DATE:
March 26, 2024
PARTIES:
J.Z v. The Rotman School of Management
HEARING DATE:
November 23, 2023, via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Professor Hamish Stewart, Senior Chair
Professor David Zingg, Faculty Governor
Seyedereza Massoum, Student Governor
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE ROTMAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT:
Lily Harmer, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joseph Berger, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student appealed from a decision of the Graduate Academic Appeals Board (“GAAB”) dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Vice-Dean of the Rotman School of Management (the “Faculty”), accepting the recommendation of the Faculty’s Graduate Department Academic Appeals Committee (“GDAAC”) that the Faculty dismiss the Student’s grade appeal in a Course.
The Student was enrolled in the Course at the Faculty and received a B+ in the Course. The Student’s grade in the Course had three components; class participation, a group presentation and a reaction paper, worth 10%, 45% and 45% respectively. The Student sought a review of the grade. The Faculty declined to provide a review of the class participation and group presentation components of the grade. An anonymous second reader confirmed the grade for the reaction paper. The GDAAC recommended that the Student’s appeal be dismissed. The Faculty accepted that recommendation. The Student’s further appeal to the GAAB was dismissed.
On appeal to the AAC, the Student sought to have the grading basis for the Course changed to a pass-fail scale. In the alternative, the Student requested to be assessed a grade based solely on the reaction paper. In the further alternative, the Student requested a substantive re-evaluation of all three components of their grade.
The Chair alone made several decisions with respect to jurisdictional matters in this case. The Chair rejected the Student’s request for a change in the grading basis of the Course, finding such remedy to be both inappropriate and outside the jurisdiction of the Committee. The Chair noted that a change to the evaluation for a course may only be done in accordance with Article 1.3 of the University’s Assessment and Grading Practices Policy (“AGPP”). The Chair further noted that since other students enrolled in the course were not parties to the appeal it would be unfair for the Committee to make an order that affected their grades. The Chair further held that the Committee has no jurisdiction to allow a student’s appeal on the basis of that student’s dissatisfaction with a grading scheme for a course or to modify or invalidate an academic regulation or requirement, including a grading scheme.
Finally, the Chair noted that, on a grade appeal, the AAC will not consider the substantive academic merits of the student’s work – it will only consider whether the division in question reasonably applied its own practices and policies. On that basis, the Chair declined to give effect to any of the Student’s submissions that would otherwise require a substantive review of any of the components of the Student’s grade. Finaly, the Chair declined to consider the Student’s submissions concerning the conduct of the appeal before the GAAB and noted that if the Committee were to accept such submissions, the remedy would be a new hearing before the GAAB which the Student had not sought.
The Student raised three grounds of appeal to the AAC. First, that prior decisions to uphold the Student’s failing class participation grade and presentation grade without a substantive re-evaluation were not reasonable. Second, that the prior decisions to uphold the Student’s reaction paper grade were unreasonable. And third, that the prior decisions were not made in a procedurally fair manner.
The majority of the Committee (herein “the Committee”) rejected the first ground of appeal. The Student indicated that the policy not to re-evaluate the Appellant’s performance was invalid as it was inconsistent with the AGPP or SGS Regulations. The Committee indicated that the faculty policy was not inconsistent with the AGPP or SGS policies. The Committee also found that the process in arriving at the participation grade was reasonable and that the grading scheme of the course did not violate any policies.
With respect to the second ground, the Committee found that it was not unreasonable for the GDAAC to uphold the Student’s reaction paper grade. In dismissing this ground of appeal, the Committee found that the feedback provided by both the professor and second reader was sufficient to inform the student of the reasons for the grade.
The Committee also dismissed the third ground of appeal, indicating that the prior decisions were made in a procedurally fair manner. The Committee specifically noted that the Student not entitled to be consulted regarding the Faculty’s choice of second reader for re-grading, that the Professor did not impermissibly delegate authority to teaching assistant for grading of participation, and that the Professor did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias.
One member of the Committee would have allowed the appeal and substituted a notation of CR for the grade of B+. In particular, the member noted that the application of the grading scheme to the Student, and all students enrolled in the Course, was unreasonable and resulted in unfairness to the Student. The dissenting member recommended that the Faculty adopt an upper limit on the percentage of a course grade that can come from group work (where each group member is assessed the same grade), and that the Faculty adopt a pass-fail grading scheme for courses where the number of contact hours and weight are below a suitable threshold for assigning a grade.
A majority of the Committee dismissed the appeal. One member of the Committee would have allowed the appeal and substituted a notation of CR.