These were the most notable comments in the face-to-face meetings I scheduled with my student writers in March. This semester, like the others, many didn’t read the syllabus nor the assignment guidelines and many came to class unprepared. Some can’t or won’t follow simple directions.

They, like many before them, Do the DUH a lot.

Students are required to include in their news stories descriptive detail of their interview sources. Many balk. QMfE, “I didn’t know where to put the information, so I left it out,” several have said even though they were told several times throughout the early part of the semester that they were required to include specific information in their first drafts. When I copy edit the drafts, I told them, I will suggest where to include the information. Besides name and addresses and ages, they must include location of the interview, what the source was wearing as well as majors and minors. More descriptive detail would be better, they’re told.

“I read the New York Times everyday,” said one student early in the semester, “and I never see that information in their stories,” so why should she be required to include it in her articles to be published in the WORD. It’s a farcical refrain expressed often by students who don’t read the Times as much or as thoroughly as they allege in class. My response depends on my mood and frame of mind.

QMfE:

– “It’s in the assignment guidelines.”
– “You don’t write for the Times, you write for the WORD.”
– “Not doing it will seriously impact your grade.”

A while back I tried to reason with them about the importance of descriptive detail and other matters regarding class. But that too often led  to argumentative and disingenuous discourse so puerile that it was if the students were acting as if they were stage guest on a Jerry Springer episode.

I started taking one grade off the final grade of students who refused to include the info.  Now, the penalty can be as much as two grades if not F on the assignment.

Lots of Pushback this semester in the writing classes. Puerile petulance. Some are miffed that they can’t drink water near the Room 470 HN computers. The next time you pull a stunt like that, one defiant student was recently told in writing, you’ll be meeting with the College’s  Faculty Student Disciplinary Board. Some are miffed that they can’t have their cell phones at the ready. “I see a cell phone on the desk, and it’s F for the class,” I said at the start of the semester and then gave a defiant student one more chance as he hunched over about 4 feet from me, trying to conceal his text messaging.

Many but not all of the malingerers, whiners and malcontents are those faltering in class, and not because, as many of my Colleagues believe, they are dumb or talentless. Nope, they don’t want to do the work. And still want at least a B. And D:F/M, truth be told, encourages this kind of academic obstreperousness.

End of Part 1.

The WORD’s Classified Ads.

The other notified me that she was appealing her grade (which is not a bad strategy in a department with the most sordid grading scams at Hunter). But never mind that. Below is a metaphysical rejoinder to them about the perils of texting inappropriately.

Yes! She figuratively falls into the brink.

All advisements and enlightenments and warnings and caveats delivered with deliberation: F for the class after an initial warning. Yet, when it came time for the big F, I chickened out and, instead, took off one grade of the final grade. Two students this semester.

Both, of course, provided cheesy excuses, like the one below: 6:48-6:50? Not my recollection. More like smirking and gee whiz and all shucks. A mid 20s student.

Date: Fri Dec 31 13:31:38 EST 2010
From: [Student Name, email blocked out]
To: gmorris@hunter.cuny.edu

Dear Professor,
I find this to be completely disheartening. I worked hard in your class, I did what you asked for. I was on my cellphone once, at 6:48 when the class ended at 6:50, forwarding out a work email. I take late classes because I have a job, that has deadlines. I have a family also, with external factors that are private and that you as a person should understand. I am not here to give you some sob story, I took the fact that you called me out in front of a dozen students with integrity. I didn’t make up some illegitimate excuse as to why I had it out, I apologized. I didn’t dare to take out my cellphone in your classroom again, I was cautious about that. I studied hard for several days for your final, trying to turn around my other grades (one of which was an assignment that I did poorly on that you called the first draft, which made me assume that in the case that I didn’t quite understand your assignment I would have the chance to redo it). And an entire grade was taken off for a cellphone incident, for which I apologized for and made sure never happened again? I have been a student for 18+ years, I have yet to ever have a problem with a professor. I can’t believe that I got so severally penalized for such an incident, especially when you saw how hard I worked in your class after that. I am not asking for your sympathy just your understanding. I really wish that you could reconsider your decision.

So: She obviously imagined at the time of the incident that I wasn’t going through what had been announced about her in front of the class. She was dishonest in her plea (above). Left out that she had been warned before. That she had borne witnesses to others being warned. Nevertheless, she didn’t cry. Didn’t shout epithets. Didn’t curse.

Etcetera.

Bitch-ee … Bitch-ee … Bitch-ee …

She could have been squealing “bitch you  … bitch you … bitch you …” – upset as she was about the rebuff of her third attempt to turn in a take-home exam whose deadline had long passed. But at the moment, I was hearing “… bitch-ee … bitch-ee … bitch-ee …”

Or maybe she was saying, “you, bitchin’ … you, bitchin’ … you, bitchin’ …” but the thick accent, her voice faltering as she neared tears, and, of course, her rage, made her comments an unintelligible high pitch squeal even though we were inches away from each other. Plus, being bitched added to the confusion of an instructor caught off guard on a campus where one needs to be diligent about being caught unawares.

A special exception, that’s what she wanted. She told this instructor the day that the assignment was due in class that she would email it to him that evening because she was unable to bring it with her. He received it the next day, however,. And promptly emailed her the rejection

It was the second time that she had missed an important assignment date and, as with the first miss, tried to convince this instructor to accept it and he declined.

Say what? best describes the instructor’s reaction. Usually, wise instructors are on alert for toe-to-toe discussion with affronting students or otherwise but “bitchee” or “bitch” or “bitchin’,” and the tears and the squealing as well as the incredulity that she was still asking for a special exception that she hadn’t earned and didn’t deserve caught this instructor off guard.

By the time he was on Hi Alert – microseconds – she fled.

There was a momentary effort to make her see the reasoning behind the decision – a mistake, that’s for sure. Experience says: Don’t try to reason  when they screw up because appealing to their reasoning only inspires them to be more unreasonable because they believe they can talk themselves into a better position, like the students who insist in front of their classmates that they should be given a special exception, regardless what the syllabus says and what has happened with earlier attempts by other students to get an exception they don’t deserve.

And then the crying, cursing, shouting and, now, bitch. Or bitchin’. Or bitc-hee.

She had flunked the first assignment because she showed up in class with a doctor’s note instead of the assignment. This ain’t high school, but of course, said thought was never uttered by this instructor – of course. She was told that her F could be reconsidered based on what she did with the second assignment. But: She didn’t bring the second assignment to class as she was suppose to but she assured the instrucgtor she would email it before midnight and he agreed.

And she didn’t.
And he didn’t.
And then she  …

RB: This was to be a comparatively long narrative about a 30-40P student, a CUNY Macaulay Honors College student, who fails MEDP 299.47 for being serially disruptive for most of the semester despite repeated warnings from the instructor.

But it was decided to keep it short: An oxymoron ever there was one, that is, an honors student serially disruptive of class and openly contemptuous of students and the instructor.

RB starts the semester off by saying in Room 470N that she wouldn’t be able to do the Commute assignment because the L-Train, her main transportation for coming into Manhattan, was too crowded in the morning. So many passengers are jammed into the car, that she is so squished by straphangars, that it would be impossible for her to write in her steno, she says in class, causing this instructor to be suspicious about her being a legitimate Macaulay Honors Student.

Was she nuts? Purely Puerile? The Commute assignment requires students to take descriptive notes of their roundtrips to campus. Information from conversations overheard to what the student journalists observe should be recorded in a steno  usually beginning the second month of the semester. Students must become virtual recording operations. Their final efforts are to be given to the instructor in narrative form to be published. A few students embrace the assignment as if they’re telling the greatest story ever told.

I play along, trying to be soothingly inspirational, acknowledging the onerous tasks of  her onerous dilemma of dealing with the squished bodies of a Manhattan commute, concealing reproach and suppressing admonition forming in my brain, that she should take the F and do better on the other assignments or don’t take the F and just drop the class. It was sooooo early in the semester that the instructor decided to be patient with the student who claimed to be worried about being squished on the L.

We crossed paths in byways of the Hunter North and Hunter North buildings in subsequent weeks and engaged in simple talk, and I subsequently avoided her or pretended not to see here because she was always lamenting that she wasn’t appreciated at the PR firm where she worked. Her colleagues and supervisors thought she was snooty. However, it soon became clear in the course of class discussion that she WAS recording her commute observations in her steno. And, I eventually thought  that the issue of the L-Train squish was over and that she was only eccentric.

And as the semester progressed more and the vapors of Pushback of the other MEDP 299.47 miscreants thickened, RB’s irritating tap-tap-tapping on the keyboard increased. So, let’s cut to the chase. She was told repeatedly to stop typing while I was talking. She was then warned repeatedly to stop typing while I was talking to the class. She was subsequently told twice that she could flunk the class for being disruptive. She eventually snarled at a student who saw me staring at her one day as she typed and tried to advise her to stop.

So, she flunked.

She complained to a Macaulay administrator that I had flunked and had refused to accept any of her assignments. The administrator complained to a Hunter administrator who contacted me for a clarification because there seemed to be issues of Academic Freedom at stake. Short version: RB, once she was flunked,  had been told in class and in writing that she should continue to do the assignments in the event she wanted to appeal the F. But she was told the instructor wouldn’t accept the assignments, that, if she appealed, a grade appeals committee might want to see what she had done. So, she should do them and hold them for judgement day, it was suggested to her, but don’t give them to me.

After a discussion with the administrator, I told her that she could turn in the assignments which wouldn’t be graded, thus allowing indulgence in a formality, that being if she did appeal, she could say that she continued to participate as much as possible in class and did assignments even though the instructor refused to grade them, that she was following class guidelines even though she had failed the course.

Without going in too much more here and now, she was given a F, which was converted to a W, which is on her transcript.

And so it goes.

AF: Slow slide down the academic slope, first assignment folly a tip-off. Incline increased as semester progressed. Then a promised comeback; seemed to be heading to solid B. The ball eventually dropped, however. Didn’t complete assignments or completed them poorly. QMfE, “Am I going to fail?” repeated several times in one class. The scam, smothered in theatrics, eventually became obvious. Couldn’t complete the Commute assignment last day of class.

QMfE:

AF: “I don’t want it published.”
“Did you read the syllabus?”
AF: “I don’t want it published.”
“Did you read the syllabus?”
AF: “Of course I did. I don’t want it published. It shows my travel routine. This guy was recently jailed for stalking me. If he sees it, he’ll know how to stalk me.” [Tears.]

The theatrical charade ever there was one. Played out, of course, in class. Yet, what instructor wants the imminent stalking of a student on his conscious? Not this one. Final Grade, CR.

ER: Impressed by EC’s early semester intemperance, engaged in his own, though briefly. A series of memos about 470HN etiquette tempered him. Then medical problems complicated things: Missed a lot of class. Could have done better. Final Grade, UW. [Which means that the UW will convert to a F if the student doesn't petition to have it removed from his transcript, as if he never took the class. Rarely ever denied on petition.]

End of Part III

JS: Had advantages: Took Advanced Reporting as taught by this instructor in the previous semester. Was prepared for out-of-class interviewing, reporting. Understood that the deadlines were for real. Excellent writer. There to work not to play, though absences were several. Did well.

VG: Excellent writer. Very good student (though excoriated once for text messaging). Did well.

AMJ: A non-contentious 30-40P. Deceiving facade (spoke solemnly about a passion for writing, recalled English classes with instructors leading enthused discussions about writing. Early tip-off: QMfE: “I want an A in this class” – said comment always by a student wanting an A for C work (or sometimes F) but willing to settle for a B.

Subsequent tip-off: After faulting peers for not being serious (in a private conversation, of course), flubbed first Commute assignment, her giggles accentuating the mediocrity of her effort, as in, QMfE, “Duh, I sort of goofed, hee, haw.”

Early on, assessed some peers as laggards who would slow the class down. Good writer but not as good as she imagined herself. Not pleased at being at Hunter, considering her station in life. Unctuous mannerisms insinuating that she, unlike the rest, shouldn’t be burdened with syllabus guidelines. QMfE, “How silly of the instructor to flunk me on an assignment that I didn’t want to turn in on time.” Final grade, CR.

End of Part II

AKA Feature Writing

In many ways, this was a typical D:F/M advanced news writing class. The students were talented, all could write. Yet … !

Sufficient anonymity here so that only the instructor is recognizable, thus, allowing a frank description of the class experience without sullying the visage of enrolled students (some who were a little whacked).

It has been easy to besmirched the image of Hunter/CUNY students, recalling the hatchet jobs done, primarily in the past, by mainstream news media like the NY Daily News and the New York Post working, in this writer’s opinion, with calumnious joy, precision and help from The Manhattan Institute (a sleazed right-wing think tank ever there was one). Hunterites/CUNYites (usually behind the scenes [as in department meetings or casual conversations not so casual]) also make contributions.

There is no wish here to join the posse of of besmirchers and no wish to be perceived as one. There are systemic forces and institutional practices at work, creating a dynamic that makes students easy targeting for scapegoating. The defamation has made it difficult for frank discussion yet allows behind the scenes festering, which happens too much in this instructor’s opinion, reflected in such “things” as an academic department eschewing academic standards on the grounds that the students, especially students of color, would be unable to live up to any reasonable standards and expectations. This has led to a steady stream, in this instructor’s opinion, of instructors not much better than carpetbaggers looking for easy bucks and rip offs as they saunter into classrooms supposedly to teach.

So …

Eccentricities, That’s for Sure

NC: Transfer student. First journalism class at a CUNY two-year was catalogued a news writing course but, of course, there wasn’t much writing, that is, much rewriting. Real writing is about rewriting and that demands more energy and time than many instructors want to invest. Her instructor conducted mock interview sessions requiring the students to interview him and then write news stories that were never rewritten. This feeble attempt to emulate verisimilitude is not uncommon. It is also seriously flawed. And very unfair to students serious about journalism and those serious about writing.

The out-of-class assignments in MEDP 299.47 stumped her at first; performance early in the semester indicated that she might have trouble passing. Subsequent assessments: That she was capable of a low grade like a C+. Final assessment: Pretty much aced the class.

CE: A miscreant ever there was one. Started the semester strong with a game plan apparent in the early weeks but its ferocity was underestimated: Mock the instructor, essentially to throw him off key, upset his balance, make him falter, soften him up for the endgame, that being a passing grade for a F performance. That ploy failing initially to get anticipated results segued to direct insults, as in, QMfE, “You don’t know what you’re talking about” and “That’s not true.” That technique, unsuccessful,  followed by menacing in manner, growling in voice.

A denizen in a netherland where he couldn’t tell the truth even if the truth could set him free, the Fs mounted as bluffs and strategies failed, shamefully. And then, of course, the subsequent, when all else failed, ignominious sounds of one who pursued the path of irresolute miscreant:  Whimper, whimper, whimpering in falsetto. F.

AD: Transfer student. From outside CUNY. Stumped by out-of-class assignments. Early assessment: Wasn’t going to pass. Subsequent assessments: Just might pass. Final assessment: Did very well.

FK: Started off slow, lethargic. Turned in mediocre work because, this writer believes, mediocrity was accepted in other classes. Gradually improved. Said this was her most demanding class thus far as a junior –uh oh! Improved significantly as the semester proceeded, did quite well.

End Part I

This is an introduction of sorts to a six-part series. A few years ago, I invited the New York Time’s first Ombudsman to my journalism ethics/responsibility class. That position, now occupied by Clark Hoyt, is primarily known now as the New York Times Public Editor. I’m speculating that the presence of a Public Editor is more preferable to Ombudsman which sounds akin to a lawman enforcing the law in a lawless community (at least, that’s how I imagine the NYT natives perceive the position when it was announced in the wake of the Jason Blair scandal and other journalistic ignominies which didn’t get as much attention but contributed to marring the public image of the Times).

Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised that Okrent accepted the offer, though it needs to be pointed out that there are a lot of high profile personalities and professionals who relish guest lecturing at Hunter, if asked, because of the College’s reputation for being a stellar higher ed institution. The invitation was extended even before the adulation in recent years about Hunter, the most ethnically diverse four-year college in the CUNY system, being a gem of an affordable public higher ed institution.

I did a two-day prep of the ethics/responsibility class: I wanted to make sure the students looked good and, of course, that the instructor looked good and the class was told, in so many words, that this impending moment should be regarded with pride for them (and I ignored the spectre of the D:F/M Hogoblin). I eventually announced Okrent’s scheduled Guest Lecture on the Hunter-L listserv (it was a boast as well as an attempt to prove a point) and wrote something like, QMfE, “It’s first come, first serve for visitors.”

One or two Hunter-L subscribers showed up. They would like the affair. I wouldn’t.

Okrent walked from his New York Times office (then on 43rd Street 7th Avenue then) and strolled into Hunter North 504 one afternoon. He looked professorial and was casually dressed. I introduced him. The class began. He was stellar before, during and after the class and clearly indicated that he was impressed with the students and pleased that he was invited. For me, the PUSHBACK was obvious but passively aggressive, the class insipidly lame, the students poorly prepared (and clearly exhibiting those signs of academic fatigue by not asking questions in general, looking bored with the one or two who did try to engage in a class discussion and other stuff that made me feel embarrassed for them as well as me. But Okrent would have nothing to do with that.).

And after the lameness swept over me, I had this thought: This will never happen again. This instructor will not allow lameness to be infused in his class.

End of Introduction

If institutions of higher learning desire academic honesty, they must be institutions of obvious integrity, places where students, faculty, and administrators seek truth and wisdom and technical expertise in an environment marked by trust, honesty, respect, fairness, responsibility, and courage. — Peg Hogan, Former President, The Center for Academic Integrity

After several years of warfare with the D:F/M grading system (without a doubt, the most brazenly corrupt academic system in Hunter if not the University). After several years of tussling with 30-40P students (inspired by one of the most stupidly corrupt academic systems in the College if not the University). After years of angst, years of turmoil. Years and years of Sturm und Drang. All Over!

The angst, that is.

Hooah!

No, this doesn’t mean a jihad to be unleashed on students. It means no more anguishing.

Brazenly corrupt? Stupidly corrupt? Too many Colleagues With Influence believe that they can scurry about doing the scurrilous because they don’t live in a fishbowl. Yet, this is an age when everyone is trapped in a fishbowl as all manner of privacy is being scoped.  Little Brothers, like piranha, are challenging the Great White Shark Big Brother for the throne – and all manner of clandestineness is being shoved into a fishbowl.  The Internet erodes cloaking shields, yet, my Colleagues strut as they corrupt and believe they shimmy with impunity.

Anyway, classes ended yesterday. hallelujah. This was posted by the instructor on the 299.47 class wiki:

The semester has ended for Feature Writing, MEDP 299.47, section 1. Talent wise, this was one of the best classes considering the potential. Academic wise – that is, what took place in the course of the semester in terms of assignments – this was one of the most disappointing and that caught this instructor off guard.

However, there were some pleasant surprises regarding student achievements. Surprise was one of the surprising and pleasing elements of this semester.

Best to all, especially the students serious about their educational experience in this class.

More later.