DATE:
August 8, 2023
PARTIES:
J.J. ("the Student"). v. the Toronto School of Theology
HEARING DATE(S):
June 26, 2023 via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Professor Lisa Austin, Chair
Professor Jan Mahrt-Smith, Faculty Governor
Jessica Johnson, Student Governor
SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE Toronto SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
Catherine Fan, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student appeals a decision of the Toronto School of Theology Academic Appeals Committee (“TST AAC”) which denied the Student his appeal of his grade on his final research paper in the course WYB3743HF “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” The Student is seeking to have this course taken off his academic record, or in the alternative, to have his failing grade substituted with a late withdrawal (“LWD”) or Aegrotat standing (“AEG”).
The Student was enrolled in the Master of Theological Studies program at Knox College, which is part of the Toronto School of Theology (“TST”) at the University of Toronto. In Fall 2021, he was enrolled in two courses offered by Wycliffe College, also belonging to the TST. The courses were the aforementioned “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians” (“Galatians”) and WYB3641HF “Matthew’s Story of Jesus” (“Matthew”). In December 2021 the Student was in a car accident and due to the ongoing effects of the accident, the Student requested and received extensions for his coursework in Galatians and Matthew. He was given extensions until January 5, 2022. He submitted his paper for Galatians on time but did not hand in his paper for Matthew until February 16. He received a failing grade on the Galatians paper on the basis that the paper did not meet the assignment requirements and a failing grade on the Matthew paper as he did not have an approved extension beyond January 5.
The Student requested that the instructor re-read the assignment, after which the instructor gave detailed feedback, noting a number of deficiencies including the paper’s failure to answer the assignment questions and requisite secondary sources. The Student requested a second reader and the second reader agreed with the failing grade. The Student then appealed his grades in Galatians and Matthew and received a hearing before the TST AAC, which denied his appeal for Galatians but granted it for Matthew.
The Student raised several grounds of appeal for Galatians, which were all found by the TST AAC to be without merit. The TST AAC did provide a remedy for Matthew based on new medical information that was introduced and had not been known earlier. The TST AAC granted an extension, but the Student was unable to complete the paper and a grade of INC in the Matthew course was entered on the Student’s transcript.
The Student raised numerous grounds of appeal before the Committee. The key issues were the second reader review process and the question of consistency in medical reason academic accommodations. The Student argued that new evidence brought by the TST shows that Wycliffe College violated the second reader policy. The new evidence primarily refers to an email from the Academic Dean of Wycliffe College, Professor Peter Robinson, to the second reader. In the email Professor Robinson indicated that the instructor in Galatians gave the Student’s paper a failing grade and offered to provide the second reader with the instructor’s response and also quoted from an email that the Student had send, indicating the Student’s views of Biblical scholarship linked to the paper were strongly contrary to mainstream scholarship.
A reading of the TST Handbook shows that the second reader review process was not properly followed as the handbook states that the second reader should read the assignment without the evaluative comments of others. This was not the case here as the second reader was provided information and offered evaluative comments he should not have been. The TST argued that “evaluative comments” do not include providing the instructor’s grade, but the Committee disagrees.
The Student also appeals on the ground that his medical circumstances were accommodated by the TST AAC for Matthew but not for Galatians. The Student argued that the same rationale should apply to Galatians as without his car accident and the medical consequences, he would have been able to clarify the assignment requirements with the course instructors. The TST, in response, argued that the Student’s ‘misguided views’ rather than his health condition were responsible for his grade in Galatians. The TST also argued that its decision was reasonable because it was responding to the arguments the Student made and the Student had originally raised his medical issue in relation to Matthew and not Galatians. In Matthews the Student was granted an extension as, according to the handbook procedures, the Student was incapacitated.
The Student provided detailed medical documentation to the TST AAC in October 2022. This was not previously made available to Wycliffe College or the Student’s instructors. The question before the Committee is whether the TCT AAC decision was unreasonable because it did not also consider whether the Student should have been considered incapacitated for the purpose of Galatians and thereby allowed an extension even when he had not requested it. The Committee also finds that the question the TST AAC did not ask was whether, if the Galatians course instructor or Wycliffe College administration had the Student’s medical information would they have tried to contact the Student to ensure he was not disadvantaged.
The Committee found that the medical information submitted by the Student showed that he was dealing with the same medical issues prior to when he handed in his Galatians paper and when he was delayed in completing his Matthew paper. It would appear that the TST AAC did not consider the relevance of this medical information because it did not consider whether there should have been an accommodation for the Galatians course. The Committee finds that the fact that the TST AAC did not consider the possibility of accommodation for Galatians or even ask the Student if he felt disadvantaged by his medical condition was unreasonable.
The Student asked the remedy of removal of the course from his transcript or, in the alternative, for either a LWD or AEG to be substituted for the failing grade. The Committee did not agree with removing the course from the transcript. The Committee found that Galatians and Matthew should have received consistent treatment for accommodations linked to medical reasons. Thus, the remedy the TST AAC granted for Matthew, an extension on the final paper or an INC on the Student’s transcript, should have been granted for Galatians. The Committee was persuaded that the Student should receive the same option for Galatians too. While the Student did not ask directly for this remedy, the Committee found that one of his alternatives was for LWD to be entered, which is functionally similar to the INC. The Committee viewed this remedy as substantively consistent with what the Student asked for and granting it created no procedural unfairness.
The appeal was allowed in part.