What happened in the course I am supposed to have bungled?
Columbia History has fired me on the grounds that I did not fulfill the terms of the program. They were punitive to begin with, but I fulfilled them anyway. I was going to write a piece titled "Columbia History's Wrongful Firing of the Policy Tensor" but then I heard from my students this fall after they heard about my unlawful firing. What follows is the public testimony of the first students who have reached out.
To whom it may concern:
It is in total shock and complete dismay that I reach out to you in response to the firing of Anusar Farooqui. It is especially surprising to me because I found him to be open-minded, supportive, and generous of spirit. He spurred genuine inquisitiveness. If someone made a comment during section, he would push us forward and ask us more questions. He gave me plenty of feedback on my work, and he was clear about what and how we were expected to write. His help was immeasurable in preparing for the midterm. There is no doubt that his heart was in the right place the entire semester. He genuinely was working diligently in the students’ best interests. I feel that a few fringe opinions should not offset the positive impact that he has had on the students. In my opinion, he has been an asset to Columbia.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Virgilia Antonucci
To whom it may concern,
My name is Nitipat Nantavaropas, one of Anusar’s students in his discussion section on Mesopotamian history. In my experience, Anusar is always prepared for his sections with questions and information, and is eager to listen to our opinions on what we discussed in class. He often encourages us to speak our minds, even if we disagree with him, and asks us to provide evidence so that we begin thinking like historians and backing up our opinions with facts. Anusar is always receptive to questions, especially when he makes a claim, since he believes that debate helps us develop our ideas and thoughts. While there have been disagreements over course structure and grading, Anusar dealt with them fairly, listening and taking into consideration what the students wanted, while also maintaining academic rigor.
I truly think that Anusar is a great Teaching Assistant that is passionate about helping students, and provides everyone with an environment where they can discuss and ask questions about the material.
Nitipat Nantavaropas
Here's my response in full to the Department's allegation against me:
The Director of Graduate Studies Department of History Columbia University
November 21, 2019
Subject: Statement on teaching assistance for Ancient Mesopotamia — Fall 2019
Dear sir/madam,
Professor Van de Mieroop and I discussed the grading for the course in September. He brought to my attention a specific problem he had always faced in teaching this course: they were being asked to write term papers because this is an advanced course; but the quality of the papers was very poor. I suggested a straightforward solution that he approved, which I then announced (attached) to the students. Instead of a research paper, the students were asked to write, on a biweekly basis, short essays that asked a single question of historical interest and attempted to answer it. The exercise was intended to get students to engage with historical comprehenda and learn how to go about writing a research paper.
Before I announced the changes, Professor Van de Mieroop and I had two disagreements. First, I recommended that we replace the timed exams, that largely test retention of facts instead of comprehension, with a term paper — I was hopeful that by the end of the semester they’ll be ready to write a research paper. My suggestion was also meant to control the workload of both the students and myself. Professor Van de Mieroop quashed the idea. He told me that he had always had timed exams and he wanted to keep it that way.
Our second disagreement was more significant to later developments. I suggested that we let the students have the option of writing a term paper if, for whatever reason, they did not want to write the short essays. The logic of my position was this was necessary to neutralize resistance; the students were, after all, being asked to do something they had never before been asked to do — there were good reasons to expect difficulties. Professor Van de Mieroop wanted a single grading system that applied uniformly. Although I did not anticipate it at the time, that decision immediately created a disciplinary problem: How were essays that did not conform to the constraints of the exercise to be graded? How much should one penalize noncompliance? On the one hand, it would be unfair to other students (as it turned out, the bulk of the class) who worked within the constraints of the exercise, to not penalize students who had not. On the other hand, this was a new game for the students and they should not be overly penalized if they have difficulty learning the ropes. So that tension was there for the beginning. But what I failed to anticipate is just how much friction this would generate.
Through the semester, I engaged with the students on key historical explananda. The focus was always on what pattern do we see and why? I think the students found the discussion sections useful and engaging; sometimes the discussion continued after class. A number of them told me that they were learning a lot, and appreciated my efforts to get them to understand the historians’ craft. For a few months, we managed to create a vibrant ecology of attention. It was a joy to work with a bunch of bright and curious kids. And to learn from Professor Van de Mieroop, who is an engaging lecturer. The bulk of the class took the essays seriously. They raised fascinating questions in their essays. And I engaged with them in depth. Sometimes my remarks would nearly match the length of the essay. See the essays with my remarks (attached). I was always encouraging and generous. Perhaps not all historians would agree with every one of my remarks. But it is not hard to see what I was trying to do. And that it was in good faith; and that I made every effort to help the students learn.
The problem was a small number of students, five out of twenty in the last set I graded (attached), who submitted essays that did not raise a historical question. I had taken great care to explain what was being asked of them in these essays. I explained when I introduced the short essays in September. I wrote them a model essay (attached). I explained it in my written remarks on such essays. We discussed it at length in the sections — every student in that class now understands what an explanandum is and how important this notion is to all research. I explained it again when I announced the topic for the second essay. Some students still did not get it. I penalized such essays moderately by awarding them grades in the ballpark of a B, fully explaining the problem yet again. But the problem refused to go away. I got a lot of pushback from such students for their grades. I understand that Columbia undergrads can be very zealous about their grade. And I knew these were good students. What I didn’t know is how to get them to the see the logic of the exercise. I knew that I needed them to sit up and pay attention. So I explained the exercise yet again in another announcement (attached) and told them in very clear terms that essays that do not respect the constraints of the exercise will be awarded a zero; ie, that they would be considered inadmissible. The point of that intervention was to shock them into paying attention. I thought it was it was an ethical and effective intervention. A bit harsh, surely, but necessary, given that alternatives had been exhausted. At least that was my understanding when I made the announcement. In retrospect, I should’ve checked with Professor Van de Mieroop first.
My "zero score" intervention was between essays 2 and 3. Whatever the overall merits of the intervention, at least it was effective.
Professor Van de Mieroop was furious. He issued a statement in class calling my last announcement “unacceptable”. When I spoke to him, he simply told me I was being relieved of my duties. I asked him what I should have done about the problem. He dismissed my question. He told me it wasn’t just this announcement; that there was a “pattern” of students having difficulties with me; that I did not give them enough feedback; explain things enough; and that I changed the rules of the game mid-play. None of these charges is true. The pattern he detected is an artifact of adverse selection. He has only heard from the handful of students who are unhappy with their grades on the short essays. He has not heard from the vast majority of students who found my exercise, my comments, and my willingness to engage with them in depth on key comprehenda, useful and valuable. I went out of my way to give feedback to the students and explained anything they found confusing at length. And there were no changes to the rules of the game: I was trying to impose precisely the rules of the game we had agreed upon at the beginning of the semester. It created a specific problem which he has refused to engage with. If Professor Van de Mieroop considers my intervention unacceptable, that’s fine. By all means overturn it. But instead of suggesting a solution to the problem, in part created by his insistence on not giving them the option of staying with the old system, he has simply dismissed it, and charged me for some sort of personal failing. This is quite unfair to me. I take my responsibilities very seriously. And I have tried in good faith and with great care to fulfill my duties as his teaching assistant. It is also unfair to the great majority of students who have played by the rules and learned a lot in the process.
Yours truly,
Anusar Farooqui
PhD Candidate Columbia University
My undergrads, bless their hearts, have started a public petition against the outrage. I've started a fundraiser for my legal defense. Any donations will be much appreciated.