The following are my remarks on UT President (now Chancellor) notice of December 9, 2002. The statements attributed to Chancellor Faulkner are either exact quotes or paraphrased representations thereof.
False Standards
“Our review of all documents shows no indication of discrimination.”
It’s okay for a student to be neglected during 4 years, to have absolutely no supervision by his advisor(s), to have received zero feedback as part of 24 semester hours of thesis and research classes; for an advisor to refuse to set up a practice session to prepare for the oral qualifying exam, and for the entire orbits group to refuse to be an advisor or on the dissertation committee of an individual on the basis of my not having done Ph.D. quality of research
I had asked for the Office of Disabilities to be removed from the appeals process, for the above reasons (and others listed previously). The President found no problems with their evaluations whatsoever. Likewise for the Graduate College, who – despite many petitions over the years for assistance from me, especially in the last 6-12 months; did absolutely nothing.
No More C Mech Experts
There are qualified celestial mechanics experts in the Aerospace department.
My allegation that there were no celestial mechanics professors is valid. I sat in on Dr. Ocampo’s Celestial Mechanics I class in the fall of 2000 (his requirement if I wanted him as my advisor, even though I’d taken that class twice before, and 3 courses above in, CM II, Theory of Orbits, and Regularization); he derived Lambert’s Theorem backward – a freshman theory in orbits.
No professor in the orbits group has ever published a paper in celestial mechanics.
Bad Vision Problems
“You don’t provide proof of your vision problems.”
I decided not to take the written exams in the summer of 2000 because of, I later found out, extreme dry eye (rated not long after I left UT as almost 100% disability by the VA). At the time, I thought it was allergies; very common in Austin – alias “cedar fever.” I saw an eye doctor at the UT Health Center but was refused medical care. “Go see an ophthalmologist in private care. We cannot help you.” I refuse to believe that a five-story medical center serving 40,000+ students does not have a doctor in this fundamental discipline, nor the wherewithal to set me up with such an appointment off campus. I paid good money for healthcare at UT, and that was the only time I asked for their help in four years.
In the Ph.D. Program
“You were in the doctoral program.”
Sure, I was seeking a Ph.D. However, in the first 2 years I took thesis classes, intending to get an MSE using my Mars research. I received absolutely no guidance on writing the thesis or doing the research; literally, not five minutes, so – out of desperation – I just decided to skip the MSE and go for the Ph.D. President Faulkner makes it look like I started from the beginning, seeking a Ph.D. (And so states: YOU SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE QUALIFYING EXAMS AFTER ONE YEAR IN GRAD SCHOOL, so you were 3 years behind schedule.)
I always said I was going for a doctorate, but I only skipped the MSE after I was refused all of the guidance and assistance a normal graduate student would receive (including course selection) toward doing an MSE. As I have stated repeatedly in previous documents, the Mars program I was working on was perfect for an MSE (as an educational tool and a solution to reach Mars without an optimization algorithm) and ALSO with the 2.0 version as a Ph.D. (the gravity assist at Mars that reduced fuel consumption by 10% or more).
Late Oral Exam
You weren’t making good progress and were late on taking the oral qualifying exam.”
The ASE website says, “After you take the written qualifying exams, you SHOULD plan to take the oral exam NEAR THE BEGINNING of the fall semester.” There is no MUST in that statement. There is no TAKE THE ORAL EXAM OR ELSE; and no PASS the oral exam or YOU WILL BE EXPELLED IMMEDIATELY. President Faulkner has no comment on the fact that my celestial mechanics advisor had retired and now my oral exam was strictly orbital mechanics. There is no comment on the fact that Dr. Fowler had refused to set up a practice oral exam to prepare me.
Never a Teaching Assistant
I would like to say here that neither this document nor the Disabilities Office’s document confirming my dismissal says a single word about my work as a TA. I WAS ON THE STAFF. It was a full-time job: I graded homework for 100 students in a giant class; held office hours for everybody; taught even review classes to them in sections of 30; and proctored exams with Dr. Bedford. FULL. TIME. I was also TA for a couple of other classes, for which I HAD TO SIT IN ON THE LECTURES TO LEARN THE MATERIAL because it was all new to me (or forgotten from my undergraduate years 20+ years ago). Again. FULL. TIME.
This is important because (1) I got exceptional evaluations from the students in the evening classes I taught – better than the professor; and (2) they keep saying I was behind schedule, slacking off, not making good progress. The fact that I was working full time as a TA – and doing an excellent job of it – is very relevant. I was working extremely hard as a TA, LEARNING HOW TO BE A PROFESSOR??!!?? How is that NOT important?
Inadequate Research
“Your research adviser consistently indicated to you that your work was not satisfactory.”
This is an outright lie. Dr. Broucke NEVER said that. Dr. Fowler NEVER said that. Nor Dr. Hull, nor Dr. Ocampo, nor anybody else in the department. In fact, I never even TALKED with Dr. Broucke; he refused to even LOOK at my research, much less actually comment on it. Every time I tried to get Dr. Fowler to look at it, he waved me off, saying, “Not until you pass your qualifying exams.”
I tried to explain my Mars research to Dr. Ocampo, and he quit as my advisor – without even telling me WHY. I brought all my computer printouts and plots and data; Dr. Ocampo refused to even look at them. I boycotted all my classes in September 2000 until they gave me feedback on my Mars research, that nobody had given for 2+ years, despite 20 hours of thesis and research classes. That seminar was the first time anybody anywhere took five seconds to look at my research.
The December 2001 meeting scheduled “to review my research” – finally, after FOUR YEARS (setting up that meeting by definition says that nobody had looked at my research yet) – was two weeks before my oral qualifying exam. Dr. Fowler refused to give me a practice exam, and now I’m told to spend several days boning up to defend my research and another day going to campus (lived in Lago Vista a 2-3 hour bus commute each way) to talk about the research they had ignored for the previous four semesters?
Not Making Progress
“You were three years behind the curve.”
I was roughly parallel with other students. I have to provide evidence of this? To the President of the University? And he holds this against me, implying – that since I did not provide documentation – that I was not parallel with other students. Exactly what kind of documentation does he need? Isn’t my transcript enough? All the other supporting documents they had?
I never stated that Dr. Broucke’s health (he was legally blind and couldn’t see behind his hand and had recently had a heart attack) impacted my progress. I only said, “I wanted to complete my research before he retired.” The President of the University does not see the importance of doing research under your celestial mechanics advisor when there are no more people in this field on campus?
No C Mech Professors
“Dr. Fowler is qualified in celestial mechanics.”
With all due respect, Dr. Fowler is at the lowest level of the orbital mechanics group. His claim to fame is a textbook on Statics and Dynamics, the most basic class in the entire engineering curriculum. Dr. Broucke was one of the most famous researchers in celestial mechanics of the 20th century. He was a giant in the field of science, second only to Victor Szebehely in the annals of the field for the modern day. By comparison, Dr. Fowler was a kindergartner.
The people who evaluated my Mars research did not have a clue what it accomplished. They failed to acknowledge that I optimized the Mars trajectory WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A GENETIC ALGORITHM. They failed to realize that my Mars savings could be applied TO SAVE 10% ON ANY INTERPLANETARY TRAJECTORY.
Furthermore, the very existence of that December 2001 evaluation and the extreme emphasis placed upon its conclusions by the ASE Department and by President Faulkner says very clearly: You MUST show proof of Ph.D. quality research before you are allowed to take the oral qualifying exams. Where in the regulations is this stated?
Lack of Cooperation
“Did not respond to feedback on your research.”
I say again. I never got one iota of feedback from Dr. Broucke on my research. Not one. I complained about this repeatedly. It wasn’t until I boycotted my classes that the ASE department finally heard my pleas and assigned a second advisor, Dr. Ocampo – thereby recognizing that Dr. Broucke had not given me one minuscule of help in my research. The fact that Dr. Broucke was retired is irrelevant. He was still teaching classes and signing my class selection form. How am I to know what is retired and what is not? Nobody ever even told me he was retired; he certainly did not. The Department didn’t, either.
Graduate Studies Committee?
“Failed to use the opportunities available, to get help from the Graduate Studies Committee.”
I never once was told that I could have appealed anything to the Graduate Studies Committee. Not once. Not by anybody. That is the important point; not to make snide remarks about an “intractable situation.” Hello? Four years with no face time with an advisor; having to boycott classes; total neglect by everybody in the department. Intractable is a gross understatement.
No Input on Research
Every orbits professor told you your Mars research was not even close to acceptable.”
Nobody really looked at my research until the fall of 2001 – I had to write a letter to ABET for that to even happen. The President seems to see nothing wrong with this. I wasn’t told the research “didn’t meet their standards” until a week before I was expelled. Nobody even looked at the Mars research before that. If it was so shoddy, they should have told me 3 years before. In his final review of my Mars paper in May 2002, Dr. Schutz states, “nobody made comments on your Mars research at the seminar because they didn’t want to embarrass you.” (Which is an outright lie because several people made comments; here are the comments made by everybody at that meeting. Nobody had any issues at all. Dr. Abusali later even told me he thought that was my dissertation defense.
Extremely Sensitive to Criticism
Excuse me, but one HINT that my Mars research was inadequate and I would have dropped it like it was on fire. Why? Because after I presented a part of this research NASA liked so much to the commanding general at White Sands Missile range and two scientists at the High Energy Laser Project on post (the $1 trillion “Star Wars Laser,” as President Reagan called it), I got into some trouble on post (I turned in a bunch of senior NCOs on post for using hard drugs on the job; my cadre refused to support me; the senior brass covered for them, etc.) and was locked up on a psych ward BY COMMAND INFLUENCE. At which time the doctors orchestrated a psychiatric discharge from the service. Their sole evidence? My NASA research was a grandiose delusion.
As an aside, I appealed that wrongful discharge for many years, repeatedly. Until finally in the spring of 1998 (my first year in grad school), my US Congressman from Austin (my hometown) Lloyd Doggett wrote to me, “The Army will not reconsider your discharge from the Army again unless there’s an Act of Congress.”
I ended up destroying all that NASA research. Then I attempted suicide. Twice. It would be 10 years before I got up the courage to talk about that research again. I exchanged a few letters, published a crude approximation, and then presented the entire solar system model in a class taught by Professor Victor Szebehely at UT (the foremost authority in celestial mechanics of the modern era).
Professor Szebehely loved my work. “All you need to do is add time to your equations, and you’ll get your name up in lights.” He wrote me a letter of recommendation to grad school. Unfortunately, he passed away in the fall of 1997, right after I started grad school.
I mentioned that research to Dr. Broucke. Once. In passing. He was not interested. I did not mention it again. Ever. So no – if anybody had said a single, solitary disparaging word about my Mars research, I would have dropped it and never, ever mentioned it again. Ever.
Incidentally, Dr. Hull refused to let me use the three credits for Dr. Szebehely’s Theory of Orbits class (I didn’t know much about orbits at that time, but the topic of the class was REGULARIZATION, the process of eliminating variables from equations to arrive at a simpler model. My solar system model eliminates 40 variables. So, yeah – I know regularization.)
Dr. Hull did not ask, “What did you do to get an A in that class?” Every advisor I had must have seen that class on my transcript. None of them ever asked either. That illustrates very well their level of negligence. And, FYI, I had that NASA letter framed and on my office wall in my cubby hole in the grad student ghetto. Nobody ever asked about it; no professor, no grad student.
Research Was Rejected
“You failed to respond to their critical comments on your research.”
Nobody sought to talk to me after the Mars meeting. The conversation referenced in this line item was the above one by Dr. Schutz (made in his May 2002 review of my research), who wasn’t even at the seminar; or, at least, he asked no questions or had no comments then or after. I did talk to Dr. Ocampo a week later, but he made no such remarks about the seminar. EXCUSE ME. BUT FIVE ORBITS PEOPLE AGREED TO BE ON MY DISSERTATION COMMITTEE when I interviewed with them in their offices in the fall of 2001. I discussed my Mars research with each of them. That’s practically the entire orbits group; they were interested in my Mars research.
All I can say is that Dr. Fowler refused to set up a practice session for my oral qualifying exam. Moreover, in a previous statement, I show that Dr. Fowler’s letter was received long before December 21.
Graduate College Neglect
“You did not cooperate with Dr. Kahn in the Graduate College.”
The Graduate College knew very well what was going on and took no action whatsoever. Dr. Kahn wrote to me in the summer of 2001 that he was concerned that I was being treated with neglect. I provided his email in my appeals. Dr. Fowler took no action at the time, and President Faulkner ignored that email completely.
Misrepresentation of Facts
“The ad hoc committee reviewed your research thoroughly.”
I did not receive the 12-page, single-spaced, formal evaluation of the papers by Dr. Schutz until May of 2001, six months after the December 2001 ad hoc committee met. I doubt seriously that Dr. Schutz wrote that tech paper in a couple of days between the meeting and my dismissal, in the middle of final exam week. My statement was that they did not take the time to evaluate my research before I was expelled; and how could they even have done that if they had never talked to me face-to-face about how my program (written in FORTRAN, which none of them were experts in, but I certainly was – all my engineering design programs were in dBase, which is identical to FORTRAN) worked. They had a chance to say something at my seminar but didn’t say squat because “they didn’t want to embarrass me.” They allegedly had serious concerns but didn’t talk to me about them? That’s irresponsible and cruel.
False Pretenses
You refused to go to the meeting to discuss the ad hoc committee’s review of your research. Your reasons for not going are not persuasive.”
Not attending a meeting because I was studying for the oral qualifying exams, to discuss research about which every person in the department had refused to give feedback, especially Dr. NOT-UNTIL-YOU-PASS-YOUR-QUALIFYING-EXAMS Fowler? Dr. Hull had me on a drop-dead deadline: PASS the oral qualifying exam, and you will be summarily EXPELLED. That’s not persuasive?
In all of this, Dr. Hull has been the one asserting the rules and usurping the authority of the Graduate Studies Committee. He is also the department optimization expert. My Mars solution solved an extremely nonlinear problem that ALWAYS REQUIRES OPTIMIZATION. I figured out a way to solve the problem without needing any third-party routine. And he’s not interested? I asked if he would be on my dissertation committee. He would not. This man should have dropped everything to see how I did it. Not refusing to look at anything I have done.
It’s my word against his, sure; but I was a licensed Professional Engineer at the time (and still am), which means in a court of law my word is beyond dispute, and the President’s repeated insistence in not believing one word I said is disrespect and punishable as a felony by the Texas PE Board.
Theft of Services
“You were rightfully expelled and barred from registration (forever).”
Any rational college with a student who has a 3.7 GPA on all the coursework for a Ph.D. and who has passed the written qualifying exams and has devoted four years of his professional life (I had 16+ years practicing engineering before grad school), and who has spent well in excess of $150,000 on tuition, fees, books, STUDENT LOANS, and expenses deserves a meeting with the Graduate College to find out, how can we help this highly qualified engineer get the most out of his time on our campus.
No Freedom of Expression
“You were expelled because your supervising faculty did not like your ideas.”
Here it is: I was expelled because they did not like my ideas. I had no idea of the importance of that meeting; it was an ad hoc meeting; there was only one orbits person on that committee; it was during finals week; my written qualifying exam (for which I’d gotten no preparation from Dr. Fowler) was less than 2 weeks away; if I did not pass that exam I WOULD BE EXPELLED. And it’s my fault that I made the decision that the meeting to discuss research that nobody had looked at for four years was more important? That the 2-3 days I would need to prepare to defend my work, then another full day commuting to campus, would be better spent studying?
That isn’t the kind of advice you would give to any graduate student? Did that ad hoc committee, my Graduate Advisor, and the Chairman of the ASE Department (or Dr. Fowler, for that matter, whom they claim was still my advisor at this point) even think of this? I believe they were simply going to expel me on the spot. Just an observation.
No Research Topic
“You failed to work with your supervising faculty to find an acceptable research topic.”
My professional resume answers this question. I had published two textbooks with McGraw-Hill since starting graduate school, the largest, most important scientific publisher in the world. I had published a dozen conference and technical papers before that. I had my own computer software company, with programs featured in my tech papers and in my textbooks. Dr. Fowler knew all about this because I got in trouble with Student Legal Services for giving away all my engineering design computer programs on the internet. Everybody in the department knew about my Mars Pathfinder 2.0 program, which was as elaborate as any Windows program as you could find back then.
Lack of Cooperation
“You did not cooperate with your supervising faculty.”
I say again, as I told many people back then, in writing and in person: I never, ever got supervision for my research. I’m a P.E. My word on that is all you need. They knew I was a P.E. The burden of proof is on the President, to show I was given the $100,000 in research supervision I paid for. I asked for help. I asked Dr. Fowler (“Not until you pass your qualifying exams.”) I asked Dr. Broucke (“It is department policy not to give comments on research until you pass your qualifying exams.”) I HAD TO BOYCOTT MY CLASSES ONE SEMESTER to get a chance to talk about my Mars research.
Who Supported What?
“You wrongfully claim that Dr. Broucke fully supported your research.”
“Fully supported” only means that he knew what I was doing, had provided the RK78 integrator I used in the routine, and never said not to keep working on it. Nobody else in the department told me to stop working on it either. And AFTER I WAS EXPELLED I learned that they all had serious concerns? NOBODY TOLD ME???? That’s not just neglect and abuse; that’s malice. extreme malice. That’s cruel and irresponsible. Evil.
Zero Faculty Interest
“The faculty rejected your research at every possible opportunity.”
Dr. Abusali thought my Mars seminar was my dissertation defense. Dr. Chambers and I were conversant. Dr. Bedford, for whom I TA’d for years, loved my work with the kids. I got extremely high course evaluations each semester from my students. Dr. Nerem was very helpful with me on numerous occasions. I was on excellent terms with all the other grad students. I had a big online fan base for my Mars Pathfinder program. The Mars Society loved my research. My McGraw-Hill textbooks were selling like hotcakes. One of them is still in print, a real classic.
Extreme Malice
“You should have taken the qualifying exams after one year in graduate school.”
Finally, I return to an earlier item, stating that I should have taken the qualifying exams one year after I entered graduate school. That’s so not right. I was 41 years old, had been out of school for 20 years; I spent the entire first year taking undergraduate courses. And the President of the University, after dozens of people had spent thousands of man-hours investigating, says this stupidity? Clearly, nobody ever took five minutes to look at my academic transcript.