TL;DR

1. Free speech is being chilled: People are being taught that honest scientific critique, disagreement, and difficult academic conversations may carry serious personal and professional risk.
2. Due process is being eroded: Faculty can be placed into prolonged administrative limbo without clear notice, meaningful opportunity to defend themselves, or any transparent endpoint.
3. The environment is becoming hostile: Fear, silence, distrust, and self-censorship are replacing the open and rigorous scientific discourse that graduate training requires.
4. The system appears vulnerable to abuse: It creates the impression that reporting mechanisms can be used as leverage to escape academic difficulty or gain institutional advantage in conflicts.
5. Students are being harmed, not protected: Mentorship is disrupted, trust is damaged, and the broader academic community is left to absorb the consequences.
6. GSBS must act: Leadership must defend academic freedom, restore due process, and stop the broader damage this climate is causing.

This petition is not intended to influence the outcome of any ongoing case or to prejudge the facts of any individual dispute. Rather, it reflects broader concerns brought to light by a recent case and calls for policies that ensure fairness, due process, and timely resolution for everyone involved. It also seeks to protect the collegial academic culture, continuity of mentorship, and the academic and institutional interests that are essential to GSBS and MD Anderson’s mission.

This petition is about more than one individual case. It is about the kind of academic environment GSBS is becoming, and whether students and faculty can still engage in honest scientific discussion without fear of retaliation, opaque administrative action, or prolonged professional limbo.

Many of us are deeply alarmed by the situation involving Dr. Haoqiang Ying. As many in the community understand it, Dr. Ying has been on investigatory leave for roughly two months, remains cut off from students who rely on his mentorship, and still has not returned even though the student involved has already defended and will no longer be working with him in the lab. From the perspective of the broader student community, there is no visible end in sight.

What makes this especially troubling is the apparent lack of any visible due process. There appears to be no clear policy that meaningfully limits how long investigatory leave can continue. There has been no publicly visible hearing, no formal disciplinary action, no clear statement of what specific policy was allegedly violated, no transparent timeline for when the process will end, and no visible opportunity for Dr. Ying to defend himself before being effectively removed from his academic role for an extended period. Even if internal procedures exist that are not visible to students, what the community sees is a faculty member placed into indefinite limbo while everyone around him is left to absorb the consequences.

At the same time, the practical consequences have run heavily in one direction. The complaining student was apparently able to proceed to defense, complete that milestone, avoid further interaction with Dr. Ying, and move forward. Meanwhile, Dr. Ying remains sidelined, and the many other students who depend on his mentorship, scientific guidance, dissertation support, and career development continue to suffer the fallout. This creates the perception that an accusation alone can trigger sweeping institutional action, without any visible presumption of innocence, meaningful chance to respond, or timely resolution.

That perception is dangerous not only for faculty, but for students as well. It sends the message that if a student is in serious conflict with a mentor, or in academic difficulty, the institutional system may be used as leverage rather than as a fair and narrowly tailored means of addressing genuine misconduct. Whether or not leadership intends that message, it is the message many people are receiving.

The problem is not just this one case. The problem is the climate it creates. Science is not supposed to be comfortable all the time. Graduate training requires critique, disagreement, high standards, blunt feedback, difficult conversations, and the freedom to challenge weak ideas. That is not abuse. That is training. If ordinary academic conflict or forceful scientific criticism can be escalated into opaque administrative punishment, the result is not a safer academic environment. The result is fear, self-censorship, silence, and distrust.

That kind of environment harms students. It harms students by making mentors afraid to speak candidly. It harms students by making trainees afraid to ask hard questions or challenge bad ideas. It harms students by undermining trust between mentors and trainees. And it harms students when a faculty member can be removed for an extended period with no visible resolution, while everyone else in the lab or program is left to deal with disrupted mentorship, delayed research, and academic instability.

We are calling on GSBS leadership to protect academic freedom and due process. Faculty and students must be able to engage in honest, difficult scientific conversations without fear of retaliation. No one should be placed on prolonged investigatory leave without clear notice, meaningful opportunity to respond, and a defined timeline. And students whose training depends on affected faculty should not be left stranded while opaque processes drag on without resolution.

GSBS cannot claim to protect students while creating a climate that chills speech, destroys trust, and harms the very trainees it is supposed to support. We call on leadership to restore confidence in the academic environment by protecting free expression in scientific discourse, ensuring timely and transparent process, and ending indefinite administrative limbo.

Demands

1. Publish clear written policies and procedures. GSBS/UTHealth/MD Anderson should publicly post the policies, procedures, and standards governing investigatory leave, interim restrictions, and related administrative actions.
2. Require formal written notice. Any person subject to a change in status or conditions — including but not limited to investigatory leave, changes in work schedule, work location, supervisory structure, access restrictions, or other interim measures — should receive prompt written notice explaining what action is being taken, the basis for it, and the policy under which it is authorized.
3. Require transparent timelines. Interim measures should not continue indefinitely. Institutions should provide a clear expected timeline for investigation, review, and resolution, with regular written updates if timelines change.
4. Guarantee basic due process. Before prolonged or highly burdensome restrictions continue, the affected individual should be informed of the allegations in sufficient detail, told their rights, and given a meaningful opportunity to respond.
5. Preserve the presumption of innocence. Interim measures should not be administered in a way that assumes guilt before any final determination is made.
6. Ensure neutral and unbiased treatment of both complainant and respondent. The institution should support safety and fairness for both parties, rather than structuring the process in a way that automatically advantages one side before the facts are established.
7. Use the least restrictive interim measures necessary. Separating the complainant and respondent may be appropriate when safety is a concern, but measures beyond that, before any final determination, should be narrowly tailored, justified, and no broader than necessary.
8. Minimize disruption to the work and training of both parties. Every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that research, dissertation progress, mentorship, employment responsibilities, and academic milestones are minimally affected while a matter is pending.
9. Protect unaffected students and trainees. When a faculty member is placed under interim restriction, the institution must have an immediate plan to protect the mentorship, research continuity, and academic progress of other students who depend on that faculty member.
10. Provide a right to review and challenge interim measures. Individuals placed on investigatory leave or similar restrictions should have access to a prompt review or appeal mechanism to challenge the necessity, scope, or duration of those measures.
11. Prohibit open-ended administrative limbo. No one should be left on investigatory leave or similar status for an undefined period without meaningful review, justification, and a clear path toward resolution.
12. Protect against retaliation in all directions. Institutions must clearly prohibit retaliation against complainants, respondents, witnesses, and signers/supporters of petitions or protected expression.
13. Protect academic freedom and candid scientific discourse. Policies must make clear that ordinary scientific critique, disagreement, performance feedback, and difficult academic conversations do not by themselves constitute misconduct.
14. Prevent misuse of reporting systems. Institutions should adopt safeguards to reduce the risk that formal reporting mechanisms are used as leverage in academic disputes or as a way to avoid legitimate academic evaluation.
15. Require accountability and oversight for interim actions. Decisions imposing major interim restrictions should be documented, periodically reviewed, and approved at an appropriately high level to ensure consistency, necessity, and fairness.