Updated Statement on Institutional Failures in Student Misconduct and Safety Investigations at ASU
Two years after I first raised these concerns through a public petition, recent events at my alma mater, Arizona State University (ASU), and parallel national cases continue to demonstrate that meaningful reform in how universities handle student reports of misconduct, retaliation, and safety failures remains urgently needed.
As a first-generation immigrant student and trainee, I arrived in the United States undocumented with expectations of fairness and accountability in higher education.
Instead, I encountered repeated institutional failures at the university level in which stated policies were not effectively implemented. Students who reported concerns in good faith experienced prolonged harm, while individuals in positions of institutional influence faced limited apparent consequence.
I experienced firsthand the breakdown of ASU’s misconduct investigation processes. On May 7, 2024, I learned that my Title IX complaint had never been forwarded to ASU’s Title IX office despite having raised the matter through proper channels, including the President’s office. On May 9, 2024, I was required to undergo a re-interview lasting more than one hour with a Title IX intake specialist. While that individual conducted the interview professionally, the failure to properly route the original complaint—and those of other students—was unacceptable.
Following my reports, my family and I experienced repeated incidents of vandalism, trespassing, property damage, and other forms of intimidation. Rat poison was found on our properties, and we lost several animals. On March 20, 2024—the same day I presented on behalf of the American Medical Women’s Association at ASU’s Change the World Day—our cat was found mutilated in front of our home.
When I sought help from the Phoenix Police Department accompanied by my victim’s advocate and a trusted colleague, I was told to “Google ASU corruption” and that no detective would touch the case. I subsequently received text messages stating that if I wanted my career not to be impacted, I should not speak about what had happened, that it was not professional, and that people would not want to fund my projects or write letters of recommendation—despite the fact that medicine teaches the harm of the bystander effect.
ASU and Mayo Clinic leadership were in possession of at least one video depicting my former professor engaging in threatening and intimidating conduct after that individual had been instructed in writing not to retaliate against me. Institutional policies prohibiting retaliation were not effectively enforced.
I endured sexual harassment, retaliation, discrimination, and intimidation. Multiple students—across demographic groups including first-generation immigrants, students of color, students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community—reported similar experiences with the same professor both before and after my own. Some were too fearful to report non-anonymously. None received a fair and unbiased investigation.
I was mocked by male colleagues in the presence of physicians and researchers after declining to falsify neurosurgery timecards. Related group text messages followed. During formal investigations, those involved claimed no recollection of the events. I also received hostile emails to my student account and text messages raising household safety concerns. Family members received calls falsely claiming I required emergency surgery. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office did not interview any of the laboratory’s family-member leadership or anyone from Arizona State University, yet I was again interviewed for hours.
ASU characterized these matters as an employment dispute, a framing inconsistent with the fact that numerous undergraduate students reported the same professor and related individuals. Complaints submitted through the Honors College and to designated staff were not properly advanced. High-profile legal counsel was retained. I was subsequently removed from research publications while family members of the professor were listed as contributors. I lost my first NIH $142,000 supplement, which I wrote in two weeks; Mayo Clinic collected the funds without producing any of the work outlined in the grant.
A previously positive letter of recommendation was replaced with one that omitted recognition of more than four years of U.S. research experience in which I received consistent A grades. I was offered $15,000 by the professor’s attorneys to sign a non-disclosure agreement, with the implication that refusal could affect my publications, research record, and medical school applications. Other mentors informed me through third parties that they now had to consult ASU’s legal team before writing me letters of recommendation.
I was interviewed for hours by multiple attorneys representing ASU in non-transparent processes, including by individuals who did not disclose potential conflicts of interest. Most recently on May 9, 2024, I underwent another intake interview after learning the original sexual harassment complaint had never reached the Title IX office. Each re-interview resurfaced the underlying trauma. In April 2024, I was connected for the first time to an ASU victim advocate for sexual violence.
After being removed from my MPH graduate REACT project by Dean Kenny, I was required to secure a new master’s project in order to graduate on schedule. I did so with the support of strong mentors and successfully completed the degree.
On April 12—the same day I received written notification that ASU had found no policy violation while affirming that retaliation is prohibited—ASU published a news article about the clinic opening I co-founded that contained inaccuracies regarding the clinic’s founding date and omitted all contributions I had provided during a one-hour interview with the university journalist, including acknowledgment of co-founding mentors. My role was erased from the institutional record.
My case was subsequently used as a case study at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Law students were permitted to observe the hearing in the Maricopa County Court of Appeals. I was never allowed to testify or present evidence, nor was I permitted to clear my name from statements placed on my Mayo Clinic and ASU records. I later experienced repeated, unwanted attention from ASU Law students on my social media accounts that I experienced as harassing. I reported the activity to no avail.
Recent developments (2026)
In August 2026, an ASU men’s hockey player collapsed during an outdoor team workout and remains on life support with no meaningful chance of recovery. Senior Vice President for Educational Outreach and Student Services James Rund—who had previously interviewed me for hours in connection with my own complaint—provided a statement regarding the university’s initial review. That review assigned no individual responsibility and was publicly disputed by seven current hockey players. Through counsel, those players submitted a detailed letter to President Michael Crow challenging key factual findings in the Rund review, describing fear of retaliation, and requesting that the coaching staff be placed on administrative leave pending an independent investigation. The university subsequently placed the head coach on paid leave and retained a former Arizona Supreme Court chief justice to conduct an independent review. State legislators and the family of the injured player also called for external scrutiny.
These events illustrate the same pattern I and other students previously described: internal processes that students experience as protective of institutional interests rather than of those who come forward, delayed or incomplete accountability, and the necessity for students themselves to organize and speak publicly—often anonymously and at personal risk—to compel further action.
National attention on other institutions, including recent high-profile Title IX and sexual-assault handling controversies at Cornell University, further underscores that these are not isolated problems confined to one campus. According to RAINN, only 20 percent of female student victims aged 18–24 report sexual violence to law enforcement. Fear of retaliation and lack of confidence in institutional processes remain significant barriers.
Many faculty and staff at ASU uphold the university’s stated values and supported my path as a first-generation student. That does not diminish the absence of consistent accountability for misconduct or the lack of reliable, independent protections for students who report concerns.
I, and other students who reported in good faith, continue to call for comprehensive reform in how universities handle misconduct and student-safety investigations. Such reform must ensure transparency, independent oversight, prompt connection to victim advocates, protection against retaliation, and meaningful accountability. Legislation is needed that mandates these safeguards so that institutional power does not override student safety and due process.
I urge lawmakers, the public, and university stakeholders to support measures that require these reforms across educational institutions. Stand with students by demanding stronger, enforceable protections against harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and failures to safeguard student welfare on campuses nationwide.
Source: RAINN.org – Campus Sexual Violence Statistics.