Capella's Provost and a Dean are Under Investigation

[CapellaStinks]

Capella's Provost and a Dean are among those now being investigated for retaliating against a student who spoke up about Capella's incompetent practices. The United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has already accepted the complaint and has (or soon will be) interrogating these and other high ranking officials for their first-hand participation in retaliating against the student. It should be noted that OCR has already accepted the retaliation complaint which, unlike all other cases they handle, shift the burden of proof to the “university” – this means that it is now the Capella’s task to prove that they did not retaliate. This; however, will be impossible for them to do as their illegal activities and grossly unethical behavior are simply too evident.

More information may be found at Capella University Sucks (http://www.capellauniversitysucks.us)

[J]

Hi CapellaStinks,

As dhfr says, if you have personal testimony about Capella we'd like to hear it.

However, now you've put your case in a few posts, I think we'll regard it as not needing repetition.

Everybody:
CapellaStinks' anti-Capella site is at www.capellauniversitysucks.us

CapellaStinks:
No more references to your site from now on, please. We're not here to give you free publicity.

[CapellaStinks]

Moderator:

A very detailed testimony will be forthcoming; however, until the investigation that is being conducted, at this very moment, by the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has been concluded (along with the significant legal actions against Capella that will follow), it is not possible to say more than the following:

1. OCR has accepted an investation (OCR Docket #05-04-2092) against very HIGH ranking officials at Capella, including the provost, a dean, one or more instructors, and several other Capella employees for retaliating against a student who filed a legitimate complaint against the university for the incompetent design of the online courseroom, WebCT, that used by a couple of their "schools." WebCT denies equal access to students with disabilities as revealed by the numerous links on the Capella Sucks web site. That student was locked out of the school, without notice or warning, back in July. Furthermore, that student had a 4.0 GPA with just 3 classes remaining prior to finishing a second masters degree (the first was obtained at a real university). Capella intentionally ignored their own policies, as well as numerous Federal laws, in their ongoing retaliation that has continued against that student. To this day, the Provost, the Dean, and all other Capella officials have literally refused to tell that student what their bogus "charges" are, who was involved, who served on their bogus "academic standards committee," etc., etc. In other words, that student was denied ALL (in the most literal sense of the term) due process rights. The Provost, the Dean, and all others involved at Capella have acted in complete disregard to all of their own polices and ethical behavior.

2. Unlike all other complaints accepted by OCR, when this Federal Law Enforcement Agency accepts a retaliation complaint, the burden of proof then falls upon the university to prove that they were not engaged in illegal conduct. In other words, it is now up to Capella to prove that they did not retaliate. The evidence that will be revealed once OCR has completed their investigation will demonstrate conclusively that Capella is engaged in illegal activities against students. (This information is also available through the Freedom of Information Act). OCR is in the process of onsite personal interviews (at Capella's office) with the appropriate administrators at this very moment.

3. Additional complaints have been filed against the same and other HIGH ranking officials at Capella because they have refused to turn over the student's complete "education records" as required under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and because one of their vice presidents disclosed false and highly confidential information from that student's file to others. FERPA is a Federal law that is enforced by another United States Department of Education law enforcement agency - the Family Policy Compliance Office.

All of the above information can be verified by contacting the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (refer to OCR Docket #05-04-2092) at:

Chicago Office
Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education
111 N. Canal Street, Suite 1053
Chicago, IL 60606-7204
Telephone: 312-886-8434
FAX: 312-353-4888; TDD: 312-353-2540
Email: OCR_Chicago@ed.gov


The FERPA Complaint may be verified by contacting:

US Department of Education
Family Policy Compliance Office
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/students.html
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202-5901
(202) 260-3887 - Voice
(202) 260-9001 - FAX

As for any one considering Capella - look elsewhere if you desire a real education - you won't get one at Capella.

[Capella Rocks]

I wonder why Capella Sucks has not updated us on his OCR Complaint. Maybe because the OCR ruled that Capella was justified in dismissing him from the University?

The following 2 part post was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, using the docket number that Mr. Sucks provided.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
MIDWESTERN DIVISION. CHICAGO OFFICE

JAN 5 2005

Re: 05-04-2092

Dear Mr.

The U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has completed its complaint investigation activities with respect to the above-referenced complaint filed against Capella University (University). The complaint alleged that the University subjected you (Complainant) to retaliation after you complained to the University that the University’s course room software was inaccessible to students with disabilities.

Specifically, the Complainant alleged that, beginning on July 12, 2004, the University subjected him to retaliation when a) the Dean of the School of Technology (Dean) and the System Usability Analysis and Design course Instructor (Instructor) locked him out of his summer quarter 2004 courses, b) the Provost failed to respond to his July 19, 2004 grievance against the Dean and Instructor for locking him out, c) on July 19, 2004, the Dean assigned the Academic Standards Committee (ASC) the task of confirming the Dean’s decision to lock him out of his classes, and d) the Dean suspended him from the University for the summer and fall 2004 quarters.

In addition, during the course of the investigation, the Complainant alleged three additional acts of retaliation. Specifically, the Complainant alleged that a) the University refused on numerous occasions to provide him with the names of the members of the ASC, which was reviewing his status, b) the University failed to provide him with a copy of his rights with respect to filing grievances when he requested them on July 19, 2004, and c) on December 17, 2004, a University representative left a voicemail message that the Complainant viewed as harassment

OCR is responsible for enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. (Section 504), and its implementing regulation, 34 C.F.R. Part 104, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of Federal Financial assistance. As a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the Department, the University is subject to Section 504. The regulation implementing Section 504 also prohibits retaliation against individuals for asserting rights protected by those laws. Accordingly. OCR has jurisdiction over the complaint.

OCR interviewed the Complainant and other witnesses and reviewed documents provided by the Complainant and the University, including the supplemental information the Complainant provided to OCR on January 4, 2005. OCR has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. The bases for that conclusion follow.

FACTS:

The University is an online university where students access course information and participate in course discussions through the University’s Internet-based user interface. Students enrolled in the University are expected to participate in course room discussions by posting questions or comments to the course discussion board where other students in the course and the instructor can review the posts and respond to their postings. Only the instructor and students enrolled in the course section can view and respond to the messages on the course discussion board. Students submit their finished projects and assignments to the instructor electronically.

Further, like traditional universities, the University has policies and procedures governing the behaviors and expectations of students. These policies include the Learner Code of Conduct (LCC) and Learner Handbook (Handbook), which are available to enrolled students on the University’s website through the University’s iGuide. All students are required to complete an orientation course that included information on the University’s policies and procedures.

In April 2004, shortly after enrolling in spring quarter courses, the Complainant complained to University administrators and staff that the School of Technology’s newly adopted software for online courses, or learning platform, was inaccessible to students with disabilities. During the spring quarter, the Complainant raised the issue on several occasions with University administrators and staff, including his instructors, the Dean, and the Disabilities Services Coordinator.

On July 2. 2004, the first day of summer quarter courses, the Complainant posted a message to the System Usability Analysis and Design course discussion room, which was available to all students enrolled in the course and the Instructor. In the message, the Complainant stated that he has “filed a very serious complaint against Capella" with OCR because he remains "adamant that Capella is in direct violation of several Federal Laws regarding accessibility." In this message and a July 7 message posted to the course discussion room, the Complainant solicited other students to join in his OCR complaint against the University.

On July 8, the Complainant posted a message to the course discussion room referring to
"moronic Capella officials" and “idiots in the School of Education” who played a role in the adoption of the learning platform, accusing the Dean of lying to him, and referring to “the bigots, horse's a--' [sic], jerks, idiots, con artists, charlatans, and liars at Capella.” The Instructor informed OCR that she removed this posting and, later that day, posted a message to the entire course room requesting that students refrain from posting information that was not relevant to the course topic.

On July 9, the Dean sent an e-mail message to the Complainant stating that his postings were "hampering the educational process and.. inappropriate" and pointing out the need for respectful dialogue within the course discussion room. In the message, the Dean explained that the course discussion room is "meant to be utilized for educational enrichment relative to the content of the specific course" and is an inappropriate place to debate the issues he presented. The Dean referred the Complainant to the University's general learner discussion room as the appropriate location to debate issues outside the content of courses. The Dean also stated that all postings should be respectful of others, that all participants should be treated with dignity and respect, and that the Complainant should consider his "tone and language in light of Capella's strongly held principle of respect for others.”

The following day, the Complainant posted a new message to the course discussion room accusing the Instructor of "despicable behavior" for deleting his July 8 posting, saying that her actions were "disgusting," and accusing her of unprofessional, unethical, and illegal behavior, the Dean of being "grossly incompetent," "a coward," and a "liar," and the University President of being "feeble."

The LCC, in addition to prohibiting "inappropriate, offensive, and unfair”' behavior, prohibits learners from harassing, threatening, or embarrassing others or from distributing abusive content. The policy also requires treating others with “respect and dignity." The University's procedure for dealing with alleged violations of the LCC has multiple stages. At the first stage, a University official communicates directly with the learner to try to resolve the matter informally. If the learner continues the inappropriate behavior or appeals any disciplinary action imposed in this stage, then the formal process is initiated. This consists of a University official conducting a preliminary investigation of the situation in order to determine whether a charge should be referred to the ASC. According to the Dean and members of the ASC, sanctions for students found to be violating the LCC can range from academic warning to dismissal from the
University, depending on the severity of the violation and the willingness of the student to cooperate with the University in resolving the issue.

On July 12, after consulting with the Instructor and other University personnel, the Dean approved discontinuing the Complainant's course room access. The Dean sent an e-mail message to the Complainant referring to the Dean’s July 9 e-mail to the Complainant. The Dean advised the Complainant that his July 10 posting to the course room was "inappropriate, offensive, and unfair" and thus did not follow the guidelines of the University’s LCC. The Dean informed the Complainant that his access to the University and course room had been temporarily discontinued but would be restored if the Complainant agreed in writing to abide by the LCC. Attached to the e-mail was the LCC.

Later on July 12, the Complainant responded to the Dean in an e-mail message that called the Dean "dispicable [sic]" and a "hypocrite" and referred to the Dean’s “gross lack ethical behavior and illegal actions." In the message the Complainant denied violating the LCC and advised the Dean that he did not intend to sign a statement that he will abide by the LCC because other students are not required to do so. The Complainant demanded to be reinstated to his courses and to be reassigned to a different instructor.

The following day, the Dean advised the Complainant via e-mail that the University had not received a written agreement that the Complainant would abide by the LCC. The Dean further offered the Complainant the opportunity to complete his course through directed study. Under directed study, students work individually with the Instructor to complete the appropriate assignments and are not participants in course room discussions. The Dean also informed the Complainant that, based on his statement that he wanted access to his courses restored, the University was moving forward to the formal process outlines in the LCC and that the situation was being assigned to the School of Technology’s ASC. Later in the day, the Complainant responded to the Dean via e-mail and again demanded to have access restored, but did not specifically respond to the offer for directed study.

University policies require that each school convene an ASC as a formal committee to review student grievances, student grade appeals, alleged violations of University policies (such as plagiarism and comportment), and allegations of illegal activities. The ASC is composed of administrators and other University employees with relevant backgrounds to review each case. The ASC reviews all relevant information regarding the matter and, depending on the circumstances, may interview those parties involved. Once the ASC has reviewed the information, the ASC sends a written recommendation to the Dean. The Dean will review the recommendations and make the final decision of whether any action needs to be taken. Parties who are dissatisfied with the Dean's decision can appeal their case to the Provost's office.

On July 15, at the request of the Dean, the Manager of Advising called the Complainant to determine whether he wanted to continue his two courses through directed study or wanted a refund of tuition and costs. The Manager informed OCR that the Complainant responded. "Put it in writing. I'm in the process of suing Capella University." The Manager explained to OCR that the Complainant told her he was not interested in anything less than full access to the course. The Manager said she was unable to offer the tuition refund because the Complainant ended the call. A follow-up e-mail message from the Complainant confirmed that he told the Manager that he wanted all contact with him to be in writing.

On July 19, based on a determination by the Dean that the actions of the Complainant may have violated the LCC, the Dean formed the ASC to review whether the Complainant violated University Policy with respect to comportment and if so to make a recommendation in response.

On that same date, the Complainant sent an e-mail message to the Provost with the subject line "Grievance Against [the Dean], [Instructor], et al. etc." In the message, the Complainant referred to the grievance procedures in the Handbook and stated that he was filing a grievance alleging that he had been subjected to retaliation, intimidation, and harassment by the Dean, Instructor, and unnamed others. He asked the Provost to conduct an investigation against the Dean and Instructor "for their refusal to follow University Policy and their illegal actions against me." He further asked the University to provide him “all information pertaining to my legal recourse." According to the Provost, this e-mail was the first time she was made aware of any issues surrounding the Complainant.

Under the University's grievance procedures, students are to attempt to resolve the issue with the other party and the School prior to appealing the issue to the Provost's Office. The Provost informed OCR that learners often write directly to her Office with their problems and bypass the normal channels of working to resolve the issue informally at the school level. In such cases, she said, she notifies them of the appropriate procedures and does not take action.

With respect to the Complainant's grievance, the Provost informed OCR that it appeared that the Complainant was raising issues with the Provost that had not been raised with the Instructor or Dean at the School level, so she contacted the Dean to determine whether he was aware of the i
ssues. After speaking with the Dean, the Provost determined that the overall issues raised in the grievance to her Office were being addressed by the School of Technology's newly formed ASC. The Provost informed OCR that she did not want to get involved in the proceedings at this stage because she would potentially need to hear an appeal of the ASC's recommendations and the Dean's final decision and she did not want to jeopardize her impartiality. The Provost informed OCR that she did not attempt to contact the Complainant to explain her decision. The Provost informed OCR that, in situations when students file initial complaints directly with her office, her assistant will contact them to inform them of the appropriate process for filing a grievance. In the Complainant's situation, the Provost informed OCR that she did not take a similar action because the Complainant's issues were already being addressed through the appropriate channels and she did not feel that he needed to be provided ad
ditional clarification at that time.%
0D

The Complainant advised OCR that he sent the Provost. Dean, and General Counsel numerous email messages requesting the names of the members of the ASC. The Complainant states that the University never provided him the names of the members of the ASC. University officials did not recall receiving these e-mails and the Complainant was unable to locate or provide copies of the e-mails to OCR.

The ASC did not interview the Complainant or hold a hearing to review the charges against the Complainant. According to the Dean, the ASC believed that there was sufficient information from the Complainant's numerous e-mails and postings to understand the facts regarding the issue of the Complainant's comportment and it was therefore not necessary to interview him. On August 25, the ASC determined that the Complainant violated the LCC when he "engaged in courseroom behavior that interfered with other learners' rights to learn, and that he created a hostile learning environment by harassing others and by posting abusive and offensive statements about individuals and about Capella University."' The ASC recommended that the Dean impose a one-year suspension from course enrollment and that the Complainant be allowed to complete his courses through directed study when he returned.

On August 31 the Dean sent the Complainant a letter describing the ASC's recommendations. The Dean advised the Complainant that he was suspending the Complainant for two quarters from course enrollment and informed the Complainant that he would ensure that the Complainant could take his remaining three courses through directed study.

(More to Follow)

[Capella Rocks]

On September 3, the Complainant sent an e-mail message to the Provost appealing the Dean’s decision. The Complainant also pointed out the Provost’s failure to respond to the grievance that he filed against the Dean and Course Instructor. On September 8, the Provost confirmed via email message the receipt of the Complainant's appeal. On September 16 the Provost notified the Complainant that, based on the evidence and the terms of the LCC, his appeal was denied.

During 2004, the University took action against three other learners for violating the University’s policy on comportment. None of these learners had complained of discrimination against students with disabilities. The University explained that, in all three instances, it took actions to protect other learners or University employees. In one instance, the learner withdrew from the University when told to remove offensive courseroom postings. In the second instance, after review by the ASC, the learner acknowledged that his actions were inappropriate and took actions to remedy the situation, which led to the ASC recommending that the student be placed on academic warning for the remainder of the quarter. In the third instance, after review by the ASC, the ASC recommended that the learner be restricted in his contact with other learners.

On December 17, 2004, the complainant received a recorded message in his voice mail from a University representative, advising him that the University noted that he had not enrolled for classes and informing him that if he had questions or needed assistance in doing so, he could contact University advisors for assistance.

Analysis:

The regulation implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at 34 C.F.R. section 100.7(e), which is incorporated by reference in the Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. section 104.61, prohibits a recipient from intimidating or retaliating against an individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by the Act.

A prima facie case of retaliation under the statutes exists when each of the following is established: 1) an individual engaged in an activity protected by the statutes or their implementing regulations; 2) the recipient had notice of the protected activity; 3) the recipient took an adverse action contemporaneous with or subsequent to the protected activity; and 4) there is an indication of a causal connection between the individual's participation in the protected activity and the adverse action. When a prima facie case of retaliation is established, a recipient may provide a non-retaliatory justification for the adverse action. When such a justification is provided, OCR examines the justification to determine whether it is a pretext for retaliation.

To make a viable claim of retaliation under Section 504, the Complainant must meet all four prongs of the prima facie case. The Complainant established that he engaged in an activity protected by Section 504 and its implementing regulation when he protested that the University’s learning platform was not accessible to students with disabilities. University administrators were made aware of the Complainant’s protected activity through e-mail correspondence and telephone conferences. Based on this information. OCR has determined that the Complainant established that he engaged in a protected activity of which the University was aware.

OCR determined that three of the seven acts the Complainant alleged to be retaliatory, namely not providing the Complainant with the names of the ASC members, not providing him with a copy of his rights with respect to filing grievances, and the December 17 voicemail, were not adverse for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation as they did not by themselves significantly affect his status as a student at the University or interfere with his ability to enjoy the benefits of the education program, deter him from pursuing his rights by filing complaints with OCR and other agencies and organizations, or preclude him from pursuing his discrimination claims. The University's not providing the Complainant with the names of the ASC members was not adverse because the Complainant was not meant to participate in the ASC process as it involved internal deliberations. Thus, the University providing the names of the ASC members would not have enhanced the Complainant’s opportunity to participate in the process or affect the proceedings of the ASC or its actions with respect to the Complainant. The December 17 voicemail was a pre-recorded message offering the Complainant assistance with his enrollment and thus cannot be viewed as adverse to him. With regard to the failure to provide him a copy of his rights, the evidence shows that the Complainant had a copy of the Learner Handbook, which summarizes the University’s policies and procedures with respect to filing grievances in his possession on the day he filed his grievance with the Provost. Not providing the Complainant with another copy of documents he already had in his possession cannot be viewed as adverse. Based on this information, OCR has determined that the Complainant did not meet the third prong of the retaliation framework with respect to these three actions.


OCR determined, however, that the following actions were adverse: a) the Dean and Instructor locked the Complainant out of his summer quarter course, b) the Dean referred the matter to the ASC; c) the Dean suspended him from the University for the summer and fall 2004 quarters; and d) the Provost failed to respond to his grievance against the Dean and Instructor. OCR also determined that, due to the closeness in time between the protected activity and the adverse actions, a causal connection could be inferred. Since the evidence established a prima facie case of retaliation with respect to these allegations, OCR next considered whether the recipient proffered a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the reported adverse actions.

The University provided as its justification for locking the Complainant out of his courses, referring the matter to the ASC, and ultimately suspending the Complainant from the University the Complainant's inappropriate and disruptive behavior in the course room, particularly his failure to post information that was directly related to the course material and his continual use of inappropriate language and name-calling toward University staff and administrators.

OCR next considered whether the University's rationale for its actions was a pretext for retaliation. The evidence revealed that the University took action against the Complainant only after warning him that his conduct violated the LCC and referring him to an appropriate forum to discuss his concerns about the learning platform. The evidence also revealed that, in imposing the suspension, it followed its written procedures by referring the matter to the ASC for consideration. In addition, the evidence revealed that the University did not subject the Complainant to different treatment as it took actions against other students who had not engaged in a protected activity but who also violated the University’s policy on comportment. Thus, OCR concluded that the justifications for the University's actions to lock out the Complainant, refer his case to the ASC, and ultimately suspend the Complainant, were not a pretext for retaliation.

With respect to the Provost's alleged failure to follow through on the Complainant’s grievance against the Dean and Instructor, the Provost provided as her justification that she felt that the issues were being addressed by the School of Technology’s ASC and she did not want to compromise her impartiality in the event that she would need to review an appeal in the matter. The Provost has declined to respond to grievances in other similar situations when students came to her without first going through all the steps in the grievance procedure In addition, it was ultimately necessary for the Provost to review an appeal from the Complainant, bearing out her decision not to become involved at the time of the grievance. Thus, OCR concluded that the justification for the Provost's failure to respond to the Complainant's e-mail was not a pretext for retaliation.

Based on the above, OCR concludes that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the Complainant's allegation that the District retaliated against him because he protested that the University's learning platform was not accessible to students with disabilities.
Consequently, OCR is closing this complaint effective the date of this letter. If you have any questions or concerns about OCR's determination, you may contact Mark Farr, Equal Opportunity Specialist, or me at (312) 886-8381. If you still have concerns after consulting with Mr. Farr or me, you may send a written request for reconsideration to the Director of the Chicago Office at the above address within 60 days of the date of the resolution letter. Please be advised that contacting Mr. Farr or me neither tolls the 60-day timeline for filing a request for reconsideration, nor is a prerequisite to filing a request for reconsideration with the Office Director. If you make a request for reconsideration, you should be as specific as possible, focusing on factual or legal concerns that could change the disposition of the case.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Turnbull
Acting Team Leader

[Dennis Ruhl]

Anyone know what happened to the racism complaint against Concord Law School? That was a bitter person with record length posts at aed.

So CapellaSucks sucked.

[CapellaStinks]

<Ad hominem comments removed by moderator>

For updated information on Capella's abuse of students, visit:

Capella University dot Org (http://www.capellauniversity.org)

for details. <Ad hominem comments removed by moderator> the "investigation" he claims is closed, really isn't. In fact, Capella University is still under investigation by OCR - including the fact that numerous officials at Capella were involved in lying, on numerous occassions, to OCR.

Not only is Capella University is still under investigation for by OCR, but they are also under investigation, at this very moment, for refusing to turn over documents, as required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to the student they harassed. FERPA is yet another Federal Law that Capella University has intentionally ignored.

Still not happy? Then visit the above listed site for details regarding the fact that Capella University hires "instructors" - such as Diane Stottlemyer - who played a key role in harassing the student who filed the OCR complaint, even though she literally BOUGHT her "degrees" from a Diploma Mill. She bought both her "master's" and her "doctorate" for approximately $2,200 a few years ago. While Capella has known about this dirty little secret for several years, they still allowed her to "teach" and even refered to her as "Dr. Stottlemyer" in materials they sent to OCR.

Also, be sure to take a very good look at what a lot of other students had to say about the nonsense they endured at Capella.

<Ad hominem comments removed by moderator>

[ElMaestro]

<Ad hominem comments removed by moderator>

For updated information on Capella's abuse of students, visit:

It is clear that Mr. Stinks abuses Capella students (or anyone) who disagrees with his views. From what I understand, this former "student" has harrassed and verbally provoked plenty of students when he was enrolled at Capella.

Looking back at some of his past postings, I noticed how he first started complaining about WebCT; then he didn't like Capella starting to use WebCT so he called them a mill; then he refuses to go by the schools' behavior policies by posting ad hominem remarks in the class discussion forum; he also claimed to have disabilities and accused Capella of being unresponsive to accomodate him. Interestingly, Forbes magazine's review reported Capella's classroom design to be very user friendly even for the non-tech savvy. Also, Mr. Stinks never fully explained in detail what are the nature of his disabilities that make it so hard to learn via WebCT format. Interestingly, Mr. Stinks apparently has shown no problems building demeaning web pages, responding and harrassing members of distance learning discussion boards, spamming distance learning groups with spyware infested links, and spamming the OCR with complaints that have shown no inapropriate behavior by the school. What the OCR response has shown is more evidence of Mr. Stinks' past as a troublemaker and provocateur.

Despite Mr. Stinks' petulance and incessant advertising of his home pages, his discussion boards have gathered little interest. I did see some Capella advocates in them who were bashed by a handful of respondents using different screen names; who mysteriously happened to share the same IP address that Mr. Stinks uses. :crazy2:

So, anyway, I just want to ask directly to Mr. CapellaStinks, you claim to have disabilities, right? So, what are they then? :D

For those who don't know, Mr. Stinks is turning out to be one of the many degree mill ****** who struggle to keep their diploma mills afloat. To increase business, they trash the concept of regional accreditation as a whole by discrediting real accreditted online schools, and why not better than to attack the major major DL RA providers such as Capella, UoP, Union, etc? With the biggest RA online schools out of the way, guys like Mr. Stinks hopes that prospective students hoping to get stricly online degrees will be taken by the myriad number of heavily advertised schools with bogus accreditations. Surely these schools can't be that bad since they don't get attacked by these guys (at least that is what he wants them to think). :D The fact is, you will never see guys like CapellaStinks starting web pages exclusively devoted against degree mills like Kennedy Western, LaCrosse University, Madison University, Barrington University and many others.

El Maestro

[CapellaStinks]

For those who don't know, Mr. Stinks is turning out to be one of the many degree mill ****** who struggle to keep their diploma mills afloat. To increase business, they trash the concept of regional accreditation as a whole by discrediting real accreditted online schools, and why not better than to attack the major major DL RA providers such as Capella, UoP, Union, etc? With the biggest RA online schools out of the way, guys like Mr. Stinks hopes that prospective students hoping to get stricly online degrees will be taken by the myriad number of heavily advertised schools with bogus accreditations.


Too funny! :lol: El Maestro is clearly hallucinating! Take a good look at what other students are saying about Capella (http://www.capellauniversity.org/student_complaints.html), along with Capella’s partnership with WebCT. Sounds like El Maestro must be another salesperson from Capella who is also upset that at least one honest Capella “Enrollment Director” has started exposing the truth (http://capellauniversitysucks.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=95) about their boiler room tactics to attract warm bodies into their “school.” Let’s not forget that UOP was recently fined a mere $9 Million for their sleazy sales tactics (http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=9629) - perhaps sales are declining for these online "schools" and El Maestro needs to invent a conspiracy theory to bolster sales! :crazy2:

[Dennis Ruhl]

So, anyway, I just want to ask directly to Mr. CapellaStinks, you claim to have disabilities, right? So, what are they then? :D



Nothing serious enough to deny him the ability to post venom at length on the internet.

Knowing what disability and how it can affect studies would add a bit of credibility, that seems to be lacking..

For heaven's sake why doesn't our friend just get on with life? There are hundreds of other schools to attend and complain about.

[Robert J.]

Capella/Stinks/Rocks and El Maestro:

If you want to contribute to our community please do, but your running feud will have to go elsewhere.

[Capella Rocks]

Capella/Stinks/Rocks and El Maestro:

If you want to contribute to our community please do, but your running feud will have to go elsewhere.

Robert, I do not have an issue with you taking down this thread if you see fit to do so.

However, if Capella Sucks is going to frequent discussion boards throughout the Internet (Hint - Google "Capella Sucks" and see how many belong to him), I am going to confront him with facts. OCR has found that Capella conducted no wrongdoing in both of his complaints against him, and I am confident that the ongoing FERPA investigation will have the same results. As a very satisfied Capella learner, I will not stand by and watch this guy hatchet the reputation of the school with misinformation.

Again, if you do not believe this discussion is appropriate for the board, I have no issues with you removing the entire thread; but when someone accuses the provost and the dean of a distance learning school of misconduct, it is only fair to examine what the factual evidence is from both sides.

[CapellaStinks]

<Edited by moderator>

[Dennis Ruhl]

Pardon me for being a skeptic but how does anything other than a mental disability prevent one from participating in an online program. If you can't participate in an online program, don't. If you're looking for wheelchair ramps on the internet, they aren't there.

I just can't hack the whining. What the bleep is your handicap and what the bleep is Capella supposed to do about it??

[CapellaStinks]

Pardon me for being a skeptic but how does anything other than a mental disability prevent one from participating in an online program. If you can't participate in an online program, don't. If you're looking for wheelchair ramps on the internet, they aren't there.

I just can't hack the whining. What the bleep is your handicap and what the bleep is Capella supposed to do about it??

Full details about WebCT and its lack of accessibility are found at:

http://www.capellauniversitysucks.us/site/resources.html

If you are really interested, then you also need to look at Section 504 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, the American's with Disabilities Act, and other relevant laws.

The complaint was filed on behalf of ALL students with disabilities - physical, visual, and learning disabilities.

You should also look at:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2002/WebCT3_6.html

The fact that you seem to think that students with disabilities shouldn't take such online courses because a University implements an incompetently designed program, such as WebCT, that does deny such access demonstrates your gross failure to recognize the fundamental compontents of American Laws that grant full and unrestricted access to ALL individuals.

[ElMaestro]

Full details about WebCT and its lack of accessibility are found at:

http://www.capellauniversitysucks.us/site/resources.html

Yeah, if Mr. Stinks really hated WebCT so much, then one has to wonder why he didn't he make a WebCTsucks web page. He has posted links to: PapaJohns sucks, Mattel Sucks and more. I don't see anything regarding WebCT sucks.

If WebCT is so horrible against people with learning disabilities, one has to wonder why so many highly reputable brick & mortar universities use it to this day? And how come Mr. Stinks has not attacked any of these other institutions for using it? :crazy2:


ElMaestro

[Dennis Ruhl]

The fact that you seem to think that students with disabilities shouldn't take such online courses because a University implements an incompetently designed program, such as WebCT, that does deny such access demonstrates your gross failure to recognize the fundamental compontents of American Laws that grant full and unrestricted access to ALL individuals.

I read a lot about WebCT and how unfriendly it apparently is. The question I still can't figure out is how it specifcally affects individuals with what disabilities. What disability do you have and how does it affect you. Not a tough question if you weren't being so freaking evasive.

Did you have any problems navigating the system when you said the things that got you suspended? While I think that all reasonable efforts should be made accomodate handicapped people, switching the system upon which a complete University's delivery is based is not one of them. A reasonable person would have bolted after the first course.

[Capella Rocks]

Full details about WebCT and its lack of accessibility are found at:

http://www.capellauniversitysucks.us/site/resources.html

If you are really interested, then you also need to look at Section 504 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, the American's with Disabilities Act, and other relevant laws.

The complaint was filed on behalf of ALL students with disabilities - physical, visual, and learning disabilities.

You should also look at:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2002/WebCT3_6.html

The fact that you seem to think that students with disabilities shouldn't take such online courses because a University implements an incompetently designed program, such as WebCT, that does deny such access demonstrates your gross failure to recognize the fundamental compontents of American Laws that grant full and unrestricted access to ALL individuals.

Capella Rocks replies...

Although I posted it on the alt.education board - I am also going to post here the OCR resolution letter concerning Capella and Mr. Sucks. The letter is posted verbatum in the interest of examining the facts behind the case.

One will see that Capella was more than fair when dealing with Mr. Sucks and his disability...

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
MIDWESTERN DIVISION, CHICAGO OFFICE

SEPTEMBER 2, 2004

RE: 05-04-2063

Dear Mr.

On April 19, 2004, the U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), received your disability discrimination complaint filed against Capella University (University). As a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, the University is subject to the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. sec. 794, and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 104, which prohibit discrimination based upon disability. Accordingly, OCR has jurisdiction over the complaint.

In your complaint, you allege that during the spring quarter of 2004, the University subjected you to discrimination on the basis of disability when it denied you the opportunity to fully participate in or benefit from its education program because it used for its online classes web-based software that is inaccessible to you because you are a person with a learning disability, and failed to provide you with necessary academic adjustments in your courses.

OCR has carefully examined your complaint and the other information you provided during OCR's evaluation of your complaint and has determined that it will not proceed further with complaint resolution. The bases for OCR's determination follow.

FACTS

You stated to OCR that you enrolled in two spring quarter online internet courses at the University. Immediately after accessing the courses on April 8, 2004, you noticed that the University changed the software platform that it had used to present course content. You said that you and other students encountered problems with the new software. You concluded that the software was inaccessible to you because you have short term memory problems and the software uses links and features that do not offer you ready access to taught information, thereby requiring you to expend a lot of time to get to the information. Therefore, on April 8, 2004, you wrote to the Disability Services Coordinator (DSC) and requested course modifications. You requested the University to provide you double the amount of time required to post responses to your instructors' weekly discussion questions, double the amount of time required to complete assignments, and double the amount of time to post and respond to other students' discussion questions.

On April 13, 2004, you received a letter from the University granting all of your requests except for your request for double the time to post and respond to other students’ discussion questions. The University informed you that it denied this one request because the nature of the online course environment requires students to engage in discussions with other learners during each weekly unit. However, the University also informed you that if you were unable to complete final projects by the last day of the term, you were to request a grade on “incomplete” from the instructor and to follow the University’s policies as they apply to completing incomplete courses.

On May 11, 2004, after you failed a midterm project in one of your two courses, you sent an electronic mail message to the DSC in which you requested four additional modifications for both courses: additional time beyond the time granted by the University in its April 13th letter to you; additional time to read, respond to, and post discussion topics in the online course room; a list of assignments and due dates for each course; and printed copies of all assigned readings. You also informed the University that you would request additional modifications and stated that you would provide documentation from your doctor to support the request.

On May 17,2004, your doctor sent to the DSC your disability diagnosis along with a list of recommended academic adjustments, which included the adjustments you requested on May (sic – no date listed) plus others not previously requested. On May 21, 2004, the University notified you that, effective May 20, 2004, you were being provided all requested academic adjustments you requested except for five, and it explained its basis for denying those academic adjustments. You confirmed with OCR that you received beginning May 20 the adjustments that the University approved.

The University denied three requests that it deemed to be inappropriate given its online course environment. Specifically, you requested a quiet room for testing, note takers, and printed copies of all assigned readings. With respect to the quiet room, the University informed you that it denied the request because the University does not utilize tests for any of its courses, including those in which you were enrolled. With respect to the request for note takers, the University informed you that the online course room environment ensures that all information is presented in a written format and that note takers are unnecessary. Regarding your request for printed copies of all assigned readings, the University informed you that the online course room environment is designed to allow students to print all postings, announcements, and emails, as needed, and the instructor was to provide you with web-links to non-text book reading assignments, which could then be printed.

The University also denied two other requests for adjustments to the academic program. You requested that the University use a different software platform; however, the University stated that its School of Technology uses a single software platform and does not support multiple platforms. You also requested a decrease in the amount of assignments for the two courses. The University denied this request on the basis that all students need to complete all assignments in order to demonstrate competency. However, the University informed you that you could consult with your instructors to determine if there were other ways for you to demonstrate competency to your instructors’ satisfaction.

You informed OCR that you competed all of your coursework for your two spring 2004 courses in June 2004, and received an A grade in each course. Information you provided also showed that you read 848 postings during the first five units of one course (the next prolific reader read 421) and that during the same time period, you posted 68 questions in the same course (the next most prolific poster of questions posted 65 questions).

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

In order for OCR to proceed with complaint resolution, a complainant must provide OCR with sufficient information to support the factual basis for the complainant’s belief that discrimination has occurred.

You assert that you experienced problems using the software platform for your two spring 2004 courses. Information you provided indicates that many students, including students who do not have a disability had problems adjusting to the new course environment. The information you provided indicates that after you provided the University with information about your disability to support your requests for academic adjustments and modifications, the University provided you with most of the academic adjustments and modifications you requested that allowed you to participate in your courses and successfully complete your courses in a timely manner. While you maintain that the University's decision not to provide all of the requested adjustments and modifications prevented you from participating effectively in your courses, the evidence does not show that the adjustments and modifications that were provided for the two courses were inadequate or ineffective. Instead, the information indicates that you were able to use the software with the academic adjustments and modifications that were provided to participate effectively and successfully in the online course environment and achieve a grade of A in both of your courses. Accordingly, you have not provided a sufficient factual basis to support your belief that the University subjected you to discrimination on the basis of disability by using the software platform in question or that it failed to provide you with necessary academic adjustments and modifications in your two spring 2004 courses.

Based on the above, OCR has determined that there is an insufficient factual basis to support your claim that discrimination on the basis of disability has occurred and OCR is closing your complaint effective the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mark Farr, Equal Opportunity Specialist, at 312-886-8381.


Sincerely,
Algis Tamosiunas
Director
Compliance Programs

[Dennis Ruhl]

OK - short term memory. Most productive student in course. Straight "A"s. I shake my head in disbelief. Unbleepingbelievable.

[ElMaestro]

You also requested a decrease in the amount of assignments for the two courses. The University denied this request on the basis that all students need to complete all assignments in order to demonstrate competency.

Interesting. Very interesting. Mr. Sucks has been saying all this time that Capella courses required no work; and now we find out that it was HE who requested a reduction of class assignments :D

You informed OCR that you competed all of your coursework for your two spring 2004 courses in June 2004, and received an A grade in each course. Information you provided also showed that you read 848 postings during the first five units of one course (the next prolific reader read 421) and that during the same time period, you posted 68 questions in the same course (the next most prolific poster of questions posted 65 questions).

What in the... ??? I can't believe what I'm reading! Lets see: Mr. Sucks read 848 postings and posted 68 questions in five weeks; the most prolific poster; got an A in each course; and on top of that, he requested more time, (DOUBLE nonetheless)...for what? so he could post 138 questions instead? so he could have more free time to ***** around in discussion boards?

The school was right all along not to give him everything he wanted. The evidence is there: two As, class poster champ, and had more than enough free time to build his Capellasucks webpage during that quarter. Learning disability? short-term memory? yeah, right! :D

keep up the good work, Capellarocks :)

El Maestro

[ElMaestro]

I read a lot about WebCT and how unfriendly it apparently is. The question I still can't figure out is how it specifcally affects individuals with what disabilities. What disability do you have and how does it affect you. Not a tough question if you weren't being so freaking evasive.

Did you have any problems navigating the system when you said the things that got you suspended? While I think that all reasonable efforts should be made accomodate handicapped people, switching the system upon which a complete University's delivery is based is not one of them. A reasonable person would have bolted after the first course.

I also wanted to know how this guy's disabilities exactly prevented him from using the system.
But apparently, based on his final grades, his "disabilities" were not much of a factor after all. :D

El Maestro

[Capella Rocks]

I also wanted to know how this guy's disabilities exactly prevented him from using the system.
But apparently, based on his final grades, his "disabilities" were not much of a factor after all. :D

El Maestro

I found a thought provoking article concerning learning disabilites and higher education at: http://www.emory.edu/ACAD_EXCHANGE/2000/octnov/learningdis.html

I wish I could read the article from the Washington State Physics prof in the article, but I don't have a subscription to the Chronicle of Higher Ed.

[Dennis Ruhl]

OK someone has to ask. What's the difference between a learning disability and stupidity? This world always has a great demand for poo shovelers and people who are excused from writing essays because they say they can't are a perfect example of poo shoveling fodder.

While the guys who ride the short bus are given a free ride through high school, should it not end there. What good is a college grad who cannot function at a college level?

Today I wrote a report on the tax implications of the distribution of assets in a divorce for the benefit of a judge. What in hell would I have written if all I had ever done were multiple choice exams?

[dhfr]

I can see that special accommodations are sometimes legitimately needed. But I think a degree earned in such a way should state this right on the diploma. Something as simple as “degree earned with special academic accommodations.” Such disclosure would allow accommodations where needed, but would also be fair to future admissions committees and employers, and would act as a deterrent against abuse.

I understand, of course, that this approach is not likely in the U.S. at least. :~(

[worthingco]

It's unfortunate that starter of this thread has personal issues with Capella. In my opinion, Capella has and will continue to offer fine degree programs. The smear campaign is unnecessary does nothing to inspire meaningful distance-learning discussions.

[dhfr]

As Robert J. requested earlier, please don't use this board for your interpersonal feud.

[Capella Rocks]

Capella Sucks says, "Not only is Capella University is still under investigation for by OCR, but they are also under investigation, at this very moment, for refusing to turn over documents, as required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to the student they harassed. FERPA is yet another Federal Law that Capella University has intentionally ignored."

I have provided below the latest information I have received from the OCR concerning the complaint from Capella Sucks.

To the moderator - I believe that I have not been "personal" on this board. The person who started this thread has accussed Capella University officials of misconduct. The evidence to date suggests otherwise. I have stayed away from attacking the person and just posting the findings of fact in the allegations.

If this isn't an appropriate forum for discussing an investigation of a DL school, I can accept that - though I would disagree. You are correct though, that personal attacks and such don't belong here. If you have any questions, please PM me and I'll answer them. Thanks.

Here is the latest from the OCR in this case:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
MIDWESTERN DMSION, CHICAGO OFFICE

MAY 9 2005

Re: 05-05-2062

On March 17, 2005, the U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), received your complaint filed against Capella University (University). As a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, the University is subject to the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and its implementing regulation, 34 C.F .R. Part 104. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and retaliation by recipients of Federal financial assistance. Accordingly, OCR has jurisdiction over the complaint.

In your complaint, you allege that the University:

1. continues to subject you to retaliation by blocking your access to courses and refusing to allow you to reenroll in any courses because, in July 2004, you complained to University officials and posted on a University website that the University's learning platform is not accessible to students with disabilities;

2. discriminated against you on the basis of disability in the summer of 2004, when it failed to abide by its own written policies regarding the determination to suspend you from the University; and

3. discriminated against you on the basis of disability from July 2004 – Jan. 2005, when it provided false information to OCR, in connection with OCR's investigation of complaint #05-04-2092.

The allegations of disability discrimination and retaliation raised in your complaint all appear to be related to the decision made by the University during the summer of 2004 to suspend you from the University and deny you access to certain University services. In July 2004, you filed a complaint against the University alleging that you were subjected to retaliation when you were suspended; OCR investigated your complaint in case #05-04-2092. In a letter dated January 5, 2005, OCR notified you that there was insufficient evidence to support your allegation and advised you that if you disagreed with OCR's findings and wished to request reconsideration, then you should submit to OCR the "factual or legal concerns that would change the disposition of the case." You subsequently requested OCR to reconsider its determination in that case and that reconsideration request is pending. Meanwhile, you filed the instant complaint.

In accordance with OCR's case processing procedures, OCR will not proceed with case resolution when the same allegations and issues of the complaint have been addressed in a recently resolved OCR complaint. Your allegation of retaliation regarding the University's decision to suspend you was investigated by OCR and was discussed at length in the January 5th letter. As the allegation of retaliation was already addressed by OCR, OCR will not open a new investigation of this allegation. Please note, however, that the information you provided in connection with this allegation is currently under review as part of your pending request for reconsideration. Similarly, although you did not specifically allege in your July 2004 complaint to OCR that the University subjected you to disability discrimination by failing to follow its policies and procedures when it suspended you, OCR fully investigated the facts and circumstances of the University's decision, including any deviation from its published procedures, and nevertheless concluded in its January 5th letter that you were not subjected to retaliation. As the issue raised in this allegation was addressed by OCR in case #05-04-2092, OCR will not open a new investigation but will review the information you provided as part of your pending request for reconsideration.

With respect to allegation #3, in order for OCR to proceed to complaint investigation, the complainant must provide sufficient factual information to state a claim that, if true, would constitute a potential violation of a statute OCR enforces. Your allegation that the University provided false information to OCR during OCR's investigation of case #05-04-2092 does not state a claim of disability discrimination or a potential violation of any statute enforced by OCR; consequently, OCR will not proceed to complaint investigation regarding allegation #3. However, OCR will consider as part of the reconsideration you requested regarding case #05-04- 2092 information you provided to support your assertion that testimony provided by University witnesses during OCR's investigation of case #05-04-2092 was false, in order to determine whether there are facts that should change the outcome of its January 2005 findings. Under the circumstances described above, it is not appropriate for OCR to open an investigation of your allegations of disability discrimination and retaliation, and we are therefore, closing this complaint effective the date of this letter. If you have any questions or concerns about OCR's determination, you may contact me at (312) 886-8405. If you still have concerns after speaking with me, you may send a written request for reconsideration focusing on any specific legal or factual concerns that could change the disposition of the case to the Director of the Chicago Office at the above address within 60 days of the date of this letter.


Sincerely;
Dave Blom
Team Leader

[Dennis Ruhl]

As Robert J. requested earlier, please don't use this board for your interpersonal feud.


I am not part of any feud. I just question whether learning disabilities should excuse a student at an institution dedicated to learning.

In Alberta many students attending public schools have minimal ability to learn because of severe mental handicaps. They are given a full time teachers aid and go through the motions of an education. This was the result of many parents valuing socialization more than education. In reality there is minimal socialization other than with the aid.

Most public school teachers, with a class of 30 students, do not have the time to spend with one student nor are they particularly trained in dealing with severe handicaps, nor are the aids.

Previous to the demands for integration of such students, the preferred method of education was in facilities dedicated to such students where learning was keyed to the level of their abilities with life skills training being foremost and where staff had specialized training in dealing with the handicaps.

There could be a good discussion on the merits of catering to handicapped students in the education system at any level.

[RodKirkland]

Much official time, resource, and courtesy has been provided to these compliants, insults, and demands with the only adverse effects going to Mr. Stinks. Capella has been shown to be procedural, fair, and judicious. As a result, Mr. Stinks appears to be his own worst enemy.

[Capella Rocks]

Capella Sucks said,

"Not only is Capella University is still under investigation for by OCR, but they are also under investigation, at this very moment, for refusing to turn over documents, as required by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to the student they harassed. FERPA is yet another Federal Law that Capella University has intentionally ignored."

This is in apparent reference to Case 05-04-2092, which the OCR ruled that Capella University was within its rights to suspend Mr. Sucks from the University. Mr. Sucks asked the OCR for a review of this ruling. The finding of fact from the OCR Director of the Chicago Office is posted below. This was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, and in the interest of fairness, the finding of fact is posted verbatum.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
MIDWESTERN DIVISION, CHICAGO OFFICE

JUNE 9 2005

RE: 05-04-2092

Dear

I have concluded my review of your letter dated March 5, 2005, in which you requested the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education (Department), to reconsider its determination of January 5, 2005, regarding the above-referenced complaint that you filed with OCR on July 9, 2004.

In your complaint, you alleged that Capella University (University) retaliated against you because you complained to University administrators on April 8, 2004 that the University's course software platform was inaccessible to students with disabilities. Specifically, you claimed the University retaliated against you when a) the Dean of the School of Technology (Dean) and the System Usability Analysis and Design course Instructor (Instructor) locked you out of your summer quarter 2004 courses on July 12, 2004, b) the Provost failed to respond to your July 19, 2004, grievance against the Dean and Instructor for locking you out, c) on July 19, 2004, the Dean assigned the Academic Standards Committee (ASC) the task of confirming the Dean's decision to lock you out of your classes d) the Dean suspended you from the University for the summer and fall 2004 quarters, e) the University refused on numerous occasions to provide you with the names of the members of the ASC, while it was reviewing your status, f) the University failed to provide you with a copy of your rights with respect to filing grievances when you requested them on July 19, 2004, and g) on December 17, 2004, a University representative left a voicemail message that you viewed as harassment. In its letter to you on January 5.2005, OCR informed you that with respect to allegations e, f, and g, OCR determined that the actions were not adverse to you and, therefore, could not have been retaliatory. OCR also found with respect to allegations a, b, c, and d, that the University provided legitimate nondiscriminatory justifications for its actions that were not a pretext for retaliation.

In support of your request for reconsideration, you raised numerous factual and legal concerns that you believe should change OCR's disposition of your case. You stated that OCR’s January 5th letter contained "factual errors, flaws and significant errors," that OCR ignored relevant information and failed to interview other relevant witnesses, and that the University failed to follow its written policies during the period covered by your complaint. You also expressed general dissatisfaction with OCR's decision.

I have reviewed your request for reconsideration and conclude that you have presented no information that would change OCR's determination. The bases for my conclusion are set forth below.

Alleged Factual Errors

In your reconsideration request, you provide an extensive list of what you characterized as "factual errors" in OCR's determination letter. For example, you dispute the dates on which OCR stated that specific events took place. In one instance, you deny that you described certain University personnel as "bigots, horse's a--' [sic], jerks, idiots, con artists, charlatans, and liars" in a posting on July 8, 2004, but admit you made the statement in a posting days later. You also assert that OCR incorrectly stated that on July 8, 2004, the Instructor removed a message you posted that she found offensive and, later that day, posted a message to the entire course room requesting that students refrain from posting information that was not relevant to the course topic. You also deny that on July 8th you posted a new message to the course room accusing the Instructor of "despicable behavior" for deleting your earlier posting, saying that the Instructor's actions were "disgusting," and accusing her of unprofessional, unethical, and illegal behavior, the Dean of being "grossly incompetent," "a coward," and a "liar." and the University President of being "feeble." You, however, acknowledge the substance of the postings and admit that you posted the messages at another time.

You also cite as factual errors several instances where you disagree with OCR's characterizations of certain events and of your behaviors. For example, despite your admission that in online postings in one of the University's course rooms you used the above-described offensive language to describe various University personnel, you repeatedly claim that you were never inappropriate or disruptive in the course rooms. In addition, you state that you were not referred to an appropriate forum to discuss concerns about the accessibility of the University's learning platform. While you admit that you were referred to the General Discussion Board to post your concerns about the accessibility of the University's learning platform, you dispute that the General Discussion Board was the "appropriate forum." You have provided no evidence to suggest that OCR's descriptions of these events are incorrect.

In addition, you claim that if, as OCR stated, the University had policies and procedures governing the behaviors and expectations of students, then you were not made aware of them. You state that you did not have access to the University’s Learners Code of Conduct (LCC) and Learner’s Handbook because they were under revision and because you were unable to access these documents after you were locked out of courses. You assert that OCR failed to consider that University instructors and other students were complaining about the learner platform. You did not, however, provide any information to suggest that others made disrespectful and inappropriate online postings in University course rooms as you did, but were not disciplined by the University by being locked out of their courses, nor did you provide any other relevant information that would tend to support your assertion that OCR’s investigation was incomplete.

In fact, not withstanding your claim that OCR made factual errors and conducted an inadequate investigation, I have determined that the following facts are either not disputed by you or are clearly established by documents obtained by OCR during the course of the investigation: On July 8, 2004, you posted a message to the course room in which you described University officials as "idiots" and "morons" and then added: "When I use terms like 'idiots' and ‘morons’. . . I mean that literally." Later on July 8, 2004, the Instructor posted a message to the course room in which she advised all students in the course that it was not appropriate 'to address instructors and administrators in the tone that has been presented [in the course room]." She requested that posts to the course room “show respect to everyone." On July 9, 2004, the Dean wrote to you to express concern "that some of your postings in [the course room] are hampering the educational process and are inappropriate." The Dean asked you to '"refrain from posting subject matter unrelated to the course content in the (course room]" and to "consider your tone and language in light of [the University's] strongly held principle of respect for others and productive dialogue." The following day, you posted a lengthy message to the course room in which you said: "I will restate my opinion that I now believe that both [the Instructor] and [the Dean] are incompetent and are so far out-of-line with reality that neither of [them] should remain - they should resign immediately." You also accused the Instructor of engaging in unprofessional, unethical, and illegal behavior, the Dean of being "grossly incompetent,” “despicable," and a "liar," and the University President of being "feeble." At the end of your post you stated: "So, to the bigots, horse's a--' [sic], jerks, idiots, con artists, charlatans and liars at [the University] who want to circumvent our right to Free Speech -STUFF IT!"

Further, when the University deleted your July 10th post on July 11, 2004, you reposted it that same day and when the University deleted it a second time on July 11, 2004, you reposted it once again and stated: "Your actions are disgusting -you have now deleted this post twice and I will continue to post it every time you do." On July 12, 2004, the Dean notified you that your access to the University's iGuide and course room was being temporarily discontinued. You were provided a copy of the LCC and advised that your access to these services would be restored within 24 hours if you agreed in writing to abide by the LCC. That same day, you responded that you would not provide such a written statement, claimed that the Dean's action amounted to intimidation, retaliation and harassment and asserted that you had done nothing wrong. On July 13, 2004, the Dean advised you that your access to University services would remain suspended and that the ASC would begin a review of your conduct as outlined in the LCC. The Dean advised you that he would inform you of the ASC's recommendations when he received them from the ASC. In addition, the Dean offered you the option of completing your coursework at the University "in a directed study format." You responded by demanding that the University restore your access to University courses. On July 22, 2004, the Dean sent you a letter advising you that the University would refund the tuition you paid for the two courses in which you enrolled during the summer of 2004 and reiterating that the ASC was conducting a formal review of your conduct. On August 25, 2004, the ASC recommended that you be suspended for one year. On August 31, 2005, the Dean notified you that you would be suspended for two quarters. You appealed the decision and your appeal was denied.

Based on the foregoing, I have determined that you provided no information to suggest that OCR was incorrect when it concluded that the University provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory justifications for its decisions to lock you out of your summer quarter 2004 courses on July 12, 2004, to assign the ASC the task of confirming the decision to lock you out of your classes, and to suspend you from the University for the summer and fall 2004 quarters. I have also determined that you provided no information to suggest that OCR was incorrect when it concluded that the justifications proffered by the University were not a pretext for retaliation.

The University was aware in April 2004 that you had filed a complaint against it with OCR alleging that the University’s course software platform was inaccessible to students with disabilities. The University did not take the alleged retaliatory actions against you until after you made posts to one of its course rooms in July 2004 that University officials considered inappropriate and offensive, you were asked by the University to alter the nature of your posts in the course room, you responded by making a new offensive post to the course room and then repeatedly reposted the offensive post when it was deleted by the University. Even then, the University offered to restore your access if you agreed in writing to abide by the LCC, but you refused. In addition, the University offered to allow you to complete your course work through directed study but you rejected the offer. Moreover, there is no information to suggest that you were subjected to different treatment as OCR identified other students who were also disciplined by the University for their conduct in University course rooms during 2004.

(More to follow)

[Capella Rocks]

Information and Relevant Witnesses

You claim that OCR's investigation was incomplete because OCR ignored relevant information and did not interview witnesses you identified. You note that OCR did not interview the instructor from one of your previous courses and did not interview the instructor of the other course in which you were enrolled during the summer quarter. However, you did not provide OCR with any information to suggest that either instructor could provide OCR with new information regarding the retaliation that allegedly took place outside of their course rooms. In fact, you specifically state that these instructors would only be able to provide OCR with a summary of what transpired in their course rooms and describe their own difficulties with the learning platform.

Regarding OCR's determination that the University did not retaliate against you when the
Provost failed to respond to your July 19, 2004, grievance against the Dean and Instructor for locking you out of your courses, you challenged OCR's acceptance of the explanations provided by the Provost for her decisions related to your grievance and claimed that the Provost failed to follow established University procedures for responding to grievances. However, the evidence establishes that you filed the grievance less than a week after the ASC was asked to evaluate your conduct and determine whether the Dean acted appropriately when he locked you out of your courses. Your grievance specifically claimed that he did not. It was not unreasonable for the Provost to defer to the ASC’s review of the matter because the ASC has specific procedures in place for reviewing disciplinary matters that afford the learner an opportunity to appeal any adverse decisions to the Provost. Ultimately, your appeal of the ASC’s determination that the Dean acted appropriately was reviewed by the Provost. Under these circumstances, I have determined that you have provided no new information to suggest that OCR was incorrect when it concluded that the University provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for its failure to respond to your July 19, 2004, grievance against the Dean and Instructor for locking you out of your courses and that the proffered justification is not a pretext for retaliation.

As for the other three allegations of retaliation investigated by OCR, I have determined that your request for reconsideration contains no information that would alter OCR's determination that the alleged acts of retaliation did not constitute adverse actions against you and, therefore, could not be retaliatory.

Failure to Follow Policies and Procedures

Although not included in the complaint allegations investigated by OCR, you claim in support of your request for reconsideration that the University failed to follow its policies in several ways. For example, you state that the University failed to follow its policies because you were never apprised of the charges against you. This assertion is not supported by the evidence. In notifying you on July 12, 2004, that your access to certain University services was being temporarily suspended, the Dean articulated the charges against you by stating. "Your response and [course room] posting on July 10, 2004, was inappropriate, offensive, and unfair (per the [LCC])."

You also claim the University failed to follow the procedures outlined in the LCC when it referred your alleged violation of the LCC to the ASC for review. In this regard, you claim the Instructor never spoke directly with you regarding the alleged violation of the LCC and the ASC failed to follow the steps outlined in the formal stage of the LCC process because you were never apprised of the specific charges against you, were not interviewed by the Dean or members of the ASC and were never given the opportunity to respond to the charges against you. However, it is apparent from the posts you made on July 8 and 10, 2004, and the manner in which you responded to the Instructor's efforts to remove your post on July 10, 2004, that an informal resolution of the problem would not occur and you provided no new evidence to suggest otherwise. Thus, it is unclear how you were harmed by the Instructor's failure to speak directly with you about the alleged violation of the LCC before the University moved to the formal stage of the LCC process.

Moreover, the evidence shows that the ASC had a significant written record on which to rely in conducting its review of your behavior. Your reconsideration request does not explain what additional information you would have provided to the ASC that is different from the written record that was already available to the ASC when it began its review nor does it describe any attempts undertaken by you to submit information to the ASC while the review process was underway that were interfered with by the University. Moreover, the ASC report summarizing its review and recommendation states that two efforts were made by University administrators while the matter was under review by the ASC to obtain "[your] account of the issues." Although you dispute this interpretation, the evidence in the file establishes that University administrators made efforts to contact you on July 15 and 20, 2004, after the ASC process had begun. I have determined that even though the ASC did not meet directly with you or conduct a formal hearing, it conducted a thorough review of the extensive information that was readily available to it and was well aware of your stance regarding your conduct when it completed its review and made its recommendations.

Dissatisfaction with OCR

You claim that OCR mischaracterized your statements and denied you your right to advocate for students when it noted its January 5, 2005, letter that you solicited other University students to join in your OCR complaint. You also repeatedly claim in your request for reconsideration that your postings were “not illegal” and were protected speech; to support your argument, you cite to a July 2003 OCR policy letter regarding the First Amendment. OCR never stated or suggested that your advocacy efforts or postings were “illegal” under the First Amendment or any other statute or regulation.

In addition, you make several allegations that the University violated the Federal Educational Records and Privacy Act (FERPA) by releasing your education records. As OCR advised you, OCR does not enforce FERPA. You indicate in your request for reconsideration that you have pending a FERPA complaint with the Department of Education’s Family Policy Compliance Office.

You also claim that you were not able to provide information to the OCR investigator in charge of your case. You specifically cite to a two-week period over the winter holidays when you did not receive a call from the investigator. From July 9, 2004, when OCR received your complaint, through January 5, 2005, when OCR issued its determination letter, OCR's records show more than 13 telephone contacts between you and the investigator, including contacts on December 17, 2004, and December 30, 2004, plus numerous other attempts to contact you that resulted in voice mail messages being left for you.

Finally, you continue to express your general disagreement with OCR's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to show that you were subjected to retaliation. While you continue to disagree with OCR's analysis and conclusion, you have not provided new information that would alter OCR's original determination.

Based on the above, therefore, I conclude that OCR acted appropriately with respect to your complaint. Should you still feel that your concerns have not been addressed, you may wish to address them in writing within 60 days of receipt of this letter to:

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
U.S. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
550 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202-1100

Your letter should focus on factual or legal questions that would change the outcome of the complaint rather than on merely expressing disagreement with OCR's conclusion.

Sincerely,

Linda A. McGovern
Director, Chicago Office
Midwestern Division

[Robert J.]

Ouch.

[Dennis Ruhl]

This is a lesson for everyone. If you have a legitimate complaint, abusing the organization against which you are complaining is counterproductive and will be part of any judicial or other consideration.

A note to anyone dealing with the public - document, document, document. If you have systems set up to routinely make notes on all issues, not just those that appear contentious you are less likely to get blindsided by a lawsuit you didn't see developing.

[RodKirkland]

If one is going to dig a hole for oneself it should be limited in depth. In this case, Stinks has dug one well over his head. Insults and contrary behavior have been the shovel. Using govt. offices for investigation caused the collapse.

Great job Rocks for shedding light.

[ElMaestro]

Insulting instructors in a classroom full of students would never be tolerated by any institution of higher education in this country. I'm surprised Capella gave this guy so many chances despite all the name calling.

One thing that I want to add to be fair, Mr. Spinks' has been attending a state approved institution that was just granted WASC accreditation over two weeks ago.
:)

Hopefully, he won't jeopardize it. :)

El Maestro

[Capella Rocks]

In the interest of fairness, I received an e-mail from the Department of Education today indicating that the FERPA investigation which Mr. Sucks initiated v. Capella is still in progress.

Once this investigation is complete, the results will be posted verbatum.

[Dennis Ruhl]

In the interest of fairness, I received an e-mail from the Department of Education today indicating that the FERPA investigation which Mr. Sucks initiated v. Capella is still in progress.

Once this investigation is complete, the results will be posted verbatum.

Knowing nothing about US law, can a human rights complaint to a board or tribunal continue while a lawsuit is in progress or vice-versa? My thinking would be it's either/or but US justice is beyond me.

[Capella Rocks]

Knowing nothing about US law, can a human rights complaint to a board or tribunal continue while a lawsuit is in progress or vice-versa? My thinking would be it's either/or but US justice is beyond me.

Accordint to the OCR, once a lawsuit is brought forward, the OCR will not investigate further:

"Do I have to file an OCR complaint before I can file a claim in court?

The regulations under Title VI, Title IX, Section 504 and Title II do not require you to file with OCR prior to filing a claim under these laws in Federal court. The regulations under the Age Discrimination Act, however, allow you to file a claim in Federal court under that law only after: 1) 180 days have elapsed since you filed the complaint with OCR and OCR has made no finding, or 2) OCR issues a finding in favor of the recipient. If this occurs, OCR will promptly notify you and remind you of your right to file in court.


If you are considering filing in court, bear in mind that OCR does not represent complaining parties or provide advice regarding court filings. You would need to use the services of your own attorney. Also, if you proceed with your claim in a court, OCR will not continue to pursue your OCR complaint." http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/qa-complaints.html

Mr. Sucks' post indicates that he is not bringing suit v. Capella for alleged violations of FERPA. Since the FERPA investigation is still going on, if Mr. Sucks included that in the lawsuit, the FERPA investigation would then close.

Since from all appearances the OCR complaints were closed, Mr. Sucks only recourse for the so called retaliation and lack of accessability issues is in the courts. However, the OCR investigations will be admitted as evidence, along with his website, his behavior in Capella courserooms, etc. Bottom line, the suit IMHO will go nowhere. Capella will make a motion to dismiss based on the OCR investigations and Mr. Sucks will have to find something else to put on his website.

I'm very curious to see the lawsuit (if one has been filed) to see whether Mr. Sucks has representation in the suit or if he filed the suit Pro Se. It only costs $250 to file a suit in Federal Court...

[CapellaStinks]

In the interest of fairness, I received an e-mail from the Department of Education today indicating that the FERPA investigation which Mr. Sucks initiated v. Capella is still in progress.

Once this investigation is complete, the results will be posted verbatum.

Check out this post. ;)

http://www.degreeboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=32748#post32748

[Dennis Ruhl]

Check out this post. ;)

http://www.degreeboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=32748#post32748


It's been over 2 years since we have heard from Stinky. I was hoping that he would emerge from the pupal stage as a beautiful butterfly. Hopes dashed.

[Theodore Lamar Heiks]

Capella's Provost and a Dean are among those now being investigated for retaliating against a student who spoke up about Capella's incompetent practices. The United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has already accepted the complaint and has (or soon will be) interrogating these and other high ranking officials for their first-hand participation in retaliating against the student. It should be noted that OCR has already accepted the retaliation complaint which, unlike all other cases they handle, shift the burden of proof to the “university” – this means that it is now the Capella’s task to prove that they did not retaliate. This; however, will be impossible for them to do as their illegal activities and grossly unethical behavior are simply too evident.

More information may be found at Capella University Sucks (http://www.capellauniversitysucks.us)More shameless self-promotion of your useless website?

[Theodore Lamar Heiks]

So, anyway, I just want to ask directly to Mr. CapellaStinks, you claim to have disabilities, right? So, what are they then? :D - El Maestro Capella University refused to build any virtual ramps that would allow Mr. Capella Stinks' virtual wheelchair access to the virtual classroom. :o