Thursday, January 24, 2013

The lawyers get involved in my grade appeal.

Through most of October I had been writing the University pressing for the return of my personal property. For the most part, they simply neglected to respond to my inquiries. At the same time I had been trying to appeal the Departmental Committee's rejection of my grade appeal on my chemistry project. It had been three weeks since the Registrar told me to appeal it to the Senate Committee, but no one would tell me how to reach that body. So at the end of October, I wrote another letter. You can read the letter below. The day after I sent it, I received a reply from the University's corporate lawyer! We'll see what he told me when we next return, but in the meantime here is my letter of appeal, sent to my usual distribution of top brass from Axworthy on down:

As you know, I have been attempting to contact the Board of Regents with regard to the recent decision by the Education Faculty appeals committee to reject my grade appeal in Prof. Bush's course. It has come to my attention that perhaps it is the Senate and not the Board that would be the appropriate body for this appeal. I am therefore requesting that the recipients of this letter would forward my request to all members of the Senate for their consideration.
In view of the circumstances of this case, I feel a written appeal would not be adequate to represent my interests. I am therefore requesting an oral hearing. For your information, I am submitting the information I orignally included when I first requested a grade appeal last January (see below).
marty green
To: The Registrar
Prof. G.D. Bush
Vice-President, Academic
Dean of Education
Re: Final Grade in EDUC 15.4869
This letter notifies the University of my intent to appeal my final grade in “Theory of Science Teaching”. The grounds for my appeal are that the overall assessment of the final grade is demonstrably unjust.
Under the University procedures, I am required to submit my appeal in writing to the Registrar, who then forwards it to the Departmental Review Committee. In view of the circumstances of my case, which the Registrar is familiar with, I am asking him to consider a variation in this procedure whereby I would be allowed to present my case orally. The reasons for my request are as follows:
1. As the Registrar is aware, I am presently engaged in a conflict with my department whereby they have refused to engage in communication with me concerning my status, instead referring me in all matters to the Registrar’s office. I therefore feel I cannot expect a fair hearing from my department.
2. The requirement to put all of my arguments in writing places an excessively onerous burden on me at this time, given the complexity of my case, the demanding course load I am dealing with and the extremely stressful conditions of my studies at this time, the reasons for which are familiar to the Registrar.
3. In making my case, I wish to point out the extreme discrepancy between the marks I was awarded and the obvious quality of the work submitted. I intended to draw an inference of malice from this circumstance, and will wish to support my inference with evidence of various incidents throughout the term. I feel this is by its nature a case that ought to be argued orally and in the presence of the instructor.
I am therefore suggesting that the Registrar convene a committee to be composed of himself and two members of the Education faculty, including one of my choosing. I am willing to submit a written outline of my claim to the committee, including copies of all relevant supporting documents. The professor whose grade I am appealing should be a party to the hearing.
Please give this matter your most serious consideration.
Marty Green


  1. "Obvious quality" is a bit of a stretch. As the guy who submitted the assignment, you have to admit you're a little bit biased. The one I saw that you posted was a bit sketchy at best.

  2. I have actually posted this assignment which you can see here:

    By the way, I wonder if the various "Anonymous" correspondents could identify themselves by number, eg. anonymous1, anonymous2 etc., so I would know which is which.

  3. Same anonymous guy as above: I saw it already, thought it was sketchy.

  4. It wasn't sketchy at all. Very thoroughly done. (Btw no option to number Anonymous.)