Dr. Chris Burnham, Chair / Department of English / College of Arts & Sciences

New Mexico State University / Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003

RE: Our Previous Correspondence of February 12, 16, 25, March 12, 1999

Grade Appeal: English 318G / Masaud Al-Qahtani

Defense Letter of February 12, 1999

Defense Letter of March 12, 1999

Letter to Dean of April 14, 1999

Dear Dr. Burnham:

I am pleased to submit to your attention for official consideration and review the Formal Memorandum requested by Dr. Stuart Brown in his correspondence of February 25, 1999.

It reflects my current position with respect to the failing grade unjustifiably given me by Instructor Kramer in last semester's English 318G class.

Appended hereto are pertinent documents and correspondence relating to my performance in this class. A chronology of events which have transpired to date can also be derived from the information provided.

Understandably, I remain willing to confer with you at your convenience to clarify any points you deem worthy of further elucidation.

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to defend myself under the provisions of the University's Grievance Policy. It would be preferable, I'm confident you agree, to settle this matter amicably at the Departmental Level.

ENCLOSURES (9)

Masaud Al-Qahtani --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------March 18, 1999

Grade Appeal :English 318G

Fall Semester 1998

R. Kramer, Instructor

FORMAL MEMORANDUM

Nota Bene: Initial correspondence notably letters dated February 12, 16, 25 and March 12, 1999, as well as Instructor Kramer's on-line course syllabus, should be examined prior to assessment of the present Memorandum.

I. SYNOPSIS OF PROBLEM:

A. COMMENDABLE PROGRESS IN COURSE: Throughout the Fall Semester of 1998, my progress in English 318G was considered normal, even commendable, by the instructor and myself. In compliance with the Course Syllabus, my five excused absences were duly compensated by special arrangement. On no less than three occasions, I met with Instructor Kramer either in his temporary office or in the English Building Computer Lab, to discuss course material missed during my unavoidable absences. On each occasion, my absences were approved and excused. On two occasions, in spite of my request, the instructor defaulted and failed to appear for our compensatory meeting. However, Instructor Kramer continued to confirm that my progress was "OK" and that I was not falling behind other students.

B. DATA ACCESSIBILITY: Some course assignments were submitted late with approval, but were found satisfactory. In particular, my Dobrin Homepage Assignment, due on September 5th, was submitted during the third week of September, but was accepted and considered "well-designed and beautiful," quoting Instructor Kramer. As of this writing, in spite of NMSU Computer Technical Support Member Ron Flores' (646-1949) assurances on March 17th at 11AM, that data are available in my Electronic Account, I am currently experiencing difficulty, at 1PM, obtaining access to:

Please check this site periodically to examine my Dobrin and Microsoft assignments:

MASAUD AL-QAHTANI WEB SITE

E-Mail will be made available as technicians resolve the difficulty at CANTO.

Other assignments are described in detail, and attached for review, under the "Grading of Assignments" heading of this Memorandum, hereinbelow.

C. ELEVENTH HOUR DETERIORATION OF STUDENT/INSTRUCTOR RELATIONSHIP: After meeting cordially with Instructor Kramer for 7/8ths of the semester, and after having received on-going assurances that my status in his course was at least satisfactory, I was astonished to note that -- on the occasion of the last compensatory meeting in December -- the instructor confronted me with two unexpected developments. Firstly, he suggested that my Microsoft Page Mill assignment had been directly lifted from Company Descriptive Literature and, secondly, that my excused absences, now totaling five, had suddenly exceeded his permissible limit.

II. RELEVANT POINTS IN COURSE SYLLABUS:

A. "Attendance is crucial in this course." I frankly agree with this statement.

B. "One unexcused absence will lower your grade..." The student can validly infer that excused absences will not affect his or her grade.

C. If you feel that you will be unable to attend..., come and talk to me so we can explore options." I did precisely that, and Instructor Kramer approved of our compensatory arrangements.

III. GRADING OF ASSIGNMENTS:

A. INSTRUCTOR KRAMER, through Dr. Brown , reports the following grades, contrasted to my records, as follows on the Table below:

Description of Assignment........................................ R. Kramer's Records .................M. Al-Qahtani's Records 

Dobrin - On Line                              10 (contested)            15                                           

Documentation - On Line                       10                        12.75    

Doc. Design - Page Mill                        0 (contested)            17                    

Quizzes                                       14                        14      

Reports/Proposals/Group                        5 (contested)            6 (contested)

Source of R. Kramer's Grades: Dr. Brown's Letter of 2/25/99. Source of M. Al-Qahtani's Grades: Letter of 2/12/99, predicated on verbal assurances and repeated approval.

Table I

B. ANALYSIS: Examination of Table I, above, indicates that an inexplicable discrepancy between what I was repeatedly told by Instructor Kramer and what he apparently was mis-recording in his grade book is creating a problematic situation.

C. SUMMATION OF GRADING DISCREPANCIES: It can be readily noted, beyond the numerical realities of this situation, that the Third Assignment (Microsoft Page Mill) not only created tension and friction between student and instructor, but gave rise to a discernable and precipitous change of attitude on the part of the latter with respect to all grades previously earned. In such a poisoned atmosphere of ill-feeling, objectivity was difficult to maintain and the grading process, theretofore intact, was tainted with emotion and arguably blurred by judgmentalism. Section IV hereinbelow will expound on this state-of-affairs which arose only in the last two weeks of the course.

Dobrin and the Group Assignment also represent contentious issues, creating a wide point divergence between student and instructor. The Web Site, once reactivated, will attest to the acceptability of the Dobrin project. The Group Assignment Grade, due to discriminatory dynamics, should reflect, as suggested, an average of the other (adjusted) grades received.

IV. UNFOUNDED CHARGE OF PLAGIARISM:

During the final class meeting, on December 1st, Instructor Kramer pointed out to me that he felt my Microsoft Page Mill assignment, submitted literally months earlier, had been plagiarized. I explained my position to him, emphasizing the following valid (in my estimation, but obviously not in his) points:

A. Microsoft Descriptive Text can not, and should not, be modified, for to do so would distort the performance criteria of the software as described by the manufacturer.

B. It occurred to me that if I were to change this text, I would be unfairly lifting ideas and concepts, if not actual words, from Microsoft Corporation without properly obtained permission.

C. By quoting the text closely, as I did, I properly acknowledged the source, by mentioning the name "Microsoft" within my citation.

D. General Defense for Purposes of this Memorandum: On December 1st, the last class meeting, Instructor Kramer brought his feelings to my attention. He asked that I modify the text of my Page Mill Software Project. The original version is attached. I agreed to do so. He stated that he would check my Web Site by approximately the 8th of December. Because of technical problems affecting site access, I actually updated my Web Site shortly after that time frame, on or before December 11th. The instructor denies having "received" the assignment. There are two obvious reasons for this statement: Firstly, it was never designed to be "received" in the classic sense; on-line verification was called for. Secondly, due to the technical problems experienced, he may not have checked the site after the 8th of December. These factors would adequately explain the instructor's not having assessed the revised version of the Adobe Page Mill assignment, which met all requirements.

The ill-feeling thus generated may well have contaminated my other grades which, quite possibly, in the absence of hard-copy proof, were readjusted "after the fact" to suit the shift in the instructor's attitude.

V. DISCRIMINATION ISSUE: The following points should be duly noted, inasmuch as they form the underpinning for a suspicion of discriminatory treatment.

A. The instructor failed to notify me prior to December 9th of my final grade in this course. He gave no indication earlier in the semester that I was even "in the vicinity" of a failing grade. On the contrary, as has been noted, he praised much of my work and lulled me into a sense of achievement and accomplishment. His unexpected, and unwarranted, charge of plagiarism at the last moment amounts to an admission that (a) either, for some subjective reason, his attitude had shifted or (b) he had not reviewed our class assignments earlier in the semester when they were submitted. In either case, the shortcoming is on his part, and belies unfair treatment.

B. The instructor failed to monitor group work. In his absence, I was subjected to a barrage of strong-willed classmates who selected the best portions of the assignment for themselves, leaving me an inadequate amount of material with which to work.

C. There was a decided lack of consistency in the instructor's attitude toward me which did not seem to be applied to the other students in this class. His utterances (praise-filled) did not correspond to his actions (failing grade). Because most of these assignments were web-based, virtually no hard copies were available for him on which to comment in writing. My trust was placed in his verbal statements.

D. Essentially, therefore, the poor design of his group project, and an unexplained lack of honest feed-back, are in large part responsible for my feeling of discriminatory treatment. There are other subtle and overt indications, of course, which may be reported to Elva Telles, the EEO Officer for the University.

VI. BRIEF SUMMARY OF DILEMMA:

It was my understanding throughout this course, until December 1, 1998, that I was passing with more than satisfactory results. This course is affecting obtaining my Engineering Degree on schedule. My GPA, an all-critical factor, is impacted adversely by this instructor's subjective and unjustifiable "eleventh hour" shift in attitude toward me on the basis of his (delayed and arguably improper) assessment of one assignment in this course, in particular. There are some indications that other students may have been subjected to various levels of "uncertainty" with respect to their grades as well. Brian, an American student, and a female Japanese student from El Paso may also have been similarly affected by his grading policy, although they may not have received an F. Investigation should shed further light on these unfair grading practices and may well cast suspicion on the integrity of Instructor Kramer's entire grading process, certainly in my case, and possibly in other cases as well.

I reiterate, in my own defense, that, in the absence of written assignments, with traditional feedback in the form of professor's handwritten comments, my only recourse was to rely on his verbal assurances. Examination of the attached correspondence, assignments and documents, all of which have been assembled for purposes of this defense, will reveal, I am confident, that an injustice has been perpetrated in my case.

VII. APPENDED MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREGOING:

This Formal Memorandum, therefore, is respectfully submitted to the Department Chair for reassessment and upgrading of the failing mark improperly assigned to me in this course.