the world works - is that highly, highly, principled people who hold their ground no matter what - like you ... will have a hard time getting tenure in this department. Sometimes, you have to kiss the rings. Sometimes you have to kiss the rings.
MV : Well, that’s more a commentary on the department.
RET : The people who get tossed are often not the worst scientists. They get tossed because they make their colleagues uncomfortable, they don’t kiss the rings. I am just saying, I’ve watched other people. One of your own peers [name redacted of Cornell physics faculty member tenured circa 2011-2014] - you know his science was terrible, just terrible, but a master ring-kisser. His tenure went through without any problems. Say what you want about it - I used to be more angry about such things, than I am now. I don’t know all the details - my wife keeps telling me stop thinking about this - this whole thing just makes me very unhappy.
RET : But let me ask you this, if Cornell now fixes things, and you get your tenure .. do you think you can work with your colleagues?
MV: It also depends on my colleagues at this point. How many times has Gibbons come up to me over the last 2-3 years and said Hey, I am sorry? This is a person that the appeals committee clearly said had acted in violation of University policies and ..
RET : Hey look, if I was in a position where I was being interviewed by lawyers or something, if I was in a legal mess, he was probably told to shut up .. I am just saying, I am not defending him. He absolutely screwed up. What he did was just indefensible. I am just saying, the lawyers, administrators rule - these are women in their 50s, 60s, with very particular views, and things have swung too far in the other direction. A lot of men are in your position ...