Critical Mass readers will recall Frederick Lang, the Brooklyn College English professor who was forcibly removed from the classroom for refusing to inflate his grades. I posted on Lang's case last spring (see posts for April 4, April 21, April 23, and April 26) and last August, Critical Mass hosted Lang's updated analysis of his situation (see posts for August 18, August 19, August 20, and August 21). These days, Lang is caught in institutional deadlock. He is not allowed to teach, but he has been given administrative "assignments" that it is not possible for him to perform. So he spends his days in his office, without work, fearing for his job, and waiting for the next administrative shoe to drop. Meanwhile, self-serving Brooklyn College administrators continue to break the rules and to manipulate students. Here's what's happening, in Lang's own words:

The Case of the Bogus Brooklyn "B," by Frederick Lang

In my last guest posting, ìIgnorance is Business,î I wrote in part about my lack of success at my arbitration hearing in the spring, and of the consequences of having had my grievance denied. Although I continue to be an employee of Brooklyn College, City University of New York, I have been suspended from teaching for yet a third semester. I will probably not teach as long as I remain at the college, and, since I am constantly threatened with ìdisciplinary charges,î I will probably not be there for very long.

I said that the provost of Brooklyn, Roberta Matthews, and Ellen Tremper, chair of the English department, both testified against me. I may have neglected to mention that three students also submitted testimony. When, on the first day of the hearing, I was told that students might appear to testify against me, I said that I would waive my right to cross-examine them. This may have been why the three students didnít appear in person. Rather, they told CUNYís lawyer want they would have said if they had appeared, and she read these sworn statements into the record.

Tremper has fabricated a departmental recommendation that the grade of one of these three students be changed.

At Brooklyn, if a student is dissatisfied with a final grade, and if an instructor refuses to change it, the student has the right to file a grade appeal with the department. The student must have completed all the class assignments and must submit copies of all essays and examinations to the committee, along with a statement giving a reason for a change.

As a department chair, Tremper is obviously aware of this policy. Indeed, in a memorandum dated April 4, 2002, she recorded a studentís complaints about me and gave the student advice: ìI suggested that she remain in the course, being careful to meet all class requirements (not miss quizzes, papers, have good attendance, etc.), and then appeal her grade if she doesnít pass the course.î

(I have a copy of this memorandum because it was submitted as evidence at my hearing along with several like it.)

Before copies of all the class assignments are sent to the grade appeals committee, the instructor has the opportunity to review the material and to write a statement defending the final grade. Then the studentís work and the two accompanying statements are read by members of the committee, who must either uphold the instructorís final grade or recommend a change.

The department chair notifies the instructor of the committeeís decision. Tremper gave me a written notice, but the earlier steps had been skipped over.

On September 4th, I wrote to her,

When I sorted my mail on Tuesday, I found your letter claiming that members of the departmentís grade appeals committee had read ______ís essays, written in spring 2002 for one of my three sections of English Composition 2, and had recommended that my final grade of C be changed to B.

I was quite surprised, for I had not been given the opportunity to re-read ______ís essays before they were submitted to the grade appeals committee, and to include with them an explanation as to why _____ had received a C.

According to college policy, if a departmentís grade appeals committee does recommend a change of grade, and the instructor still contests it, the instructor must write to the Committee on Course and Standing, again defending the original final grade.

The head of Brooklynís Academic Advisement Center submits to the Committee on Course and Standing all material pertinent to a departmental recommendation for a change of grade. I wrote to her, pointing out that, when I had checked my grade book, I had discovered that the student had not completed all the class assignments, and that on this basis alone the recommendation for a change of grade should be denied. I included a copy of my grade book along with a break down of the studentís grades and the value of each in relation to the final grade.

Then, I received a surprise, which probably turned out to be a shock for Tremper.

On September 16th, I again wrote to the head of Academic Advisement,

On Tuesday, September 9th, I delivered to your office material relating to _______ís grade appeal. I thought I had given you all the material I had, but on Friday, when I was going through my files, I came across an additional relevant item--the essay ______ wrote in class during the period scheduled for a final examination. If you examine my breakdown of the grades I gave her, you will see that this essay counted for 10% of her grade in the course.

According to the English departmentís stated procedure regarding grade appeals, ìthe student must submit all class assignments.î Professor Ellen Tremper has notified the Committee on Course and Standing that the departmentís appeals committee recommended that _______ís original final grade, a C, be changed to a B. But members of the appeals committee could do so only after reading ìall class assignments.î

Professor Ellen Tremper has falsified a departmental recommendation for a change of a studentís final grade. The student was one of the three who gave testimony against me at my arbitration hearing.

To discover whether there is a connection between Tremperís impropriety and the studentís decision to testify will require a careful investigation, an investigation that can be initiated only if, by exercising your authority under Article 21 of the PSC-CUNY Agreement and Section 7 of the CUNY Bylaws, you bring charges against Tremper. Her action certainly constitutes ìbehavior unbecoming a member of the staff.î

On my own, I canít discover whether the fact that the student testified against me is linked to the fact that Tremper has tried to get her a grade that would be to her liking. But I can show that Tremper promised her such a grade.

In a memorandum dated April 25, 2002, Tremper recorded the studentís complaints, ending with this paragraph: ì______ is very nervous about the last assignment because of the length of this paper and the likelihood that Prof. Lang will find so much wrong with it. I assured her that I would personally oversee the appeals process.î

Tremper was obligated to the student. She wrote two other memoranda recording the studentís complaints. Having come to complain three times the student had provided Tremper with far more material than any other student.

One of the studentís complaints Tremper was able to use to harass and discredit me. In the memorandum dated April 9, 2002, Tremper writes, ìHe leaves the papers to be returned in a pile on his desk [so that grades are public-my comment].î

On May 8, 2002, I received an e-mail letter from one of Brooklyn Collegeís attorneys:

A student complained that you placed studentsí papers on your desk for students to retrieve. Students are able to look at the grades of other students while they try to find their own paper. If this is your practice, this would violate a studentís right to privacy under federal law.

Tremper had to wait until my arbitration hearing was over to fabricate a recommendation. Also used as evidence against me was the fact that my final grade had been appealed six times. Ironically, I had submitted the appeals as evidence in an attempt to show that my grading policy was in accordance with the collegeís standards. In my closing argument I said,

Only six students have challenged my final grade by submitting a formal protest to the departmentís appeals committee, even though, as I have shown, in spring 2002, Professor Tremper sent a letter to all my students in which she encouraged them to protest their final grade. Only one student did, and the collegeís Committee on Course and Standing upheld my final grade.

That leaves five other formal protests. In four cases, my grade was supported by the departmentís appeals committee. In one case, a change was advised, a recommendation I accepted.

Professor Tremper testified that I had taught approximately 750 students while in the English department. (See transcript of arbitration, March 25, 2003, p. 225)

This means that not even 1% of my students have formally protested my final grade.

Now, if Tremper had fabricated a grade appeal in time for my hearing, I would have had seven strikes against me. However, I would also have had the opportunity to demonstrate to the arbitrator that the seventh had been fabricated. Tremper didnít want to take the risk.

I am not particularly angry with Tremper for fabricating the grade appeal. Indeed, I almost feel sorry for her. Her effort was so transparent that it was easier to detect and expose.

I am very angry with her for what she did to the student for whom she fabricated the recommendation. Because I have revealed that Tremperís recommendation was fabricated, the Committee on Course and Standing will not give the student the B she wanted. But the student would probably have achieved a B on her own if she hadnít become involved with Tremper. The time and energy she put into her complaints she should have used to improve her writing, or at least to complete all class assignments. She failed to complete one assignment, to do another, and to write the last part of her term paper, even though I gave her an opportunity to do so.

Tremper made the student feel important, and convinced her she would receive the grade she wanted without having to improve her writing or even do all the assignments. In short, she interfered with a studentís education.