Request for Name‑Clearing Hearing, Interim Transcript Relief, ADA/Section 504 Accommodations, and Preservation¶

Please reply 'Received'.

Dear Officials,

I request a NAME‑CLEARING HEARING to address stigmatizing statements
the University made and disseminated in connection with my dismissal.
Some allegations were aired during internal proceedings and then
repeated publicly, even when not reflected in a final decision letter.
These statements are false and continue to cause ongoing harm to my
reputation, training, and career.

Why a separate name‑clearing hearing is required. The earlier
student‑conduct proceeding did not provide a meaningful opportunity to
clear my name regarding the stigmatizing statements later
disseminated: accommodations were treated as “outside the scope”
despite ADA notice to SDS, key defense witnesses were not permitted,
and cross‑examination was curtailed (Ex. B; Ex. D‑1/D‑2). In
particular, the hearing officer admitted my neuropsychological
evaluation but redacted the accommodations section as not within the
Board’s scope, and the Board stated the diagnosis was not a basis for
retroactive leniency and claimed it was not disclosed until the
morning of the hearing—contrary to my December 8, 2023 ADA notice (Ex.
B; Ex. D‑1). A name‑clearing hearing is distinct and narrowly
addresses the public statements.

Public repetition underscores urgency. Within days of the non‑public
committee action, two public/official publications circulated: (i) on
January 1, 2024, a public post stated that my medical committee voted
to expel me (see Exhibit F, Row 1), and (ii) on January 7, 2024 at
7:46 a.m., the Assistant Vice Dean for Student Affairs sent a
class‑wide broadcast stating “we are one student lighter than last
week” and instructing recipients to “check his Twitter” for updates;
the system shows a recall request for that message (Exhibit G). In the
same period, Exhibit F (Rows 2–4) documents residency/GME messaging
that described campus‑access restrictions (e.g., do not let [student]
onto campus, “BOLO,” site bans, “rotation pulled”) and insider
phrasing about “harassing resident(s) and an attending,” confirming
broad, stigmatizing dissemination.

Continued reuse. Public reuse of insider phrasing— including August
2025 posts repeating “sexual harassment complaints,” “threats of
violence,” and “sexual misconduct”— continues as of October 2025 (see
Exhibit F, Rows 5–6 and preserved screenshots).

Practical, ongoing harm. I am presently pursuing professional and
funding opportunities where reputation and official academic records
are material to screening and due diligence. Organizations such as
early‑stage investment or fellowship programs often request
transcripts or equivalent educational documentation. Because my TTUHSC
records currently reflect a dismissal notation and the circumstances
are public, this impairs my ability to secure such opportunities and
constitutes ongoing, concrete harm. For example, in April 2024 I was
required to transmit an unofficial transcript that displayed a
dismissal notation in an application process (Exhibits C‑4 and C‑5;
and H‑1/H‑2/H‑3). The need for immediate transcript relief (clean
transcript/no re‑imposition and corrective notices) is therefore
continuing and non‑speculative.

REQUEST

Please confirm by Tuesday, October 21, 2025, 5:00 p.m. Central Time
(CT) that you will convene a name‑clearing hearing within 14 days with
these minimum features:

Neutral presider. Independent and not previously involved.

Seven‑day advance notice of the specific statements and evidence to be
addressed; the University’s notice will identify each challenged
statement verbatim, the speaker, date/time, audience/channel (e.g.,
class broadcast, listserv, media), and the documents the University
will rely on.

Mutual, simultaneous exchange of exhibits and witness lists (with
brief summaries) seven (7) days in advance; no undisclosed evidence
absent good cause and presider approval.

Time parity and order. Equal total time for each side; scheduled
breaks; no stacking many hours of adverse witnesses before my
presentation; a neutral presider will manage turn‑taking and questions
(live questioning or written questions via the presider).

Complete record. Either the University provides audio or a court
reporter; or I may retain a certified court reporter at my expense.
Written findings issued within seven (7) days and suitable for public
release with necessary redactions.

No retaliation for requesting or participating in the hearing.

Confidentiality and privacy. I agree to reasonable confidentiality
protections for third‑party PII/PHI and to redactions required by
FERPA/health privacy. I will not agree to any restriction that
prevents me from sharing my own statements, my redacted exhibits, the
final written findings, or submitting the record to a
court/regulator/law‑enforcement. If broader confidentiality is needed,
please propose a narrow protective order with those carve‑outs. No NDA
or release of claims will be required as a condition of receiving the
hearing.

One‑time extension (conditions; no tolling). If you need a brief
extension, I can agree to a one‑time extension of the response
deadline to Friday, October 31, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. CT, only if by the
current deadline (Tuesday, October 21, 2025) you confirm in writing:
(i) the neutral presider (not previously involved); (ii) a hearing
date to occur between November 4–11, 2025; (iii) mutual, simultaneous
7‑day advance exchanges; (iv) time parity with scheduled breaks and no
stacking; (v) a complete record (University audio or a court reporter,
or I may retain a reporter at my expense); and (vi) the interim
transcript relief below. This extension does not waive, toll, or
extend any statute of limitations or other rights; I expressly reserve
the right to file suit on or before Tuesday, November 4, 2025.

INTERIM MEASURES (pending the hearing)

(a) Transcript relief. Issue an official transcript without any
disciplinary notation/hold and confirm in writing: no re‑imposition
absent lawful process; production of the audit log of notation history
(codes; applied/removed dates); and the list of prior recipients of
any transcript reflecting a notation/hold so that corrective
transcripts or notices can be issued after the hearing if appropriate.
(b) Dissemination pause. Refrain from any non‑required dissemination
of the stigmatizing statements to third parties (including students,
donors, media, and external programs) until the hearing is complete
and written findings are issued; provide advance notice of any legally
required disclosure.
(c) Recipient identification. Identify recipients who previously
received any transcript containing a notation/hold, and (after the
hearing) cooperate in issuing corrective notices where appropriate.

ADA / SECTION 504

My evaluation documented a neurodevelopmental impairment that
substantially limits the major life activities of concentrating,
thinking, and communicating under time pressure. It recommended
standard accommodations (e.g., equal time, scheduled breaks, written
questions). (See Exhibit A: functional-limitations and recommendations
excerpt.) The University already has the full evaluation.

Requested accommodations for the hearing: equal presentation time;
scheduled breaks for 10 minutes every 30 minutes; neutral presider
managing turn‑taking; seven‑day exhibit/witness exchange; ability to
submit written questions; real‑time captioning (CART) if needed;
permission to consult notes; no stacking many hours of adverse
witnesses before my presentation; and an option to participate
remotely if required.

SDS parallel process. Any SDS intake or updated evaluation may proceed
in parallel and will not delay the hearing.

PRESERVATION

Please take immediate steps to preserve all potentially relevant
information, including: (i) Residency/GME broadcasts and listserv
messages; (ii) Security/Police or Threat Assessment Team
communications (including any BOLO, no‑trespass, or campus‑access
restrictions); (iii) Rotation/site communications (including Covenant
Health communications); (iv) Student Affairs mass broadcasts to
classes, including the message titled “VACATION and other stuff” sent
on 2024‑01‑07 at 7:46 a.m., its drafts and approvals, the distribution
lists used, and any recall/replace logs or metadata; (v) Registrar
transcript/notation audit logs and policies; and (vi) any
communications to third parties (programs, hospitals, donors, media)
that convey stigmatizing statements about me.

IDENTIFICATION (non‑discovery; for planning)

(1) Identify the official (name/title) who can schedule/order the
hearing; (2) provide the transcript/notation history (codes;
applied/removed dates); and (3) provide a list of recipients who
previously received transcripts reflecting a notation/hold.

Please confirm receipt and provide a written response by Tuesday,
October 21, 2025, 5:00 p.m. CT so that a hearing can be scheduled
promptly. This request is made without waiving any rights, claims, or
defenses. I remain willing to cooperate in good faith to finalize
procedures and accommodations that ensure an effective opportunity to
clear my name.

Sincerely,
Kevin Bass
[REDACTED – HOME-PHONE]
EXHIBIT A — NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION (EXCERPT)
(Only diagnoses, functional limitations relevant to hearing, and accommodations)

DSM-5 / ICD-10-CM DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS:
F84.0 Autism Spectrum Disorder, Mild (formally considered Aspergers)
F90.2 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined type, Severe
F41.1 Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Severe

Functional limitations (quoted/condensed from evaluation):
Results of cognitive functioning revealed that Dr. Bass displays very superior skills in crystalized knowledge (99.7th %ile), nonverbal reasoning (99th %ile), and academic achievement (84th+ %ile). Areas of general weakness are attention and executive functioning (63rd %ile), immediate, working, and delayed memory (16th–63rd %ile), and social communication and interpersonal dynamics. Deficits in processing speed, memory, and executive control coincide with the pre‑existing diagnosis of ADHD.

Selected accommodations from the evaluation (education/testing) relevant to hearing format:
• Testing in a distraction‑free environment.
• Extra time (1.5×) and extra breaks; standing/stretching as needed.
• Permission to record lectures.
• Extended time for in‑class writing assignments.
• Copies of lecture notes and visual aids.
• Use of handheld calculator for assignments and tests.
• Use of computer for taking notes.

Note: This excerpt intentionally excludes unrelated clinical history and raw testing details. Full report retained by provider/patient.
EXHIBIT B — HEARING RULES / PROCESS LIMITS (EXCERPT)
(Only order/sequence, time limits, questioning control, recording, and scope)

Opening statements (time and order):
“The parties’ opening statements will be limited to 10 minutes, with SOM Administration going first, followed by Dr. Bass.”

Witness order and questioning sequence:
“Questioning of witnesses will first be conducted by members of the Student Conduct Board, followed by SOM Administration and then Dr. Bass. … [Plaintiff’s] presentation will occur after the SOM Administration witnesses are questioned.”
“SOM Administration has identified 15 potential witnesses … [the Board] identified two additional witnesses …”

Time limits:
“Questioning by either party of a particular witness will be limited to 30 minutes per witness.”

Recording and deliberations:
“The recording of the hearing shall cease following closing statements and prior to deliberations …”

“Outside the scope” ruling on accommodations (quoted):
“… admitted a redacted version of the evaluation … redacted the portion … that related to [Plaintiff’s] requests for future accommodations … as such forward‑looking accommodation decisions are not within the scope of the Board or the Consolidated Hearing.”

Note: This excerpt intentionally omits unrelated content. Full packet retained by the University/Board.
Exhibit D-2 — Hearing Statements (ADA/§504 & SDS Process)



Source: Notes + firsthand recollection of statements made during the hearing on December 11, 2023. I do not possess the official audio or transcript. If and when the University produces the official record, I will conform page/line or timestamps.



Purpose: Show (i) ADA routing to SDS; (ii) redaction of disability evidence; (iii) exclusion of a disability witness; (iv) limits on questioning (written-only via presider); and (v) statements by University-affiliated personnel. These points support my requested guardrails (neutral presider, 7-day exchanges, time parity, recording) and admission of disability evidence (unredacted evaluation under protective order; neuropsychologist testimony).



SDS is the official ADA channel

I recall the Chair stated: “Our process is normally to go through Student Disability Services; that office makes these decisions.”

Speaker: Hearing Officer/Chair

Session: Day 1 – Morning



ADA request “no attachment” comment

I recall the Chair stated: “I have not seen that… you emailed me an email that does not have an attachment.” [Notice: SDS received the evaluation on Friday (Ex. D-1).]

Speaker: Hearing Officer/Chair

Session: Day 1 – Morning



Breaks/snacks offered; no communication/process accommodations

I recall the Chair stated: “We have water in the room… there are snacks… if you need any breaks, please ask.”

Speaker: Hearing Officer/Chair

Session: Day 1 – Morning



No active attorney questioning (written questions only)

I recall the Chair stated: “Advisors cannot ask questions of witnesses directly… you may provide questions in writing to me.” [See Hearing Rules (Ex. D-3).]

Speaker: Hearing Officer/Chair

Session: Day 1 – Morning



Neuropsych evaluation withheld/redacted

I recall the Chair stated: “A redacted portion of the healthcare provider’s document will be provided to the panel before deliberations.” [See also Determination excerpts (Ex. B).]

Speaker: Hearing Officer/Chair

Session: Day 1 – Morning



Neuropsychologist testimony excluded

I recall the Chair ruled: “I’m not going to allow that testimony.”

Speaker: Hearing Officer/Chair

Session: Day 1 – Morning



Context – Statements by University-affiliated personnel

I recall the Professionalism Coach said: “[Psychologist] you are probably on the spectrum; you lack political intelligence about how your behaviors and words impact others.”

Speaker: Professionalism Coach

Session: Day 1 – Afternoon



Authentication request: If any wording is disputed, please produce the official audio/stenographic record or written transcript within 3 business days, and I will conform page/line.