DATE:
January 9, 2022
PARTIES:
R.R. ("the Student"). v. Faculty of Arts and Science
HEARING DATE(S):
November 1, 2022 via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Dr. Erika J. Murray, Chair
Professor Douglas McDougall, Faculty Governor
Dveeta Lal, Student Governor
SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE:
Erin McNab, Director, Faculty Governances & Curriculum Services
Professor William Ju, Vice Dean, Undergraduate
The Student appeals the decision by the Academic Appeal Committee of Faculty of Arts and Sciences which denied the Student’s request to either revert her grade in an assignment to the original grade prior to the remarking, or to have another teaching assistant or the same teaching assistant from the course re-grade the assignment in BCH210H1, Biochemistry 1: Proteins, Lipids, and Metabolism.
The Student enrolled in BCH210H1 during the Fall 2021. The assignment this appeal concerned was one of three assignments worth 15% in the course. The teaching assistant (“TA”) originally marked the Student’s assignment and gave the Student a 78% grade. On the same day the Student learned of her grade, she contacted the course professor (“Professor”) and requested a regrade. In the new year, January 2022, the Student received a response from the Professor and was informed that the regrade mark was 56% which was a 22% drop in mark. The Student responded to the Professor concerned about the drop in grade and inquired about associated policies. The Professor informed the Student the grade was final, and that the Student should “try not to worry.”
The Student then reached out to her Registrar of the Academic Advising Office, Victoria College, to see how to appeal the 56% regrade. The Registrar asked the Student to reach out to the Undergraduate Administer (“UG”). The Student outlined in her requests to both the Registrar and the UG that she expected the re-grading to be done by the TA or another TA, yet the Professor did the regrade. The UG responded to the Student and confirmed that that the remarked assignment was final. The Student later received an email from Yvette Ali from the Registrar recommending the Student not pursue the matter further and live with the regraded assignment. The Student responded to the UG asking for a phone call conversation but never received a response. The Student wrote to the Registrar inquiring about an appeal process but did not receive a response until two days later where she was informed that the matter could not be escalated and though the department was not obligated to review an appeal request it was worth asking. The Student followed up with the Dean’s Office. Over a two-month period, from January to March 2022, the Student engaged with and needed to follow-up on several occasions. Ultimately, the Student was informed by the acting Undergraduate Chair of the Department of Biochemistry that he supported the Professor’s regrade. The Student then followed up with the Interim Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and later put together an appeal to the Faculty, which was sent to Vice Dean Undergraduate, Randy Boyagoda. The Vice Dean emailed the Student and informed her that her appeal was given fair consideration. The Student then appealed to the Faculty’s Academic Appeals Committee but was dismissed with the Committee finding that the appropriate procedures were adhered to, the Student was treated fairly, and the marking standards applied were consistent with those applied to all other students who did the assignment.
The Committee found that there was unfairness and inconsistency in the application of the relevant policies at issue in the appeal. The Committee questioned the fairness associated with the Professor not following policy to have the TA do the regrading and found that the Faculty Committee unfairly accepted the Faculty’s argument that it would not have been appropriate to reach out to the TA outside of the terms of their contract. The Committee found that the 22% discrepancy raised a reasonable apprehension of bias on part of the Professor. This Committee disagreed with the previous which reasoned that given the low weight of the assignment the Student was not entitled to any remarking beyond the instructor level. The Committee found that the Special Consideration Appeal Policy should be implemented. The Committee also found the Student ought to have been promptly and clearly informed that, per the Special Considerations Policy, she could make an Academic Appeal in various stages. The Committee found that the Student was unfairly treated by the involved University Units, which resulted in an unreasonable delay and procedural unfairness. The Committee found that despite the Student finally being informed of her right to appeal, her appeals were not fairly heard or made through a demonstrably fair interpterion or application of the relevant policies. The Committee found that had the University Units involved followed the policies in place fairly, the process would have been prompt. Given the procedural unfairness and unreasonable delay experienced by the Student, the Committee found that reverting the Student’s grade in the assignment to the original 78% was an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
The appeal was allowed.