Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 10336
Submitted: April 18, 2023 at 11:24:45 PM
First Name: Katharine
Last Name: Kanters
Pronoun: she/her
Student Number: 20201058
Email: 19kyek@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: Con-Ed, history major English minor
Level of Study: 3
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request aegrotat (AG) standing in a course or courses
Code: ENGL 200
Term: Fall/Winter
Year: 2023
Petition Category: Request aegrotat (AG) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Leslie Ritchie
Amendment to Appeal 10336
Relevant Petition: 10336
New Information: I would also like to add a bit more information regarding my circumstances. I am the recipient of the GSO funding dedicated to a disabled student attending Bader College's Interdisciplinary Studies in Global Health and Disability program. Regarding my three summer classes I am taking at Bader, I will not encounter the issues regarding sitting for an exam and being required to memorize information I am facing with my ENGL 200 exam. My courses are participation, presentation, and paper-based so I will not be physically required to sit for an exam. Also, I reached out to my instructors and they confirmed that I will not need to memorize any information for their courses. Additionally, because the ISGHD program is about how to support people with disabilities, and I am the disabled GSO recipient, my instructors are willing to provide me with any accommodations I need because of my disability to support my academics and physical and mental well-being in their classes.
Moreover, I began experiencing my extreme pain after the March 5th drop deadline. While I have had chronic pain most of my life, I have never been in this much pain and lacked the ability to memorize information before, so I could not have predicted myself being in this extenuating circumstance. My extreme pain began around March 13th, and I was prescribed my medication on March 29th. Additionally, I was not informed that the exam would be memorization based until March 24th, and I did not realize I am incapable of memorization until I began studying for it after I learned it was memorization based. I could not have dropped ENGL 200 before the drop deadline because of my medical circumstances because I did not begin experiencing my severe medical problems until after the drop deadline. Additionally, because I am a third-year Con-Ed student, I would not be able to graduate on track and continue my BEd if I had to retake ENGL 200.
Moreover, I began experiencing my extreme pain after the March 5th drop deadline. While I have had chronic pain most of my life, I have never been in this much pain and lacked the ability to memorize information before, so I could not have predicted myself being in this extenuating circumstance. My extreme pain began around March 13th, and I was prescribed my medication on March 29th. Additionally, I was not informed that the exam would be memorization based until March 24th, and I did not realize I am incapable of memorization until I began studying for it after I learned it was memorization based. I could not have dropped ENGL 200 before the drop deadline because of my medical circumstances because I did not begin experiencing my severe medical problems until after the drop deadline. Additionally, because I am a third-year Con-Ed student, I would not be able to graduate on track and continue my BEd if I had to retake ENGL 200.
Student Number: 20201058
Documentation
Professional Letter Detail: Already sent
Documentation Detail: Proof of medication being prescribed on March 29th
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 127
Submitted: May 9, 2023 at 6:49:35 PM
Relevant Petition: 10336
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request aegrotat (AG) standing in a course or courses: ENGL 200, Fall/Winter 2023 (Leslie Ritchie)
Appeal Grounds
Appeals to the Board of Studies must include a letter based on one or more of the Grounds for Appeal (Appeal Regulation 3.4). What are the grounds you are basing your appeal on?
- The Associate Dean's decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as the Associate Dean failed to:
- Remain unbiased when reviewing your petition.
- Make a reasonable decision in your appeal. A “reasonable” decision is one that is based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from the facts. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: Dear Board of Studies,
I am appealing Dean Stephenson??s decision to deny my request for Aegrotat standing in ENGL 200 on the grounds of her decision not following the procedural fairness of being a reasonable decision and not remaining unbiased while reviewing my petition.
First I will address the feedback I received from Dean Stephenson and why her decision was unreasonable. Dean Stephenson explained that she denied my request because ??it is not evident that my circumstances would prevent me from completing the course requirements by the end of summer term 2023? and her advice to me was that I should drop courses in week eight if ??I am struggling in my courses or if my health is suffering.?
Aegrotat standing is ??granted in cases where there are well documented and unforeseen extenuating circumstances outside of a student??s control and the learning outcomes of the course have been satisfied.? This is my case. Professor Ritche clearly communicated to me and Dean Stephenson that she supports me receiving AG standing because, based on her expert assessment, I fulfilled all learning outcomes of ENGL 200. Additionally, I attached a letter from my family physician as evidence that I physically cannot complete the ENGL 200 exam. Completing the exam is not ??difficult,? it is impossible. I believed that one medical expert testifying that I am unable to write the ENGL 200 exam would be sufficient, which is why I submitted only one form of written documentation and a picture of my medication bottle that confirmed my medical timeline. I am also perplexed as to why my condition is being labelled as chronic. It is not my initial condition that prevented me from writing the exam. As documented in my medical note, it is a recent and sudden change in my medical status that was unforeseen and required a new form of treatment. Also, if more medical documentation is necessary, I can request more doctors?? notes from the several specialists I see that corroborate that I will no longer be able to do this type of ENGL 200 final exam assessment.
Moreover, I could not have adhered to Dean Stephenson??s advice to drop ENGL 200 in week eight. As Professor Ritche can corroborate, I was doing well in ENGL 200. My grades were not ??struggling.? Additionally, while I have been disabled since I was thirteen, there was no reason in week eight for me to believe my health would rapidly decline. As I outlined in my appeal, the major health setbacks I encountered were unpredictable and happened after week eight. Dean Stephenson??s decision was unreasonable because I have already fulfilled all ENGL 200 learning outcomes.
Furthermore, I am appealing Dean Stephenson??s decision to deny my request because she was not unbiased during her assessment. As a disabled person, I have learned how to support myself. If you look at my transcript, you will notice my grades are almost all in the A range because I work hard and reach out for help when needed. When my doctors?? confirmed I was not going to be able to write my exam a few days before I was scheduled to write it, I panicked. I have always found ways to ensure I am academically successful, and because I had no idea what to do in this situation, I emailed Dean Stephenson directly. In response to my email, I received an email that Dean Stephenson was CCed on from Melissa Grant in which she said that she believed my situation did not reach the AG threshold; before assessing my case, Dean Stephenson was already influenced by Ms. Grant stating I did not deserve AG standing. Additionally, Ms. Grant??s email was the start of me sending panicked emails to Dean Stephenson trying to better convey my situation and begging for clarity and guidance. While I did send Dean Stephenson an email apologizing for my misunderstanding and panicked email tone, her lack of response to my apology email conveyed her frustration with me.
Moreover, I had an academic advising call with Ms. Grant that made it clear her and Dean Stephenson were frustrated with me. When I called academic advising, I was put onto a Zoom call with Ms. Grant; I did not schedule this call specifically with her, I just called to speak to an advisor and she was the advisor whose Zoom room I ended up in. During this call, Ms. Grant said that I was ignorant because I did not understand her and Dean Stephenson??s email responses, and my responses and questions were annoying. Additionally, Ms. Grant made the derogatory comment that if I am not intelligent enough because of my disability to read an email, I should have my mom and dad read all my emails. This was offensive because as reflected by my grades, I am intelligent, and as a Queen??s faculty member she should understand that disabled people are capable of and do live independent lives and not all disabled people can rely on family members for any form of support. My conversation with Ms. Grant revealed that Dean Stephenson was biased against me because it confirmed that she was frustrated by my emails and that she might be exposed to ableist attitudes that influence her willingness to support disabled students.
I have a strong academic plan to finish my Bachelor of Arts in the 2023-2024 academic year. I will take summer courses, so I only need to take four courses per term next year. This is deliberately done so that I am guaranteed I will not need to write a sit-down memorization-based exam again. I have completed all my mandatory courses; ENGL 200 was my last mandatory course. Therefore, I can choose classes that don??t have final exams because I have a light course load and lots of options. The English and history classes for next year have already been posted and, because no classes are memorization based and almost all of them do final projects instead of exams, I will not encounter the problems I did with the ENGL 200 exam. If needed, I would be happy to submit the timetable options I created that prove, even if some courses fill up quickly, because of the variety of courses and my open availability, I will not have to write another exam or practice memorization again in university.
Thank you for reading my appeal, and please reach out to me if you have further questions about my disabilities, fulfillment of learning outcomes in ENGL 200, or academic plan.
Kind regards,
Katharine Kanters
20201058
I am appealing Dean Stephenson??s decision to deny my request for Aegrotat standing in ENGL 200 on the grounds of her decision not following the procedural fairness of being a reasonable decision and not remaining unbiased while reviewing my petition.
First I will address the feedback I received from Dean Stephenson and why her decision was unreasonable. Dean Stephenson explained that she denied my request because ??it is not evident that my circumstances would prevent me from completing the course requirements by the end of summer term 2023? and her advice to me was that I should drop courses in week eight if ??I am struggling in my courses or if my health is suffering.?
Aegrotat standing is ??granted in cases where there are well documented and unforeseen extenuating circumstances outside of a student??s control and the learning outcomes of the course have been satisfied.? This is my case. Professor Ritche clearly communicated to me and Dean Stephenson that she supports me receiving AG standing because, based on her expert assessment, I fulfilled all learning outcomes of ENGL 200. Additionally, I attached a letter from my family physician as evidence that I physically cannot complete the ENGL 200 exam. Completing the exam is not ??difficult,? it is impossible. I believed that one medical expert testifying that I am unable to write the ENGL 200 exam would be sufficient, which is why I submitted only one form of written documentation and a picture of my medication bottle that confirmed my medical timeline. I am also perplexed as to why my condition is being labelled as chronic. It is not my initial condition that prevented me from writing the exam. As documented in my medical note, it is a recent and sudden change in my medical status that was unforeseen and required a new form of treatment. Also, if more medical documentation is necessary, I can request more doctors?? notes from the several specialists I see that corroborate that I will no longer be able to do this type of ENGL 200 final exam assessment.
Moreover, I could not have adhered to Dean Stephenson??s advice to drop ENGL 200 in week eight. As Professor Ritche can corroborate, I was doing well in ENGL 200. My grades were not ??struggling.? Additionally, while I have been disabled since I was thirteen, there was no reason in week eight for me to believe my health would rapidly decline. As I outlined in my appeal, the major health setbacks I encountered were unpredictable and happened after week eight. Dean Stephenson??s decision was unreasonable because I have already fulfilled all ENGL 200 learning outcomes.
Furthermore, I am appealing Dean Stephenson??s decision to deny my request because she was not unbiased during her assessment. As a disabled person, I have learned how to support myself. If you look at my transcript, you will notice my grades are almost all in the A range because I work hard and reach out for help when needed. When my doctors?? confirmed I was not going to be able to write my exam a few days before I was scheduled to write it, I panicked. I have always found ways to ensure I am academically successful, and because I had no idea what to do in this situation, I emailed Dean Stephenson directly. In response to my email, I received an email that Dean Stephenson was CCed on from Melissa Grant in which she said that she believed my situation did not reach the AG threshold; before assessing my case, Dean Stephenson was already influenced by Ms. Grant stating I did not deserve AG standing. Additionally, Ms. Grant??s email was the start of me sending panicked emails to Dean Stephenson trying to better convey my situation and begging for clarity and guidance. While I did send Dean Stephenson an email apologizing for my misunderstanding and panicked email tone, her lack of response to my apology email conveyed her frustration with me.
Moreover, I had an academic advising call with Ms. Grant that made it clear her and Dean Stephenson were frustrated with me. When I called academic advising, I was put onto a Zoom call with Ms. Grant; I did not schedule this call specifically with her, I just called to speak to an advisor and she was the advisor whose Zoom room I ended up in. During this call, Ms. Grant said that I was ignorant because I did not understand her and Dean Stephenson??s email responses, and my responses and questions were annoying. Additionally, Ms. Grant made the derogatory comment that if I am not intelligent enough because of my disability to read an email, I should have my mom and dad read all my emails. This was offensive because as reflected by my grades, I am intelligent, and as a Queen??s faculty member she should understand that disabled people are capable of and do live independent lives and not all disabled people can rely on family members for any form of support. My conversation with Ms. Grant revealed that Dean Stephenson was biased against me because it confirmed that she was frustrated by my emails and that she might be exposed to ableist attitudes that influence her willingness to support disabled students.
I have a strong academic plan to finish my Bachelor of Arts in the 2023-2024 academic year. I will take summer courses, so I only need to take four courses per term next year. This is deliberately done so that I am guaranteed I will not need to write a sit-down memorization-based exam again. I have completed all my mandatory courses; ENGL 200 was my last mandatory course. Therefore, I can choose classes that don??t have final exams because I have a light course load and lots of options. The English and history classes for next year have already been posted and, because no classes are memorization based and almost all of them do final projects instead of exams, I will not encounter the problems I did with the ENGL 200 exam. If needed, I would be happy to submit the timetable options I created that prove, even if some courses fill up quickly, because of the variety of courses and my open availability, I will not have to write another exam or practice memorization again in university.
Thank you for reading my appeal, and please reach out to me if you have further questions about my disabilities, fulfillment of learning outcomes in ENGL 200, or academic plan.
Kind regards,
Katharine Kanters
20201058
Documentation
Decision Letters
Level 2 Amendment
Appeal Type: Level 2 Amendment
ID: 129
Submitted: May 31, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM
Relevant Petition: 10336
Appeal Grounds
Appeals to the Board of Studies must include a letter based on one or more of the Grounds for Appeal (Appeal Regulation 3.4). What are the grounds you are basing your appeal on?
- The Associate Dean's decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as the Associate Dean failed to:
- Remain unbiased when reviewing your petition.
- Make a reasonable decision in your appeal. A “reasonable” decision is one that is based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from the facts. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions.
Documentation
Document: Katharine Documentation.pdf