St Andrews Lynx

My view of this is informed by the shitshow that happened at UMass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Triggering
I feel that student activism has become a performance and nothing more than a performance. The event I refer to above is an extreme, but it illustrates in bright colors my impression that, at this point, people are effectively trolling. I mean, a Republican campus club invited three gutter journalists to provoke a bunch of 19 year olds into becoming reddit memes, and the administration allowed it to happen. And I don't mean provoke in an intellectual sense. What does a guy saying "feminism is cancer" have to do with civil debate and intellectual inquiry? Nothing. It's one thing to have an educated conversation about social justice issues, but this gloating circus freakshow had no goal other than to create a base scene aimed at people who didn't have the wherewithal and maturity to stay away. 
I don't think it's as simple as, am I for safe spaces or against them. I don't think it's as simple as paternalism or being more consumer based. I think that university is a very specific social space that serves a very specific purpose, and this is a question of determining which forms of debate uphold that purpose, and which debase it. For this reason, I have a problem with things like boycotting Israeli academics because of their nationality, or not including necessary readings in a course because they may be triggering, or running speakers off campus when those speakers are there to present an intellectual idea that you disagree with. Yes, that means that, if an abhorrent idea can be couched in academic discourse, then it should be allowed to be on campus. That's because, at the end of the day, all knowledge can be learned from books; the purpose of the university is to train students to engage with ideas through academic discourse - to become citizens of a civil society. It is an institution that is distinguished by this very important social mission. If you want to engage with ideas in a non-civil form, there are many spaces out there for that: the internet, the street, social gatherings of various kinds that are geared towards discussing the ideas you are interested in in the way you want to discuss them. The university is not that. Of course it will be restrictive, or "elitist", if you want, because behavior correction necessitates some level of restriction. But that's the point.

Hi all!
I know I'm crazy late responding to your advice, but I wanted to come back and say thanks for the help. I took a lot of the advice given to me here and managed to get everything done and graduate on time!
 
Thanks again!

At the risk of being provocative...I want to ask. 
Is it that you feel you are unable to balance both (i.e. imposter syndrome or poor self esteem)? Is there a medical reason you struggle with both? In the literal sense, most of us cannot manage both at exactly the same time (I wouldn't get far trying to write my essays while performing an analysis in the lab for instance) but we usually have to switch between the two during the course of a day and wouldn't give up entirely on one for more than a week or so.
The reason I ask is because as grad students we are expected to balance both research and coursework in our early years. Yes, you need to do well in the coursework to pass your qualifying exams...but your advisor won't want to keep you past qualifiers if you have no research progress to show by that stage. Sometimes to do both it means making sacrifices, and working longer hours than you would like. 
Talk to the graduate students in your department who passed the qualifying exams. Find out the balance they struck. How long before their qualifying exams did they start to prepare? How much research did they accomplish during their first 2 years?

At the risk of being provocative...I want to ask. 
Is it that you feel you are unable to balance both (i.e. imposter syndrome or poor self esteem)? Is there a medical reason you struggle with both? In the literal sense, most of us cannot manage both at exactly the same time (I wouldn't get far trying to write my essays while performing an analysis in the lab for instance) but we usually have to switch between the two during the course of a day and wouldn't give up entirely on one for more than a week or so.
The reason I ask is because as grad students we are expected to balance both research and coursework in our early years. Yes, you need to do well in the coursework to pass your qualifying exams...but your advisor won't want to keep you past qualifiers if you have no research progress to show by that stage. Sometimes to do both it means making sacrifices, and working longer hours than you would like. 
Talk to the graduate students in your department who passed the qualifying exams. Find out the balance they struck. How long before their qualifying exams did they start to prepare? How much research did they accomplish during their first 2 years?

As another point. Encourage A and D to make use of the university counselling services to talk through their feelings and deal with what has happened (in addition to doing what rising_star has outlined). It sounds like everybody involved is suffering from a degree of trauma - give A the time and space to process their feelings and come to their own decisions. If A decides she wants to keep silent and pretend like the whole thing never happened...that is her right to do so, even if you'd rather she didn't. 
The DGS and Dept Chair are there for issues related to the program (conflict with your advisor, requirements for completion, etc). An event that happened outwit the Dept is beyond their remit. It is also likely that they won't have had special training in how to deal with sexual assaults, nor are they bound to confidentiality. So even if those figures want to help...they may do/say the wrong things. 
C is somebody you are better off staying away from. You are unlikely to get closure or any kind of admission of guilt/apology from her. Don't interact with her beyond what is required in the context of your professional work. 

Yeah, it was probably not a good idea to talk to your everyone else but your PI about the sabotage. Regardless of the validity of the concerns, pumping it through a rumour mill rather than going through professional channels undermines your case and leads to too many hurt feelings. It sounds like the comments you made about Sarah prompted your friends to behave in ways - as you said - out of your control. And now she has the opportunity to play the victim, not necessarily without justification.
I get the feeling that the sabotage described is only the tip of a whole f**ked-up iceberg of a dysfunctional lab. If the situation is really worse than this anecdote, I'd consider leaving the lab as diplomatically as possible before (i) you are fired (ii) something even worse (professionally or personally) happens. You don't want your future career tarred with what has been going on around you.

Yeah, it was probably not a good idea to talk to your everyone else but your PI about the sabotage. Regardless of the validity of the concerns, pumping it through a rumour mill rather than going through professional channels undermines your case and leads to too many hurt feelings. It sounds like the comments you made about Sarah prompted your friends to behave in ways - as you said - out of your control. And now she has the opportunity to play the victim, not necessarily without justification.
I get the feeling that the sabotage described is only the tip of a whole f**ked-up iceberg of a dysfunctional lab. If the situation is really worse than this anecdote, I'd consider leaving the lab as diplomatically as possible before (i) you are fired (ii) something even worse (professionally or personally) happens. You don't want your future career tarred with what has been going on around you.

Yeah, it was probably not a good idea to talk to your everyone else but your PI about the sabotage. Regardless of the validity of the concerns, pumping it through a rumour mill rather than going through professional channels undermines your case and leads to too many hurt feelings. It sounds like the comments you made about Sarah prompted your friends to behave in ways - as you said - out of your control. And now she has the opportunity to play the victim, not necessarily without justification.
I get the feeling that the sabotage described is only the tip of a whole f**ked-up iceberg of a dysfunctional lab. If the situation is really worse than this anecdote, I'd consider leaving the lab as diplomatically as possible before (i) you are fired (ii) something even worse (professionally or personally) happens. You don't want your future career tarred with what has been going on around you.

Yeah, it was probably not a good idea to talk to your everyone else but your PI about the sabotage. Regardless of the validity of the concerns, pumping it through a rumour mill rather than going through professional channels undermines your case and leads to too many hurt feelings. It sounds like the comments you made about Sarah prompted your friends to behave in ways - as you said - out of your control. And now she has the opportunity to play the victim, not necessarily without justification.
I get the feeling that the sabotage described is only the tip of a whole f**ked-up iceberg of a dysfunctional lab. If the situation is really worse than this anecdote, I'd consider leaving the lab as diplomatically as possible before (i) you are fired (ii) something even worse (professionally or personally) happens. You don't want your future career tarred with what has been going on around you.

I think that you need to talk to your advisor about this, and promptly.
You do have evidence at this point: the things that you have told us in the post. Experiments don't work when she is around; but do when she isn't. Setting out decoy reagents and the reactions work. Unless you set up CCTV cameras in the lab, you aren't going to get evidence that is much better than this.
My advice would be to talk to the advisor with your fellow group members. Bring along a written summary of the evidence and concerns. Leave out the aspects of Sarah's personality (micromanager, ridiculing others, etc) and stick to the "sabotage facts". Keep calm: your PI might respond with shock or anger (if they have suspected nothing up until this point), you don't want to derail the discussion. 
If your PI refuses to admit there's a problem or does nothing, then you might consider talking to a university ombudsman (impartial mediator) to get advice on what to do next. Or resigning from the lab if you don't want to support unethical research. Hopefully the PI will listen to your concerns. 
In the interim, try to keep your research secured and confidential. That might mean locking up your lab notebooks, setting up decoy reagents/hiding your own reagents. 
Sabotaging other people's work is an awful thing to do - but it isn't as bad for the PI w. respect to their tenure/funding/publications as if this student was faking positive data (that subsequently got into their grants or papers). I don't think that concern for the PI's wellbeing should stop you from reporting the suspicious behaviour. 

Yeah, it was probably not a good idea to talk to your everyone else but your PI about the sabotage. Regardless of the validity of the concerns, pumping it through a rumour mill rather than going through professional channels undermines your case and leads to too many hurt feelings. It sounds like the comments you made about Sarah prompted your friends to behave in ways - as you said - out of your control. And now she has the opportunity to play the victim, not necessarily without justification.
I get the feeling that the sabotage described is only the tip of a whole f**ked-up iceberg of a dysfunctional lab. If the situation is really worse than this anecdote, I'd consider leaving the lab as diplomatically as possible before (i) you are fired (ii) something even worse (professionally or personally) happens. You don't want your future career tarred with what has been going on around you.

Yeah, it was probably not a good idea to talk to your everyone else but your PI about the sabotage. Regardless of the validity of the concerns, pumping it through a rumour mill rather than going through professional channels undermines your case and leads to too many hurt feelings. It sounds like the comments you made about Sarah prompted your friends to behave in ways - as you said - out of your control. And now she has the opportunity to play the victim, not necessarily without justification.
I get the feeling that the sabotage described is only the tip of a whole f**ked-up iceberg of a dysfunctional lab. If the situation is really worse than this anecdote, I'd consider leaving the lab as diplomatically as possible before (i) you are fired (ii) something even worse (professionally or personally) happens. You don't want your future career tarred with what has been going on around you.

I think that you need to talk to your advisor about this, and promptly.
You do have evidence at this point: the things that you have told us in the post. Experiments don't work when she is around; but do when she isn't. Setting out decoy reagents and the reactions work. Unless you set up CCTV cameras in the lab, you aren't going to get evidence that is much better than this.
My advice would be to talk to the advisor with your fellow group members. Bring along a written summary of the evidence and concerns. Leave out the aspects of Sarah's personality (micromanager, ridiculing others, etc) and stick to the "sabotage facts". Keep calm: your PI might respond with shock or anger (if they have suspected nothing up until this point), you don't want to derail the discussion. 
If your PI refuses to admit there's a problem or does nothing, then you might consider talking to a university ombudsman (impartial mediator) to get advice on what to do next. Or resigning from the lab if you don't want to support unethical research. Hopefully the PI will listen to your concerns. 
In the interim, try to keep your research secured and confidential. That might mean locking up your lab notebooks, setting up decoy reagents/hiding your own reagents. 
Sabotaging other people's work is an awful thing to do - but it isn't as bad for the PI w. respect to their tenure/funding/publications as if this student was faking positive data (that subsequently got into their grants or papers). I don't think that concern for the PI's wellbeing should stop you from reporting the suspicious behaviour. 

How did I miss this thread before. God damn.
 

A lot of the time grad students (especially in the sciences) aren't really students, but employees. A two week vacation allowance is what you'd get as an employee in industry, say. Two weeks vacation + one week over Christmas + federal holidays is fairly average for grad students. 
The difference you're describing also has a "cultural" component. A lot of research labs are intense places to work: the boss expects long hours (and a research output that reflects that) and short vacations. In my lab we're also expected to show up on Saturday and put in a decent working day. Usually the labs with the longer hours are the most ambitious - they want lots of results (to get funding, papers, etc) and to make a mark on the field. There is also some kind of implied or real threat hanging over the grad students about non-compliance with this work ethic (getting criticised or even kicked out of the lab).
That said. A lot of these research labs also attract very intense people. The kind of folk who want to put in long hours and see vacations as a dangerous distraction or delay to their output. The folk who want to get high-impact papers at whatever cost. It works out: the advisors and grad students both get what they want, no one has an incentive to change. 
It's up to you to decide if you want to be in that kind of lab or not. My suspicion is that if you tell your advisor you are unhappy with the hours/vacation allowance, their response will be "Well, I'm sorry to lose you...". Most bosses are set in their beliefs about what a "productive lab" should resemble and won't negotiate different treatments of different students. 

Does your advisor behave in this way towards the other students & postdocs? If so, then I wouldn't take the non-emailing personally. Fuzzy has covered the main pieces of advice I'd have given. 
If the advisor is more responsive to some students in general but not others then there is more of a problem. But every advisor also has to manage their own time and might choose to monitor some projects more closely than others (perhaps if a project is nearing publication, or there is a collaborator involved). 
Also, it might not be clear to your advisor that you are wanting feedback, if you are not specifically asking for it. They might be assuming that everything is OK when they receive your project reports.

I am of a similar mind, but I feel you could have come up with a way to say this without being a raging asshole. 

It's kind of like the difference between being fired and quitting yourself. If you ever apply to another graduate program and you have to specify the conditions under which you left, you can truthfully say that you quit on your own and control the narrative a bit more ("the program wasn't a good fit for me; I decided to redirect my interests..."). If they kick you out, you have to say that you involuntarily left the program. You also leave it so that recommenders from your program, should you ever need them in the future, don't have to say that you were kicked out of your program.
So choosing to drop out yourself is probably a better option here.

I think that you need to talk to your advisor about this, and promptly.
You do have evidence at this point: the things that you have told us in the post. Experiments don't work when she is around; but do when she isn't. Setting out decoy reagents and the reactions work. Unless you set up CCTV cameras in the lab, you aren't going to get evidence that is much better than this.
My advice would be to talk to the advisor with your fellow group members. Bring along a written summary of the evidence and concerns. Leave out the aspects of Sarah's personality (micromanager, ridiculing others, etc) and stick to the "sabotage facts". Keep calm: your PI might respond with shock or anger (if they have suspected nothing up until this point), you don't want to derail the discussion. 
If your PI refuses to admit there's a problem or does nothing, then you might consider talking to a university ombudsman (impartial mediator) to get advice on what to do next. Or resigning from the lab if you don't want to support unethical research. Hopefully the PI will listen to your concerns. 
In the interim, try to keep your research secured and confidential. That might mean locking up your lab notebooks, setting up decoy reagents/hiding your own reagents. 
Sabotaging other people's work is an awful thing to do - but it isn't as bad for the PI w. respect to their tenure/funding/publications as if this student was faking positive data (that subsequently got into their grants or papers). I don't think that concern for the PI's wellbeing should stop you from reporting the suspicious behaviour. 

It sounds like - in the eyes of the boss - there's some kind of pattern of behaviour he doesn't like, and the broken piece of equipment is a continuation of that. 
The best case scenario is that the meeting will simply be a warning that you should change your behaviour. Most PIs aren't assholes enough to kick you out of the group without giving a formal warning and a chance to rectify. 
Some PIs are more willing to kick out students than others. You should have a sense of how your PI operates. Do a lot of students in your lab leave with a Masters degree, or no degree at all? Are there stories of your PI asking people to leave? Under what conditions were they asked to leave? Without knowing the PI we can't tell you what's about to happen. 
My advice for the meeting is as follows. If the boss makes a generalisation/statement that doesn't make sense to you (e.g. "your lack of attention is a problem") then politely ask for some recent examples of the concerning behaviour. Listen respectfully to what they're saying. Ask them for advice on how to improve. Keep calm. 
Don't make excuses or immediately try to explain/defend yourself if your boss brings up grievance(s). Even if you think what they've said is stupid or a complete misunderstanding (a) it tends to make people angrier when they raise a concern that's legitimate to them...only to have someone else dismiss it (b) it comes across as lacking in empathy and abdicating responsibility. For instance, if the boss says "You broke an expensive piece of equipment" the inflammatory response(s) is: "But it wasn't a major/expensive breakage! We got it fixed in-house. I don't see why this is a big deal" A better response is simply: "Yes. I'm sorry." 
 

It sounds like - in the eyes of the boss - there's some kind of pattern of behaviour he doesn't like, and the broken piece of equipment is a continuation of that. 
The best case scenario is that the meeting will simply be a warning that you should change your behaviour. Most PIs aren't assholes enough to kick you out of the group without giving a formal warning and a chance to rectify. 
Some PIs are more willing to kick out students than others. You should have a sense of how your PI operates. Do a lot of students in your lab leave with a Masters degree, or no degree at all? Are there stories of your PI asking people to leave? Under what conditions were they asked to leave? Without knowing the PI we can't tell you what's about to happen. 
My advice for the meeting is as follows. If the boss makes a generalisation/statement that doesn't make sense to you (e.g. "your lack of attention is a problem") then politely ask for some recent examples of the concerning behaviour. Listen respectfully to what they're saying. Ask them for advice on how to improve. Keep calm. 
Don't make excuses or immediately try to explain/defend yourself if your boss brings up grievance(s). Even if you think what they've said is stupid or a complete misunderstanding (a) it tends to make people angrier when they raise a concern that's legitimate to them...only to have someone else dismiss it (b) it comes across as lacking in empathy and abdicating responsibility. For instance, if the boss says "You broke an expensive piece of equipment" the inflammatory response(s) is: "But it wasn't a major/expensive breakage! We got it fixed in-house. I don't see why this is a big deal" A better response is simply: "Yes. I'm sorry." 
 

It sounds like - in the eyes of the boss - there's some kind of pattern of behaviour he doesn't like, and the broken piece of equipment is a continuation of that. 
The best case scenario is that the meeting will simply be a warning that you should change your behaviour. Most PIs aren't assholes enough to kick you out of the group without giving a formal warning and a chance to rectify. 
Some PIs are more willing to kick out students than others. You should have a sense of how your PI operates. Do a lot of students in your lab leave with a Masters degree, or no degree at all? Are there stories of your PI asking people to leave? Under what conditions were they asked to leave? Without knowing the PI we can't tell you what's about to happen. 
My advice for the meeting is as follows. If the boss makes a generalisation/statement that doesn't make sense to you (e.g. "your lack of attention is a problem") then politely ask for some recent examples of the concerning behaviour. Listen respectfully to what they're saying. Ask them for advice on how to improve. Keep calm. 
Don't make excuses or immediately try to explain/defend yourself if your boss brings up grievance(s). Even if you think what they've said is stupid or a complete misunderstanding (a) it tends to make people angrier when they raise a concern that's legitimate to them...only to have someone else dismiss it (b) it comes across as lacking in empathy and abdicating responsibility. For instance, if the boss says "You broke an expensive piece of equipment" the inflammatory response(s) is: "But it wasn't a major/expensive breakage! We got it fixed in-house. I don't see why this is a big deal" A better response is simply: "Yes. I'm sorry." 
 

It sounds like - in the eyes of the boss - there's some kind of pattern of behaviour he doesn't like, and the broken piece of equipment is a continuation of that. 
The best case scenario is that the meeting will simply be a warning that you should change your behaviour. Most PIs aren't assholes enough to kick you out of the group without giving a formal warning and a chance to rectify. 
Some PIs are more willing to kick out students than others. You should have a sense of how your PI operates. Do a lot of students in your lab leave with a Masters degree, or no degree at all? Are there stories of your PI asking people to leave? Under what conditions were they asked to leave? Without knowing the PI we can't tell you what's about to happen. 
My advice for the meeting is as follows. If the boss makes a generalisation/statement that doesn't make sense to you (e.g. "your lack of attention is a problem") then politely ask for some recent examples of the concerning behaviour. Listen respectfully to what they're saying. Ask them for advice on how to improve. Keep calm. 
Don't make excuses or immediately try to explain/defend yourself if your boss brings up grievance(s). Even if you think what they've said is stupid or a complete misunderstanding (a) it tends to make people angrier when they raise a concern that's legitimate to them...only to have someone else dismiss it (b) it comes across as lacking in empathy and abdicating responsibility. For instance, if the boss says "You broke an expensive piece of equipment" the inflammatory response(s) is: "But it wasn't a major/expensive breakage! We got it fixed in-house. I don't see why this is a big deal" A better response is simply: "Yes. I'm sorry." 
 

I think that you need to talk to your advisor about this, and promptly.
You do have evidence at this point: the things that you have told us in the post. Experiments don't work when she is around; but do when she isn't. Setting out decoy reagents and the reactions work. Unless you set up CCTV cameras in the lab, you aren't going to get evidence that is much better than this.
My advice would be to talk to the advisor with your fellow group members. Bring along a written summary of the evidence and concerns. Leave out the aspects of Sarah's personality (micromanager, ridiculing others, etc) and stick to the "sabotage facts". Keep calm: your PI might respond with shock or anger (if they have suspected nothing up until this point), you don't want to derail the discussion. 
If your PI refuses to admit there's a problem or does nothing, then you might consider talking to a university ombudsman (impartial mediator) to get advice on what to do next. Or resigning from the lab if you don't want to support unethical research. Hopefully the PI will listen to your concerns. 
In the interim, try to keep your research secured and confidential. That might mean locking up your lab notebooks, setting up decoy reagents/hiding your own reagents. 
Sabotaging other people's work is an awful thing to do - but it isn't as bad for the PI w. respect to their tenure/funding/publications as if this student was faking positive data (that subsequently got into their grants or papers). I don't think that concern for the PI's wellbeing should stop you from reporting the suspicious behaviour. 

I think that you need to talk to your advisor about this, and promptly.
You do have evidence at this point: the things that you have told us in the post. Experiments don't work when she is around; but do when she isn't. Setting out decoy reagents and the reactions work. Unless you set up CCTV cameras in the lab, you aren't going to get evidence that is much better than this.
My advice would be to talk to the advisor with your fellow group members. Bring along a written summary of the evidence and concerns. Leave out the aspects of Sarah's personality (micromanager, ridiculing others, etc) and stick to the "sabotage facts". Keep calm: your PI might respond with shock or anger (if they have suspected nothing up until this point), you don't want to derail the discussion. 
If your PI refuses to admit there's a problem or does nothing, then you might consider talking to a university ombudsman (impartial mediator) to get advice on what to do next. Or resigning from the lab if you don't want to support unethical research. Hopefully the PI will listen to your concerns. 
In the interim, try to keep your research secured and confidential. That might mean locking up your lab notebooks, setting up decoy reagents/hiding your own reagents. 
Sabotaging other people's work is an awful thing to do - but it isn't as bad for the PI w. respect to their tenure/funding/publications as if this student was faking positive data (that subsequently got into their grants or papers). I don't think that concern for the PI's wellbeing should stop you from reporting the suspicious behaviour.