Opinion ID: 6979877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Explanations and the Lawsuit

Text: After learning that he had failed the examination, Tolbert sought an explanation, and Cairns, Chairperson of the Department, convened a meeting in October 1993, attended by, inter alios, Tolbert, Cairns, and Liebman. Also attending were Binnie Meltzer, who was a teaching colleague of Tolbert’s, and Diane Peritz, an Adjunct Lecturer in the Department who took notes. The precise statements made at that meeting are in dispute. Tolbert asserts that he was informed that there were no objective criteria for the grading of the comprehensive examinations, and that Liebman stated that Chinese students and others for whom English is a second language (“ESL students”) were graded on a basis different from the basis on which Tol-bert was graded. The meeting notes taken by Peritz include the following statement attributed to Liebman: “We cut slack.[ ] We have Chinese ESL students and we allow for that.” The meeting did not result in any change in Tolbert’s grade. Tolbert was informed that, in accordance with Department policy, he would be allowed to take the comprehensive examination a second time. He elected not to do so, and he did not receive a Masters degree in communications. He went on to earn a Masters degree in English. In 1994, he brought the present suit against Liebman, Cairns, and others, alleging racial discrimination in the grading of his examination. To the extent pertinent to this appeal, Liebman and Cairns moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them in their individual capacities on the grounds that they did not meaningfully distinguish between ESL students and others and that it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. They contended, inter alia, that all examinations were made anonymous before being graded (“blind grading”), so that the professors grading a given examination had no information as to which candidate had written the examination. In support of the motion, Liebman submitted an affidavit stating that because Tolbert had not been a student in any of his classes, Liebman had no familiarity with Tolbert or Tolbert’s handwriting before grading the examinations; hence Liebman did not know he was grading the examination written by Tolbert and could not have intentionally discriminated against Tolbert. Liebman stated further that Tol-bert misconstrued the statements Liebman made about Chinese ESL students at the October 1993 meeting: [Tjhere is no merit to plaintiffs allegations that “Chinese students” and unidentified “others” ... received preferential treatment in connection with the evaluation of their essays. It is my understanding that plaintiff bases this allegation on his totally incorrect interpretation of notes that were taken during the meeting held on October 6,1993. 16. Those notes, which do not represent a verbatim account of the October 6, 1993 meeting, were taken by Ms. Diane Peritz, an adjunct Lecturer in the Department of Communications Arts and Sciences, and contain an isolated reference to “Chinese ESL Students.” 17. Any reference that I made to “Chinese ESL Students” was in an effort to explain to plaintiff that foreign speaking students, such as Chinese students, are permitted to bring language dictionaries to the comprehensive examination. However, Chinese students, like any other students in the Media Studies program, were not afforded any special accommodation or latitude with respect to the grading of their comprehensive examination. (Affidavit of Stuart Liebman dated June 16, 1997, ¶¶ 15-17.) Cairns submitted an affidavit stating that she did not precisely recall Liebman’s statements at the October 1993 meeting, but that Tolbert misconstrued them. She also expressed the view that a certain amount of preferential treatment for Chinese ESL students was appropriate: 9. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that Professor Liebman advised him that Chinese students and unidentified “others” were graded on a “different basis” than he was which resulted in the application of discriminatory grading standards in an evaluation of his comprehensive examination. ... It is my understanding that plaintiff bases this allegation on the notes of the October 6, 1993 meeting which were taken by Adjunct Lecturer Peritz. More specifically plaintiff focuses on a reference Professor Liebman may have made regarding “Chinese students” or other nonnative speaking students, where English is their second language. (“ESL Students”). 10. Notwithstanding the fact that I have no specific recollection of any comments made concerning Chinese or ESL students, it would be entirely appropriate not to penalize such students merely because their essay responses may have contained grammatical flaws. As I testified earlier in my deposition, it is often very difficult for ESL students to remember to always include the appropriate articles in their writing____ In evaluating the essays of the comprehensive examinations, the faculty graders focus on content, organization and argumentation and minimize the importance placed on grammatical errors. 11. Indeed, it is for that very reason that ESL students are permitted to bring a dictionary to the comprehensive examination. 12.Any random comment that Professor Liebman may have made concerning ESL students’ lack of mastery of the English language has been totally misconstrued by plaintiff and does not substantiate plaintiffs allegation that he was subjected to a discriminatory grading system. (Affidavit of Helen Smith Cairns dated June 11,1997, ¶¶ 9-12.) In opposition to the summary judgment motion, Tolbert submitted a statement' of material facts that he contended were in dispute (“Local Rule 56.1 Statement”), in which he, inter alia, questioned the assertion that Liebman could not identify Tolbert’s examination due to the blind-grading procedure. Tolbert stated that “considering the small number of people taking the exam,” Liebman might well have been able to distinguish Tolbert from students whom Liebman had taught (Tolbert’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 18); he argued that, given the evident recognizability of the examinations written by Chinese ESL students, Liebman could have known, by process of elimination, which examination had been written by Tolbert. Tolbert submitted a declaration in which he disputed appellants’ description of the October 6,1993 meeting: 11. The defendants ... contended that a lack of clarity in my writing was a significant factor in my failing the Masters Examination. In response to this comment, I opined that I write better than some of the Chinese ESL students in the class who passed the exam. This statement stemmed from my observations of the Chinese students in' my class, many of whom appeared to have trouble expressing themselves and communicating clearly in [E]n-glish. 12. When I asked Professor Liebman how my writing could have warranted a failing grade when compared to the Chinese ESL students in the class, he responded that “we cut slack” to the Chinese ESL students. Professor Liebman further explained how the graders allow for special and different treatment for Chinese ESL students, when reviewing the clarity and writing of their exams, because they “did not know the language as well.” Such leniency was in no way stated to be restricted to grammar', as contended later on in Professor Cairns’ affidavit. 13. Professor Liebman expressed the point that such “slack” and consideration was not given to me in reviewing my writing, and that writing was one of the criteria for my failing grade. To be clear, I had never asked for such leniency, but only inquired as to whether such favorable treatment was being given to Chinese ESL students. Such favoritism is evidenced by the defendants’ claim that I failed the exam for my writing, while I had known several Chinese ESL students in the class who appeared to have trouble with their writing and [E]nglish communication skills. 14. The transcript of the meeting from October 6,1993 inaccurately placed Professor Liebman’s comment about “cutting slack”.... [T]he transcript omitted all of the conversation about my writing which immediately proceeded [sic ] the comment that “we cut slack,” and allow for special consideration of the Chinese ESL students in their writing. 15. While Professor Liebman claims that his comment was referring to allowing [E]nglish dictionaries at the exam for Chinese ESL students, this was not the reason stated to me at the meeting. Specifically, no conversation about Chinese students using [E]nglish dictionaries ever occurred. (Declaration of Derek Tolbert dated July 21, 1997, ¶¶ 11-15 (emphasis in original).) Tolbert also submitted a declaration by Meltzer, who had actively participated in the October 1993 meeting at which Liebman referred to Chinese ESL students. That declaration stated, in pertinent part, as follows: 5. At this meeting, Mr. Tolbert discussed his grade on the Comprehensive Exam for the Masters Degree, and expressed his belief that several of the Chinese “ESL” students most probably had written a poorer exam than he did, and yet they received passing grades while he failed. 6. Professor Liebman agreed with Mr. Tolbert’s above-stated belief, and volunteered the additional information that because such students were ESL students, the Department “cut them some slack.” Professor Liebman further stated that the graders took the Chinese ESL students’ status into account during the grading of their writing and of their exams. This was the sole and only context during which the phrase “cut some slack” was used. (Declaration of Binnie Meltzer dated July 22, 1997, ¶¶ 5-6.) Meltzer sharply disputed any assertion that the “cut some slack” phrase “was used to refer to the permitting of [C]hi-nese-[E]nglish dictionaries, or at any other time or in any other context.” (Id. ¶ 6.) We note parenthetically that, in this Court, appellants challenge the sufficiency of these declarations to defeat a summary judgment motion because they were not affidavits and Tolbert and Meltzer stated merely that they “duly swor[e]” to the contents, rather than that they swore “under penalty of perjury.” We reject appellants’ challenge, since we see no indication in the record that this objection was made to the district judge, who, as indicated in Part I.B., plainly took the declarations of Tolbert and Meltzer into account.