Front Mug          Nasty Professor          Side Mug

Sightings:

Nasty Professor

EOAA Report

EOAA Report
Plus Comments

Letters from
the Madman:

Inbox

Before South America

I entered the graduate program at the Department of Biology in Fall 2001 (I had been admitted the previous year, but had to delay my enrollment due to family issues).  In Spring 2002 each first-year student had a meeting about our research interests with the department faculty, and were subsequently instructed to select a permanent advisor.  I selected Dr. Randy Lecher as my permanent advisor, because he seemed to be the most knowledgable about, and interested in, my proposed study of ancient biomolecules. 

Initially, Dr. Lecher seemed to be a good advisor, he would send me relevant internet links and articles, as he happened upon them.   Dr. Lecher always had an informal and approachable manner about him.  He preferred to meet to discuss my progress over coffee or lunch outside the department, which seemed somewhat odd, but at that time the conversations were limited to academic subjects or ordinary discussions (e.g. my fiance, Archie, and I were looking to buy a house, and we would discuss which neighborhoods were better, etc.).  During Winter Break 2002-2003 Archie and I housesat (looked after the dog and cat) for Randy and his girlfriend Polly (a former biology graduate student) while they were away in South America.  Once Archie and I bought a house, we also had them over for barbecues a few times.

In the fall of 2002, Randy asked me to be his personal research assistant, to help him with work on a textbook that he was writing.  He was to pay me $16.00/hour, and I might work as many hours as I could spare (and keep track of them in a file on his office computer).  He provided me with a key to his office, and had me do filing, library research, FedEx documents to his publisher, etc.  Most of the time that I was working in his office Randy was not around.  I continued working for him in this capacity until early spring 2004.

I also worked as a Teaching Assistant for Randy’s Evolutionary Biology course during Fall semesters 2002, 2003, 2004, and Summer term 2004.  Assignment of these positions is decided by the Director of Graduate Studies and the Department Chair (not by Randy, although he can make recommendations).  There are approximately 10 TAs for the Evolutionary Biology class each fall and spring semester.  He did recommend me for an Assistant Head TA position (more responsibility, same pay) for Fall of 2003, but this position was arranged and awarded BEFORE we went to South America.  I also served as a Teaching Assistant for other professors in Spring semesters 2003, 2004, and 2005.

In December of 2002 Randy sent me a shockingly inappropriate email response to a question I had about whether it would be possible to make a professor at another University adjunct faculty in our department (he described how they would have to perform oral sex upon a number of faculty members).   I wasn’t sure how to respond to that message, and didn’t report it.  It seemed an isolated incident, as nothing of the sort happened again for many months. 

In Spring 2003 Dr. Lecher approached me about the possibility of going to South America with him that summer, as supervisor for his field school.  I initially declined, as I have always been interested in focusing my studies on Australia, and had already made summer arrangements to conduct ancient biomolecules analyses on some Australian samples at the University of Nova Scotia.  A week later, Dr. Lecher gave a presentation in the department about the field school in which he described a number of interesting 300 year old sites that the field school would visit (he had not mentioned this aspect of the field school previously).  After the talk I asked more about the 300 year old collections, and Dr. Lecher explained how they would provide an ideal ancient biomolecules case study.  I reconsidered, and agreed to go on the trip with the understanding that I would be able to make contacts with the researcher in charge of these collections, and arrange to secure specimens for my doctoral research.   I informed the researchers at the University of Nova Scotia that I would not be coming, and they seemed quite disappointed. 

Shortly thereafter, apparently, Dr. Lecher approached a respected South American professor about the possibility of me doing ancient biomolecules work on specimens from a far more ancient World Heritage site.  Dr. Lecher then announced to me that he had received an email inviting me to work on those specimens.  I was flattered to be offered material from such an important site, and agreed to do my best to extract biomolecules from some of those specimens.  However, no one has successfully recovered biomolecules that old, and I didn’t have high expectations that it would provide adequate data for a dissertation, so I made it clear that I was still primarily interested in the much more recent (300 year old) specimens. 

At this time, Dr. Lecher had paid me only $1000 for the extensive work that I had done for him as his Research Assistant.  My home computer had broken down, and he approached me with the option of taking his old laptop computer as partial payment for the work I had done, explaining that the department had promised to buy him a new computer every three years, and that he was due for a new one.  He ordered the new computer before the South America trip, but asked that I let him take the old computer to South America (so he could leave the newer one at home, to avoid theft) and promised that he would give me the old laptop after the trip.  I agreed.

In South America

Dr. Lecher did not advertise the field school widely (despite my suggestions), and he ended up with only one other student (a female undergraduate named Cathy).   Dr. Lecher and I flew together, and Cathy, whom I had not yet met, took a separate flight and would arrive later the same day.  I am very afraid of flying, and was unable to sleep throughout the trip.  Dr. Lecher was aware of this, and seemed at the time to be empathetic.  We arrived in South America in the morning, and spent the day running around meeting people and making arrangements.  We met Cathy at the airport later that evening and proceeded to the hotel.  At the hotel desk, Dr. Lecher requested two rooms.  The desk clerk looked at the three of us and asked “do you know that each of our rooms has only one bed?”  Dr. Lecher said “yeah, I know, I’ve stayed here before.  That’s OK”.  He then turned to me and said “our budget is tight and Cathy is the paying customer on this field school, so you and I will have to share a room”.  I was shocked, but was too tired and taken aback to argue.  We had sleeping bags along since we were supposed to camp later in the trip, so I assumed that he would offer to sleep on the floor. 

Once we got to the room, however, Dr. Lecher stripped to his boxer shorts, sat next to me on the bed, and began saying how glad he was that he would be able to show South America to me, and that I needed to tell him that I loved him and that he was my best friend in the world.   I was extremely embarrassed, and told him that I appreciated his help as my advisor and that I had a lot of respect for him as an academic, but that I was not comfortable calling those feelings “love”.  I also told him that Archie, my fiance, was my best friend in the world.  He tried to tell me that it was OK to have more than one best friend, and that love didn’t have to imply romantic feelings.  He said these things while putting his hand on my shoulder and my thigh, and moving closer every time I moved away.  I refused to say those things, and tried very hard to refuse his advances firmly but politely.  He also told me that we were so much alike that he felt like I was his “pod” which, apparently, is a reference to a sort of cloned being from an old science fiction movie.  He suggested that he would call me “Pod” in the future, and I told him I wouldn’t like that. 

At this point I had not slept for over 40 hours, and was extremely tired, but he continued to argue about these things, and we had a long debate about the sleeping arrangements.  I told him that I was not comfortable sleeping in the same bed with him, and stated that I wanted to behave exactly as I would if there were a camera crew following us with a direct feed back to Archie and Polly.  I explained that I did not want to do anything that could even be misconstrued as inappropriate behavior.  This unpleasant conversation went on for many hours, until Randy finally fell asleep.  I then got my sleeping bag and went to sleep on the floor.  Two hours later, when it was time to get up, Randy poked me in the shoulder, and I sat bolt upright and proceeded to scream at the top of my lungs repeatedly until I finally woke up.  I have never done anything like that before or since, and I feel that my reaction really represented the level of stress that Randy’s persistent advances had caused me.

The next day, I was able to speak with Cathy in private.  I explained that I was not comfortable with the sleeping arrangements, and asked if she would mind sharing a room with me.  She agreed, and we informed Randy of the change in plans.  Shortly after this, Randy casually mentioned that he’d had a falling out with the researcher in charge of the 300 year old collections several weeks before we left the U.S., and that we would not be visiting those sites at all.  Cathy was disappointed, and I was extremely upset, as that was the primary reason that I had agreed to go.  Randy told me that I needed to be a team player, and that I needed to learn that life doesn’t always go as planned.  He provided no explanation for why he hadn’t informed me of this before we left the United States.

About a week after arriving in South America, Randy composed a sort of romantic email message to me, and emailed it to me when we were sitting side-by-side at an internet café.  He followed it immediately with a dirty joke (about oral sex).  I was extremely uncomfortable and chose not to respond, hoping that he would take the hint that I was neither interested nor amused. 

Throughout the rest of the trip, Randy continued to touch me inappropriately (placing his hand on my arm or leg, or putting his arm around me) and calling me “sweetie” and “love” during the day, when we were in the presence of other academic dignitaries.  I was extremely uncomfortable, but did not want to make a scene in front of the other researchers.  Every evening, however, I confronted Randy privately about these issues, telling him that the touching and pet names made me uncomfortable, and asking that he just treat me as he would treat a male graduate student.  Sometimes he would begin to cry, and tell me that he was sorry that I didn’t appreciate his genuine expressions of respect and affection.  Other times he would get angry and tell me that that is how he treats his female friends, and that I just needed to get used to it.  One time, I explained to him that the behavior made me SO uncomfortable that I felt I would have to switch advisors if he continued it.  He told me that he “would not allow that to happen”.  After one such conversation, I was leaving to return to the room that I shared with Cathy, and Randy asked me to leave my t-shirt for him to sleep with.  I refused, and was quite uncomfortable.

Randy also made available large amounts of alcohol, and encouraged both me and Cathy to drink.  At one private lodge, where we stayed for several weeks, he even arranged to get the key to the bar, so we could continue to drink after the bartender went home.  Toward the end of the trip, when I had become extremely frustrated and withdrawn, Randy began carrying alcohol in his backpack during the day, and offering it to me to try to “cheer me up”.  I admit that I drank more than I usually do on this trip, mainly to try to dull my feelings of despair and frustration (over his ongoing behavior), but I never became intoxicated enough to be persuaded to do anything I didn’t want to, or to have trouble remembering anything.  I do believe, however, that Randy was hoping that I would get drunk enough to warm to his advances, which I didn’t.


Fall 2003

As soon as we returned from South America, I told Archie what had happened.  I also told much of it to my good friend and fellow graduate student Caroline, by telephone, as she was out of state visiting her mother.  I considered switching advisors, but there is really no one else in the department that is interested in my work, and I felt that it was very possible that Dr. Lecher would return to his pre-South America behavior once we returned and he was back with Polly.  He had told me, during the trip, about a previous trip to South America (two years earlier), when he also taken two female students (one graduate and one undergraduate) on a field school.  That time, however, he had taken a romantic interest in the undergraduate, and described how the three of them would eat dinner in one tent and then he would excuse himself and go and hide behind some bushes until the graduate student went to her tent.  He would then return to the dinner tent and “stay up all night, drinking wine” with the undergraduate student.  The two of them apparently did have a romantic relationship for several months after they returned.  He also described how he had humiliated the graduate student by laughing in her face when she was in tears because the cell phone was out of minutes (she was trying to plan her wedding from afar), and leaving her behind in the jungle when it started to rain heavily.  I’ve never talked to either student about this trip, but did provide their names and contact information to the University investigators, who chose to disregard them.  My impression, upon hearing this story, was that Dr. Lecher had hoped to relive that experience with me in South America, but I had hoped that, when his efforts had failed and we returned to our “normal” lives, he would stop the behavior.

During Fall 2003, it seemed that I had been correct.  Dr. Lecher and I resumed a professional relationship, and I worked as a TA for his class.  The work involved teaching two labs every week and helping to write exams.  I was also taking a seminar class with him.   I did not need to interact much with Dr. Lecher, except in class (with other students present) and via email.    I remember wanting to avoid meeting with him in a private, one-on-one setting, but I did invite him (apparently, according to the University’s findings report, which I do not refute, but was given no opportunity to discuss) to large barbeques and a Halloween party (to which I invited most of the department) at my home.  Archie and I also invited Randy and Polly to bring their dog over to help socialize our new puppy, but our puppy got sick so that didn’t work out.  I really was trying to re-establish the relationship that we had before the South America trip, as it seemed that the only reasonable option (other than completely starting over with a new dissertation topic) was to keep Dr. Lecher as my primary advisor.

Interestingly, upon returning from South America, Dr. Lecher “graciously” insisted that I take the new computer as payment, instead of the old one, as had been previously arranged.  He explained that he had found the graphics program on the new computer to be inferior, and that he would rather keep the old computer for himself.  I agreed to this change in plans, as I don’t need a good graphics program for my dissertation work, and was just happy to have a functioning computer.  In retrospect, I believe that he may have been trying to dazzle me with his generousity, so as to prevent me from reporting him.

In Fall 2003, Dr. Lecher also approached me and another graduate student (Sharona) about the opportunity to edit and publish the Evolutionary Biology Laboratory Manual for the department’s Evolutionary Biology course, which was sadly out of date.  He arranged for us to meet with representatives from a prestigious publishing company, and advised us in (and participated in  meetings toward) negotiating a contract.  The only payment for our work would be a small amount of royalties from the sale of the book to our University’s students.  Part of the agreement involved Dr. Lecher convincing the other Evolutionary Biology professors to also assign the book during the semesters when they teach.  We signed a one-year contract, but the verbal agreement was that we would put in a lot of work the first year, and then would make any small revisions deemed necessary for the second edition, and the royalties and effort for our work on the book would even out after the second year.   Dr. Lecher also suggested (to both myself, Sharona, and the publishing company reps) that, after the book was appropriately revised (in a few years) we could market it to Universities nationally, as there is no similar lab manual currently on the market, and that Sharona and I would be able to collect increasing royalties from the sales for many years to come.

In December 2003, when I was coming home from school one night, I got off the bus near my house, and was approached by a young man (probably mid-teens) with a gun, who demanded “all [my] money”.  I had been at school taking an exam, and didn’t have anything with me but my school books and bus pass, which I told him.  The young man then tried to force me to follow him into an alley.  This took place shortly after the Dru Sjodin abduction, and I decided that I’d rather be shot in street (in front of people) than be assaulted and murdered in an alley, so I shouted “leave me alone”,  ran into the middle of the street and waved at traffic until a taxi cab stopped.  The taxi took me about half a block, to a bar near my home, and I called the police, who said they would come to take a report.  So, afraid to go back outside (for fear that the young man was still out there and would see where I lived), I waited in the bar. 

I called Archie right away, but he was at work, and was trying to arrange to have someone cover his shift.  The police never did show up, despite repeated follow-up calls by the bartender (eventually they said that they had driven around and hadn’t seen anyone fitting the description of the assailant).   It also happened to be Happy Hour, so the bar was filled with men who were excited to see a lone woman sitting at the bar.  I was extremely traumatized and uncomfortable, so I tried to call everyone I could think of, thinking that if I was talking on my cell phone I would be able to avoid talking to the creepy men in the bar.  Anyway, I called all of the other numbers in my phonebook, and none of my friends answered, so I called Dr. Lecher.  I was actually hoping to talk to Polly, but she wasn’t available.  So, I described what had happened to Dr. Lecher, and explained that I was just looking for someone to talk to until Archie could come.  We chatted about what had happened until Archie beeped in on call waiting.  I thanked Dr. Lecher for lending his ear and hung up.  About 20 minutes later, Dr. Lecher and Archie arrived at the bar (almost simultaneously).  That was quite awkward (I had not asked, nor expected, Dr. Lecher to “come to my rescue”).  By this time Polly had come home, and Dr. Lecher invited us to join them for a pizza dinner, which we did, and then went home.  I described this scenario to the University investigators, but they completely dismissed it in their report, stating that I “essentially had no explanation for calling Dr. Lecher” and “tried to justify it by saying that I had also called my fiance”.


Spring 2004

Over winter break 2003-2004 Randy and Polly’s relationship began to deteriorate, and he began emailing me about it.  I really wasn’t comfortable with that, but I did give him some self-help books that I had read during the worst part of my first marriage, and suggested that he be honest with Polly, and try to work it out.  This episode made me think, again, about what had happened in South America, and I began reading about Sexual Harassment on the internet.  This was the first time that I realized that what he had done in South America was illegal (and not just inconsiderate and in poor taste).  I again considered switching advisors, but I still could not think of any faculty member that would be appropriate.  The next best fit would be his ex-wife (he had told me that they split up after he took up with the undergraduate from his first South America field school), but I was unsure of what reason to give, and it seemed that would be really awkward.  Also, Dr. Lecher had informed me that he was up for tenure review, and that he hadn’t published enough, so that he was likely to be denied tenure, and would have to leave the department after the 2004-2005 school year (he had been trying to get me to write something that we could publish together, but then we disagreed about what I would write).  The department was supposed to inform him of their decision in Fall 2004, so my plan was to try to hold out until the decision was made public, and then approach someone else (probably his ex-wife) and simply say that I needed to get a new advisor because Dr. Lecher would be leaving.  So, I took no action at that time.

In early 2004, I discussed with Dr. Lecher my need to find funding for a trip to the out-of-state laboratory, where I had arranged to process the few (extremely ancient) samples that I had collected in South America.  I had them on loan for one year, and needed to process and return them by August 2004.  Dr. Lecher informed me that he had arranged a grant for $1000 (later bumped up to $1500), but he wouldn’t tell me who was providing the money.  I told him, at that time, that I didn’t want HIM to fund the trip (I didn’t want to be indebted to him), so that he shouldn’t try to pay for it himself.  He assured me that it was from a legitimate source, but wouldn’t provide the details.

In January and February 2004, Dr. Lecher took an interest in an undergraduate student of his, who had approached him about writing a letter of recommendation, and wanted to talk about graduate programs.  He began emailing her very explicit love letters, and would forward copies of their correspondence to me.  I don’t know why he did this (to try to make me jealous?), and initially I ignored it, and hoped he would stop.  I did skim the messages, and was struck by how his language in the messages mirrored what he had done to me in South America.  The student’s responses seemed, at first, like she was flattered, and then like she was uncomfortable and disinterested, but trying to be polite (probably in hopes that he would still write her a letter of recommendation).  I did not know the student, and have never had any direct contact with her.  Eventually, after forwarding a message to me, entitled “Is this over the top?  Will it make her like me?”  Dr. Lecher asked me in person what I thought of it.  I responded that I suspected that she would feel stalked, and that I was uncomfortable with receiving such messages, as I was sure that the student would feel quite violated if she knew that he was forwarding their correspondence to someone else (he had also forwarded to me correspondence between him and Polly, and I took this opportunity to mention to him that Polly, too, would likely not be pleased about having her messages forwarded to me).  I have saved copies of all of these messages, and provided them to the University investigators, who dismissed them.

Dr. Lecher also resumed forwarding dirty jokes to me (one, for example, about the “Rodeo Position”, in which a man mounts a woman from behind, grabs her breasts, and declares that they feel just like her sister’s), and began showing up at the bar where the graduate students congregate every week after class.  During this time, he resumed placing his hands on me, and sitting too close to me when we talked.  I always tried to politely move away, or otherwise rebuff his advances without making a scene.

After one such event, my friend Caroline approached me, stating that his behavior had struck her as strange, and that I seemed to look uncomfortable, and asking me how I felt about it.  I admitted that it made me uncomfortable, and was glad to hear that someone else had witnessed it, and also found it to be inappropriate.  I then tried to talk to Dr. Lecher about it the next day, but he immediately became enraged, and stated that Caroline was arrogant, and that he’d never liked her because she reminded him of his first wife (he’s also Caroline’s graduate advisor).  I was taken aback, and dropped the conversation but, the next day, I emailed him about it, taking the opportunity to say what I had intended, uninterrupted.  Dr. Lecher responded that he would stop, but went on to say that he believed that I had “gotten something good out of a certain amount of contact in South America” and that he had “thought that many times after several conversations that we’d had, but had not mentioned it before”.  I responded that I would not have asked him not to do it if I hadn’t found it objectionable, and that his suggestions about it my enjoying it were offensive.  I have the original copies of these emails in my University email account, and provided them (to no effect) to the University investigators.

Throughout this time (Winter and Spring 2004) I was working on editing the Laboratory Manual.  One of the main problems was that the copy center (which had produced it for the course for many years) had never obtained permission to use the copyrighted images that had been photocopied from various published sources.  In fact, for many of the images, they had no information regarding where they had originally been published.  I spent a great deal of time trying to track down these sources so the publishing company could request permissions.  I finally had a meeting with Dr. Lecher, to see if he recognized and could direct me to the sources for the images that I had been unable to identify.  At this point, Dr. Lecher stated that he didn’t recognize most of the images, but that I “may not know it, but [he is] an artist” and that he and another graduate student (Liam) would be willing and able to produce new drawings of all of the unknown images.  Dr. Lecher wrote his and Liam’ initials beside each such image in my old copy of the lab manual (which I still have), and instructed me to make photocopies of those images, and give them to him and Liam.  He said that the two of them would work out who would draw which image, and then would prepare the images in plenty of time for our May 1st submission date to the publishers.  I did as he asked, and confirmed with Liam that he would be interested in drawing some images for the Lab Manual.

In March 2004, Dr. Lecher and I had two major conflicts.  One was regarding a paper that I had been inspired to write while taking Dr. Lecher’s Fall 2003 seminar.  He had challenged us to come up with a mathematical formula for a particular evolutionary theory, and I had been working on it ever since.   At one point, we were going to publish it together, but upon doing further research, I realized that my formula needed to be reworked.  My current version is very good and widely applicable, but Dr. Lecher didn’t like it (he had already sent my first version to his colleagues for comments), and told me that he would ONLY publish it with me if we used my original version, and that I was forbidden to publish my new version without him, as he now claims that it was his idea all along.  Other students were present when I worked out the formula (by myself), and he has told other students that they must cite him (and not me) when using ANY version of the formula. 

In another incident that month, Randy and Polly had liquidated their joint assets (in February, I think), and Randy had offered to sell me an “antique oak round dining table” for $200.  I bought the table, but then, upon closer inspection of the underside, it was made of pressed particle board, and was clearly not an antique.  I figured “buyer beware”, and didn’t say anything but, in March, the same table appeared in a newspaper advertisement for $187 plus chairs, brand new.  I forwarded the ad to Dr. Lecher, not in an accusatory way, but just thinking that it was funny that we has all been mistaken (he and Polly said they bought it for $250 at an estate sale).  Dr. Lecher responded very defensively, and started in with his oft-repeated mantra “You just have to TRUST me, and stop accusing me of things”. 

In March 2004 we had a conversation about both of these issues.  We discussed the publishing issue, and he towered over me, up close, and in a very intimidating fashion, and declared that any papers I write about evolutionary theory will have to be coauthored with him, regardless of his actual contribution, because he has studied evolutionary theory for so many years.  Regarding the non-antique table, I explained that I had initially thought that it was just amusing, but that his defensive response had made me wonder if he hadn’t realized that it wasn’t an antique, and decided to recoup his losses by selling it to a naïve grad student.   At this time (in response to his “just trust me” routine), I explained to him that I didn’t think I’d ever feel the same level of trust that I had before the South America experience.  I stated that I felt that what he did that first night in South America, when he knew I was so overtired and tried to get me to say and do things that I objected to, was akin to hazing, like we hear about in the Fraternities.  I told him that I would like to keep him as my advisor, but that I wasn’t (and hadn’t ever been) interested in a romantic relationship.  He didn’t say much in response, but after this point the advisor-advisee relationship was much different.

In April 2004 I went out-of-state for three weeks to process the South American samples.  I still don’t know where the funds for that trip came from (I never received an award notice for the alleged grant money).  Dr. Lecher told me to just have the lab bill sent to the department but, when I returned, the office staff said that they had no record of any grants for my trip.  This problem extended for quite some time, during which my colleagues at the lab became increasingly annoyed.  Then it somehow, “magically”, was taken care of.

During the trip, I was in the lab from 7 am until 6 or 7 pm.  I would often return to the dorm room that I was renting and check my email only to find a dozen or so emails from Dr. Lecher.  I have copies of these.  He would email me throughout the day, just being chatty, and then becoming increasingly paranoid that I was mad at him and ignoring him.  It was creepy and ridiculous because I had explained what my schedule would be before I embarked on the trip. 

Also, at that time, we were supposed to be finalizing the Lab Manual (for submission on May 1st), but he wouldn’t confirm whether he had completed his portion of the drawings (or what his portion entailed) and he indicated that Liam wouldn’t have time to do his share because Liam’ wife was having a baby.  I don’t claim to be a great artist, but I did ask that Dr. Lecher let me know if some of the illustrations would not get done, as I would have to try to do them myself.  Additionally, Dr. Lecher had indicated that he wanted to order a bunch of genetics lab equipment for the department (for my use, as well as for use in the Evolutionary Biology class, with the agreement that I would design an appropriate lab activity and train the other teaching assistants accordingly), and had me provide a wish list (this plan had long been in the works, and I had been counting on access to this equipment for a large part of my dissertation work for over two years).  Throughout my time out-of-state (as well as in late March before I left), Dr. Lecher often indicated that he would cancel the order for lab equipment if I wasn’t “nice” to him.   

There was also an issue about acquiring a list of TAs who had taught the Evolutionary Biology course over the years (because I wanted to acknowledge them for their contributions to the Lab Manual in the published version).   Months earlier, Dr. Lecher had told me that the department office would be unlikely to provide such a list to a grad student, but that he would use his faculty status to get a list and pass it on to me.  While I was out-of-state, trying to finalize such things (I wanted to email the former TAs to confirm that they wished to be acknowledged, and see if any had written actual text and should be listed as coauthors), Dr. Lecher suddenly claimed that he didn’t want to be involved in getting the list.  There was an email exchange in which I said that I’d request it myself, but I was disappointed and confused by his sudden change of plans.  He responded with a message stating that he was tired of my “paranoic rantings and Sharona’s gyrating bullshit” and that what I could do was “get the fuck out of [his] life”.  He then requested the list from the department, forwarded it to me, and pretended the exchange had never happened.  (I submitted this series of emails to the University’s Sexual Harassment office and, in their finding, they referred to it as an email with language that was “regrettable”, but that “he was subsequently supportive”.   Case dismissed.)

After this experience, I became much more reluctant to respond to Dr. Lecher’s every email (e.g. “how are you doing?  I hope things are well”, “I sent you a happy kitty picture to cheer you up”, “you’re obviously mad at me…but I can’t imagine why because I never do anything wrong”, etc.).  I have copies of all of these emails, and turned them over to the University.    

When I returned from the laboratory trip, on April 24th, I updated Dr. Lecher, and asked about his progress on the illustrations for the Lab Manual (due May 1st).  He provided me with a number of digital photographs of dissected animals and some photographs of various laboratory displays that we have (a plastic human brain cast, a display box containing tetrapod limb skeletons, etc.)   He hadn’t DRAWN anything, and all of his photographs looked very last-minute and shoddy.  I was terribly disappointed (and expressed this), and explained to him that I didn’t feel that it would be appropriate to use photographs of other people’s work, and that it would be illegal (under Federal Copyright Law) to use photographs of objects with logos on them.  Dr. Lecher took offense at my comments and accused me (via email) of an “ongoing lack of professional communication”. 

It also turned out that Liam had come through with wonderful illustrations of what he had agreed to do (despite his wife giving birth), so that had never been an issue.  However, there were a number of images that were important to the text that Dr. Lecher had failed to draw, so I elicited the help of Archie and Caroline, and got them done at the last minute.  Hearing of this, Dr. Lecher stated that he had not authorized Archie or Caroline to draw anything and implied that he wouldn’t assign the lab manual to his students if their drawings were in it (so, we wouldn’t get paid at all).  He repeated the threat of not using the lab manual several times during the few days leading up to the submission deadline.  These threats mostly involved my refusal to meet with him in private to discuss the Lab Manual progress.  I was more than willing to send him reports via email, and encouraged him to meet me in the lab (where others would be present) if he had any questions, but he would ignore those suggestions and repeatedly demand that I meet him in private.  He would also call my home repeatedly, if I hadn’t responded immediately to one of his email messages.  I have one set of emails in which he threatened to not use the lab manual at all because I had not responded to his email of 20 minutes earlier.

One such day (April 30th, I believe), I spent over an hour at home in the morning responding to his vague emails demanding “updates”, and ended a message by stating that I wouldn’t check my email again until evening, but that I was heading to school and that he could find me in the lab if he had further questions.  Apparently, this message sent Dr. Lecher into a rage because, while I was enroute to school, he found Sharona in the lab and declared to her that he was “going to get me thrown out of the department” and that “the next time [I] stepped into the department would be [my] last”.  This statement was made directly to Sharona, but in front of another graduate student and an undergraduate lab volunteer, and two visiting Irish scholars were in an adjoining room with the door open. 

Upon my arrival, I was told (by the other grad student and Sharona) what had been said, and I proceeded to go to the lab and work on the Lab Manual images, as I had indicated in my message.  Randy came into the lab (where others were working) and tried to demand that I go and talk with him in private.  I told him that, based upon the hostile tone of his recent emails, I did not feel comfortable talking to him in private, but felt that we could discuss whatever was necessary in the lab.  Sharona witnessed this, as did the lab manager, and several other graduate students.  Randy stormed out, and again threatened, via email, that he wouldn’t assign the lab manual to his students.  It should be noted that I sent him the revised versions of EVERY chapter, as it was finished, and made whatever changes he requested.  The only issue, at that point, involved the illustrations that he had failed to provide.

We turned the lab manual in to the publishers, as contracted, and Randy was present at that meeting.  He looked at the final version, and later sent me some further revision requests, which I submitted to the publishers.  The changes were made, but it cost me some of my royalties to make the late changes. 

At the end of Spring semester 2004, the week after the lab manual was due, the faculty were to hold a meeting to evaluate the graduate students’ progress.  The way this works, the primary advisor makes a presentation on behalf of each of their students, and the faculty decides whether the progress is satisfactory.  Due to Dr. Lecher’s recent threats, I was extremely concerned about how he would characterize my progress at this meeting, and I emailed our Director of Graduate Studies with my concerns.  I did state that Randy had acted inappropriately during the trip to South America, and was now threatening to have me thrown out of the department (I forwarded an email from Dr. Lecher with statements to that effect).  The DGS suggested that I switch to Dr. Coward (Dr. Lecher’s ex-wife), and alerted her to the fact that I would be coming to speak with her.  I met with Dr. Coward, and explained that I could no longer work with Dr. Lecher, and asked her to be my advisor.  She agreed, asked that I provide her with a report of my progress, my transcripts, etc., and stated that she would tell the DGS to tell Randy to “keep his mouth shut” during my progress report at the meeting the next Monday (this was a Wednesday). 

Dr. Coward then asked for more details about why I felt that I could no longer work with Dr. Lecher.  Initially, I hesitated, explaining that I had read the University policy, and it seemed that she would be required to report what I told her, which I was hoping to avoid.  She said “well, I didn’t report him the last time, and I won’t do it this time, so don’t worry”.  So, I told her what happened in South America and more recently.  She said that I should probably “tell on him” but that she felt a conflict of interest, since they had a child together, so that she wouldn’t be able to help me with that.  I reassured her that I just wanted to switch advisors and put the whole thing behind me, and she reiterated her request for me to provide her with documents on my progress.

I felt SO relieved, and worked all night on composing my progress report and gathering documentation.  The next day, Dr. Coward asked me to come into her office.  She stated that she had been up all night thinking about what I had told her, and that she felt that she needed to recuse herself from the situation, and that she could not serve as my advisor.  I asked her whether Dr. Lecher had talked to her and influenced her decision, and she denied that.  I then asked what I was supposed to do about the faculty meeting about my progress.  She stated that she simply couldn’t help me with that.  I then, regrettably, burst into tears, and sat, sobbing, in her office for approximately 20 minutes, as she handed me tissues.  When I had composed myself somewhat, I left her office and fled the department.  I later sent her an email apologizing for my outburst, and stating that it merely represented the depth of my desire to extricate me from this horrible situation.  Dr. Coward responded that she wished me the best of luck.  Dr. Lecher did end up presenting my progress report, and it seemed to go fine.

During Summer 2004 I was the sole TA for the Evolutionary Biology class, taught by Randy Lecher.  I attended his lectures, taught labs (where he wasn’t present), and conducted other business over email.  Our department has had a lot of political difficulties, and couldn’t agree on a Department Chair, so an outside Chair was assigned by the Dean.  In the first week of July, the graduate students received an email from the new Interim Chair, stating that she was looking forward to working with us, and encouraging us to come and meet with her.  I immediately emailed her, and requested a meeting. 

At the meeting with the new Chair I requested assistance finding a new advisor.  I stated that Dr. Lecher had acted extremely inappropriately in South America the previous summer and again during Spring semester, and that the situation had culminated in Dr. Lecher threatening to get me thrown out of the department.  I explained how the DGS had suggested I approach Dr. Coward and that, after hearing the whole story, Dr. Coward had reneged on her agreement to be my advisor, and that the whole experience had been very humiliating.  Again, I was very careful not to use the terms “sexual harassment”, as I knew she would be required to report it, and that it would open a whole investigation.  At that point, I really just wanted to get a new advisor and move on with my life, and I explained that to her, and told her that I was hesitant to provide more details because I wanted to avoid her feeling it necessary to report it.  The Chair stated that she “always tell[s her] students not to give [her] any details that they don’t need to”.   She said that, in her own experience in graduate school she witnessed other students struggling with issues like discrimination and sexual harassment, and that it would be best for me to “take the high road”. 

The Chair recommended that I go in to Randy’s office and tell him that I could no longer work with him, and then go around the department and ask each member of the faculty to be my advisor.  She stated that, if everyone refused, I could come back to her and we could work on an alternative.  I described my original plan to the Chair, wherein I would wait until the Fall when Randy was to be informed he was being denied tenure, and then ask around for a new advisor.  The Chair informed me that Randy had worked out a deal with the Dean, such that his tenure evaluation would be delayed until she had been replaced with a permanent Chair from outside the department.  She was expecting to be interim chair for one, or maybe two, year(s), so Randy would possibly have a reprieve until the 2006-2007 school year.  This was devastating to me.  I had hoped to finish my PhD before then.

Upon receiving this news, I contemplated the prospects of begging around the department (which was especially unappealing in light of my experiences with Dr. Coward) or keeping Randy as my advisor, and decided that neither option was acceptable.  I called and spoke with the office manager of the Sexual Harassment division of the Universitiy’s Equal Opportunity office, and described, at first hypothetically, the situation, and what would happen if someone came in with such a report.   I specifically asked about whether they would want to see emails between the professor and other possible victims, and she said that they would, and that they would want to contact those people.  I then admitted that I was the victim (that I wasn’t calling for a friend, or anything), and made an appointment.


The Sexual Harassment Investigation

I met with my assigned case worker (Ms. Kelly) on July 17th, 2004.  I began to describe the situation, but Ms. Kelly cut me off (around “Christmas 2003”) because we were running out of time.  I did provide a number of copies of email messages, and she asked me to provide names and phone numbers of witnesses.  I also asked that she delay notifying Dr. Lecher until after the summer class ended on August 6th, as I felt that it would strain the working relationship and that the students might suffer.  Ms. Kelly agreed (reluctantly) and told me to contact her after the class ended, which I did.  At that point she said that she would meet with my witnesses and then notify Dr. Lecher of the Allegations.  I sent her the witness list, and, once she notified me that she would soon be contacting Dr. Lecher, I became concerned that Ms. Kelly and I had not had sufficient discussion time to allow her to present an accurate summary of my allegations.  I tried to ask her about this by telephone, and she would only say that she would present what I had told her.  However, since I had been hurried during our initial meeting, I didn’t feel comfortable with this, so I took it upon myself to send her a summary of my main allegations.  Unfortunately, much of this failed to end up in her final report.  I have saved a copy of this document and the accompanying email.

The University’s “findings” report states that I had approached Ms. Kelly around October, 2004, requesting that she refrain from informing Dr. Lecher of the allegations until I had switched to a new advisor.  This is patently untrue, in my recollection.  The department chair did arrange for me to switch to a new advisor around that time (I switched to Dr. Better, who is willing to sign my paperwork, but feigns no interest in, or knowledge of, my dissertation topic), but there was no reason that I would need Dr. Lecher to remain friendly, or to sign anything during that process.  From the point at which I emailed my list of allegations (in mid-August) on, I was bracing myself daily for Dr. Lecher’s reaction.

During our first meeting, Ms. Kelly had strongly recommended that I avoid speaking with anyone in the department about the case, and promised that she would make the same request of Dr. Lecher.  I tried to comply, to the best of my ability.  Meanwhile, Dr. Lecher apparently spoke quite freely about his side of the story to a number of the professors.  This became apparent when I approached another professor about making plans for integrating a molecular genetics component into his Evolutionary Biology class Spring semester.  The lab equipment had arrived, and, as I understood it, my part of the deal (by which I could use the equipment for my own research) was to devise a lab exercise that would allow Evolutionary Biology students to conduct an actual biomolecules experiment.  I found a genetics teaching kit that would be appropriate, and presented my plan to the other professor, suggesting that we do a trial run with the TAs sometime during the Fall semester.  The other professor seemed completely surprised, and looked over my proposal, only to inform me that he wasn’t interested in being the instructor in charge when they first integrate the new exercise.  He then asked why I was so eager to incorporate the new exercise, and I explained that Dr. Lecher had told me that I could use the equipment for my doctoral research, with the stipulation that I devise an exercise to be used in the Evolutionary Biology class, and that I thought that I was merely complying with those conditions.

Shortly thereafter, this other professor emailed me, stating that he had heard that I was no longer willing to work with Dr. Lecher, and that, if that was the case, that he and Dr. Coward (the other Lab Director) did not feel qualified to supervise my work using such “hazardous chemicals”.  I wasn’t sure, at the time, where this was coming from, and explained that my work wouldn’t involve anything nearly as hazardous as what other students were already doing in the lab, but he seemed really hung up on the idea that I was using “dangerous mutagens” and that I “can’t expect [them] to take on such a risk”.  Eventually, I discovered that he had derived that from a conversation with Dr. Lecher.  Of course, I wasn’t permitted to inform this other professor that Dr. Lecher might be biased against me because of my sexual harassment claim, so it was very difficult.  I did speak to Ms. Kelly about the situation, and complained that Dr. Lecher was badmouthing me to other faculty, but she simply directed me to work it out with the Department Chair, which I eventually did.  Meanwhile, I lost the majority of a semester of access to this equipment for my doctoral research. 

Previous to the time at which the the University report states that Dr. Lecher was informed of my allegations (November 2004), I had been in contact with some of the South American researchers, to whom Dr. Lecher had introduced me, about the possibility of getting some more recent, and more significant samples.  They had responded enthusiastically, and we had a number of pleasant email exchanges.  After Dr. Lecher was informed of the case against him, however, these researchers mysteriously stopped responding to my emails, and I haven’t heard from them since.  I suspect that Dr. Lecher may have had some influence in this area. 

In February, 2005, the department invited a guest speaker to come from another University to talk to us about ancient biomolecules.  I was especially excited because this was the first time, in my four years in the department, that we’ve ever had a guest speaker who is interested in the same things I am.  Unfortunately, Dr. Lecher took him out for breakfast, and by the time I had the chance to speak to him later in the day, he had been turned against me.  The visiting scholar (along with Dr. Coward) joined the graduate students at our regular “Friday bar night”.  I tried to ask him about some aspect of his genetics work, and he cut me off, looking me straight in the eye, and announced that he was “so angry because [he] can no longer help out [his] graduate students with conference costs by letting them share [his] room…especially not the female students because [he has] to worry about them falsely accusing [him] of sexual harassment”.  He then went on to state that he hasn’t had to worry about this for several years because he’s had a research grant sufficient to provide his students with airfare and hotel costs “but still…”.  I didn’t have any idea how to respond to this, but I was devastated to think that Dr. Lecher is destroying my potential career contacts by telling his (false) version of the story.  I spoke to Ms. Kelly about this, and she appeared concerned and stated that she would speak with Dr. Lecher about it, but I never heard any updates on this, and it didn’t appear in her report. 

Having run out of time in our first meeting, I never did feel that I had the opportunity to thoroughly describe my case against Dr. Lecher.  In subsequent meetings, Ms. Kelly would have specific questions for me, and these questions were often very pointed (even combative) and out of context.  For example she once asked “what happened in March, 2004?”.  We had been talking about what happened in South America (Summer 2003) right before that, and I found it very difficult to jump around in my memory, and would end up getting confused.  I did provide Ms. Kelly with all of the email evidence, which helps to put things in chronological order, but she did not seem to go over them carefully, as she would point to something that she had highlighted Dr. Lecher wrote in one email (e.g. “you got something out of a certain amount of touching in South America”) and confront me with it, and I would have to show her my response on the next page (which she HADN’T highlighted), where I refuted what he had said. 

She also failed to remember many of the things that I did tell her in the meetings.  For example, in our first meeting, I know that I explained that we housesat for Dr. Lecher and had him and Polly over for barbecues befor the South America trip.  However, after meeting with Dr. Lecher, Ms. Kelly confronted me with the same information (“HE says that you housesat for him, and had him over for barbecues”), as though she had revealed some evidence against me.  It was very frustrating, and I don’t think that she is an effective investigator. 

Also, in February 2005, Dr. Lecher began an intra-departmental email campaign, essentially accusing me of having stolen a department laptop computer, that was intended to be used for the Evolutionary Biology class (he copied these emails to other faculty and the Lab Manager).   Of course, I do have a laptop that had once belonged to Dr. Lecher, but it was NEVER described as a department computer, and was never associated with the course.  It was given to me, as described above, as partial payment for the work I did as Dr. Lecher’s personal research assistant (regarding which I have email documentation).  I informed Ms. Kelly of his allegations, and she contacted him, and the accusations stopped.  However, I worry that the other members of the department may harbor suspicions about me regarding this issue.

The University’s Sexual Harassment office produced a report of their “findings” on March 17th 2005, and sent it to me, Dr. Lecher, and the Interim Department Chair.  This report is extremely biased, and seems to me to be tantamount to slander.  They dismissed all of my witnesses’ reports, without adequate explanation (stating that I may have “manipulated” them).  They refused to contact the other potential victims that I hadn’t had contact with.  They deemed my testimony not credible, based upon some email evidence that Dr. Lecher apparently provided (but which I was never allowed to see or respond to), and chose to ignore the fact that he denied threatening to get me kicked out of the department (in their report), but found that the evidence showed that he HAD threatened to get me kicked out (also in their report).   The report is bursting with inaccuracies (for example, the date that I entered the program), and misrepresents my testimony on numerous counts.  I do not believe that the University’s Sexual Harassment Office conducted a fair or unbiased investigation, and I think that the report clearly reflects that.  Even if one had never heard either side of the story, they obviously chose to use negative adjectives and characterizations of me that Dr. Lecher presented (e.g. that I was prone to “cycles of erratic behavior”, and the suggestion that I smoked too many cigarettes in South America, which has nothing to do with anything) without even saying “he alleges”, while they presented only a fraction of my allegations without doing the same (e.g. they never relayed that I described him as “manipulative” or “intimidating”), and they chose to use the words “she alleges” for their stark representations of everything that I said. 

I spent the next few weeks trying to retain a lawyer to help me bring the case before an impartial court.  I found roadblocks at every turn.  All of the big sexual harassment law firms turned me down based on conflicts of interest...they all have members sitting on committees at the University.  The smaller firms took the time to read my 15-page outline of allegations, but felt that they didn't have the resources to take on such a big case.  I then tried to bring the case, on my own, to the attention of my state's Department of Human Rights.  They sent forms to fill out, which indicated that I had to submit all of my evidence along with the claim, and that the statute of limitations would run out shortly (essentially, a year from the last date I had clear evidence of threats).  I immediately requested copies of the "equally in bad taste" emails that the EOAA office had cited in their report.   Conveniently, they were unable to make these available until mid-afternoon on the day before the statute of limitations ran out.  I picked them up (and of course, they did not reflect any inappropriate behavior on my part), but by the time I made photocopies and drove to the Human Rights office, it had closed.  


Trying to Move On

Two years have passed.  I have accepted a good full-time job outside of my department, but am still trying to finish my degree.  The faculty are not cooperative with my requests for feedback on my research, nor do they even bother to respond to my repeated requests for letters of recommendation for grant or job applications.  I have spent the past two years funding my own research costs through my own hard-earned savings and student loan monies.  I now owe $104,000.00 in student loans and am writing my dissertation under a cloud of uncertainty as to whether my committee will approve of what I have accomplished.  

I felt mildly victorious this past year, when Dr. Lecher was denied tenure and was forced to leave the department.  My joy was short-lived.  The University simply moved him to a position with another department where he apparently works in administration and as an occasional instructor.  

I really think that the handling of my case by both the Department and the University’s Equal Opportunity Office was terrible, and it makes me concerned for all other potential harassment victims at this University.  It seems to me that the greatest strides in reducing sexual harassment claims have been made by the agencies that find ways to break the spirits of (and further victimize) those who muster the courage to report inappropriate behavior.