Looking back on the situation one year later why can't Jim see the fact that Suzanne may have had a reason to be upset?
Again, you are assuming this is not the case. Did you get this impression from the 20/20 broadcast? Regardless, in Jim's own words:
=====
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.
yaledailynews.com
=====
Hope that helps clear things up!
- Jeff |
