A University of Canberra law student accused a tribunal of interrogating him like he was a criminal, after he launched legal action against the university for alleged racial discrimination related to his academic failures.
A recent ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal judgment states that Salam Pojohishgar was enrolled in a bachelor of laws at the institution in 2019-20 when he failed a subject twice in two semesters.
After he failed the first time, Mr Pojohishgar emailed the convenor to meet about the results.
The convenor, who had then moved away from Canberra, said "even if I did pass you, you would certainly fail in more advanced courses simply because the content and expectations are substantially higher in later year courses".
The convenor also gave him advice about improving his grades and that the best performing students shared four things in common, including not wasting time "in the exam room searching for things".
"In the circumstances, you can be assured that my judgement was fair, informed and in the context of a good deal of academic experience," he said.
Mr Pojohishgar alleged the convenor discriminated him by making a number of negative comments about his performance, including the future failures in more advanced courses.
Following his second failure in 2020 run by a different convenor, Mr Pojohishgar sat a deferred exam, which he also failed.
Among that convenor's alleged discriminatory acts was the statement "I can't do magic to change your grade".
The deferred exam was also alleged to be discriminatory because Mr Pojohishgar said his answers in the final exam "were correct, relevant and highly significant and there was no need to impose further unreasonable conditions".
He believed the two convenors treated him unfairly and he should have been given at least an overall pass mark.
He took his complaint to the head of the law school, who encouraged him to re-engage in an informal resolution process and substantiate his complaint, which he alleged was discriminatory.
He also alleged she said "thank you for being interested in Australian criminal law", amounting to a denial of his citizenship rights and meant he was not equal to her.
Mr Pojohishgar alleged the associate dean and the university student appeals committee also discriminated against him after he went to them.
He made "a wide-ranging complaint to the Human Rights Commission", which then referred the matter to the tribunal last October.
During the first day of a hearing in May after mediation was unsuccessful, Mr Pojohishgar conceded he could not present evidence for some of his complaints, which were then dismissed.
On the next day, he emailed the tribunal to say he no longer wanted to participate in the hearing because "natural justice is not being observed".
"It [the hearing] looked like it was a criminal interrogation, or the applicant had committed a crime," he said.
His request to refer the case to the ACT Supreme Court was dismissed by Michael Orlov, a senior member of the tribunal, and the remainder of the hearing was conducted without Mr Pojohishgar's presence.
In the recent tribunal judgment, Mr Orlov said Mr Pojohishgar had no evidence to establish he should have received higher marks for any of the assessments in relation to his first failure.
"The allegation that [the convenor] treated Mr Pojohishgar unfavourably because of his race is groundless," Mr Orlov said.
He said the conversation with the second convenor "suggests his race had nothing to do with the results" or the decision to give him a deferred exam.
The complaints about the head of the law school were also groundless and "fundamentally lacking in merit".
"I have found Mr Pojohishgar has persisted in his complaints that the marks he received were unfair without making any effort to substantiate the complaints with evidence," Mr Orlov said.
"Other than a self-assessment of his own academic ability and performance and his evident belief that he has met the required academic standards to pass the unit."
As for the alleged comment by the head of the law school, Mr Orlov said "there is not a scintilla of evidence that would enable the tribunal to decide, in the absence of any other explanation that, if the words were spoken, they were spoken because of Mr Pojohishgar's race".
The university was not required to go into evidence after the tribunal ruled Mr Pojohishgar, who has been contacted for comment, did not meet the minimum evidentiary threshold.
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.
