Re: 10/13/99 - A letter from James R. Van de Velde
A letter from James R. Van de Velde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES R. VAN DE VELDE
October 12, 1999
Published 10/13/99
To the Editor:
I cannot imagine the pain and suffering the Jovin family is enduring because of the tragic and senseless loss of their daughter, Suzanne. The family is clearly suffering terribly. I sympathize with their pain.
But these comments reflect to me not reality but the pain the family must be enduring.
I found Suzanne to be an intelligent, enthusiastic, well-spoken student and person. I liked her very much and I wanted to see her succeed in whatever field of endeavor she chose.
There was never an argument, a tense moment, a disagreement about a single thing related to the course or anything else between Suzanne and me. I saw Suzanne in class and in office hours 3-4 times throughout the semester. I never once saw her outside of class or outside office hours.
Suzanne and I discussed her outline for her senior essay after class on Nov. 2, 1998. She was so well along in her overall project that I asked her to be one of only two students in the entire class to present a brief oral outline of her senior essay in class, which she did on Nov. 9. The e-mail exchange between Suzanne and me in mid-November (the last e-mail exchange we ever had, which the police have in their possession) clearly shows that it was Suzanne, and not me, who stopped trying to find a specific time for us to get together to discuss her senior paper.
Although I received a draft of her senior essay the week before Thanksgiving break, my two fall classes and I were involved in a two-day crisis management game the days of Nov. 18-19. Suzanne participated in the game and made positive comments about it to fellow students. Since Thanksgiving break was Nov. 20-30, the earliest time I could have reasonably been expected to return comments on her draft paper was Monday, Nov. 30. Mid-November, however, is also the busiest time of the semester for both students and faculty, as the Yale semester is three weeks from ending.
During Monday class on Nov. 30, Suzanne and I set a time to meet at my office on Tuesday morning to discuss her paper, which I had planned to read that afternoon or evening. Unfortunately, I got caught up with my own work that Monday and had not read Suzanne's paper by our Tuesday morning office appointment. On Tuesday when Suzanne came by, I apologized, promised to read it that day, and in fact did so that afternoon. I could see that Suzanne was disappointed in me (she looked away in disappointment), but she said nothing.
On Wednesday, Dec. 2, before class, I mentioned that I had indeed read her paper Tuesday afternoon, liked it and asked whether she would like to discuss her paper after class for 10-15 minutes, which we did. During this time I returned a heavily marked-up draft, and we discussed the thesis of her paper in depth. I provided both written and verbal comments to improve the paper, though it was an excellent draft to begin with. She seemed extremely happy with my comments. The cover letter she included when she dropped by on Friday, Dec. 4 to hand me another draft for me to read (both of which I gave to the police), which expresses no disappointment in me as an advisor whatsoever, clearly reports that she and I had indeed met to discuss her paper draft earlier that week.
Between the day I received her draft and the day I returned an edit was a total of six working days, given the 10-day Thanksgiving break. Since Monday, Nov. 30 was conceivably the earliest possible time I could have returned her draft, returning it on Wednesday, Dec. 2, strikes me as not my finest teaching moment, but hardly derelict. I read her draft in line with all the other senior and term paper drafts that I received throughout the month of November. (I probably had 4-6 draft papers I was reading during this time.) Her draft received no special attention nor neglect.
Furthermore, comments from a professor on a student's draft essay are courtesies. Not all professors even read drafts. No student stops working on their paper while a professor has agreed to look over a draft and provide comments.
I note that Suzanne asked me to write her a letter of recommendation for her graduate school applications in late October 1998, which I did most enthusiastically (a copy of which I gave to the police) which lauded her many talents, her outstanding average in the course and my assessment of her poise, qualifications and suitability for graduate study in foreign affairs. It was a glowing recommendation. I liked and respected Suzanne without qualification. My opinion did not change and had no reason to change in November.
I learned only through the newspaper that Suzanne complained to friends that I was not prepared for our Tuesday, Dec. 1 office hour. This is absolutely true. But I wonder whether she ever had the opportunity to tell these very friends that we had in fact met the very next day, Dec. 2, to discuss her paper in depth. Suzanne's own handwritten cover letter proves this. Furthermore, one student to whom she confided her disappointment in me on Tuesday evening, Dec. 1, Yun Kim, characterized Suzanne's frustration in the Yale Daily News as "typical reading period anxiety" and not something deep-seated.
At no time did Suzanne complain to me about our teacher-student relationship, my teaching or any other issue. If she was unhappy or otherwise dissatisfied with me or my classes, she did not reveal this to me. Our conversations were always cordial, polite and concerned with the academic issues at hand. I felt then, and continue to feel, that our relationship was perfectly normal and pleasant.
The notion that I subjected our class on "Strategy and Policy in the Conduct of War" to a series of questionable activities is false. The "class research project" was to examine how easily today individuals and groups can learn how weapons of mass destruction can be researched simply through surfing the Internet was well received by all class members who participated. The project was optional and was to learn how information technology has made weapon technology easily accessible -- it was not to produce a weapon.
The class field trips were optional too and extremely well-received. I, in fact, have an e-mail message from Suzanne in which she states that she was "bummed" that she could not make the trip to tour a nuclear submarine and that she heard it was a "great trip."
A high-ranking CIA analyst, not "a CIA operative," spoke to our class in November as a guest lecturer about the status of Russia. I remember no recruitment "overture," though if there was one, no doubt many students would have been interested.
All my classes at Yale have been well received. I had taught for four years at Yale before the fall term 1998. The former chair of the political science department, David Cameron, called my fall 1998 student evaluations "staggering." The director of graduate studies, Rogers Smith, called my previous performance at Yale "exemplary." These were the ninth and tenth classes I had taught at Yale.
I served as executive director of the Asia Pacific Research Center at Standard for nine months -- a full academic year. Soon after I started there, I realized I disliked administrative work, I missed teaching very much and I did not share the political views of two of the senior faculty members regarding U.S.-China relations. The director of the center considered my performance excellent and continues to write me positive recommendations. He and I agreed that I would be happier elsewhere, and I resigned on May 1, 1998, after selecting a teaching job back at Yale for September 1998 over a research job offer I had in Washington, D.C. My departure from Stanford had nothing to do with my performance, qualifications or character.
It has been 10 months now since the murder of Suzanne, and the investigation is clearly at a total standstill. I suggest to the Jovins and the Connecticut community as a whole that a more useful avenue to express frustration is to pressure political leaders to consider the following:
-- Invite the FBI or the state to assume control of the investigation. (The New Haven police has clearly exhausted its expertise). As a member of the United States Navy, I have already invited the Navy's Criminal Investigatory Service to offer their expertise, which is considerable, to the New Haven police.
-- Encourage Yale to hire experienced private investigators to augment the ongoing investigation. (Yale owns, after all, a $7 billion endowment.)
-- Encourage Yale and the New Haven Police to publicize widely and continually the state's $50,000 reward for information regarding the apprehension of Suzanne's killer. This has never been done.
Besides the Jovins, there is no individual who wishes this investigation concluded more than I. The Jovin family deserves justice and at this point; so do I. Suzanne's memory deserves a dispassionate examination of the facts and not speculation that continues to mar the New Haven Police's investigation.
yaledailynews.com |
