A Traumatizing Experience in a Toxic and Biased Work Environment - Assistant Registrar Northeastern University Employee Review

My experience working in the Registrar's Office was deeply traumatic, and I am still recovering from it. I was the only Black woman on the team, and what I experienced included favoritism, exclusion, racial bias, and apparent retaliation. The Registrar herself—someone I initially believed to be an ethical leader—disregarded everything I reported. I was ignored when I came forward with legitimate concerns about my supervisor and new team lead's discriminatory and retaliatory behavior. Despite repeated requests for support, I was met with silence or indifference while the leaders I spoke up about were promoted and still my supervisors. To make matters worse, I was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan soon after disclosing my medically diagnosed ADHD. Instead of support or accommodation, I was met with bureaucracy and punitive measures. This felt discriminatory and strategically timed as a step toward pushing me out. The HR Business Partner (HRBP) who worked with my supervisor did not show empathy or care. I was not heard, no matter how much I tried to explain the full context and history. I now understand why many employees say, "HR is not for the employee." For a long time, I defended HR — I believed in the profession. However, this experience showed me that NU's HR staff has forgotten that employees are human beings. Relying on performance evaluations to make employment decisions can be ethically problematic, significantly when negative feedback harms an employee's confidence and self-worth rather than helping them grow. Just because someone is not meeting expectations as well as others does not mean they are not putting in the effort, nor does it justify harsh criticism. While constructive feedback is necessary for improvement, it can be damaging without care and support. HR decisions must be made, and using objective performance metrics can lead to more rational and defensible choices. However, leaders should go beyond simply looking at performance data—they must consider how their decisions impact employees on a human level. A decision is not automatically fair or ethical just because it is based on performance assessments; it must also consider the broader context, including whether the employee was given the resources, support, and fair opportunities to succeed. How can an employee be expected to perform well when placed on a team in an area where they were clear from the start that they had no prior experience and expressed they would be better suited elsewhere in the Registrar's Office? I repeatedly requested a transfer for two years, knowing I could thrive in a different area with fair and knowledgeable leadership. Instead, my requests were ignored, and I was subjected to biases, exclusion, and an unjust Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)—something I had never faced in my career. This situation was not a matter of poor performance; it was a failure of leadership in both the Registrar's Office and HR. HR must take accountability in ensuring employees are set up for success rather than being used as scapegoats in a biased, retaliatory environment. Simply relying on performance data without considering the full context of an employee's situation, including ignored requests for support, bias, and unfair treatment, is a failure of ethical leadership. Before dismissing any employee, HR should require a thorough and unbiased review of all contributing factors, including: Whether the employee was given adequate support, resources, and training. >Whether the employee was placed in the right position for their skills and expertise. >Whether the employee's requests for reassignment, accommodations, or leadership intervention were taken seriously. >Whether any indications of bias, favoritism, or retaliation influence the decision. > Was the PIP process fair and constructive rather than punitive and used as a pretext for termination? HR exists to protect employees and the institution, but in this case, it failed. The system should not enable poor leadership to disregard employee concerns, dismiss a Black woman's valid requests for help, and ultimately use a PIP as a tool for elimination rather than development. Northeastern University must hold its leadership accountable and commit to fostering an equitable and supportive workplace. Even after I left, the university's systems still had me listed as an active employee, blocking access to critical post-employment services. My legal name was also incorrect in other essential systems. The administrative oversight was frustrating and reflected the disorganization that marked my entire experience.