Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2008/05/05/venkatesan_to_sue_the_college.php
Monday, May 5, 2008
Allegations of harassment and discrimination levied against students and faculty members by former writing instructor Priya Venkatesan ‘90 have rocked the College recently (see pages 8 and 9). Venkatesan taught freshmen in the fall and winter in a Writing 5 course on Science, Technology, and Society. By the end of winter term, conditions in the class had deteriorated to the point where students had complained to Professor Tom Cormen, Chairman of the Writing Program, who subsequently took action to investigate the basis of these complaints. By mid-March, Venkatesan decided to leave Dartmouth, supposedly voluntarily. On April 25 and April 26, she sent a series of emails (the contents of which can be found at www.dartlog.net) declaring that she was pursuing legal action against the College and seven freshmen students for violations of the federal anti-discrimination law. The Dartmouth Review contacted Professor Venkatesan in an attempt to gain a better understanding of her claims against the College and its students and faculty members. See pages eight and nine for a partial transcript of the interview; for the full interview, see here.
All parties agree that the classroom situation was far worse in the winter than in the fall. According to the SA Course Guide the overall course grade in the fall was a B- and Professor Venkatesan’s overall grade was a B-. These are certainly not stellar grades, but neither are they terrible. Some students complained that “the ORC [course guide] description is far from accurate” and “Venkatesan obviously has no experience teaching, and it was almost impossible to endure one of her lectures.” However, others commented on the interesting nature of the course.
By winter term, however, student opinion had turned strongly against Professor Venkatesan. Course ratings hovered between a D- and a D+, and student assessment of Venkatesan lingered at a D-/E+. Almost every student review of the course is overwhelmingly negative with statements like “worst teacher I have ever had,” “save yourself now,” and “terrible class, terrible prof.” Students complained that Prof. Venkatesan was unresponsive to their needs, intolerant of differing viewpoints, and incapable of controlling the class.
Throughout the winter term several events occurred that illustrate the chaotic and contentious classroom environment present throughout the course. The most notorious of these is the so-called clapping incident. During one class, students were discussing a book that presented the feminist argument that much of science and industry was used to improve the position of men in society at the expense of woman and that capitalism helped make this possible. When one student argued that the opportunities available to women during World War II were an example of a capitalist society benefitting women, many members of the class applauded. Venkatesan claims to have been “horrified” by this incident, but several students present said that the professor congratulated the class on a good discussion and did not seem particularly disturbed. Venkatesan completely denies she was satisfied and cites the student’s “diatribe” and his classmates’ applause as examples of the hostility she encountered. One student questions that claim, saying that the applause was more to show approval for a well-articulated point that the class agreed with than it was to humiliate the professor. This incident led to Venkatesan’s week-long absence from class, a break that she took on the advice of her doctor. Her students, however, were informed of her absence by an administrator on the course’s Blackboard site. They later received an e-mail from Venkatesan in which she expressed her displeasure with the conduct of the class, writing that the discussion “has now devolved into the Jerry Springer Show.” When she returned from her week-long break, she announced that the class would no longer be based on discussion like other Writing 5 courses. Instead, she would lecture, and if students had questions they could blitz her or save their questions for a post-lecture discussion sessions, which her students claim never actually took place. She then berated the students for their supposed lack of respect and used the term “fascist demagogues” to describe their actions. Venkatesan denies calling any of her students fascists and claims to have looked at the wall while saying that, but as one student asked, “We were the only people in the room, who else could she have been talking about?” Following this lecture, she instructed her students to write a 300 word essay on respect.
Another contentious issue was Tom Cormen’s visits to the class and his overall conduct in investigating students’ complaints. After weeks of what they saw as an inadequate level of instruction, the students collectively decided to take the issue to the chairman of the department. Their main complaint was the lack of feedback they were receiving on writing assignments; most feedback would be limited to a few lines of commentary that would not say anything substantive. Many of the other issues they had with the class grew out of this first complaint. Professor Venkatesan viewed Cormen’s behavior as insulting and humiliating, but many students were pleased that the department chairman seemed to be taking an interest in the class.
One of her complaints against Cormen is that he chose the students over her and did not show her an adequate level of support. By most accounts Cormen acted appropriately to ensure fairness. One student even admitted being worried that the department chair would not support the members of the class as his behavior suggested that he was not about to rush to judgment. After all, he had appointed Venkatesan, so he would not contradict his own decision unless there were legitimate reasons to do so. From the beginning Cormen told them, “You have to remember that this is a professor of Dartmouth who has a teaching license. They can do what they want with the class. That’s the power invested in them.” He acknowledged that there were some issues with the class but did not signal that he was prepared to take serious action. His first step was to audit the class. During one session Mr. Cormen made some comment “that was more insightful than any comment we had received from our professor the entire term. We were like, ‘wow’ this is awesome. That was one of our better classes of the term because [Venkatesan] was on her best behavior.” Later, Cormen had a series of meetings with Venkatesan. Eventually, he concluded that the class was not operating the way it should.
Venkatesan points to one of Cormen’s actions while present in the class as an example of his subversiveness. One student asked her how many t’s are in the word ‘Gattaca’, and Professor Cormen replied that there are two. Venkatesan said that in the academic world, TT stands for tenure track and that every aspiring professor wants to stay on the path to getting tenure. Cormen was supposedly suggesting that she would not receive tenure, and she found this intimation to be very intimidating. Others have proposed that Professor Cormen was just trying to be helpful.
Venkatesan’s students reject her claims that their dissatisfaction stemmed from racist feelings towards her. The main issues present in SA course review and in interviews with students seem to be her lack of feedback, inability to accept differing viewpoints, and general failure to teach the class described in the course description. Students who signed up for the class expected a more science-based class. What they got was a course brimming with postmodern and feminist ideas—to which many students could not relate. As for the racism claims, Venkatesan acknowledges that they are hard to prove. She cites students laughing at a nerdy student with an Indian name and the respect accorded to a white male when he spoke as examples of the class’s discriminatory nature.
Professor Venkatesan has also been inconsistent in determining her next course of action. She has confirmed that she will be writing a book detailing her experiences, but her actions with regards to any lawsuit remain unclear. After originally deciding to pursue legal action against the college, she then claimed that legal action would not be in her best interests (her reasoning can be found in the transcript of the interview). However, several hours later, Venkatesan retracted this statement and declared that she would be pursuing a legal course of action but that she was not sure what form such an action would take.
The experiences of students in Venkatesan’s classes certainly do not appear to be the norm for other Writing 5 classes. However, perhaps this incident demonstrates the need to take a closer look at what exactly goes on in the classroom. Fortunately, in this case, the College did take action to address the concerns of students. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the College will always respond to students’ complaints about inadequacy among those whom the College hires to instruct them. n