Psychology department ‘crumbles’ after allegations of misconduct
Records show numerous complaints against faculty member; graduate students call for effective department leadership
November 18, 2019
Editor’s note: Some sources asked to remain anonymous to prevent retaliation and potential loss of employment and educational opportunities. An asterisk identifies a source’s name has been changed to protect their anonymity.
Graduate students in the WSU Department of Psychology are calling for new faculty members to lead the department to recovery after current administrators dismissed complaints of a professor’s acts of hostility and favoritism last spring.
Complainants alleged Chris Barry, professor in the department, favored undergraduate students in his lab by directing preferential recruitment toward female students and made some of his mentees feel “uncomfortable” with his behavior and “hostile” emails.
The Daily Evergreen obtained over 350 pages of investigative documents through a public records request that show the Office of Civil Rights Compliance and Investigation, formerly the Office for Equal Opportunity, interviewed 17 individuals related to a pre-investigation inquiry regarding Barry’s conduct last spring.
Graduate students claimed in the records that Chris Barry sent them “angry emails” after they spoke up to him during meetings or sought feedback and that they felt he tried to manipulate them with praise.
“[I have] never felt terrified of a mentor before,” a graduate student said.
Several months after the inquiry was closed, administrators told students in a meeting to refrain from spreading rumors and gossip to “minimize stress and disruption” in the department, so as not to affect Chris Barry.
Although the inquiry was closed in May, graduate students said since then no one has taken responsibility for the underlying issue and the climate problems within the department still persist.
The Evergreen reached out to Chris Barry, psychology administrators and CRCI staff, but they declined multiple requests for comment, instead directing the Evergreen to Phil Weiler, WSU vice president for marketing and communications.
Since CRCI closed the inquiry in May, some students say they have struggled to trust department leadership and are calling for action so similar issues do not happen again.
“There has still been no accountability,” said Alex*, graduate student in the department. “The complete nightmare of collapsing leadership in my program is still happening.”
The inquiry
A WSU employee filed a complaint on March 7 alleging that Chris Barry discriminated against students based on sex and/or gender by selectively recruiting more women for his lab, according to the records.
The allegations included that Chris Barry sent hostile emails to graduate students who worked in his lab, favored “attractive” female undergraduates and had an inappropriate relationship with a student under his supervision.
CRCI started interviewing sources a day after the complaints were filed, but did not reach out to one of the initial witnesses, a former employee who heard rumors of conduct violations, until April 24, according to the records. The witness declined to speak with CRCI.
“I learned from my time at WSU that there is no advocacy or support for anyone, and I don’t want any more stress or mistreatment from WSU. I’ve had enough for a lifetime,” the witness wrote in an email to CRCI. “I’ve come to realize that your process is not confidential or trustworthy.”
Although records indicate multiple allegations against Chris Barry, CRCI closed the inquiry on May 30, which specifically focused on alleged inappropriate conduct violating Executive Policy #15 and Executive Policy #28.
EP 15 refers to discriminatory harassment, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct that can harm individuals or violate individual rights. EP 28 is a policy on faculty-to-student and supervisor-to-subordinate relationships.
CRCI and Human Resource Services worked jointly, saying in the closing memorandum contained in the records that there was “insufficient information to warrant further investigation or review.”
Graduate students in the psychology department said the inquiry only focused on the alleged EP violations and did not adequately address a separate issue: the climate in Chris Barry’s lab, which students described as “hostile” and “toxic.”
According to the records, a psychology graduate student also expressed concern that Chris Barry was targeting recruitment toward female undergraduates, not because of sexism against men, but because women are “more vulnerable, [and have] that willingness to do things, be involved in things.”
A graduate student said in an interview with CRCI that Chris Barry cited a male student from his previous institution as an example of why he does not like to work with men.
Psychology, as a field, is generally dominated by women, Chris Barry said in an interview with CRCI. He said he did not direct preferential recruitment to female students.
Chris Barry outlined a document for CRCI investigators regarding information about how he recruits students in his lab.
“I have [not] and do not target students for any demographic reasons,” Chris Barry wrote in the document. “I ‘target’ good students for recruitment when I have an immediate need for new research assistants.”
Students told investigators that Chris Barry had up to 16 students total in his lab, a majority of which were female, according to the records.
Preferential recruitment of undergraduates was outside CRCI’s investigative purview, according to the records, because “investigators did not have sufficient information to link that treatment to a protected class.”
Though CRCI declined further investigation because the issue was not under its purview, representatives did not deny the possibility of an issue could be present.
“There are times where we make a finding that conduct is not based on a protected class, but are not making a finding that the conduct did or did not occur,” Holly Ashkannejhad, CRCI director of compliance and investigation, wrote in an email to a graduate student.
Records show that Chris Barry sent the following text message to an undergraduate student on April 12, the day after he was notified of the inquiry, which raised concerns about potential retaliation. Chris Barry was a less credible witness because of this discrepancy and others, according to the closing memorandum.
Barry: Was it you who said someone complained about guys not being in our lab?
Undergrad: hahaha oh no, might had been me at some point [sic]. Why?
Barry: What you mean? [sic]
Barry: You were complaining or someone complained?
Undergrad: Oh no it was me I think, a long time ago though! Why? Sorry, I read your question wrong I [sic] initially
Barry: just trying to remember if someone whined about that or if I was making it up in my head. It’s a non-issue.
Undergrad: Yeah, it was just an observation I made the first time I went to a lab meeting! Okay!
The student who received the text from Chris Barry said in an interview with CRCI that the message did not stand out to her before, but should have.
“It’s a little manipulative. A lot manipulative,” the student said during the interview. “It makes me question all of our other interactions, was there a hidden motive. You don’t know.”
Chris Barry said in an interview with CRCI that he did not attempt to ascertain the identities of the complainants.
After Chris Barry was notified of the inquiry, a graduate student said in an interview with CRCI he was “nice to [the] point it’s almost manipulative.”
“I feel very much under a microscope,” Chris Barry said in the interview. “I don’t know what the right approach is.”
Tammy Barry, also a faculty member in the department and Chris Barry’s wife, said in an interview with CRCI that she had students tell her positive things about her husband. There is no reason to doubt that he is an “ethical” and “moral” person, she said.
Tammy Barry has a supervisory role over graduate students as the director of clinical training, said Greg Keiser, fourth-year clinical psychology graduate student. She was promoted from this position and began working as an associate dean of the graduate school on Nov. 1.
“Feels like he’s already been convicted in the court of public opinion,” Tammy Barry said in an interview with CRCI.
Graduate students avoided addressing their issues directly with Chris Barry out of fear of “professional retaliation,” according to the records.
Records show that though CRCI prohibits retaliation, students fear backlash from their faculty mentors because of the inquiry.
Alex said some graduate students expressed concerns about their mentors’ ability to write them letters of recommendation for internships, which are required for their degrees.
“[I] know we had discussion of retaliation, but [there is] only so much anybody can do,” a graduate student said in an interview with CRCI. “[Chris Barry] does wield a lot of power over our futures if we don’t distance ourselves from him.”
Records show that handling of the issue was delegated to department chair David Marcus, who several students mentioned is friends with Chris Barry.
Keiser said students saw no follow-up from either Marcus or CRCI, especially any that addressed the hostile lab climate. The department remained “radio silent” on the issue from the time the inquiry was closed in May until August, he said.
Alex said efforts to address the issue since the inquiry happened have been student-led.
“I feel like [we] all know something is wrong, but not wrong enough for something to happen,” a graduate student said in an interview with CRCI. “We want something to change, but I don’t see that happening.”
Mandatory department meeting
The psychology department holds a weekly meeting for graduate students on Wednesdays. Meetings are usually recorded for those who cannot make it, but on Aug. 21, Marcus emailed students ahead of time saying there was no plan to record.
Marcus called the meeting to address what he described in an email to the graduate student cohort as “professionalism (especially regarding rumors), and bullying.”
Ashkannejhad and Lisa Gloss, dean of WSU’s graduate school, stood near tables at the front of the room as students entered.
A week after the meeting, the Evergreen reached out to Marcus, Ashkannejhad and Gloss for further clarification. They declined to make a comment and directed the Evergreen to Weiler.
More than 25 students from the program who were in attendance at the department meeting whispered questions amongst themselves before Marcus began to speak.
After introducing administrators in attendance, Marcus announced they would be discussing — in limited detail — personnel matters that he implied most people already knew of.
Marcus said CRCI asked those who knew about the situation not to spread “rumors” or conduct their own investigation and to report any additional information to CRCI. As the department chair, he said his main allegiance is to the program’s success.
“If the outcome of that is there’s no evidence to support that, then we have to move forward,” he said in the meeting. “The faculty member who had been the target of those allegations needs to also be able to be successful to be able to continue to contribute to the program.”
Keiser asked at the meeting if CRCI recommends students not discuss their experiences.
Ashkannejhad said the university would never tell a student not to seek out support from close friends and family but to do so in a way that would “minimize stress and disruption in the workplace.”
A graduate student said at the meeting their cohort cannot access mental health services in the community because most local mental health professionals are in some way connected to their program. Because of this, the students said they often depend on each other for emotional support.
“When I say that you could talk to your friends, that includes people within your department or within your program or cohort,” Ashkannejhad said. “It would mean that you’re talking to people that are your close support network.”
“We are. Collectively, the graduate students are a close support network,” the graduate student responded. “Am I wrong?”
Ashkannejhad opened the floor for questions and several graduate students raised concerns over being discouraged from talking to other students in the department, as their peers also serve as their support network.
In response to the concerns, Marcus restated that CRCI did not find sufficient evidence of an inappropriate relationship, and that he was concerned further discussion would perpetuate rumors.
Though Gloss and Ashkannejhad repeatedly told Marcus it was best to stop talking and sit down, Marcus continued to push back against what he described as a belief of “guilty until proven innocent.”
“The program can’t go forward like that,” Marcus said. “I don’t know how I could work with you guys like that.”
Students speak out
Keiser said it is impossible for some graduate students to have faith that their advisers will interact with them in an unbiased way.
“That’s a scary thing for graduate students to hear, where this person [who] has so much power over them, doesn’t know how to treat them professionally,” Keiser said.
It would be difficult for some students to regain trust in some faculty members in the department, he said.
“When people aren’t feeling able to share their experiences, abuse can be perpetuated … that is my genuine fear — that there would be a chilling effect here,” Keiser said. “It will block students from feeling like they can discuss these things, report them and get justice for them.”
Records show that students confided in some faculty members in the department about issues they have been facing over time, including the alleged hostile climate.
“I know a couple students have told me that their biggest fear is to have to come forward and have nothing happen. I can’t tell them what is going to happen. I don’t know how to respond to that fear,” a faculty member said in an interview with CRCI. “I don’t know what you can even tell me.”
June*, graduate student in the psychology department, said a lot of her frustration is with CRCI and how it handled the inquiry. The situation did not give a chance for faculty and students to gather and discuss the issue at hand, she said.
“They really pitted the faculty against the students,” June said. “It really just divided everybody up.”
June said a lot of the frustration comes from CRCI’s lack of follow-up with the department.
“I think [CRCI] made a really big mistake really showing allegiance to the university first versus being there for students,” June said.
Gemma*, graduate student in the department, said a professor held a meeting in his class to discuss the importance of free speech rights a few days after the mandatory meeting.
“It didn’t have to be him,” Gemma said. “I wish it would have been someone in a position of power taking control of the situation.”
That professor has since taken medical leave, citing mental health stressors caused by the state of the department as the reason for his departure.
Rosie*, graduate student in the department, said Chris Barry was not receptive to feedback and denied multiple requests to have graduate student-only meetings to discuss specific projects.
Rosie said he does not have weekly meetings with graduate students after their first year, which could be difficult because some students need more guidance even after then.
“I really found that that was a big struggle for me because his communication style was very unclear and very abrasive because we didn’t have regular meetings,” Rosie said. “It was very unclear what his expectations were.”
Rosie said the long-standing relationship between Marcus and Chris Barry could have contributed to the issue in the department. She said their friendship concerns her, especially when it comes to Marcus’ ability to protect students.
Records show that a graduate student said she received an “extremely random piece of praise” over text from Chris Barry after she found out a graduate student left his lab. He later came by her office and hugged her as she was sitting down.
“For me, that felt like an attempt to give me just enough to keep me from leaving,” the graduate student said in an interview with CRCI.
Some undergraduates in Chris Barry’s lab said they shared no ill feelings toward him.
“I have complete trust in Dr. Barry,” said Megan Wong, undergraduate biology and basic medical sciences student.
Jacob Briggs, sophomore psychology student, said he enjoys working in Chris Barry’s lab.
“He’s like my biggest support system here at WSU,” Briggs said. “He’s given me great advice and not only academically, but life-wise.”
The aftermath
Alex said Tammy Barry and Marcus addressed the fallout in a department meeting on Aug. 28, saying that Marcus should have followed up with the graduate students in Chris Barry’s lab.
Rosie said Marcus declared in a department meeting on Sept. 18 that he will step down from his position in the clinical training committee, but will maintain his role as the department chair. The clinical training committee oversees admissions to the clinical psychology program and conducts annual student evaluations, according to the Department of Psychology policies and procedures manual.
Keiser said he believes it is inappropriate for Marcus to walk away from the clinical program but still hold his position as department chair.
“If he’s going to step away from the clinical program … he either has to learn to work with us or step away completely,” Keiser said. “He’s straddling this very weird middle ground that leaves us in a really dangerous position.”
Alex said tension grew within the department because no one was willing to intervene.
“There was so much harm done to students, to faculty, to our program that I think never needed to happen,” Alex said.
The responsibility of following up with the students involved in the inquiry in a timely manner should not be a one-man job, she said.
She feels like there has not been an effort to provide closure within the department, Alex said, and that some graduate students reached out to faculty members in hopes of implementing a mediation process between faculty and students.
However, Tammy Barry suggested a student-to-student mediation process instead, she said, which most students did not respond favorably to.
“It’s so frustrating that students have been trying to make these things happen,” Alex said. “Every single progress that’s been made has been student-driven.”
She said the fallout from the CRCI inquiry could have been prevented.
“This wouldn’t be happening if our program had strong leadership,” Alex said.
Weiler said CRCI and HRS worked with Marcus, Gloss and the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to address issues in the department.
“There’s a lot of work that has been done and — I think frankly — more work that needs to be done,” Weiler said. “Emotions are running high around this issue.”
Weiler said most faculty advisers expect graduate students to work independently, compared to undergraduate students, who might need more assistance because they are new to the field.
“In this case, it sounds like there’s a couple, one or two or more, folks who wanted more mentorship … with their faculty advisor,” he said. “They weren’t getting that, and they were upset by that.”
Weiler said it is important for students to follow a procedure when they bring up concerns about an issue. Students should reach out to their faculty adviser directly, then to the department head and eventually the dean.
“Take it to the appropriate body,” Weiler said. “Don’t spend your energy talking to your friends and classmates about it.”
Keiser said the administration has not adequately addressed faculty members who stepped away from their roles in the department.
“Everyone’s just kind of walking away from the situation, leaving [the graduate students] holding the bag,” Keiser said.
It seemed as if CRCI was focused on proving if the allegations violate any executive policies, he said, and if the allegations did not, the issue would go to HRS and eventually to the department chair.
“Everyone seems to be passing the buck,” Keiser said. “No one wants to take responsibility for this situation.”
Keiser said he does not feel like anything in the department was resolved and there has been little action or communication regarding the issue.
“We’re sort of in a very limbo state right now,” Keiser said.
One of the issues Keiser found in the inquiry process, he said, is the way CRCI gathered its sources. Keiser said they even contacted those who did not have a “clear connection” to the allegations or the lab climate.
He said he acknowledged there were rumors, but in the department’s attempt to quell those rumors, genuine concerns were silenced.
“They just kind of went to this sprawling process and asked a bunch of people … what they might know, and then everyone’s getting mad that we’re spreading the rumors when we’re just talking about what we all know,” Keiser said. “It’s very frustrating.”
Alex said she discussed with CRCI possible ways to help follow up with witnesses that would allow them to have a direct path to resolve concerns, including lab climate.
“Their process is flawed in a lot of ways because they’re not helping with the fallout, and they’re not helping to hold people accountable,” she said.
Keiser said graduate students tried different avenues to address issues present in the department.
“There’s really no trust in any in-house resources or leadership,” he said.
A policy needs to be implemented to ensure issues do not fall through the cracks, Keiser said.
“I don’t know if the university wants to sweep things under the rug. I don’t know if CRCI is completely underfunded,” he said. “The follow-through just crumbled.”
This story has been updated to reflect a factual error. The complaint on March 7 was not made by a former WSU employee.
Another Student • Nov 24, 2019 at 5:25 pm
To the above
I think the reason so many people posted in the comments is because comments such as yours- stating that the climate in this department is a systemic issue and is a problem- is an opinion. An opinion that I know many other graduate students do not support. All of us in the comments section respect these views but do not have to share them nor view them as accurate. I understand the stress for the students who are quoted in this article. This is especially the case because some of their quotes are so specific it deidentifies them- but to paint the climate as bad is not accurate for many of the students in this department and many of us feel it’s important to make this clear. The goal for all the comments- I’m guessing- is not to hurt anyone but to make all of what is said above in previous comments known.
On the Importance of Nuance • Nov 22, 2019 at 6:01 pm
Hello,
I want to express the importance of approaching any dialogue surrounding this article with far more nuance than what I am seeing in the comments and throughout the department this week.
Individuals outside WSU’s clinical psychology program are likely unfamiliar with our program’s structure. Clinical psychology faculty often serve as both research mentors AND clinical supervisors. There are five faculty members in the psychology department who serve as both, including Drs. Chris and Tammy Barry.
Dr. Chris Barry is recognized as one of the best clinical supervisors that our department has. He provides invaluable supervision for our students training to work with children and adolescents. That perspective is clearly exemplified in the comments above.
Dr. Chris Barry is also a professor in the graduate program. His class on child/adolescent psychology was one of the best classes I’ve taken throughout my masters and doctoral studies. I talk about multifinality and equifinality far too often in my personal life.
I am not here to offer any personal experience working with Chris in a research context. I do not want to risk hurting the individuals quoted in this article more than they have already been hurt this week. I simply ask that the readers remember: This article describes a faculty member’s supervision of certain individuals in his lab.
Imagine how terrifying it would be for anyone to share criticism of an individual who is recognized as an excellent clinical supervisor and professor – and then face their colleagues the next day. They were likely bracing themselves for comments like those above. Then add the immense power differential. Then add how much our program’s students care about their careers as future psychologists – to serve people and communities in need of mental healthcare.
As the recent editorial stated, “allegations against that one person are not what the heart of the story was about.” Rather, the heart of the story intended to reflect a systemic issue that likely is not unique to the psychology department. I am very grateful that this editorial was published: https://dailyevergreen.com/68913/opinion/editorial-board-students-deserve-a-voice/
Thank you for your time
Megan Wong • Nov 19, 2019 at 8:11 pm
I am shocked that an article like this even came out. I have been working with Dr. Barry since my freshman year and I have nothing but positive things to say about his mentorship and working in his lab. This article has made him out to be someone that is manipulative and controlling, yet I have never witnessed anything like that. My comments were almost entirely omitted, while Shanelle’s interview was nonexistent. I’m not saying that the “victim’s” feelings are not legitimate, but the reporters were clearly very skewed. As a student that is not in the Psychology department, I have nothing to say regarding leadership. However, to all readers, I’d like to make it clear that this is NOT the whole story.
Psych Department Graduate Student • Nov 19, 2019 at 3:49 pm
To concerned student who responded to my post.
I can see your point on why the individual quoted is impacted. I agree that his advisor leaving is “impacting” and did not do a great job clarifying what I mean here. I mean to say he does not have first-hand experience working with the faculty mentioned and feel that him lumping all of the department into one category just based on his own experience of being in the department (which we all are) is invalidating for many of us and inaccurate.
You mention that we are “making this about ourselves” and that we act like we are “directly affected” because we have to read an article about “department failure.” I respectfully disagree. Just because I am pointing out the bias in this article does not mean I am making it about myself. This article is clearly biased because no opposing views are cited whatsoever. I also disagree that we are not “directly affected.” This makes our department look like it is CRUMBLING which directly is influencing every student here and makes it look like everyone is unhappy with their experience when this is clearly not the case. Some are and some are not. For those making it seem that everyone is unhappy, angry, and the department is falling apart is invalidating and untrue for the rest of us.
I too am ashamed of all these comments. They seem to imply that if we do not agree with you that this is an issue in our department we are somehow bad people. I can care about the challenges everyone has faced due to their view Chris is a biased mentor who does not provide mentorship they think promotes learning but not agree with them nor view this as a fault of the department.
Current Student • Nov 19, 2019 at 3:35 pm
I imagine many people reading this article will wonder, as a former student did in another comment, why some students spoke with the school newspaper. The article doesn’t mention that the Daily Evergreen received a tip about the mandatory 8/21 meeting. They attended and recorded the meeting and obtained public records. What’s more important to me is the question of how things got so bad for some students that speaking with the newspaper seemed like the most viable option.
Many students, including some who were witnesses in the inquiry, asked for administrative help multiple times since March 2019. These requests have continued since August. The article does not mention that the program has known about this article since September 18th (at the latest) when Dr. Marcus resigned from the training committee citing this article as his reason. Why didn’t anyone intervene in March when HRS first learned about “crumbling” program leadership? Why didn’t anyone follow up with Dr. Marcus in May to see if he was handling it or if he needed help? In August? In September? October? In the weeks before this article came out? Why is it that on November 18th, 8 months after the first report to CRCI, problems with climate and neglectful and unprofessional leadership are still ignored?
I would share these sentiments elsewhere if students were granted the multiple requests for a productive, mediated, dialogue between students and faculty. But here I am in the comments section.
Chloe Sidoti • Nov 19, 2019 at 3:04 pm
To the current student and WSU student: Those who have expressed their positive experiences in no way have stated that people can’t have negative views and opinions about the situation. The positive experiences are very much related and are not being used to invalidate those who have had a negative experience, but to show that there is much more than what the article chose to represent. The article, which was written by a neutral party, chose to write the article with intent of highlighting only one side of the story. Which, in turn, has more of an impact than the writers of the article took into consideration. They failed to include key facts about the situation, used very subjective and opinionated language leaving tons of room for interpretation, and chose to resurface some issues that have already been resolved. The article also fails to provide evidence for the accusations they claim and the evidence they do provide has no objective value. The text message conversation was included to prove what exactly? The “underlying message” is an assumption that the student chose to make about the intent of the conversation. The interpretation of the those text messages changed over time based on how the student perceived the professor. That’s fine, and that’s that persons perception. But how is that evidence to support the validity of the claims that were made?
Saying those of us who are training to be therapist lack empathy and are closed minded, because we provided a different perspective than what the article highlighted, fails to see the point as to why we provided our experiences. We wanted to provide a more complete picture since the writers of the article chose to exclude many of the students and supporting information for the other side of the story. If they wanted to provide the public with a holistic and informational story, they would not have excluded many of the key facts and positive feedback that they received. As Jacob stated above, the media is extremely powerful and the perspectives/opinions in the article should be taken with a grain of salt since the article fails to convey the full story.
Anonymous • Nov 19, 2019 at 2:03 pm
To WSU Student
I understand how you could view those speaking out against this article as invalidating. However, I would argue that the graduate students involved who take the “if you do not agree, then you are wrong” position are invalidating to those of us who do not see a problem with the Barry’s and other faculty members. We are all intelligent humans who can take the knowledge we have and form our own opinions. To say that some students who do not feel a sense of distrust in the administration are intolerant is invalidating those experiences. I can both empathize with students who feel this distrust AND not share those feelings/not want to be involved in the conflict. We came here to learn and train to be clinical psychologists and if the select few quoted in this article attempt to bring all 40+ of us into the problem, it becomes much more difficult to actually plan a next step and improve program quality. I have seen how this article has furthered the divide in our program in a way that is not conducive to progress.
Uninvolved Reader • Nov 19, 2019 at 12:30 pm
One respondent above seemed to be trying to minimize the problem by stating
“evidenced by the fact that this entire ordeal is being publicized by an undergraduate newspaper.”
So tell me, is there a “graduate newspaper”? And was it really being publicized, or merely reported – which seems to be the job of a newspaper? Looks like the Daily Evergreen went to a great deal of effort to interview people on both sides of the issue, and then stuck to reporting the facts.
Psych Dpartment Grad Student • Nov 19, 2019 at 12:25 pm
In response to “WSU Student”
I can understand your point but I think it’s important to keep in mind that pointing out the one-sided argument of this article is not invalidating other views. The views expressed in this article are not the issue, the issue is other views are not included. It was argued in an earlier comment that these views were chosen because they were from those who are impacted most, but the primary student view discussed has no personal experience working with these individuals beyond that of any other student in the department. This is why I beleive the article is one sided. They chose someone to primarily cite who does not actually work with Chris.
It seems you are conflating empathy with agreeing. I support my fellow students to voice concerns and empathize with their frusturation, but I do not agree with the student who is most cited in some of the statements made about the majority of our student body thinking a certain way. You can empathize but still disagree with statements that pertain to your own experience. Doing so does not invalidate anyone and instead addresses the view that many experiences are invalidated within the current article due to it painting the majority of the entire department as thinking one way about this situation.
Current student • Nov 19, 2019 at 10:27 am
In response to the comment about Greg Keiser not being directly impacted/working with Chris Barry:
Greg Keiser was directly impacted, as his advisor has been on medical leave since August due to what was described in this article. Additionally, he is one of two ELECTED student representatives for the department (elected BY students); thus, it is his job to speak for students when they are unable to speak for themselves. It was brave of him to put his name in this article.
It is a shame that other graduate students in the psychology department are making this problem about themselves and acting like they are directly affected after having to attend a handful of uncomfortable meetings and read an article about departmental failure. There are students that have been uncomfortable, hurt, and unheard for several years with limited assistance from department and university leadership and an entire lab of individuals without an advisor. I am so saddened to read that students are making this about their own unrelated experiences, when there are students who are obviously and objectively suffering.
Current graduate student • Nov 19, 2019 at 9:07 am
I am a current upper-year female graduate student and in the child clinical psychology track. In this way, I work often with Dr. Chris Barry. I have found his supervision and mentorship to be professional, highly educational, and beneficial to my career development. Furthermore, I have had nothing but pleasant and enjoyable interactions while working with him. I am not invalidating others’ experiences but merely offering my own. Thank you.
WSU Student • Nov 19, 2019 at 8:34 am
After reading through the article, and the comments, I took a moment to process the fact that there are students training to be clinical psychologists in the comment section, invalidating people’s experiences of a toxic situation. If I need to see a therapist, I would much rather see the students who spoke up about these issues, than the ones unable to open their perspective and understand that despite their positive experiences, negative ones can occur. I’m not sure if I could feel safe discussing my own experiences with a toxic work environment or abusive relationships with some of these students who have commented. It’s a shame that people being trained to empathize and help others can’t even empathize with their own colleagues.
Psych Department Grad Student • Nov 19, 2019 at 12:05 am
In response to “concerned student” and other graduate students responding to them.
I am another student in this department. I agree with concerned student and believe this article is one sided. The response stating that the primarily impacted individuals were chosen to interview is false. The only individual whose name is included has no direct working relationship with Chris. It would seem they instead chose the most vocal person to reference the majority of the time in this article, but he has no actual first hand knowledge of what it was like for individuals working with Chris. We want to support those angry but many of the students I have spoke with today feel all this article does is make our department look like it’s “crumbling” even though many of us who work with Chris feel that it is fine. Many other students who do not work with Chris barely even noticed anything was going on until the mandatory meeting. It is unclear how this article will help the situation at all. Just because we support those who are upset does not mean we agree that the department is who we should blame. Empathizing is not the same as agreeing and this article fails to show that.
It is frusturating because there is no opposing opinion shown, this article fails to acknowledge many of us who feel the climate is pleasant, and the majority of the quotes come from someone who has no working relationship with Chris, David, and Tammy. Just because this is all happening does not mean the entire department is to blame and it would seem to me the leadership is doing the best it can with a tough situation.
I am both an ally and someone who believes in showing all sides to promote journalistic integrity.
Shanelle Briggs • Nov 18, 2019 at 11:18 pm
In reference to the responses to my first post: In my experience as a research assistant for Dr. Barry, and currently as a 2nd-year medical student, I have navigated student-mentor relationship dynamics as both an undergraduate and graduate student. Graduate school is incredibly self motivated. You alone are in charge of your success, with mentors there to support you and help guide you. Undergraduates often require much more guidance and supervision. However, the commonality that I have experienced in both phases of my education is that mentors will match the effort demonstrated by their students. As a student, what you take away from the experience relies heavily on what you put into it, as well as the level of enthusiasm that you choose to demonstrate throughout the process. That said, I am confident in saying that I did not receive preferential treatment from Dr. Barry because of my undergraduate status, nor because of my gender. Chris invested in me and helped me because I poured my energy into his lab. I stayed up to date on relevant literature for his work, sending him multiple literature reviews each week. We met weekly, despite our busy schedules. I was on the cheer team, volunteering, and working 2 jobs for the university, while he was teaching undergraduate courses, working for the IRB, and publishing several research projects simultaneously. In reference to matching his students’ effort, Chris often says, “I will work on what is in front of me”. Chris does not give special treatment to undergraduates or females, he simply reciprocates the effort that he is given. This appears to be more of an issue of professional conflict resolution, evidenced by the fact that this entire ordeal is being publicized by an undergraduate newspaper.
Shanelle Briggs • Nov 18, 2019 at 11:16 pm
In reference to the responses to my first post: In my experience as a research assistant for Dr. Barry, and currently as a 2nd-year medical student, I have navigated student-mentor relationship dynamics as both an undergraduate and graduate student. Graduate school is incredibly self motivated. You alone are in charge of your success, with mentors there to support you and help guide you. Undergraduates often require much more guidance and supervision. However, the commonality that I have experienced in both phases of my education is that mentors will match the effort demonstrated by their students. As a student, what you take away from the experience relies heavily on what you put into it, as well as the level of enthusiasm that you choose to demonstrate throughout the process. That said, I am confident in saying that I did not receive preferential treatment from Dr. Barry because of my undergraduate status, nor because of my gender. Chris invested in me and helped me because I poured my energy into his lab. I stayed up to date on relevant literature for his work, sending him multiple literature reviews each week. We met weekly, despite our busy schedules. I was on the cheer team, volunteering, and working 2 jobs for the university, while he was teaching undergraduate courses, working for the IRB, and publishing several research projects simultaneously. In reference to matching his students’ effort, Chris often says, “I will work on what is in front of me”. Chris does not give special treatment to undergraduates or females, he simply reciprocates the effort that he is given. This appears to be more of an issue of professional conflict resolution, evidenced by the fact that this entire ordeal is being publicized by an undergraduate newspaper.
Jacob Briggs • Nov 18, 2019 at 10:53 pm
Seeing this article has made me very sad and disappointed. It’s so sad to see that something like this can be posted about such a great man when there is no real evidence provided besides accusations. I am on Barry’s research team and a current student of his. The daily evergreen reached out to me so that they could ask me a few questions about Barry. You might of seen some of my comments in this article. They did not provide all the details I gave about Barry though. He is the reason I even have a chance to get into grad school. Since I came into WSU as a freshman he has taken me under his wing. When I was having problems not only academically but mentally too he would take his time to make sure I was okay. He is the most kind and caring professor I have ever had. That’s what Barry is about, he cares for his students and would go above and beyond to help them succeed. I just hope everyone who reads this article realizes what a strong impact the media can have on our perceptions. Please don’t let this make you form an automatic opinion about Barry.
Current Psychology Student • Nov 18, 2019 at 10:45 pm
In response to Current Student:
You said “All of us have been affected by what has happened in this program and this article only represents one side of the story.”
I agree. But some students claimed the concerns raised in August and September were irrelevant to them and that everyone should just move on. Everyone in the program has known about this article since September. So if you or others had something you wanted to share you could have.
And you said “As you can see in the other comments, people (including myself) who have worked with Dr. Chris Barry, Dr. Tammy Barry, and Dr. David Marcus have only positive experiences.”
From the other comments so far, all I can see is clear reference to positive experiences working with Chris Barry in posts written by former undergraduate students. Chris and Tammy Barry have only been at WSU for a little over four years. So the reference to supportive leadership was likely referring to someone else.
Current student • Nov 18, 2019 at 10:27 pm
Both positive and negative experiences with the individuals described in the article can coexist. Just because some students have had positive experiences with the mentioned faculty and department leadership does not mean that other students can’t have negative experiences. By using your own unrelated positive experiences in response to others negative experiences, you invalidate and silence the individuals affected and make it seem like their experiences never occurred.
Chloe Sidoti • Nov 18, 2019 at 9:37 pm
I was a sophomore in college taking a 400 level psych course in which Chris was my professor. I was asked to join his research lab due to my high engagement and interest as a psych student in his class. I participated in class frequently and attended office hours in order to prepare for exams. I wanted to succeed because of my passion for the subject and it was noticed. I was his research student since Sophomore year till graduation, even helped with publications and projects until I began graduate school in the summer. I have nothing but positive things to say about him and the support he has provided me with. With that, he never crossed any boundaries that made me feel anywhere near uncomfortable and he always kept things professional. It’s interesting to hear the evergreen refer to him as being manipulative by being “too nice” and providing “praise”. This is psych 101 and it’s referred to as positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is used to instill a positive and nurturing environment and reward people for their efforts and good behaviors, which then increases behaviors. Chris utilizes empathy and positive reinforcement to generate a positive learning environment and to see how his actions are being interpreted makes me question how different these actions would be perceived if they were coming from a female professor. I recognize that these are people’s perspectives, but these perspectives could have been conveyed in a much more professional way and there are many holes to the article that make it very unbalanced. This just shows it was written from a very subjective and biased stance rather than objective and neutral.
Current Student • Nov 18, 2019 at 8:21 pm
To the student who claims that the Evergreen reached out to those “most affected” and who claimed that a “general consensus of those who were directly affected is that the institution, as a whole, has failed the department”, this is the exact type of divisiveness the first comment was referring to. All of us have been affected by what has happened in this program and this article only represents one side of the story. As you can see in the other comments, people (including myself) who have worked with Dr. Chris Barry, Dr. Tammy Barry, and Dr. David Marcus have only positive experiences. I have felt completely supported by those in charge and it is important that those who read this article do not only see the negative. I’m sorry you have not felt supported, but this article does nothing but perpetuate the problems we are facing within our program.
An Ally • Nov 18, 2019 at 6:04 pm
In response to Shanelle,
I hope you can also realize your experience, although positive, may not be representative of experiences your colleagues’ experiences (undergraduate and graduate). If you can realize that, I hope you are also able to extend some empathy to what they must have gone through and are likely still going through. Thank you.
An Ally
Kathy • Nov 18, 2019 at 5:57 pm
I am the mother of a former student of Barrys. I actually met the man and he was a very kind and personalbe person. My child never felt mistreated by him and he was always very suppotive. I was impressed by his professionalism.
Former WSU Psych Grad Student • Nov 18, 2019 at 5:43 pm
I am very disappointed with the Daily Evergreen for how they chose to frame this piece. The majority of people in the WSU Psych Department have nothing to do with what is described in this article. Many if not most of them work exhaustively to provide WSU undergrad and grad students with an open and accepting climate. This article does a disservice to the people in one of the largest departments on campus who are committed to providing its students with every opportunity for success.
I also want to add that, as a former grad student in the Psych Department who had issues with her first advisor, I felt completely supported by the department leadership when conflict arose and I talked to them about it. It was the department’s leadership that encouraged me to change advisors, and that is one of the best things I ever did. Granted not everyone has had and will have the same experience, but airing these kinds of issues in the school newspaper is not a reasonable alternative.
Psychology Graduate Student • Nov 18, 2019 at 5:23 pm
In response to Shanelle Briggs:
It’s unfortunate your interview was not included, but it looks like your brother’s was based on your last name.
It sounds like you are sharing your perspective as a former undergraduate student in Dr. Barry’s lab. If you read the article, you can see that graduate students described preferential treatment of female undergraduates. You write, “Dr. Barry went above and beyond as a mentor” and that you felt “genuinely supported.” Those descriptions alone point out the clear discrepancy in how female undergraduate and graduate students were treated by Dr.Barry. It’s not surprising that undergraduate students did not experience the same hostile or toxic behavior.
I don’t mean to invalidate your positive experience. It just fits with the pattern described in the article and I want to point it out.
Graduate Student in the Psychology Department • Nov 18, 2019 at 4:47 pm
In response to the comment provided by “concerned student.”
It seems that the Daily Evergreen reached out to the people that were most affected by the inquiry and its aftermath. The students in the department that feel differently are the students who have not been directly affected and/or were not involved. The general consensus of those who were directly affected is that the institution, as a whole, has failed the department. This includes CRCI, HRS, the Dean’s Office, and the department leadership. Something that the article did not fully include is the amount of times that students attempted to address broader concerns related to climate in the department, which has been mostly ignored since originally brought up in 2017, as well as in future meetings. Lastly, this article reports on facts, statements, and experiences of students, which have been gathered from official WSU reports and those impacted most. Thus, there is little to disagree with. Rather, we should align ourselves with the victims of this tragedy. Thank you.
Shanelle Briggs • Nov 18, 2019 at 4:31 pm
I did an hour-long interview with the writers for this piece but none of it was included. Thus, I would like to comment on my experience with Chris Barry. I was in Dr. Barry’s lab while I was at WSU and had an incredible experience. I never felt manipulated or that he preferred to work with females (my brother is in his lab now). Dr. Barry went above and beyond as a mentor, helping me get publications, encouraging me to present my work on posters, and helping me score very high on the psychology portion of my entrance exam for medical school. Dr. Barry happily wrote letters of recommendation for me whenever requested, getting me numerous scholarships and awards which helped me pay for school. I felt well supported by him-he genuinely wants the best for his students. It is hard to see the Daily Evergreen open a story by bringing up a negative accusation about him that has already proven to be false. He is an excellent professor, researcher, and mentor. If anyone is questioning the character or professionalism of Dr. Barry, please feel free reach out to me.
Shanelle Briggs, Class of 2018
Concerned student • Nov 18, 2019 at 12:52 pm
To Whom it May Concern,
I feel obligated to point out that I feel this article does not effectively represent the diverse viewpoints students have about all of this. Though I can’t speak for anyone, I would guess a large portion of faculty and students also feel this is not the full story or picture. As a student of this program, I found this article to be particularly one-sided and quick to assume. It makes me wonder if the Evergreen made efforts to contact students from various cohorts and affiliations so a representative sample of student experiences could be provided. I just wanted to point out that is not how everyone feels, it has been an extremely divisive time for students (hence my anonymity), and storylines that do not portray varied perspectives help neither our program’s current state nor the public’s conceptualization of the issues. Thank you.