Dr. Stuart C. Brown, Associate Head & Writing Program Director

Department of English / College of Arts and Sciences

New Mexico State University

MSC 3E P.O. Box 30001 / Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-8001

RE: Our Correspondence of February 12, 16 and 25, 1999

Vice President for Student Affairs - Grade Appeal Policy

First Letter of Defense - February 12, 1999

Comprehensive Defense Memorandum of March 18, 1999

Letter to Dean of April 14, 1999

Dear Dr. Brown:

I wish to thank you personally for your preliminary mediation in the above-cited matter. It is indeed comforting to learn that permanent faculty members appear considerably more dedicated to their institution than those merely "transiting through" for a brief sojourn. Due to my having relocated locally, I received notification of your February 25th communication only on March 6th, and am presently responding to that letter.

Your February 25th advice to prepare a Memorandum for submission to Dr. Burnham is duly noted, and falls within the scope of the Grievance Procedure set forth by the Office of the Vice-President for Student Affairs, the electronic address of which is captioned above. Appended to the Memorandum will, of course, be our present and previous correspondence as well as my initial defense statement of February 12, 1999, confidentially posted, for the sake of convenience, at the French Internet site quoted above.

While in your correspondence of the 16th you agree that the grade could conceivably be readjusted to a D, you later seem to withdraw that line of reasoning, apparently basing your position on a reinterpretation of the syllabus and additional input from Instructor Kramer. University policy would seem to stand by the terms of the official class syllabus; in this case it patently allows absences, as long as they are excused. All of my absences were, in fact, "excused", and were, moreover, "compensated" in person three times, at least, and twice "apologetically deferred" by the instructor himself. E-mail messages on file duly record this sequence of events. Reduction of the Grade to an F would seem indefensible, even absurd, under these circumstances; the thrust of our arguments is being addressed toward the B through D range.

Whether other students were insistent enough to request the same mode of compensation for their absences is extraneous. Instructor Kramer, in writing, acquiesced to this method for me, and doubtless extended this courtesy (an "explored option" as he phrases it on page 2 of the syllabus) to other students as well.

The matter of the precise grades which I received is essential to discuss, and will be detailed in the Memorandum to Dr. Burnham. Inexplicably, there seems to be a massive discrepancy between what I felt I had received and what Instructor Kramer apparently recorded in his grade book. You will kindly note the "Professor's Comments" column on the second table presented in my explanatory letter of February 12th. It was by means of these frankly encouraging and adulatory remarks that I estimated my grades in the various assignments, and, of course, through review of his comments on the papers themselves. These documents and on-line assignments are available, in most cases, for inspection. It was not until our last compensatory meeting that I learned of Instructor Kramer's decision to fail me in this course. I had been under the impression that my work was more than satisfactory (at least a B), except for the Group Project which, as explained, was fraught with artifact and unmonitored dynamics.

The "subtle discriminatory pattern" is admittedly a sensitive issue. I have not decided yet to pursue this line of defense, although there are clear-cut, dated, privately documented indications underpinning this allegation. My position would be based, in part, on the ill-founded charge of plagiarism, duly rectified in accordance with the Instructor's wishes, and a lack of forthrightness on the part of the Instructor over an extended period of time. However, I would prefer to discuss this matter with Dr. Burnham before proceeding with a submission to the University's EEO Officer, Elva Telles.

Sir, in the days ahead, Dr. Burnham may expect a formal Memorandum further elucidating the foregoing issues. In the interim, I ask that you review this letter, copies of which are addressed to the appropriate parties.

Thanking you for your attentiveness and goodwill under difficult circumstances, I remain,

CC: Dr. Chris Burnham and Instructor Robert Kramer