Chapter 09: A Stressful Relationship with MD Anderson Administration

Chapter 09: A Stressful Relationship with MD Anderson Administration

Loading...

Media is loading
 

Description

Dr. Jones sketches many tensions in his relationship with MD Anderson's administration. He mentions a Houston Chronicle article that stated "Lovell Jones was a boat-rocker and a malcontent." Dr. Jones explains why he was determined to stay at the institution, building on his solid research record: no one could accuse him of focusing on minority issues and discrimination because he couldn't make it as a researcher. Dr. Jones mentions Dr. Fred Conrad's murder at MD Anderson. Dr. Jones recalls that in the early eighties he took safety precautions and his staff feared for his life. He talks about his attitude toward any danger, noting that his connections with powerful people in the field helped protect him.

Identifier

JonesLA_02_20140116_C09

Publication Date

1-16-2014

Publisher

The Making Cancer History® Voices Oral History Collection, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

City

Houston, Texas

Topics Covered

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center - Diversity Issues; Institutional Politics; Controversy; Obstacles, Challenges; Experiences re: Gender, Race, Ethnicity; Experiences of Injustice, Bias; Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Religion; Critical Perspectives on MD Anderson; The Researcher; Mentoring

Transcript

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

I didn't want to lose that thread about the messages you were getting about leaving the institution. How pervasive did you feel that attitude was and why did you feel they wanted you to leave?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

I think it was summarized by an editorial that appeared in the Houston Chronicle. It was written by Frank Miguel [phonetic], who's now over at Texas Children. At the time, he was associate editor for the Houston Chronicle. His impression of how it was viewed at the institution was as a boat-rocker, malcontent, irritant on these issues dealing with minorities that people wanted to not really address and sweep under the rug, and if they did address it, in a very cursory and surface manner, and that I didn't let them get away with [unclear]. I did it in a very nice way, but a way that they couldn't ignore, and because I was successful in terms of the research I did, they couldn't label me as the only thing I could do was make trouble. As I said to Arlen Specter one time when I got him to fund the [unclear] report on the unequal burden of cancer, in terms of what I did, and he said back to me, "The reason why I'm listening to you is you don't have to be here. You're a very successful researcher in your own right. You can go back to the lab and do what you're doing, so it must be something of importance that's making you come out to say that and ask me to do this." And it goes back to something my mentor said when I was a graduate student and I was moving here to Houston. They had said it before, but they truly emphasized it, and what they had said when I had first pushed to increase the recruitment and retention of minorities at Berkeley and start leading a lot of programs to do that, that I needed to keep a focus on my science and not let that go in terms of social issues. So when I was leaving to come here, they said, "You know, one of the things that-let your science be your rock, because even in the middle of quicksand, you won't sink." And so that's always been at the forefront of my mind, and I think that's why I've been as successful. I think that's why I've gotten probably tremendous resistance in terms of not being as supported as you would think one should be supported in terms of addressing this issue. In fact, when I moved here, one of my letters of recommendation that was written by Dan Mazio [phonetic], the father of organismal cell biology, who was one of my mentors-in fact, I was a T.A. for his cell biology class for three years. It was the only time he'd ever had a T.A. for that period of time and the only time he had a T.A. that wasn't one of his students. He wrote a letter, which he showed me after he sent it, that encouraged the institution not to hire me. He said, "It's not that Dr. Jones is not a brilliant young scientist who will be a star at some point in time; it's that I think you'll put that star out," he says, "because I'm not an American by birth, a naturalized citizen, but I've seen over the years what you've done to black Americans and specifically in the South and other places as well." But this view of the world was based on living in California, living in Berkeley all his life and comparing it with what he had seen and read, because he's never been to the South. He'd say that, "Never go to the South." So it was a strong appeal for the-and I said, "Dr. Mazio, why did you do that?" He says, "I just fear for you, and I think I'm doing the best for you in writing this letter and making it clear that there are people that will be watching this as you move forward."

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Did you fear for yourself?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

At one point my staff did, when Fred Conrad was killed in his office, because I had met with Fred the day before. His big push was diversification. Most people don't realize that. He came in, saw a lot of the foreign faculty not being promoted, which was the largest minority in here at the time, and began to make changes for them to be promoted. And I remember him saying that he was going to promote, which eventually happened, Mohammed Ali [phonetic], who was at the time head of Cardiology and who was world-prominent and still an associate professor, and he says, "This is just not tolerable." So my sense is that if he had lived, this place would be a little bit different.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Really?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Yeah.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

I had never heard that before. No one had ever mentioned his involvement in diversification.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Yeah.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Wow. Were you surprised when you heard he had been murdered?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Yes and no. I knew that there was a lot of resistance for the changes he was pushing. His changes were on a broad front, not just in terms of [unclear], a broad front, and people don't want change well. And he had too many backers to be pushed out the door.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Did you suspect that his murder had something to do with this part of his activity?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

I think it was the whole gamut. I don't think just diversity. I think it was the whole gamut that probably led-and, you know, for someone to say it was an irate patient, that was a joke. Not where the bullets were placed. No. Irate patient, shots would be all over. I mean, he'd be hit many places in the torso and that sort of thing. Irate patient wouldn't bring in a silencer.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Mm-hmm, yeah. Now, when you said that your staff feared for you at some point, was that literally a life-and-death fear?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Mm-hmm.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Wow.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Yeah. For a good part of time, they would call and find out when I was coming in. I wouldn't be the last person in the lab, which I would normally be. I joke and say one time I left my lab, went out to my car, forgot something, came back to my lab, and the locks had been changed.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Wow.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

And so I immediately called security and they came up. I showed them my badge, and they said, "Did you get a new set of keys?" I said, "No, no." They said, "Did you put the order in?" And I said, "No. That's why I'm calling you." And they kind of looked at me very strangely.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Wow. And the years when this was intense in this way, what were those years?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

I would say right after Conrad's death to about, I would say, '84, somewhere in that range.

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

And then it began to ease?

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Well, I think, you know, I said to my staff, "What's meant to be-." I remember I got to know a retired Secret Service guy, and he made the comment, he said, "If they want to kill the president, they'll find a way to do it. We just have to watch out for the crackpots. Those who are serious about setting up an assassination, we have to keep our ears open, but nothing is 100 percent." And I told my staff that, I said, "You know, people calculate what the collateral damage will be, and depending on how much collateral damage determines-other than the crackpots, will determine whether they do something or not do something." And I think-maybe I'm overconfident in this, but I think because I have such-and began to develop such a widespread reputation even at that point, because people knew me in the field of homeo carcinogenesis. I was one of the young people in that area and helped set that area up. So on my science side, I was pretty well known, even as a young assistant professor. (laughs) And then that letter from Dan, I think, put people on notice, that being a member of the Academy, being someone who almost won the Nobel Prize in biology, having something come from him, I think put people on notice that there were people watching. So I had some comfort in that. But as my Secret Service friend said, "Nothing is perfect."

Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:

Now, obviously you have-I mean, you have a-I don't know how to describe it-you know, a commitment, a devotion to this kind of activity that you're willing to put yourself at risk. I mean, by extension I'm sure you've felt at times that your family might be at risk.

Lovell A. Jones, PhD:

Mm-hmm.

Conditions Governing Access

Open

Chapter 09: A Stressful Relationship with MD Anderson Administration

Share

COinS