Bucking Coverage of Fertility Scandal

* The story involving the Center for Reproductive Health and UCI is complicated and challenging for readers and reporters alike. While I have appreciated some aspects of the reporting and disliked others, I have not felt compelled to write to The Times until I read the flawed piece of journalism, “UCI Battles Show Perils of Bucking UC System” (July 2). This collection of unrelated complaints, none of which is new, was simply a hostile opinion piece masquerading as a news story.

Newspapers have some values that they hold to be essential. Issues like censorship or the confidentiality of news sources are so dear to news organizations that they will expend great sums of money to fight in legal arenas or in the court of public opinion to defend their principles. Universities also have principles worth defending--principles like freedom of inquiry and the right of the faculty to do their own peer review of faculty performance; principles like the need to protect confidential investigations in progress and to respect patient privacy and the rights of employees to due process and privacy. Your story was nothing more than a compilation of fragmentary information about individuals who have had employment problems, lumping together those who got settlements with those currently in litigation, and failing to distinguish the need to defend principles from the kind of employment disputes that arise in any large organization.

We are criticized for settlements with some litigants and criticized for fighting others in court. We are criticized for the high cost of litigation, which is clearly beyond our control, and for the cost of settlement to avoid litigation. The story is hardly balanced when it gives some 50 paragraphs to the disappointed and disaffected and counters with one brief paragraph admitting that universities are easy targets for litigation when personal dreams are not realized.

Where are the comparisons that might have helped the readers with perspective? How much do other large enterprises spend on litigation relating to employment disputes? Is the University of California legal strategy different from other public or private institutions? The discussion of an important topic might have been elevated into something useful if the writers of the story had made that simple effort instead of taking the easy way out by dredging up old stories of complaints and disgruntlement and calling it news.

SIDNEY H. GOLUB

Executive vice chancellor

UC Irvine

* The Times is to be congratulated for its article, “UCI Battles Show Perils of Bucking UC System.”

For far too many years, there has been a pattern of payoffs and penalties at UC Irvine. Buying silence and destroying careers have long been associated with the world of crime but not with universities.

Unfortunately, there were several important omissions in the article. The organization referred to as “fighting for equality for women on campus” is WAGE--We Advocate Gender Equity.

Furthermore, credit should have been given to Marilyn Vassos, the citizen activist, who uncovered the details of the UCI settlement with Dr. Carol Jackson, the fact that almost half a million dollars was paid to an outside legal firm defending UCI, despite the fact that we taxpayers support a well-staffed UC general counsel’s office with more than 30 well-paid attorneys.

This information, with all relevant documents, was turned over to the media by Vassos. The documents also revealed the “gag” order placed on Dr. Jackson.

Vassos, a member of WAGE and a board member of Women For: Orange County, should be congratulated. It took many months and many letters before she was able to obtain the information under the California Public Records Act.

Under the act, any citizen, upon written request, is entitled to full and timely disclosure of documents held by public agencies. It is time that citizens make effective use of this act.

VIVIAN HALL

Founding Member of WAGE

Irvine