Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: To: Associate Dean (Studies)
Submitted on line December 19, 2017

Re: Notice of Appeal to a finding of a departure from academic integrity.

Between:
Charlotte Maddison (hereinafter referred to as ¿¿Charlotte¿)
and
Queens University, English department decision of Professor Christopher Fanning

Charlotte is appealing a Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity issued on December 1, 2017. In support of this Notice of Appeal, please find the following information:
¿¿ Statement of the Underlying Facts
¿¿ Grounds for Appeal
¿¿ Remedy Sought
¿¿ Future Plan

Underlying Facts
Charlotte is a first-year student in the Arts Faculty at Queens University. On November 24, 2017, Charlotte was served with a Notice of Investigation regarding a possible departure from academic integrity. Specifically, the notice alleged that she appeared to have used at least one source without acknowledgment. On November 30th, Charlotte had a meeting with Professor Fanning and a representative from the Queens academic integrity department, C. Pierce, to review the allegation. At this meeting she was honest and forthright and acknowledged that it was possible that she inadvertently incorrectly cited a piece of source material. On December 1, 2017, Charlotte received a Finding of Departure from Academic Integrity and was given a grade of zero for the assignment.

Statement of the Grounds for Appeal
Section 21 of the Queens¿¿ University Senate Policy on Student Appeals, Rights & Discipline, (the ¿¿Policy¿) dated Feb. 26, 2004, lists the possible grounds for appeal.

Two grounds are being asserted in this Notice of Appeal.

1. Appeal Ground 1 per S. 21(b) of the Policy
The rules of natural justice, which must be upheld for every student, must be followed. The rules of natural justice as detailed in the Senate Policy on Academic Integrity Procedures (the ¿¿Integrity Procedures¿), section 3.1.1., allows for the right to appeal, as an automatic right. This is a guaranteed right.

2. Appeal Ground 2 per S. 21(d) of the Policy
The decision to award a grade of zero is not reasonable in these circumstances.

The Integrity Producers, S. 2.3, lists factors that must be considered when assigning a sanction. Each relevant factor is reproduced below with a statement of relevance to Charlotte¿¿s situation.

¿¿ Evidence of a deliberate attempt to gain advantage
o There was absolutely no intent to mislead or gain any sort of advantage; Charlotte was clear with Professor Fanning that this was an inadvertent mistake
¿¿ The seriousness of the departure having regard to its actual or potential consequence
o In the work in question Charlotte cited The Iliad multiple times, and this mistake was from a translation that is not the class text. The majority of The Iliad citations were done correctly. The missing citation for the Mathieson piece was due to a misunderstanding on Charlotte¿¿s part, believing that only direct quotations required citation. Charlotte has multiple learning disabilities and is currently receiving disability accommodations from Queens University. There is a very good chance that this mistake was caused by her learning disability, which negatively affects her working memory, attention and concentration.
¿¿ The extent to which the work or conduct in question forms a significant portion of the final grade and whether the extent of the departure is substantial as demonstrated by the work or conduct in question
o This assignment constitutes 15 of the course mark, and has the potential to put Charlotte at a serious disadvantage. In fact, her current mark heading into the Christmas break is now 46; clearly a failing grade.
¿¿ Injury to another student or to the institution
o There is clearly no injury
¿¿ Multiple departures within a single incident or multiple departures discovered at one time, rather than an isolated aberration
o This is a single incident by a student in first year that has only been at university for only a few months, and is still learning how to write citations and manage class expectations.
¿¿ Whether the departure has been committed by a student who ought to be familiar with the expectations for academic integrity in the discipline Department and/or Faculty
o Again, Charlotte is only a few months into her university experience, and is still adjusting to and learning the rules. She is fully committed to the fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness respect and responsibility, and more than willing to take responsibly for her single unintentional lapse, but requests that the resulting decision considers the extenuating factors in this appeal.
¿¿ Conduct that intimidates others or provoked the misconduct by others
o This section clearly not applicable

The current sanction, a grade of zero, appears punitive, and has had a demoralizing effect on Charlotte, causing her to lose confidence and suffer much emotional distress. Charlotte has been completely honest and sincere with respect to her actions. She is remorseful for what occurred and was not aware that she was wrong.

Remedy Sought
Rather than punishing Charlotte to this extent, we submit that a more reasonable and judicious decision that recognizes the foregoing mitigating circumstances will more constructively teach a lesson, and not necessarily put her overall mark in this course in serious jeopardy.

Indeed, in Queens¿¿s Academic Regulations and University Policies, one of ¿¿The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity¿, S. 1.1.1 (iii), is that there must be: Fairness - An academic community of integrity establishes clear standards, practices, and procedures and expects fairness in the interactions of students, faculty, and administrators. As such, it is believed that a lesser sanction would be fairer.

Queens¿¿s Academic Regulations and University Policies, S. 1.3.4.1, further states that as a Level 1 Departure, which this is, there should be ¿¿an attempt to find a balance between remediation and sanction¿, and that ¿¿this policy avoids treating students punitively in all cases and allows for remedies which seek to educate students about matters related to academic integrity.¿

Section 1.3.1 further states: ¿¿The instructor may consider a range of remedies or sanctions including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) an oral or written warning that such infractions constitute unacceptable behavior;
(ii) a learning experience involving a rewriting or revision of the original piece of work;
(iii) the submission of a new piece of work;
(iv) the completion of other work.

There are clearly more productive alternatives, such as a sanction that requires completion of an educational program/workshop (Integrity Procedures: Section 2.4 item 2.).

Charlotte requests that the current sanction be lessened and takes into consideration all the above-noted extensive mitigating factors.

Future Plan
In spite of the fact that she has been working with a number of learning difficulties, Charlotte has worked very hard over the last couple of years to do the best she can given these difficulties, and has looked forward to attending Queens for some time. Still, she plans to further investigate any available resources to support and improve these time management and citation skills.