Comment of April 11

This comment was posted on my web site on April 11 in response to a comment from Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach to my blog called Courage. I think it captures perfectly what I have been writing about for the past few months. Len Z

Dr. Andy—while the principle you describe—that facts should be presented, tested, and allowed to determine outcomes—is foundational to any fair system, it does not reflect the operational reality within MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The issue is not a lack of facts. It is the complete absence of any independent, credible mechanism where those facts can be objectively examined.

Internal grievance procedures, HR processes, and compliance channels are not functioning as impartial systems of review. Instead, they operate within a closed, self-reinforcing structure—where concerns are redirected, delayed, or buried. Accountability is not enforced; it is systematically avoided.

There is no internal platform that provides a neutral, unbiased forum for fact-finding.

Oversight bodies such as the University of Texas System and the University of Texas System Board of Regents, while intended to provide checks and balances, are effectively rendered ineffective in this context. Structural protections, including sovereign immunity, create an environment where institutional interests are shielded and meaningful accountability is exceedingly difficult to achieve.

This enables the continued persistence of serious concerns, including academic bullying, harassment, retaliation, and academic misconduct.

Leadership accountability is at the core of this failure.

Individuals in positions of authority—including Peter WT Pisters, Chris Flowers, Jeff Lee, Carin Hagberg, and Elizabeth Lottinger—are entrusted with upholding institutional integrity. Instead, there is a strong and widespread awareness that leadership, HR, and administration operate in alignment to protect one another and the institution, rather than to ensure fairness or transparency.

This alignment has real consequences:
• Complaints are neutralized rather than investigated
• Policies are selectively applied or ignored
• Individuals who raise concerns face retaliation, including threats to their careers
• Evidence is not evaluated within any independent or transparent framework

This is not a procedural gap—it is a systemic failure of governance and integrity.

At the same time, the institution continues to project an image of excellence, securing substantial funding and national recognition. This stands in stark contrast to the internal reality described above, raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability.

The core issue remains unchanged:

There is no platform where facts can be fairly heard, tested, and acted upon.

Unless there is immediate and meaningful external oversight, these issues will persist. Unless the current leadership is drastically changed—including individuals such as Peter WT Pisters, Chris Flowers, and Carin Hagberg, who are known to be deeply compromised—this cycle of academic bullying, misconduct, and institutional protection will continue unchecked.

Without leadership accountability, there will be no institutional accountability. And without that, both academic integrity and, ultimately, patient care remain at risk.