(name removed)
(address removed)
(city and zip code removed)
(telephone # removed)

July 21, 2003

Daniel Weiss
Via: Daniel.Weiss@mail.house.gov

Gary Jackson, Director
United States Department of Education
Office of Civil Rights
Western Division, Seattle Office
915 Second Avenue, Room 3310
Seattle, Washington 98174-1099

U.S. Department of Justice
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Government Accounting Office
fraudnet@gao.gov

Gayle E. Murphy
Director of Administration
Committee of Bar Examiners of
The State of California
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105-1639

RE: Kaplan OCR Reference No. 0902216

Dear All:

Today, I spoke twice with Mrs. Gayle Murphy of the Committee of Bar Examiners of The State bar of California. We discussed Dean William Weston's February 21, 2002, writing. Mrs. Murphy was interested in the information and requested a copy. She said that she would submit the writing to Kaplan and request a response.

Later, Mrs. Murphy did acknowledge that she did received a fax copy of the February 21, 2002, writing. She said that she would contact the online law school immediately.

In closing, I advised Mrs. Murphy that the information was submitted to her as a formal complaint against the law school. That is, that Kaplan, Inc. (Concord School of Law) knowingly misrepresented false academic records for five (5) or more students. The false academic records did unlawfully allowed testing of correspondence students not qualified to sit for the February 2003 California General Bar Exam.

I explained that the five additional students were added as 2003 graduates to obstruct investigation of the allegations I filed with various entities including the United States Department of Education. Kaplan's own publication (Concord Reporter Issue 8) acknowledged only four (4) fourth year students.

I request a criminal investigation of Kaplan's use of false academic records.

s/
(name removed)

(name removed)
(address removed)
(city and zip code removed)
(telephone # removed)

May 27, 2003

Monique Malson, Esq.
United States Department of Education
Office of Civil Rights
Western Division, Seattle Office
915 Second Avenue, Room 3310
Seattle, Washington 98174-1099

RE: Kaplan OCR Reference No. 0902216

Ms. Malson:

I. Introduction:

Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations, no individual may be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination on the ground of race, color or national origin. In addition, the existence of a racially hostile environment that is created, encouraged, accepted, tolerated or left uncorrected by a recipient of federal funds, and/or its agents and employees also constitutes different treatment on the basis of race in violation of Title VI.

OCR has institution-wide jurisdiction over Kaplan, Inc., a recipient of federal funds. Because Kaplan receives federal funds, Title VI requirements apply to all of the academic and extracurricular programs of the institution, whether conducted in facilities of the recipient or elsewhere. Title VI covers all of the uses of property that Kaplan, Inc. owns and all of the activities that it sponsors. Title VI covers all of these operations, whether the individual involved in a given activity are students, faculty, employees, or other participants or outsiders.

II. Different Treatment:

OCR first must apply a standard different treatment analysis to allegations involving racial incidents perpetrated by representatives of recipients. Under this analysis, Kaplan, Inc. violates Title VI if one of its agents or employees, acting within the scope of his or her official duties, has treated a student differently on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the context of an educational program or activity without a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason so as to interfere with or limit the ability of the student to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or privileges provided. Such incidents can constitute violations of Title VI even if they do not constitute "harassment," so long as they constitute different treatment by agents or employees that interferes with the ability of a student to participate in or benefit from the recipient's programs or activities.

A. Did an official or representative of a recipient treat someone differently in a way that interfered with or limited the ability of a student to participate in or benefit from a program or activity of the recipient? (Suggest Answer: Yes.)

Allegation: The Chats

Ms. Malson says: "The information presented by Concord is that chats were held in your Evidence course, and that there is no record of your attending Evidence course chats. Concord does not have information identifying why you did not attend the chats. Their belief, offered in response to the allegation, is that you may not have seen the schedule of the chats or the reminders on your homepage because of the way information was processed by their online system."

The Evidence course Syllabus provided by the school is undisputed evidence as to what was advised as late as the 8th month of a 12 month academic program. Interestingly, the Syllabus does not list the "signature aspect" of the Kaplan model "live professor-led group chats" scheduled during the 2001 academic year.

The record further demonstrates that the Associate Dean of Administration admits reviewing my actual participation weekly, but somehow Kaplan now says that it didn't know I wasn't a part of any "live professor-led group chats." That is, the only available means to witness the first group of graduates being held to the same academic standard, somehow wasn't provided and no legitimate business reason has been provided.

Allegation: The Roster

Kaplan admits that I didn't receive any information concerning any other third year student. The record demonstrates that the roster was advertised as a tool provided to every student to facilitate its "highly interaction" online campus.

Allegation: The Fourth-Year Planning Meeting

Ms. Malson says:  "The information presented by Concord is that students on track to graduate in October 2002 were invited to the planning meeting, and that they also invited a small cohort of students on track to graduate in January 2003. Assuming that you had successfully completed two years of law school at Concord, you could have graduated in January 2003." (Please note the law school graduation actually took place in 2002.) Therefore, Kaplan admits their failure to comply with both the written procedure and the California State Bar's evaluation that I was a Third year law student. 

According to Kaplan's written procedure, the only factor determining "on track" to graduate is the State Bar of California's evaluation. (Please note my complaint includes allegation of a hostile environment, i.e., Kaplan arbitrarily graded quizzes, essays, and final exams because of my race to prevented me from participating with the first graduating group of students.) Kaplan's admission that it knowingly failed to invite me to the two fourth year planning meeting, before finals were held and graded, proves the law school had no intention of allowing me to continue.

Allegation: The LEEP Program

Ms. Malson says: "The information presented by Concord is that the LEEP program is available to students at least a 2.5 GPA, who have completed courses in legal writing and professional responsibility. Students meeting these requirements are usually 4th year students at Concord, because legal writing and professional responsibility are offered in Concord's third year curriculum.

However, I had successfully completed a legal research and writing course at (name removed) School of law. Further, according to the information submitted is the claim that Kaplan advised me in the Fall of 2000 "they didn't have any third and fourth year courses ready." (See January 5, 2002, Posting on Public Student Bulletin Board. See also Declaration of attorney (name removed)) Therefore, according to this new information, Kaplan now appears to admit that it also discriminated against the me by specifically denying the third year courses it says were allegedly available and provided to non-blacks in 2001 as a prerequisite for LEEP. (I requested that my complaint be supplemented to included this recent admission.)

B. Did the different treatment occur in the course of authorized or assigned duties or responsibilities of the agent or employee?  (Suggested Answer: Yes.)

Kaplan's (Concord School of Law) administrative office admits it failed to provide the advertised Roster, an invitation to the two fourth-year planning sessions, and prerequisite course for the LEEP program. The Evidence course Syllabus provided by the school is undisputed evidence as to what was advised as late as the 8th month of a 12 month academic program. The Syllabus doesn't list "live professor-led group chats" scheduled during the 2001 academic year. 

C. Was the different treatment based on race, color, or national origin? (Suggested Answer: Yes.)

In the record is information proving Matt McClenahan communicated by telephone twice, his belief that the administrative office had changed its mind (concerning my acceptance) because of race and transfer status. (See Declaration Two of (name removed).) Further, I sought legal advice immediately following Matt McClenahan's admission of racial animus. (See Declaration of attorney (name removed)). Race based questions during (name removed)'s interview further proves racial animus. (See Declaration of (name removed).)


D. Did the context or circumstances of the incident provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual basis for the different treatment? (Suggested Answer: No)

Kaplan's response communicated by Monique Malson on April 4, 2003, appears to be an admission to three of four allegations. The response concerning the chats follows its pattern of knowingly misrepresenting information in an attempt to obstruct any investigation of this issue. That is, Kaplan knowingly represented to BPPVE and others false information to suggest an alleged "probation" and "Educational Contract" being implemented. However, in their letter dated May 2, 2002, (just discovered), Concord School of Law admitted to DETC, on page 2 subpart "K," that no Educational Contract was implemented.

The May 2, 2002, letter additionally identified Kaplan knowingly misleading the DETC at page 5 paragraph 3, with the following:

"Following receipt of his report card, (name removed) was repeatedly informed of his rights to review exams.... He has not requested such a review.... Had (name removed) asked for an opportunity to review the multiple-choice test at a location more convenient to him, concord would have considered such request. No such request was ever made. Students are always allowed to review their essay exams with their professors. (name removed) was informed of his right to such a review and the method to request one but never submitted such a request."

III. Hostile Environment:

A violation of Title VI may also be found if a recipient has created or is responsible for a racially hostile environment, i.e., harassing conduct that is sufficiently severe, pervasive or persistent so as to interfere with or limit the ability of an individual to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or privileges provided by a recipient. A recipient has subjected an individual to different treatment on the basis of race if it has effectively caused, encouraged, accepted, tolerated or failed to correct a racially hostile environment of which it has actual or constructive notice. Under this analysis, an alleged harasser need not be an agent or employee of the recipient, because this theory of liability under Title VI is premised on a recipient's general duty to provide a nondiscriminatory educational environment.

A. Did a racially hostile environment exist? (Suggested Answer: Yes.)

Kaplan accepted me for an October 2000 start. However, Matt McClenahan, Kaplan's Director of Enrollment, would later call and during a "confidential styled" telephone call, announced that Kaplan had changed its mind because of "race (black) and transfer status."  Matt McClenahan specifically said that "he had to convinced the Kaplan Administration that denial at that point would have been discrimination." (See Declaration Two of (name removed). See also Declaration of attorney (name removed).)

Weeks later, Matt would call again and attempt to explain an unreasonable delay in preparing the "Study Plan" required for the State Bar of California's evaluation of prior years of law as follows: "I had to rush together a third year Evidence course because we don't have any third and fourth year courses." (See Declaration of attorney (name removed).) I would have to again forced the issue concerning my start in January 2001. Although the study plan had been submitted to the State Bar of California, there was further unexplained resistance to allow me to start.

An educational institution has a duty to provide a nondiscriminatory environment that is conducive to learning. The signal Kaplan sent is clearly the existence of an identifiable bigoted resistance to African Americans. The particular characteristics and circumstances during the enrollment process was sufficiently severe that it would have adversely affected the enjoyment of some aspects of the educational program by a reasonable person, of the same age and race, under similar circumstances.

B. Did Kaplan have actual or constructive notice? (Suggested Answer: Yes.)

A racially hostile environment requiring appropriate responsive action clearly resulted from the explicitly racial conduct involving the enrollment process. That is, Kaplan had actual notice of the hostile environment and was required to take appropriate action. The record substantiates that Matt McClenahan acknowledged corrective action was necessary. (See Declaration Two of (name removed). See also Declaration of attorney (name removed).)

Because the law school's administrative office, an agent or employees, was acting within the scope of their official duties (had actual or apparent authority over me), they should be considered to have been acting in an agency capacity and the Kaplan should be deemed to have had constructive notce of the harassment.

C. Did Kaplan "fail" to respond adequately?

Once Kaplan had notice, it had a legal duty to take responsible steps to eliminate it. The appropriate response should have been tailored to redress fully the specific problems experienced at the institution. Further, the responsive action should have been reasonably calculated to prevent recurrence and ensure that my participation or benefits wouldn't be restricted.

However, the harassment and discrimination continued.

1. I was denied the "Live Evidence professor-led group chats."

2. I was forced from the "student lounge" public chat room by (name removed) and (name removed).

3. Kaplan arbitrarily graded quizzes, essays, and final exams because of my race to prevented me from participating with the first graduating group of students.

4. My home page was blocked the first couple weeks in October 2001 (period when I was attempting to move ahead with modules). It appears that the Associated Dean of Administration was retaliating against me because I had filed an appeal/complaint concerning grading of essay assignments in September 2001.

5. Westlaw (Law School's Library) was denied just before the December 3rd Module 25 deadline.

6. My Internet service provider "athome" was unexpectedly shut down (without advance notice) by a California judge on November 30th;

7. My passwords for the final exams wouldn't work.

8. The testing software froze during the middle of the civil procedure test.

9. No start time was provided for the evidence final exam until just a couple of hours before the test.

10. They failed to invite me to the two fourth-year planning conferences and/or allow me to participate with the LEEP program.

12. I didn't receive enrollment information for the 2002 academic year.

13. Grades were withheld until after the start of the 2002 academic year.

14. Final exam results (what was marked correct and incorrect) were only available for 90 days at Kaplan's California offices.

15. I was denied the written grievance procedure and the law school knowingly misrepresented information to BPPVE (Educational Contract implemented), DETC (No Request for Review of Exam Scores) and DOE (Live Evidence professor-led group chats provided) to obstruct investigation of my complaints.

IV. Other:

A. "It is Kaplan's position that they were not informed of any concerns ... until after the end of your academic year."

The record clearly substantiates that I did not discover (name removed)'s admission that he had Evidence "live professor-led group chats" twice a month, until January 6, 2001. The record further demonstrates that I immediately communicated (name removed)'s information to Kaplan as a supplement to my discrimination complaint. Most importantly, because the Evidence Syllabus did not list "live professor-led group chats" there wasn't a need to suspect anything other until (name removed)'s admission.

In short, based on the Director of Enrollment's information in the Fall of 2000, "Kaplan didn't have third and fourth year courses and they had to rush the Evidence course into place for my enrollment." This suggested that I was Kaplan's only third year student in 2001. This appeared to be a reasonable explanation as to why the Evidence Syllabus didn't list "live professor-led group chats" and why I had not received a roster of third year students.

B. "You were placed in a particular cohort of second-year students because the majority of your courses were in Kaplan's second year curriculum."  

Kaplan had in place a procedure for transfer students. The procedure in place in the Fall of 2000 used specific language mandating the "California State Bar's evaluation of my years of law study." This was the only factor used to determine his third year of study at Kaplan.

Transfer and Tuition Credit Policies
       ... Transfer credits for the Juris Doctor Program are subject to an evaluation rendered by the State Bar of California, which translates classes into "law study years earned." (Emphasis added because the California bar only evaluated years of study in 2000-2001 and not "half-years.)"

Kaplan mandated that I use this procedure. The "third year of study determination" concluded by the California State Bar was immediately communicated to Kaplan. Kaplan even acknowledged in writing their receipt of the "third year of study determination." In addition, Kaplan never disputed the determination.

Additionally Kaplan (Concord School of law) fallaciously suggesting academic delinquencies is further disproved by the following: 

1. Information on file with the United States Department of Education substantiates that Martha Siegel, Dean of Students, advised to ignore Cassandra's Colchagoff's the Associate Dean of Administration's unreasonableness.

2. Various correspondence (emails) in the investigation file substantiates that the Dean Siegel had accepted information provided on September 22, 2001, explaining a slower study pace.

3. Dean Siegel specifically said "go for it" in response to the communicated slower study pace.

4. Dean Siegel explained Ms. Colchagoff's proposed Educational Contract as unreasonable (possibly because I had filed a complaint a few days before that).

5. Dean Siegel specifically explained that "Kaplan's/Concord's policy only required that 24 modules were completed before finals." That is, she said not to worry about Ms. Colchagoff just complete 24 modules before finals.

As provided above, there is unequivocal proof that Cassandra Colchagoff knowingly hindered the pace of moving ahead with modules:

1. In early October 2001, Ms. Colchagoff (Kaplan/Concord Administration) maliciously blocked access to assignments. Complaints were filed with the Dean of Students and Ms. Colchagoff was forced to remove the block.

2. One week before the mandated Module 24 deadline, Kaplan/Concord maliciously caused (and/or was indifferent to) its law library to be taken away.

Interestingly, a California Judge unexpectedly shutdown "athome," my Internet services, on November 30, 2001, three days before the Module 24 deadline.

V. Conclusion:

There are just too many failures on the part of Kaplan. The litany of mishaps cannot be coincidental....

Why did they knowingly mislead DETC about my requests for review of my final exam results (what was marked correct and what was marked incorrect)?

Why did they fail to provide review of the final exams results?

Would review of the final exams results prove arbitrary grading and race discrimination?

Why did they knowingly mislead BBPVE about an alleged implementation of Cassandra Colchagoff's unreasonable "Educational Contract?"

Why did they knowingly mislead DOE concerning the "live Evidence professor-led group chats."

Clearly there is a pattern established here demonstrating Kaplan's deliberate attempt to hide information concerning this investigation.

Respectfully,
(name removed)

Prior Email About Concord School of Law 

Editor's Note:
Concord School of Law is invited to respond to this and any other correspondence.
Any response will be published prominently on LawSchool.com.