Fired lecturer leaked exams papers to selected students-report

Sep 27, 2009 News

---

…writes to foreign sponsor seeking termination of students’ scholarships

A stunning report prepared by a Panel of Inquiry at the University of Guyana (UG) has found evidence that a lecturer victimised and threatened students. This lecturer even held an exam off-campus.
The report, which may have far reaching consequences now forcing management of the campus to rethink oversight strategies as far as its staffers are concerned, also spoke of inappropriate language and an erratic teaching style in classrooms by Evan Persaud, a Faculty of Technology lecturer.
Persaud was fired Wednesday but it is unclear if he was told officially. The lecturer also heads the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) and is a prominent member of the Indian Arrival Committee.
Nearly two dozen students, the lecturer and Dean of the Faculty of Technology, Sherwood Lowe, were interviewed before the report was prepared and handed to the UG Council where the decision to terminate him was made.
The report was done at the request of UG’s Registrar, Vincent Alexander, who appointed Deputy Registrar, Dr Theodosius Velloza, and Department of Law lecturer, Alicia Elias-Roberts, to the Panel of Inquiry.
According to the report, the panel listened to a CD recording of the lecturer during one of his classes in which he was heard cursing and planning to victimise a student who had reported his behaviour to the UG management.
Recommendations
The panel found Persaud guilty of grave misconduct for using profanity in the classroom and in addition, of violating the rights of students by writing directly to Prometheus Resources, a company which sponsors a few students, to terminate their scholarships.
These students were said to be the same ones who reported his misconduct to UG administration, the report says. UG administrators are saying that Persaud bypassed procedures by writing directly to the company.
It was also found that the lecturer acted “in a matter which can be considered inimical to the university’ by holding final exams off campus, “which would affect the quality of the degree offered by the university.”
In its recommendations, the panel called for the termination of Persaud’s contract of employment because he had violated the University Statutes and Code of Conduct for Staff which urges staffers to be aware of their responsibilities and discharge them efficiently and conscientiously.
“Clause 5 states that a staff should speak quietly and courteously and eschew aggressive, vile and abusive language or expression. Mr. Persaud has violated both of these clauses,” the report said.
Evidence
According to the report, the interviews with the students were divided in two parts- questions regarding Persaud’s method of teaching and his general conduct.
Of the 21 students questioned, 17 said they never received any course outline and were referred to a website for it.
“Five students mentioned that Mr. Persaud occasionally gave notes in class.”
The panel found that no course outline was found on the website for the three courses lectured by Persaud. Although final grades were calculated based on course work submitted and final exams marks, many students in their statements to the panel said they were unclear what their actual grades were prior to the final exam.
They were only told they passed or failed.
Regarding assignments and exams, 18 students said Persaud would usually give “surprise” tests but was never consistent in collecting or assessing them. “Students said that Mr. Persaud sometimes gave assignments. Of those submitted, some were graded and returned while at other times they were returned unmarked.”
Eighteen students disclosed that they had done at least one exam at the Russian Embassy, Kitty. However, three students of the 21 said they took part in that and exams were held on campus.
The eighteen students said that they had done “fake” final exams on campus but were told by the same three students who had denied writing the exams off-campus that they would meet at another location to “make modifications to their examinations papers.”
According to the report, students said that for this off-campus test, they were given examination questions in advance.
“They said that these examinations were usually open-book type exams with wide sharing of answers and students would spend several hours or even a few days making their corrections.
The examinations were described as mini-novels, the more booklets they filled with information, the higher their grade will be.”
Conduct unbecoming
All of the 21 students said that Persaud used expletives in the classroom but never to abuse any particular ones.
Two students claimed that they heard the lecturer using racist remarks in the classroom.
Seventeen students said that he talked about sex all the time in the classroom.
While several of these agreed that sex was sometimes used to illustrate points, they felt it was highly inappropriate for the classroom and the majority of times never in relation to the exercise.
According to the report, Persaud would talk “constantly about his sexual experiences and in particular how to perform oral sex. He would talk about the ‘three laws of suckery’ and his knowledge of 365 ways to please a woman.
Students reported that the lecturer’s nick name on campus was “Sex Man”….
One female student told the panel that Persaud asked during a class “what size c#@k you like?”
Eighteen students told the panel that Persaud bragged about his affiliations with top government officials “which was to give the students the impression that he was ‘untouchable’. They also said that Mr. Persaud criticised the PNC and praised the PPP party.
One student said that Mr. Persaud handed out membership applications for the PPP during one class.
According to the report of the Panel of Inquiry, students were asked to rate the lecturer’s level of professionalism on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being poor and 5 excellent.
Some 18 students rated him poorly with 2.5 being the highest.
“They felt that even though Mr. Persaud had a wealth of knowledge to impart to them, they were deprived of it as a result of his poor professional conduct.

---

---