We, the undersigned students, alumni, and concerned members of the Ohlone College community, are calling for a formal review of Professor Luc Desmedt (Physics Department) due to persistent concerns regarding his instructional methods, grading transparency, and overall impact on student learning and well-being.

Basis for This Petition under Ohlone College Policy

This petition is submitted under Ohlone College Administrative Procedure 4231, which permits grade changes and instructor review in cases of:

 • Mistake

 • Fraud

 • Bad Faith

 • Incompetence

Professor Luc Desmedt’s instruction in PHYS 140 (Spring 2025) demonstrates repeated violations of academic expectations under Ohlone’s AP 4231. These violations include grading mistakes, last-minute policy changes, inconsistent evaluation standards, failure to return graded work, and instruction that does not meet reasonable pedagogical norms. Collectively, these issues impair students’ ability to learn, monitor their progress, and succeed on fair academic grounds.

⸻

1. Failure to Deliver the Promised Curriculum and Assessment Structure

The official syllabus for PHYS 140 (Spring 2025), which was not distributed until nearly one month into the term, outlined a structured plan for instruction and evaluation, including:

 • Three midterm examinations and a final exam comprising 77% of the total course grade.

 • Comprehensive coverage of fundamental physics topics consistent with the course catalog and student learning outcomes.

However, the course ultimately deviated substantially from this plan. Specifically:

 • Only two midterm exams were administered, with no third midterm scheduled, announced, or replaced.

 • Almost half of the curriculum remained untaught, with several major topics listed in the syllabus omitted entirely from instruction.

These omissions severely compromised the integrity of the course and undermined students’ ability to meet the learning objectives. Students were left inadequately prepared for the final exam and for any future coursework that relies on a full understanding of foundational physics topics. 

⸻

2. Failure to Grade or Return Assignments

Students report:

 • Assignments and exams were not graded until the end of the term, if at all.

 • Lab report was posted after the final, rendering it ineffective for learning or evaluation.

 • Students had no insight into their standing, increasing anxiety and forcing many to drop the course unnecessarily.

“The semester ended two days ago and he has yet to grade ANYTHING except one midterm.”

“He doesn’t upload grades until the last day… so people don’t drop.”

⸻

3. Disorganized and Inaccessible Instruction

 • Lectures lacked structure and often included long tangents unrelated to the material.

 • His handwriting was widely described as illegible, making comprehension and note-taking difficult.

 • The class rarely followed the syllabus or textbook in sequence or depth.

“Worst professor I think I have ever taken. Not only is it impossible to make out his hand writting, he has no cadence or flow to his lecture or his class. He didn't have a proper syllabus until months into the class”

“Lecture is spent on 1, maybe 2 word problems. Never grades ... 10-20 minutes of each lecture is him rambling and justifying his teaching methods or decisions”

⸻

4. Arbitrary and Subjective Grading

 • Students report being penalized for not solving problems “his way,” despite arriving at correct answers.

 • Multiple examples indicate grading influenced by bias or personal impression rather than merit.

“NEVER take him. better to go to santa barbara city college for online physics. this guy is insane. someone in my class got every question right on the test but lost 75% (had a 25% on a MIDTERM) because he didnt do it the professors way.”

“Bad at teaching. Wastes so much time during lectures. Awful grading policy and tests. Requires you learn the material mostly on your own. Overall, very difficult even just to pass. Not because of physics but because of the professor”

⸻

5. Suspected Manipulation of Public Feedback

 • Students allege that Professor Desmedt solicited or authored positive RateMyProfessors reviews in class.

“The 5 star reviews [on RateMyProfessor] are fake reviews made by him. How do I know? 30 min of our lecture time was wasted so he could complain about how the reviews here were extremely biased and how students 'don't appreciate my attention to detail.' Don't waste your money or time! Luc is out of his mind and should stop teaching."

This casts doubt on the credibility of public feedback and raises ethical concerns.

⸻

6. Unprofessional and Demeaning Conduct

 • Multiple students report feeling belittled or discouraged from asking questions.

 • Descriptions of hostile or dismissive behavior were common.

“He actively gets upset if you dare to ask a question in class!”

“Thinks he has the right to reinvent physics, very demeaning when asked questions, and gives you horrible grades."

⸻

Impact on Students

This is not a case of students avoiding hard work, many of us seek academic challenge. The problem is a systemic pattern of unstructured, opaque, and inequitable instruction that leaves students confused, unsupported, and unfairly evaluated.

“19 out of 28 people dropped by the W deadline. That will speak for itself. Not an unpleasant teacher by any stretch of the imagination - just have never taken an 'intro' class this ridiculously hard before.”

This harms students' academic success and the college’s mission to deliver high-quality, accessible education.

⸻

Our Requests

Under AP 4231, we request the following:

 1. A formal investigation into Professor Desmedt’s teaching and grading for PHYS140 (Spring 2025) and prior terms.

 2. An audit of final grades and grading timelines to verify adherence to the stated syllabus and grading policy.

 3. An evaluation by Academic Affairs or the Dean’s Office to determine whether Professor Desmedt’s actions meet the criteria of mistake, bad faith, or incompetence.

 4. Grade change review opportunities for affected students.

 5. Appropriate corrective measures, including oversight, required training, reassignment, or removal from teaching duties, if violations are confirmed.

Multiple students are prepared to submit individual Grade Change Requests under AP 4231 if the college does not initiate a formal review.

⸻

Why This Matters

We ask for a fair and transparent learning environment, not favoritism or leniency. But when a course becomes inconsistent, unstructured, and detached from accountability, students suffer unnecessarily.

We urge the Ohlone College administration to act decisively to ensure academic integrity, student protection, and instructional standards are upheld.

Sign this petition to support fair, professional, and effective teaching for all students.