Volume 67, Issue 7

Student Complaints Lead to Computer Science Professor’s Dismissal
Hudes’ Teaching Abilities Debated by Students
by Kevin Cyrulnik

Several weeks ago, Computer Science Department Chair Dr. Bhaskar Sengupta informed Adjunct Professor Dana Hudes that he would not be receiving his course assignments for the spring 2003 semester.  Although Hudes was originally told that he would be teaching in the spring, vociferous student criticism apparently swayed the Yeshiva administration to reconsider their verbal commitment.

The reason supplied to Hudes for his termination was the early return of Computer Science Professor Dr. Michael Breban from his sabbatical.  Although Hudes speculates that Yeshiva asked Breban to return in order to fill his void, Sengupta and Yeshiva College Dean Norman Adler both maintain that Breban requested a shortened sabbatical on his own accord.  In fact, according to Sengupta, “Breban’s request was made in the beginning of the semester, long before any of the complaints surfaced.”

Sources close to the situation, however, have uncovered some other factors that may have lead to Hudes’ dismissal.  Chief among them, said the sources, was Sengupta’s reporting to the deans that 75 percent of Hudes’ students had complained about his tardiness, insufficient material coverage, and overly difficult examinations (specifically the midterm).  The sources did mention that they were uncertain as to why the administration decided to act decisively now and when Sengupta first issued his report.

Sengupta’s report notwithstanding, students seem to have been complaining for some time now.  At the commencement of this semester, various students from Hudes’ Operating Systems course began complaining about his teaching style.  Their ultimate goal, as professed by some of the individuals, was to persuade Yeshiva to fire Hudes from Yeshiva College.

Though the objectors stand adamantly behind their claims, other students question the veracity of their peers’ criticism.  In fact, those students who refused to attach their names to the letter-writing campaign calling for Hudes’ dismissal tell a different story.  “He is an extremely knowledgeable and deeply caring teacher,” said Ezra Butler, a Yeshiva College senior currently in Hudes’ class. 

Butler, along with a few others who are said to be excelling in the class, have explained that students’ fear of receiving poor grades was the principal factor fueling their complaints.  “He has been known to give Cs and Ds, and that scares many students,” pointed out one YC senior majoring in computer science.  Thus, the senior went on, a few students decided that if they could successfully portray Hudes negatively, perhaps Yeshiva would have no choice but to remove him, thereby ensuring that they do not receive poor marks.

According to Butler, this is an all too common problem at Yeshiva.  “People are used to getting away with everything.  They are able to get As without doing any work.  When you have a professor [who sometimes issues bad grades] students usually tend to dislike him,” he explained.

To that end, Sengupta admitted that although students approached him about Hudes early in the semester, the major influx of complaints began only after the midterm was administered.  Those defending Hudes maintain that, after taking the difficult test, students realized that they were headed for Cs and Ds in the course, and that, in the words of one student, “Desperation will cause people to do all kinds of things.”

Another student in the class, who Hudes classifies as his biggest problem, admitted that he only decided to complain about Hudes once he realized he was going to receive a low grade.  “The way it works,” he said, “is, if there is a bad teacher in YU who gives good grades, students will never complain.  But, if there is a bad teacher who also gives bad grades, then you will find many students willing to speak up.”

Beyond wondering whether this phenomenon had factored into the administrations’ firing of Hudes, another student in the class was outraged at his colleagues’ attitude.  “Regardless of grades, a bad professor should be reported.  Period,” he demanded.

But many students have long believed that they have no ability to affect personnel and policy decisions.  “Regardless of the gravity of the situation, students have always felt that their concerns are not addressed when it comes to teachers and school policies,” said one student leader.  However, Hudes firing may have a trickle-down effect, causing more students to decry their professors and influence administrative decisions.

As far as the accusations of his ineffectiveness as a teacher, again many students came to his defense.  Additionally, the lack of comparable complaints emanating from Hudes’ other class, Networking, was stated as another proof that student’s critical allegations of were false.  On this point, Sengupta conceded, “We have far fewer complaints from his networking course.”

Because adjunct professors are hired on a per-semester basis, many fear the prospects of a last-minute firing.  Despite the fact that Sengupta had essentially given Hudes a verbal and email commitment to his spring assignments, legally Yeshiva had no binding agreement that would force them into rehiring.  With just a month before the onset of the spring semester, Hudes is virtually certain that he will not be able to find work elsewhere this late in the year.

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.