A national study found widespread bullying in higher education, including students pressuring professors to change grades. California research and recent disputes at UCLA and Los Angeles community colleges reveal a deeper problem: universities struggling to protect employees and respond to allegations of misconduct.
A professor’s authority in the classroom is supposed to rest on expertise, experience, and the institution’s backing. But what happens when that authority is challenged not through academic debate, but through intimidation, threats, and complaints that can jeopardize a career?
For some university faculty members, the answer has become a question of how much they can endure before asking their institutions for help.
A study published in October 2026 in the Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Practice found that nearly seven in 10 faculty members and university staff surveyed reported experiencing bullying. Nearly one-third said students had pressured them to award better grades.
The findings, published by researchers affiliated with Adler University and other institutions, describe a problem that can originate both inside and outside the classroom. Faculty members reported mistreatment by colleagues and supervisors, while students seeking higher grades used threats of formal appeals, complaints, negative online reviews, and other forms of pressure.
The study offers a troubling picture of academic workplaces. But its findings should be interpreted carefully: Researchers surveyed 189 faculty members and staff at institutions in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. It was not a representative survey of American universities, much less Los Angeles campuses.
California research, however, suggests that workplace bullying among university faculty is not limited to isolated incidents.
A 2022 study of 930 tenure-track professors at 20 California university campuses found that 43.6% reported experiencing workplace bullying occasionally or rarely, while another 8.4% reported it daily or weekly.
The most common behaviors were not necessarily public confrontations. Researchers identified exclusion, work sabotage, excessive workloads, and the spreading of gossip as recurring forms of mistreatment. Nearly 45% of those who experienced bullying said it had continued for six years or longer.
The findings raise questions about the culture inside institutions that depend on faculty members to teach, conduct research, and maintain academic standards.
When a grade becomes a source of conflict
The 2026 study identified a particular form of harassment that researchers call counterpower harassment: mistreatment directed by someone with less formal authority toward someone who holds a position of institutional power.
In the university setting, that can mean a student attempting to pressure a professor into changing a grade.
According to the researchers, students described in the survey used threats of grade appeals, complaints, negative online reviews, and emotional pressure. Thirty percent of respondents said they had experienced pressure from students seeking better grades.
The distinction matters. Students have legitimate rights to challenge grades, question academic decisions, and report misconduct. Universities must preserve those rights.
But a formal appeal process is different from using threats or personal intimidation to force an instructor to change an academic judgment.
The researchers found that senior faculty were more likely than younger educators to report bullying by students over grades. Junior faculty and staff, meanwhile, reported more bullying from colleagues.
The study also found that Black, Indigenous, and other faculty of color experienced bullying more frequently.
The consequences extend beyond individual disputes. If professors believe that assigning a grade could expose them to harassment, reputational attacks or administrative pressure, the credibility of the grading process itself may be affected.
A California problem with a long history
The California survey conducted by researchers Kathy Lemon, Kendra Barnes and Devi Soumyaja provides a broader picture of workplace mistreatment.
Published in 2022, the study examined tenure-track faculty at 20 campuses. It found that bullying could become a persistent feature of professional life, with nearly half of those reporting abuse saying it had continued for at least six years.
The researchers also found that many respondents were uncertain whether their campuses had effective anti-bullying policies.
The study did not isolate Los Angeles universities or measure student intimidation over grades. It did, however, document patterns of workplace exclusion and professional sabotage across California higher education.
The distinction is important because universities often have formal procedures for addressing discrimination and sexual harassment, while other forms of bullying may fall into less clearly defined categories.
At California State University, Northridge, the system has established a category called Other Conduct of Concern. It includes behavior such as intimidation, bullying, bias and microaggressions that may not meet the threshold for a formal policy violation but can still damage the campus environment.
That framework acknowledges a difficult institutional reality: Not every harmful workplace experience meets the legal definition of harassment, yet the absence of a legal violation does not mean the conduct has no consequences.
UCLA: Allegations inside the administration
At UCLA, allegations of workplace bullying have reached the university’s senior administration.
In September 2026, the Los Angeles Times reported that seven current and former employees in the university’s strategic communications division had filed whistleblower or retaliation complaints involving Vice Chancellor Mary Osako.
The employees alleged that Osako created an environment of intimidation and fear, belittled staff members, and retaliated against people who raised concerns. Some also questioned the use of university funds and outside consulting contracts.
The university commissioned an independent investigation. According to court documents described by the newspaper, the report was 264 pages long.
Osako disputed many of the allegations and sought to prevent the report’s public release, arguing that disclosure could damage her reputation. UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk continued to support her leadership.
The university said it took workplace concerns seriously and had engaged an outside investigator to review the complaints. It declined to discuss individual personnel matters.
The dispute moved into court as employees sought access to the investigative report. A judge temporarily kept the document confidential while reviewing the competing claims.
The allegations remain distinct from the student-to-professor grade pressure examined in the 2026 international study. But they raise a related question: How effectively do universities protect employees who report intimidation or misconduct within their own institutions?
A community college case that exposed institutional weaknesses
The Los Angeles Community College District has faced its own scrutiny over the handling of workplace harassment complaints.
In October 2022, a Los Angeles jury found in favor of Sabrena Turner-Odom, an English professor at Los Angeles Southwest College who had accused former Vice President of Student Services Howard Irvin of sexual harassment and retaliation.
Turner-Odom alleged that Irvin made inappropriate sexual comments and gestures during private meetings and retaliated against her after she rejected his advances.
The jury found that Irvin had sexually harassed her and that the district had failed to prevent and investigate the misconduct. It also found the district negligent in hiring him and responsible for retaliation.
The jury initially awarded Turner-Odom $10 million.
The case prompted faculty leaders to demand changes in how the district handled sexual harassment complaints. In January 2024, the district’s Academic Senate called for stronger oversight and a more survivor-centered approach to investigations.
But the original verdict did not stand. In April 2025, a California appeals court reversed the $10 million judgment and ordered a new trial, finding errors in the trial proceedings.
That reversal is an essential part of the case’s history. The jury’s original findings cannot be presented as an undisturbed final judgment.
Nevertheless, the controversy brought attention to the district’s procedures for investigating allegations and protecting employees who report misconduct.
In August 2024, the Los Angeles Times also reported that the district’s Academic Senate had voted 29 to zero, with one abstention, to express no confidence in Chancellor Francisco Rodriguez and the Board of Trustees over their handling of several institutional concerns, including sexual harassment allegations and transparency.
The district said it had implemented improvements in its complaint procedures.
