Last spring, I wrote a number of posts on the case of Brooklyn College English professor Frederick Lang, who had been forcibly removed from the classroom because he refused to inflate his grades (read the posts in order here, here, and here). Lang's situation drew a lot of commentary from readers (scroll down to the bottom of each post), and Lang responded to them here. Lang's case was entering arbitration at that time, and he promised to let Critical Mass readers know the results. The arbitrator has now ruled. Over the next several days, Critical Mass will be publishing Lang's account of the hearings, along with his reflections on what the arbitrator's ruling means for his career and for the quality of education at CUNY.

________________

Ignorance is Business, Part 1
by Frederick K. Lang

You may remember me as the ìprick.î In April, Erin began writing about my problems at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, where I am a professor of English, and where I taught, for twenty-five years, until Ellen Tremper, the department chair, suspended me from teaching as fall 2002, and assigned me to glorified clerical work. Earlier, she had told me that my students thought of me as a ìprick.î The fact that I did not give credit for misspelled answers on a quiz was the initial complaint. Tremper showed that she agreed I was a ìprickî when she sided with a student who insisted I should have given him credit even though he had misspelled ìByron.î

The complaints accumulatedóI gave difficult assignments, corrected essays too thoroughly, required that each essay be revisedóbut the single reason for all of these complaints was my grading policy. My grades included As and Bs, but not for everyone. I also gave Cs, Ds, and Fs.

When I was told I was being suspended from teaching because of ìstudent complaints,î I feared that I was being accused of unprofessional, or even immoral, conduct. But no. I filed a grievance over my suspension from teaching, and finally went before an arbitrator this spring, only to discover that the ìstudent complaintsî were those I knew about, and had considered trivial.

Not only did Tremper claim that the ìstudent complaintsî justified a suspension from teaching. So did Roberta Matthews, the provost of Brooklyn College, who also testified against me at my arbitration hearing. Unfortunately, so did the arbitrator. My grievance has been denied because, according to her, my chair represents the college administration, she told me not to be a ìprick,î and I failed to comply.

Obviously, the fact that Matthews had come to testify against me greatly influenced the arbitrator. Also, I had no apparent support from either colleagues or educational associations. And I may have been at a disadvantage because I represented myself. After paying out more than $10,000, I could no longer afford the services of the lawyer I had retained after I learned that my union, the Professional Staff Congress, had been deceiving me.

When I went to arbitration, I believed I had a strong case. I realize now that I was naÔve, for in effect I was asking the arbitrator to render a decision that would severely limit CUNYís power to coerce its faculty. Indeed, the arbitratorís written opinion makes CUNY look not just correct but infallible. For example, CUNYís lawyer conceded that, in spring 2002, I had been given an overload of one hour. Tremper had threatened that, if I ìwanted a fight,î she would allow me to teach only composition courses. In spring 2002, I was assigned three sections of composition, and so I was required to correct 600 essays in a single semester, 40 each week. Which meant that in fall 2001-spring 2002 I taught 22 hours, one hour more than the contractual limit. In her written opinion, the arbitrator contradicts CUNYís lawyer and claims that there was no overload.

The arbitrator also claims that my grading policy was not at issue. She concludes that I was no longer fit to teach because of my ìcourse work, attitude, . . . the manner in which [I] communicate and enforce . . . high standards, [and] my classroom conduct and treatment of students.î She claims that ìit was the grievantís classroom conduct and treatment of students that resulted in the decision to assign him to non-teaching duties.î

Although the arbitrator insists that it was not my grading policy that brought an end to my teaching career, she makes two statements that indicate otherwise. The first occurs early in her opinion: ìNo useful purpose would be served by reviewing in detail each of the student, or student group, complaints raised against grievant over his course work, attitude and grades prior to the Spring 2002 assignment.î The emphasis is mine.

The recurrent theme in all the ìstudent complaintsî CUNY submitted as evidence was my grading policy: marking down for spelling errors on quizzes, and so on. In deciding against ìreviewing in detail each of [them],î the arbitrator is suppressing this fact.

The arbitrator again betrays herself by protesting too much: ìthe testimony of Tremper as well as the documentation and grievantís own testimony demonstrate that, as Tremper said in a December 13, 2001 note to Provost Matthews, ëitís the manner in which he (grievant) conducts himself . . . the way he communicates and enforces . . . high standards,í not his standards nor his grades that gave rise to the constructive criticism of his superiors.î The emphasis is again mine.

I chose not to testify. So, if my ìown testimonyî is said to ìdemonstrateî that my ìmannerî is at fault, it must be something in my written statements which is being referred to, something in my opening remarks or in my closing argument.

The arbitrator said she would accept as ìproofî of my teaching technique the description I included in my opening remarks:

Since my teaching has become an issue, at least with respect to writing assignments, I think I should be allowed a brief digression from narrative, so that I may describe my methods. I have been influenced by the superb example of teachers I had at NYU and at Columbia, and by my experience while teaching not only at those institutions, but also at Lehman College, LaGuardia Community College, and of course Brooklyn College, where I have taught since 1977.

I have also been influenced by my association with the late Alice Trillin, Anna Quindlen, and other professional writers when I served as educational consultant to WNET/Thirteen on the Writers Writing series.

Whether I am teaching composition or literature, I never give a writing assignment without including an example I have written myself or detailed written instructions. I sometimes include both. If I receive an essay and see that the student has not followed my example or instructions, I do not accept it for grading. If I did, I would have to give it an F. Rather, I have the student rewrite it. Depending on the seriousness of the studentís problem, I leave it to the student to determine the need for revision, give oral or written instructions, or use a combination of all three approaches.

I always have my students revise their essays. In the writing process, revisions, sometimes many, are essential. I have seen the need for revision and its beneficial results demonstrated not only in my teaching, but also in my work with professional writers during the making of the Writers Writing series, in my study of literatureóJames Joyce, for example, revised his work compulsively--and in my own efforts as a writerówhen writing my book on Joyce, I found myself following his example.

In a literature course, I assign two essays and allow any student who is dissatisfied with the grade I give the first essay to revise it. If the second grade is higher, I ignore the first grade. In a composition course, I have students rewrite almost all the essays after I have corrected them. Indeed, I write comments and make changes with revision in mind. This practice is based on my experience with editors and as an editor, of my own writing as well as that of others. I always return a corrected essay within a week so that the student has ample time for revision. I also allow a limited number of additional revisions, so that the student can attempt to achieve grades that would improve the studentís average for the course.

If this description of my teaching is what the arbitrator means by my ìown testimony,î then it seems that my crime was telling my students that, if they wanted a higher grade, the only way they would receive one would be to work for it.

to be continued