1. My appeal of the failing grade on Prof. Bush's Chemistry Project.
2. The return of personal property.
3. The return of three marked assignments.
On Item 3, the registrar told me he was ready to return two of the assignments, but:
"Professor Metz says that the written portion of Assignment #5 was not submitted; the evaluation of that assignment was not completed. He does not know where the bulletin board portion would be that you did submit, since it was not picked up while you were still on campus in Fall term classes. Professor Metz did not assign any projects, and he does not know what you are referring to by "a couple of projects in [his] classroom."So Professor Metz was claiming I never handed in the writeup? I replied immediately to the Registrar:
But there was more. I re-read the letter from the Registrar and realized that in the space of one very short paragraph, Metz had made no less than three provable misrepresentations. I wrote back to the Registrar, describing them in detail and listing them:My WIndows Live Mail "Sent Items" folder shows that the written portion of Ass't 5 was mailed to Professor Metz on January 11th. I am now re-forwarding that email to Prof. Metz. I would like the assignment marked.
1. Contrary to his assertion, the written portion of Ass't 5. was emailed to him on January 11th.
2. Contrary to his assertion, there were various projects assigned us through the term, including the two which I would like returned.
Then I concluded as follows:3. Contrary to his assertion, the Bulletin Board project was submitted in the first week of the winter term, not in the fall term.
In view of the number of errors made by Professor Metz in such a short space, I wonder if you would want to reconsider the reliability of the information you used in deciding to expel me from the Education program, in light of the fact that much of that information came from this same Prof. Metz.
The written accusations submitted against me by Metz a year ago had been riddled with lies, but I had never been given the chance to refute them because the University refused to disclose them to me until it was too late. And once I did get them in writing, I learned that Metz and the university had taken care to protect those lies behind the legal umbrella of "absolute privilege". I was apparently left with no recourse.
As for my documentation of Metz's three misrepresentations in one paragraph, the University made no further response. In fact, they decided to let the whole matter drop, including the issue of the personal property and the assignments they had already agreed to return (not to mention the grade appeal). Eight days later I decided to press the matter again:
I am still baffled by the University's lack of initiative in making arrangements to return my personal property. When we last corresponded a week ago, I suggested the University arrange for a mutually satisfactory time when I could come to campus and identify the property in question. Since then I have heard nothing further. I wonder what your intentions are in this regard?I would also remind you of the three outstanding assignments, two of which you have undertaken to return but which I still have not received, and the third which Professor Metz ought to have finished marking by now.marty