A letter to Dr. Ting Lu in response to his clarifications website

Background:

I joined Dr. Ting Lu's research group at UIUC Bioengineering as a PhD student in early 2017, and decided to leave the group after summer 2018.

In Spring 2022, after finishing my PhD in a different group at UIUC and moving to Denmark as a postdoc, in a public letter, I shared what I experienced and saw in Lu's group, in the hope that less students' research careers and passions would be destructed in the future.

My report centers around abusive behaviors of Lu toward grad students to the point that mental health breakdowns and career damages were frequent. I advocated for actions and policy changes so that such things could happen much less to future students, not only in Lu's group, but in the wider academia.

My sharing generated wide resonance in the researcher community, with many responding with similar situations, some not as severe, some even worse.

UIUC initiated an investigation which lasted for around 6 months. The investigation was regarding whether there was racial discrimination, esp. toward Asian/Chinese students, in Lu's lab management. I was convinced by the investigator to cooperate in it, even though the topic was not what I had reported, as they said this is typically the first investigation to be done, and would be helpful to uncover relevant evidence. I am not aware of any other investigation in parallel.

The investigation concluded that none of the 12 items in my report, most of which revolving around academic bullying, involved racial discrimination, and there was no substantiation of racial discrimination overall.

Quoting the report:

"Overall, Dr. Li used very serious and emotionally charged descriptors, such as “terror”, “anxiety”, “distress”, and “traumatic”. Additionally, other students described a very negative environment as well. xxx1 indicated that it took him a long time to recover from his experience in Dr. Lu’s lab. xxx2 indicated that his interactions with Dr. Lu played a part his decision to not pursue academia after obtaining his PhD, but he could not determine how much. xxx3 expressed a desire to have less pressure and more personal time. xxx4 indicated that everything contained in Dr. Li’s letter was familiar to (them)."

Note that several impacted students did not participate the investigation. One of them messaged me that their mental health was still in too much shambles to be able to participate.

In other words, to my concerns about academic bullying in Lu's group, the investigation concluded that there was no racial discrimination in the bullying.

UIUC Dean of College of Engineering emailed to me that they will forward the investigation to the labor/HR department to examine academic bullying aspects of the case, and will be back in touch. That was in the Fall of 2022, and I have not heard about it since. I am not aware of any further investigation regarding this case.

A few days ago, a website, apparently launched by Lu, was brought to my attention. This public letter responds to what's on the website.?

A letter to Dr. Ting Lu

Dr. Ting Lu,

It's good that the world could see your response. If all people could hear is one side of a story, it's rarely sufficient for people to make conclusions with confidence.

You and I both came from Zhejiang University. The key part of our school motto, coined by Chu Kochen, was "Seek Truth". I wanted to remind you of this.?

Seek truth. Don't mislead.

?

1. Be specific about what is and is not substantiated.

UIUC investigated racial discrimination by you. That was not part of my report. Even during the investigation when they decided to look into whether you have misconduct on this issue and asked me about it, I don't think there was any point where I said there is racial discrimination. I simply provided facts, and left any judgment to the investigators.

They came back saying that there is no racial discrimination. After 6 months. That's great.

I don't know if there was any further investigation about what I actually reported about.?

On your "clarifications" website, you said,

"The University has determined that none of my conduct violated the University’s policies or code of conduct. Additionally, the University has confirmed that there are no pending reviews, and thus, this matter is closed. In conclusion, all of Li’s complaints – not one, not two, but three in a row – have been found to be unsubstantiated. As a result, I have been fully cleared."

(I don't know what the "three" refers to. A. I know the one investigation, on racial discrimination, which was not my complaint, was concluded as negative. B. In my report, I laid out 11 items, - 5 major, and 6 minor.)

Probably based on that, you also said,

"It is troubling that Li publicly claimed, “nothing is made up” and “I (Li) stand by what I wrote in this letter with the honor of my name,” while repeatedly making a multitude of false and misleading allegations."

If you have to gas light things about me, I suggest you pick something else. Stupidity, incompetence, laziness. You make the pick. I can tolerate a lot and don't have to say anything.

You attack my integrity, I'd have to ask you to be specific about it.

There is a world of difference between 1) "your conduct violated no university policy", and 2) "whether any of what I wrote down was fabricated".

The first can be achieved by having no standard and no policy in place.

But you call my allegations false, you have to be specific about which ones are false, and which ones are true, if you intend not to mislead by twisting words and logic.

I still stand by every word I wrote in the letter, with my name and my integrity.

Some things could be mistaken due to my lack of knowledge, despite being honestly written. For example, in my letter, I wrote, "8. I don’t know a case where he allowed students to attend outside conferences." You provided evidence that you had had students attending conferences, mainly for one grant-related conference which happened ~2 years after I had left.

What I don't know, I don't know. What I do know, I do know.

How many students did leave your group prematurely?

Did their departure have nothing to do with the way you treated them?

Did you require lab members to work from 9 to 9, 6 days a week, and check them for it on weekends and evenings?

Did you yell at them? If so, to how many? How many times? For what?

What is and is not substantiated?

2. Invite UIUC to grant freedom to publish the investigation.

We could save both of us some time by requesting the publication of the investigation progress reports, materials, and final report. - After redacting the identifying info for witnesses that don't want to share their names, of course. Many of the questions had been answered in those materials, despite it being a twisted investigation in several ways. If you don't mind facing the truth and having the world access the truth, I hope you can join me on board for this.

3. The letter of support on your website

Who wrote the letter? You, or any student? How many contributed to writing it?

How many students signed, compared with how many students had been through your lab? What are the reasons the other students didn't sign?

How many of those who signed it were members in the group at the time of signing? Would it be easy for them to not sign it?

Regarding the content of the letter, does it contain anything that refutes what I reported?

Note that I didn't write that you are not a smart or passionate researcher. I didn't write that you have nothing positive about you. If you were not smart, I wouldn't have joined your lab. What I reported was you did a bunch of things, good or bad. The letter did not deny them.

Smart is different from wise.

?

4. Cyber violence

You said you experienced total strangers who insulted and threatened you and your family. I am very sorry to hear that. That's not the right thing to do. I had no knowledge of it, and I never had any involvement with it. All I did was under the light.

To those who might consider doing anything like that, please don't. If you don't tolerate how someone does something, I suggest distancing yourself from that person, and if you want anything to be done about it, do it through a public way under the light, rather than in any direct personal way, which is rarely constructive.

?

5. What I did was not all about you

You seem to also object to my sharing of the report.

As I wrote when I made the first sharing, "It's not about him. I've cared about him enough during those 18 months of my life. It's about the students."

And I wrote at the beginning of my report:

"I decided that it would be unethical for me not to report what I experienced and saw. Many more students and many more research careers will go through his lab. I can do something so that less of them are ruined. Thus I have to."

I don't make things up. That's what I said, and that's what I meant.

How I'd wish I don't have to relive the experiences by writing about it, and how I'd wish I don't need to have anything to do with you anymore, regardless of what's between you and me personally. But it would be irresponsible and unethical for me when I think about what keeping quiet would mean for future students.

Further,?

1) I wanted to put pressure on UIUC for taking actions.

Some had discouraged me for doing anything about it before I made the report, reminding me that universities typically do nothing about such things. I made the assessment, which was eventually corroborated by what happened, that if I go through the internal route only, the case will be buried through an investigation process that goes nowhere. After I made the report, many suggested that I seek other channels as well, which might take these matters more seriously than the university. So the granting agencies were also contacted.

2) Awareness?

I wanted to use this case to inspire systematic changes in academia. If there are more discussions about how such things could be allowed to happen, then changes may be inspired.

I also wrote an essay on how to solve academic bullying from its root cause, which is the evaluation criteria we have for academic institutions.

Indeed, once I made the report, countless people voiced their support, many of them said that what I shared is terrible but not uncommon, and dozens of them shared their specific cases to me. I also had many direct messages and meetings with many of them when they sought advice on how to handle similar situations.

3) Truth

I stand on truth.

As I wrote in the beginning of the report, "Whatever people think or judge, what I will be writing are just facts and truth. Nothing is made up. If so, no one should be scared."

Again, I ask you to be specific about what I wrote is true or not true. If they are true, I think one should be proud of what they do, rather than having a problem about it. (We are talking about nothing private, but how one manages a lab of researchers in a public university.)

People are not always proud of what they do. In those cases, they should feel sorry for what they are not proud of. I have not seen any expression of remorse, either during the investigation process or in your website statement.

4) I have long left the personal sides behind?

I had explicitly made it clear during the investigation, that it is not my intention to have to see you fired or something similar. You have talent. You can make actual contributions to the world. I simply wanted to see less of the tragedies happen, both in your lab and in the wider academia, including at UIUC. It is not so much about you.

Something I don't intend to make a big deal of: earlier this year I was contacted by an FBI agent. What I gather is that since they saw in my letter that I was not happy with your management, maybe they could get me to come up some additional misbehaviors of you, including suspicious ties with foreign entities. I said all my complaints had been laid out in the letter. (It sounds out of nowhere, I know. There's really no need for me to make up something like this.) I did the natural and right thing. No surprise. But I wanted to make a point with this: What I stand on is truth. My goal is to make things more reasonable. On the one side is UIUC, who would protect a professor in disregard for students' wellbeing and development, and I fought against it. On the other side is this FBI agent, who couldn't wait for there to be something, real or not real, about you so that they could persecute another Chinese scientist. If my goal is to hurt you, maybe I would grab onto the second opportunity. My goal was not personal.

?

6. Sufferings

You said you has suffered greatly. I believe that. It makes sense that this would be a byproduct. I have sympathy for it. But I'm not sure if it's right for me to say sorry to the sense that I regret writing and publishing the letter.

The question is, is that necessary? Which translates to, did I have to make the report? That question has been answered in previous sections and in the beginning of my letter, and it eventually translates to this:

Would it be right with my conscience to not make the report? What would be the result if I don't do that?

And the answer is, I couldn't, and can't, bear more students going through what I and several others went through in your lab.

Unfortunately, that decision means you would bear the sacrifice of having to suffer. There's no way around it when the right thing is done.

My goal was not your suffering. My goal was less sufferings of students.

But I don't understand how you could be able to not mention anything regarding the sufferings you caused to the students that you damaged.

Ting, the world does not revolve around you.

It's OK if your own world revolve around you, but the objective world is not all about you. Other people matter just as much. We have equal dignity.

There was me, who came into your lab being one of the most passionate students about research that I had seen, but one year later was mentally crashed, and almost quit doing research all together. It is a miracle that I got to recover, but that took me years under ideal conditions.

There was J, who was no less passionate than I was, but a year later, before they left your lab and left academia prematurely, I could barely recognize him. It looked like their spirit was gone, and it was thanks to no one else but you.

Do you care at all? Do you care that D had to mend his mental damages by you for years? That W could barely have any life outside the lab for a decade? That so many came to your lab only to realize that they needed to start over with their plan, with years wasted and better opportunities lost?

Tell me these are not real, if they are not. Otherwise, own it, and maybe say the word "sorry" for once, and maybe then you'll actually have some "personal growth" as you wrote.

?

7. Gift

You gave me a gift. You gave me an opportunity to see how low life can get before I could still bounce back. You showed me how not to manage people. What you did pushed me into an amazing lab that I never even considered. (All that said, I don't recommend anyone to go through what I went through. I was incredibly lucky to have the comeback.)

I also gave you a gift. But it would only be a gift if you take it the right way. You can bounce back, but it would require you to question yourself a bit.

If you face truth, and begin to accept radical changes, with the premise that you could do a lot better, then you can make a more positive impact with the rest of your life.

UIUC did a disservice by not facing the truth and pointing out what's wrong. That doesn't have to dictate how you face up to things.

If students, highly self-driven and passionate, come to your lab and one year later couldn't find their sparks anymore, you should realize how much of a giant failure that is on your part, and realize that there is a better way. Aim for making people more motivated, rather than turning their passion into ashes.?

I am also leading a team these days. My teammates and I are all trainees in what we do. You can see yourself as a trainee in some ways, too. Trainees don't do things perfectly. Ignoring issues is not helpful, but when we face up to issues, is the focus on blaming and disparaging personally, or is it about finding the root cause and figuring out ways for improvement, as a team?

BTW, I hope you realize that the biggest damage of having that 996 requirement and randomly checking on students' presence, and being upset when you don't see them, is way beyond just the hours (I work more than that when I need to, without anyone asking, and I couldn't care less about counting teammates' hours, unless when I need to remind them to not overwork). The worst damage is from the assumption that students don't want to do research without you watching over their back. Imagine that on yourself. One would feel that all they are doing is for their boss to see. It is such a great killer for self motivation. Have some respect for human psychology.?

There are other things I can suggest, but change doesn't need to be overloaded.

Finally, I share to you one tip for seeking truth. You know, everything can be justified. Sometimes even a genocide. Especially with smart human brains. Rather than repeating to ourselves how we are right and justified, I found that an essential second step to figure out the right thing to do is by asking us, in no rhetorical sense, "How we might be wrong", and "what we might be missing". Smart brains can also figure out a lot of answers to those questions. If our decisions can stand the tests, then we can be more confident about what we choose.

I don't think either you or I want to spend too much more time on this. It is good that you are continuing your research. I hope you live up to what you say, regarding contributing to the betterment of our society. Then we are on the same team. What has happened has happened. It becomes a coherent part of our life. Covering it and denying it won't bring us peace. Own up to it, and we will have some better years to look forward to.

Dr. Jinbei Li