Regarding a PhD advisor rejecting student due to health problems

Question

I have a colleague (call them "Joe") in my PhD math program who told me that they approached a certain professor (call them "Dr. X") to ask them to be their advisor. Joe seemed very interested and capable to do research with Dr. X. However, Dr. X told Joe that they didn't want to do research with them because they had health issues. Namely, Joe delayed taking the qualifying exams because of a kidney stone surgery (a laser lithotripsy). Despite this, Joe took the qualifying exams and did very well. Dr. X still had a bias against Joe and did not want them in their research group because of their health problems.

Yes, this is an actual story that happened to a friend of mine.

Is there any basis in the professor not wanting to take Joe as their student? Or, are there legality issues? I know an employer cannot discriminate with regards to disabilities or health condition, but does this apply to prospective PhD supervisors?

Answer 1

Unless the PhD is a demanding in-lab work where there is danger to the student or their colleagues via their health condition (which does not sound like it, but we do not know), there is no legal reason for the potential supervisor to reject. As much say the other responses.

Nonetheless, I would be wary of forcing myself on such a supervisor. Unlike a normal job, the supervisor-supervisee dynamics is very different from a normal employment and I do not see anything to be gained from pushing further. Joe could of course start a disciplinary process against this supervisor; the likely two consequences are that:

1. other supervisors will tread carefully around Joe, even if they have no discriminatory bone in their bodies and even if Joe is clearly perfectly in the right in starting proceedings against that prof. They do not know what else may trigger Joe, so those with cautious personalities probably will try to avoid having to supervise him.

2. the original supervisor may, if they get slapped with real sanctions (and not just a slap on the wrist), in future hide their discriminatory position without being fully truthful. So, they may end up accepting (and then mistreating) sickly PhD students in the future (there are questions about that on SE).

As much as one would want to punish this supervisor for their position (assuming there is no really good reason for the rejection), I do not think that one would either Joe nor future students of this professor any good to trigger an investigation; short of something that actually could get this prof fired.

I think it is better for students to know what a prof is like ahead of time rather than discover it underway.

Answer 2

In most cases, discrimination on the basis of disability or illness is wrong and in many places it is also illegal. This applies in places where PhD students are considered employees and in places where they are not.

However, there are certain exceptions. If the disability makes it impossible or unreasonably costly for the student to conduct their duties, discrimination might be permitted. If the student has a health problem that makes the research unsafe, then discrimination might be mandatory.

Answer 3

First of all, in the US it is unambiguously illegal to discriminate against a student with a disability, including a medical disability, as long as the student is able to meet academic standards with reasonable accommodation (such as delaying quals a few months). It is also illegal to discriminate against a student who had medical problems in the past on the grounds that those medical problems might recur in the future. So there's that.

Unfortunately, US caselaw allows extraordinary discretion about academic decisions, especially by graduate programs, making it almost impossible for a student to win this battle. So unless the university is 100% behind the student on this issue--which is a fool's bet--Joe can expect to have his academic reputation viciously trashed so that Dr. X can justify his illegal decision with impunity.

However, it's a good idea for Joe to keep detailed records of his own and at least report the situation to the disability services office and any equal opportunity/equity and inclusion office. It would be nice if we were living in a world where schools can't get away with this crap, but we don't. The only way this will change if the people who are victimized by it speak up.

Answer 4

I'm somewhat surprised by the number of people trying to see this as a legal problem only. Don't forget that an advisor/advisee relationship is very special. Taking a PhD student under your wings is not entirely unlike adopting a child (if only temporarily), and rejecting an interested PhD student is sometimes the responsible thing to do, when there are warning signs flashing.

I don't think it is a wide spread practice that potential advisors have the obligation to take anyone meeting certain qualifications. In fact, I rather think the opposite is true.

• A potential advisor can reject such a request for very personal reasons. May be they have interacted with this grad student earlier and didn't like what they saw? May be they have work for just one grad student, and already have their eyes on someone else who they think could do a better job, and now came up with a lame excuse. May be Dr X recently lost a loved one to kidney problems, and cannot bear meeting with a living reminder daily?
• Another plausible scenario is that may be Dr X heard about Joe being late to take his quals, and therefore was predisposed negatively? When hearing about the true reason for the delay, they were simply unable to do a mental U-turn, and blurted out something that made them look like an ass. Not nice, definitely. But the kind of s**t that can easily happen, when you are put on the spot and need to justify the decision to decline a particular grad student.

We simply did not hear the whole story.

This is math, meaning that the PhD students don't often get to work with teams. If there is an advisor/advisee chemistry problem, a rejection will save both Dr X and Joe a lof of pain further down the road.

• Joe can (should?) talk with the Director of Graduate Studies at the department (if such a resource exists). They know the local circumstances and can give advice. I don't think a DGS would do much, but if similar stories about Dr X pile up, then there may be something actionable, and the DGS will have the means to do something about it. The DGS is not likely to gossip and tell that Dr X has a reputation of being a difficult person to work with (other grad students are there for such things), but it is their job to listen.
• If Dr X discards talent left and right, they are shooting themselves in the foot, and may have difficulties recruiting in the future.
• Similarly, if Joe goes public, he has to live with the consequences. Bad advice IMHO.

Joe should just continue shopping for an advisor unless he already has done so.

Answer 5

This appears to be more of a moral problem than anything else. I'm also assuming that Joe doesn't want to work with that supervisor, and now has another supervisor who he's working happily with.

With this in mind, if Joe wants the university to do something about this, I would suggest the formal process is probably not going to be effective. As other answers have said, all universities have a strong track record of concealing anything raised formally, even up to cases of assault and rape.

A better alternative might be to contact the student newspaper. It'll escalate the issue locally on campus and get attention for the problem, which will put pressure on the department to be seen to do something about it. It doesn't cost anything for Joe, unlike lawyering up. Of course Joe would be well advised to give his supervisor a heads up though, in case this will result in problems there.

Answer 6

Depends on the country. In the UK that is illegal discrimination under the 2010 equalities act, unless there is some reason the health condition makes it dangerous or impossible to do an essential task, e.g. a blind taxi driver or a deaf call center worker, where reasonable adjustments have been made, e.g. flexible hours or a desk that doesn't require them to walk up lots of stairs to get to it. It is as illegal as telling someone they will not work with them because they are black or female. I believe that is the case under similar laws in most of Europe and north America.

As others have said, the supervisor is obviously an arsehole and isn't worth working with. You need to inform the university, I would go to head of department first, if they don't take it seriously then go to academic registrar or equivalent. If they don't respond properly then the university are complicit in illegal discrimination then an email to the national regulator is in order.