Letter to Duke administration

Letter to President Brodhead,
Dean Looney, and Dean Bell
Duke University
Durham, 27708
North Carolina
August 14, 2006

Dear Dr. Richard Brodhead, Dr. David F. Bell, and Dr. Jacqueline Looney,

It has come to my knowledge that there exists a case involving a certain Ms. Zihui Tang and a certain Prof. Sucheta Mazumdar currently being discussed about at Duke University. I realize that the outcome of this case seems to lean in favor of Prof. Mazumdar. I would like to reiterate this case and request that you re-evaluate your decision based on an unbiased premise. Based on the details disclosed to the public so far, I can gather that Ms. Tang has been discriminated against in several ways:

Students attempting to earn Ph.D’s do not expect to suddenly switch research topics, especially if it has been decided beforehand what the research topic for the next several years should be. However, Ms. Tang’s advisor, Prof. Mazumdar, has changed Ms. Tang’s research topic several times, each time exchanging the current topic with a seemingly unrelated one. Prof. Mazumdar has done this multiple times without the consent of Ms. Tang, the student, and without a credible reason to why she has done this.

Prof. Mazumdar required Ms. Tang to take a multitude of unrelated courses that do not tie together in any way. Though I do not understand why it was required that Ms. Tang take such a varied load of coursework, a scrutinizing analysis of this detail might suggest that Prof. Mazumdar purposely forced Ms. Tang to take on these courses with the intention of preventing Ms. Tang from receiving her degree. Prof. Mazumdar has also required that Ms. Tang repeat many courses on the biased premise that the education of international students means nothing. Though it is true that the United States possesses some of the world’s most renowned and respected universities, there are many universities in other countries that are also just as renowned and respected. As a Chinese student. Ms. Tang would know more clearly than most just what the history of China is, and yet, she was required to relearn this again. This is extremely similar to requiring an American student who studied American history here to be required to repeat the exact same courses in China.

Despite Ms. Tang’s position as a first-year international student, Prof. Mazumdar, required Ms. Tang to take a senior course. I believe it has been implied quite a few times that neither Prof. Mazumdar nor the History Department believes Ms. Tang’s English is above par. If this is the case, why would Ms. Tang be required to take during her first year a class explaining the composition of a master thesis? Does anyone other than me notice anything illogical there? It seems that this professor is trying to sabotage her student’s future.

Prof. Mazumdar required Ms. Tang to report her whereabouts, schedule, and actions even during summer and winter break. Prof. Mazumdar also required Ms. Tang to work and complete tasks during the period of her break. I would expect a school to reserve breaks for their students with the intention of providing them with a resting and recharging period before they continue with their intensive study. I do not understand why Ms. Tang was required to work during her break. Prof. Mazumdar’s constant supervision reminds me of the slave system, where the slave master would constantly watch the slaves and punish those who did not comply with the master’s commands. This professor’s actions resemble that of an obsessive stalker; it violates the basic rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I suspect Prof. Mazumdar attempted to keep tabs on Ms. Tang so that Ms. Tang would not be able to speak her mind and would be required to comply with her advisors beliefs at all times.

Prof. Mazumdar abused her position of power to punish Ms. Tang for speaking her mind. When Ms. Tang stated that she felt overloaded by all the work she was sentenced to do, Prof. Mazumdar accused her of PMS and forced her to a psychologist, threatening that Ms. Tang was required to attend the appointment because she would be watched. Prof. Mazumdar then required Ms. Tang to write a letter of apology explaining her “poor behavior” (ie. speaking her mind, which is ironically a basic right under the Bill of Rights). Whether or not you have realized it, I have noticed several of the basic human rights violated by this professor against Ms. Tang.

Ms. Tang was required by Prof. Mazumdar to send every outline of written work to her to evaluate, even outlines concerning classes not related to Prof. Mazumdar herself. This seems rather too obsessive, especially for a professor. Why would a professor be this obsessed with the going-ons of a student? I sense foul play.

Despite being a professor of Chinese history (or perhaps because of it), Prof. Mazumdar is being unusually racist. She wrote to Ms. Tang, and I quote: “Basically, I don’t think any student from China, even one with a far stronger background than yours, and with far fewer writing problems can possibly take their prelims in the third year and pass.” (9 April 2005, e-mail from Prof. Mazumdar to Ms. Zihui Tang) There is definitely something very discriminatory hidden in this sentence. It seems to me Prof. Mazumdar, from the very start, had no intention of letting Ms. Zihui Tang, or any other Chinese student, pass. Call me paranoid, but I believe that there is something extremely racist present in this note.

Prof. Mazumdar also personally attacked Ms. Zihui Tang when she wrote to Ms. Tang in another e-mail: “I had no idea that compared to Nanda, or Beida, where I had students from, or Zhongda where I studied, Nankai training was so poor.” Perhaps Nankai is not as great a university as Nanda or Beida, or even Zhongda, but Prof. Mazumdar had no right to insult and mentally attack Ms. Tang in such a depreciatory manner. This is a cruel statement that I expect is unacceptable for a professor to communicate to a student.There are many other violations of rights and discriminatory actions that have been taken by the Prof. Sucheta Mazumdar. These violations, actions, and situations listed are only parts of a whole case which has been explicitly detailed by Ms. Zihui Tang. I am not sure if you have read her complete arguments, but I suggest that you do so immediately. You will realize the injustices done to Ms. Tang, and the mental and academic torture she has experienced at the hands of Prof. Sucheta Mazumdar.As the board of directors for Duke University, you are expected to make decisions based on an unbiased premise disregarding such irrelevant details such as who is an employee of the school and who isn’t, what race is the student, etc. Because in the end, the result of this case does not necessarily involve the school; it involves a biased advisor and a discriminated student who should be served the justice she deserves, which you, as the board of directors, must realize.

With Regards,
“Hearty S.”
Date:2006-08-14 17:48:41