(Excerpted from documents submitted to the NY State Supreme Court, the US Office of Civil Rights, the EEOC and other agencies investigating Cornell’s harassment of the Vengalattore research group)
2009-2011 : MV established Cornell’s first program on experimental atomic physics, with three experiments on ultracold atomic gases, optomechanics and hybrid quantum systems.
Dec 2011 : On the basis of an overwhelmingly positive third year review in 2011, the Physics department renews his appointment for a further three years. Commenting on his performance to date, the department states that MV has “done a remarkable job in putting together world class cold atom laboratories”, and that his accomplishments are “especially impressive given that he is the only researcher at Cornell in this exciting new and growing area”. Commenting on his mentoring of his students, the department review states that MV’s students are “very pleased with their decision to work with [MV], and express only praise and respect, even awe, of him”.
One of MV’s graduate students, LA, writes a very positive and complimentary letter for Vengalattore’s (MV) third year review where she says “Prof. Vengalattore is an amazing advisor, teacher and mentor” etc etc.
The department chair, Jeevak Parpia, demands that MV write research proposals incorporating his research activities in MV’s research. Due to existing collaborations, MV declines to do so. Following this, the Physics department discriminates against MV in the admission of graduate students interested in atomic physics, causing a severe shortage of manpower in the MV group.
Oct 2012 : LA has problems getting her projects to work, and writes an email “I am feeling overwhelmed and like I am not sure how to proceed ... It also seems that I am bouncing around too much”. She decides to leave the group. A few weeks later, the MV group demonstrate its first BEC and LA wants to rejoin the group. Based on her performance and issues working with others in the group, MV declines. By then, she had already made accusations about other students in the group including that one of them “smoked pot in the lab”, and another “was stalking her and rifling through her desk”. Neither of these were true.
Oct - Nov 2012 : Unbeknownst to the MV group, LA claimed to the Director of graduate studies (DGS) that there were “angry interactions” in the lab and that MV yelled at all the students. The DGS now claims that he talked to other students from the MV group at that time and that “from his perspective, things were fine”. She also claimed to the DGS that a “power supply was thrown”. The DGS claims that he was never given the impression that the supply “was thrown at her” and decides it is not worth bringing it to MV’s attention. LA’s contemporaneous account to Keith Schwab, a close collaborator, is also similarly benign, i.e. “that MV placed a supply on a table and that it slid towards her”.
April-May 2014 : LA demands to be first author on a publication on two-photon lattice imaging. She had no involvement in the conception of the idea, the data acquisition, analysis or paper writing. She was included on the paper entirely due to her early contributions to the construction of the apparatus. MV naturally refuses. Contemporaneously, MV and his students come to know that she has continually exaggerated her “power supply allegation” and spread rumors that MV had “thrown it at her head forcing her to duck and run out of the lab” etc. Several graduate students also show MV emails they had sent to the department chair (Parpia) and DGS (Gibbons) bringing this rumor mill to their attention and asking them to investigate since “Professor Vengalattore was accruing a negative bias in the department and students were avoiding his group”. This put things in better perspective for MV and his students since they had been unable to recruit a single student between 2012 - 2014. MV states his intention to complain about LA’s misconduct as well as the department administration’s wanton inaction in this matter (in particular, the chair and the DGS) - their inaction had severe consequences for the MV group’s reputation, research progress and productivity. The Cornell tenure appeals committee would later independently confirm these statements.
June 2014 : MV is told in oblique terms that LA had submitted a highly negative letter as part of his tenure review. He is not told of the contents of the letter, but that the ‘power supply allegation’ was present in the letter. Erich Mueller and Paul McEuen convince MV not to complain either about LA or the department leadership, calling it a ‘nuclear option’. They promise an immediate investigation and clarification of the true nature of his group, and that LA would be censured and, if warranted, expelled from the PhD program. They also promised that the investigation and clarification on LA’s false allegations would be shared with the entire department prior to the tenure vote.
Sept 2014 : There is no investigation, and the department is essentially given to understand by Parpia that the allegations are true. Despite the poisonous effect of this letter, the department votes to recommend tenure. Faculty contemporaneously tell MV that the chair, Parpia, and Ritchie Patterson, the wife of the DGS Gibbons, went to extraordinary efforts to campaign against MV’s tenure and that their efforts were “indefensible and clearly motivated by malice”. Privately, several faculty tell MV that there is increasing awareness that Parpia, Gibbons etc should be held accountable for the damage to his career, and that they have exposed the University to serious liability.
Sept 2014 : Two days after the department vote, Parpia inexplicably calls LA and informs her of the positive tenure vote. Notably, none of the other letter writers or students are informed of the vote. Two days later, LA calls Patterson and claims that she was sexually assaulted some time in 2010. Again, this also is withheld from MV, but funneled to the Dean of A&S, who overturns the department’s tenure recommendation claiming that MV “has failed as a mentor”, that MV’s group is “dysfunctional” and making oblique references to “charges of misconduct”. MV has yet to be informed of the contents of LA’s letter or her subsequent allegations, and there has been no investigation into any of her claims.
Oct 2014 : A professional consultant, Pam Strausser, conducts a review of MV’s group and issues a report that thoroughly rebuts the Dean’s picture of the group. Strausser notes that the group is “highly engaged, dynamic” and that the students are “high-end outliers in terms of their dedication and competence”. Strausser also notes that the department and the DGS misrepresented student interviews and “transmuted their positive comments into critiques”, leading to a false picture of MV’s research group. The tenure committee would later confirm this statement, noting that the DGS misrepresented statements from MV’s students.
Nov 2014 : Shortly after the Strausser report is issued, MV is told that LA had leveled a new allegation of ‘sexual harassment’ that her middle initial was omitted in the author list of the recent publication. MV provides a long list of evidence showing that she had always referred to herself as L. Aycock in her DAMOP abstracts, posters etc. and that she had never raised any concern about the lack of a middle initial. MV also noted to the investigators that this seemed to be a pattern emerging of funneling such frivolous allegations into his tenure dossier. Nonetheless, MV promptly makes the change to the website, and adds her middle initial in the author list. Despite the evidence that her allegation is frivolous, and MV’s prompt action, the department chair Parpia writes to the Dean claiming that MV’s “conduct was inappropriate by any measure”. The Dean sticks to her decision to deny tenure claiming also that MV’s response to LA’s latest complaint was “dismissive”.
Feb 2015 : The Ombudsman and Dean of the Faculty (Burns) both tell MV that the Dean’s decision to deny tenure is “inexplicable”, and that there are serious concerns with the process. They both tell MV to appeal the decision and list the rapidly accumulating list of flaws in the process including the deception by the chair and the DGS, the lack of investigation into LA’s allegations etc. MV’s students also file complaints about the DGS’s misrepresentations and they are assured that this is a very serious matter and that there would be a prompt inquiry into the DGS’s misconduct. They also tell MV that the chair, Parpia, is “not to be trusted”. Simultaneously, MV’s students approach Erich Mueller with their concerns about the pervasive flaws in the tenure process, the false representation of the MV group, and the effect of LA’s malicious allegations on the entire tenure process. Erich Mueller acknowledges these flaws but claims that informing the University administration of these facts would ‘cause the department to lose political capital’.
March 2015 : Two days after MV files his appeal, MV is informed that the Dean, Ritter, has “authorized” an investigation into an allegation of sexual misconduct leveled against MV by LA. This is almost six months after LA made the allegation - in serious violation of Cornell policies and OCR guidelines. To date, Cornell has put forth multiple false narratives to explain this delay.
May 2015 : The investigators do not give MV any details of the allegations and constantly shift the nature of the complaint, the alleged timeline etc. They evade MV’s questions about the absence of written charges, oversight, access to testimonies and inteviews, and other binding procedural guidelines of such investigations. Despite these procedural abuses, they realize that the assault allegation is factually impossible since MV was in his lab working with students when LA claimed he was at his house a few miles away (see affidavit to Court).
June 2015 : The investigators then claim that the assault allegation is ‘time-barred’ and refuse to acknowledge the exculpatory evidence. They morph the allegation into a ‘violation of the Cornell Romantic relationship policy” and claim that there was a ‘secret romantic relationship’. Contemporaneously, the tenure appeals committee confirms serious flaws in the tenure procedure and asks the Dean Ritter to reconsider her decision. Ritter claims that LA’s new allegations of sexual misconduct are ‘not frivolous’ and refuses to do so.
Oct 2015 : The appeals committee issues a report upholding MV’s appeal and finds that (i) there was clear discrimination against MV’s research group and denial of resources to his group which had a severe impact on MV’s productivity, (ii) that they are very skeptical of LA’s allegations and that multiple faculty had attested that LA was untrustworthy and had engaged in a dishonest campaign to sabotage MV’s tenure review, (iii) the department chair Parpia and DGS Gibbons should be subject to disciplinary action due to their misconduct.
Oct 2015 : The WPLR investigators find no evidence of any romantic or inappropriate relationship. Despite this, they recommend “a preponderance of evidence” that there was a romance, and that the absence of evidence was not a concern since this romance was a ‘secret’. (see affidavit). Ritter claims to the tenure committee that MV had been “caught lying” to the investigators and asks them to retract their findings about the tenure review. She also refuses to investigate or take further action on the committee’s findings of misconduct by Parpia and Gibbons. As per Cornell policy, MV should have been accorded his right to an immediate hearing where he could present evidence, witnesses etc showing that the WPLR recommendation was erroneous. Ritter arbitrarily denies his right to such a hearing. Administrators within the Physics department are on record stating that this is “incredible” and that “a hearing is the least [one] would expect in the face of such serious allegations”. Yet to this day, Cornell has refused to grant MV a hearing, and has resorted to multiple perjurious narratives to the Court to explain this violation of Cornell policy.
Oct 2015 : Barely a few days after the Appeals committee upholding MV’s tenure appeal, LA levels a new allegation that she has been “harassed and belittled” at conferences and that MV had “threatened her” under the guise of wanting to collaborate with her. There is ample evidence that MV had not contacted LA or spoken to her for more than two years. In fact, as part of her earlier testimony to the WPLR investigators, she had complained that MV had not responded to her “requests for collaboration”, and acknowledged that she had not spoken to MV since 2013. Despite her latest allegation also being demonstrably false, Ritter informs the committee that she has forbidden MV’s attendance at conferences to “protect the student”. LA also claims that she ‘took all the data and wrote the paper’ on the two-photon imaging result and that her work was ‘plagiarized’ by MV and his students. This is also demonstrably false based on all the lab records, time- stamped computer files etc. The WPLR investigators acknowledge this is an “exaggeration” but claim it is ‘irrelevant’ to any determination of LA’s credibility.
Oct - Nov 2015 : The tenure appeals committee waters down their findings, especially in regard to the misconduct of the department chair and the DGS. Nonetheless, they still uphold the appeal and ask Ritter to reconsider her tenure denial. They also seek to interview LA and determine the extent of her smear campaign and whether she discussed her actions with senior faculty in the physics department. The Dean Ritter immediately prohibits contact between the appeals committee and LA. No reason is given, but the committee state in its final report, ‘we were prevented from questioning [LA] about these matters’.
Nov-Dec 2015 : MV’s students complain to the Judicial administrator about LA’s continued smear campaign and her false allegations of plagiarism. They are told that these complaints are not actionable because of LA’s ‘freedom of speech’. One of MV’s students is also asked by the Title IX coordinator and Judicial administrators if he is ‘making up these complaints’ because he is also of Indian origin and ‘somehow related to MV’. Such statements are symptomatic of the pervasive racism within the ‘internal justice system’ at Cornell.
Feb 2016 : Following Ritter’s continued refusal to abide by Cornell policies and address the severe flaws in MV’s tenure process, the Tenure appeals committee finds serious flaws in the entire tenure process due to Ritter's actions, and directs the formation of an external expert committee to scrutinize MV’s tenure dossier and make an independent determination. Ritter lobbies the Provost and Dean of Faculty to concoct an ‘amended process’ that circumvents this binding requirement. MV is falsely told that the appeals committee ‘had no issues with Ritter’s determination of tenure denial’. When MV approaches a senior Physics professor, Saul Teukolsky, with his concerns about Ritter’s continued misconduct and the effect of LA’s allegations on his tenure process, Saul Teukolsky acknowledges that LA fabricated her allegations. But he states that the Physics department would not take any further action since, in his words, taking action against a blonde, female student would ‘cause twitter to explode, and the department would be labelled bullies’.
March 2016 : The MV group independently comes to know of the appeals committee’s true directives and Ritter’s deception. MV’s legal counsel immediately alerts the Cornell counsel’s office to this deceit. The Cornell lawyer (Tarlow) claims there is no risk of any litigation since they would ‘embarrass [MV] in public with allegations of misconduct’ if MV chose to litigate.
April 2016 : LA levels a new allegation that there is “a space missing between the middle initial and the period’ in her name on the publication list, and that this constitutes continued retaliation and harassment. By now, her name had been represented on the MV group website as “L. M.Aycock” for more than year (since Nov 2014). Yet, this new complaint was leveled barely a week after MV’s legal counsel informed Cornell lawyers of Ritter’s fraudulent conduct.
Nov 2016 : The NY State Supreme Court rules in MV’s favor and annuls the “arbitrary, capricious and grossly unfair” tenure process. It orders Cornell to conduct a new tenure review after throwing out LA’s allegations. It also orders Cornell to conduct a hearing and allow MV to defend himself against the erroneous claim of a ‘secret romantic relationship’.
Nov - Dec 2016 : Following Cornell’s continued inaction on LA’s misconduct and MV group’s complaints about Parpia, (phys. department chair) and Gibbons (DGS), MV’s students file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Education. Throughout the litigation, Cornell continues to harass and threaten students in the MV research group. A few students have suffered serious stress- and anxiety-related health issues due to such illegal (and likely criminal) conduct by the Cornell physics department and administration. The OCR deems sufficient prima facie evidence to initiate multiple investigations into Cornell regarding discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; and retaliation against the MV group in response to their complaints.
Jan 2017 : Ritter’s lawyers write to the Court claiming that Ritter has ‘reconsidered her decision’ not to impose sanctions on MV, and that MV will be given his right to a hearing after the imposition of sanctions. This is also in violation of Cornell procedures which unambiguously state that no sanctions can be imposed while the accused individual disputes the charges and has yet to be accorded a hearing. (see Vengalattore affidavit to NY State Supreme Court)
May 2017 : MV’s legal counsel files a contempt of court motion following Cornell’s continued unwillingness to abide by the court order. Cornell suspends MV for two weeks in early June. Cornell promises the Court that it will initiate the new tenure review and accord MV his right to a hearing and closure on the ‘romance allegation’. However, the Cornell lawyer, Tarlow, tells MV’s legal counsel and ‘there are many ways to say no in a tenure review’. Tarlow also tells MV’s legal counsel that it is prepared to retract the ‘secret romance’ finding and exonerate MV if he agrees to leave Cornell right away. MV refuses to do so, and insists on a public hearing and a de novo review. Cornell immediately retracts its offer to vacate Ritter’s findings, and reneges on its promises to accord MV a hearing.
Fall 2017 : Several students in the physics department attest that LA, Patterson, other senior physics faculty etc. are telling students that MV was ‘found guilty of assault, but Cornell could not punish him because the statute of limitations had passed’. MV complain to the departmental leadership, but no action is taken.
August 2017 : Wendy Tarlow and Eanna Flanagan communicate to Professor Vengalattore of Cornell’s commitment to conduct a de novo tenure review in accordance with the Court order.
October 2017 : Professor Vengalattore submits his updated tenure dossier. Simultaneously, he reiterates his concern that senior admininstrators including Gretchen Ritter, Wendy Tarlow etc are trying to orchestrate a sham tenure review that is preordained to deliver a negative verdict. Senior Cornell faculty including Professor Kevin Clermont also note that `evidence grows that Cornell is making moves to conduct a sham review in violation of the Court order’. Cornell refuses to acknowledge the Professor’s concerns.
Dec 2017 : The department inexplicably reverses its 2014 recommendation of tenure and almost unanimously votes against tenure citing as its purported excuses ‘research lacking depth and novelty’, ‘teaching below standards’ etc. Each of these purported excuses is soundly rebutted by scientific experts and is contradicted by the department’s own earlier assessments. Senior legal scholars state that this latest action by Cornell ‘is actually a positive development since it helps prove that Cornell is out to get [MV].’ They strongly state that the next step should be a federal lawsuit for retaliation, harassment and defamation.
Jan - March 2018 : MV responds to the department’s fraudulent tenure vote with evidence that the department’s purported narratives were false and that the de novo review was conducted in a fraudulent and retaliatory manner. MV also includes statements and comments from various faculty showing that the new tenure vote was orchestrated by the very individuals whose misconduct was a subject of the MV group’s complaints. Upon the advice of senior faculty, MV shares these documents with several senior administrators and faculty both within Cornell and outside.
Jan 2018 : The Cornell lawyers engage in perjury in their submission to the appellate. They deliberately remove key documents that evidence fraud by Ritter, the Provost Kotlikoff and others. They now claim that the denial of tenure was entirely based on the ‘paltry productivity’. Not only does this contradict all contemporaneous documents, the members of the tenure appeals committee themselves state that ‘the lawyers are lying to the Court’. These facts evidencing Cornell’s perjury are also shared with the scientific community.
May 2018 : Cornell retaliates by threatening to shut down the MV labs, giving the group barely a month’s notice to dismantle and remove their three BEC machines. Contemporaneously, the evidence of continued misconduct by senior departmental faculty, administrators etc makes its way online to a website ‘https://sites.google.com/view/harassmentatcornellphysics/home'
May 2018 : LA levels a new allegation against a student in the MV group that she is being ‘harassed’ by the presence of legal documents on this website. Firstly, the student in question does not control this website. Secondly, the legal documents are publicly available documents and can easily be obtained from the NY state supreme court. Indeed multiple journalists have made the same documents available on their websites. Thirdly, as with her claims regarding her ‘middle initial’ or the ‘space between the middle initial and her last name’ etc. the documents on this website have been present for more than year. Again, the timing of her allegations correlates much more strongly with the exposure of Cornell’s misconduct and fraud. Again, despite the frivolous nature of her complaint, Cornell has immediately imposed punitive action against the student and withheld his PhD degree.
June 2018 : When the MV group is away at the DAMOP conference, Erich Mueller orchestrates shutting down their labs and changing the locks on their laboratories. Cornell claims that all the equipment in the MV laboratories (a large fraction of which has been acquired using federal research grants, and is part of ongoing federal research) is now “Cornell property”. This is not only in violation of federal research agreements, it is also tantamount to theft of federal research grants and research infrastructure used in Department of Defense (DoD) research activities.
Key questions :