Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Introduction
In HIST 218, Byzantium, the main mark for the class was a research paper weighted 40% of the final mark. The criteria for the paper was not released until the end, but the main idea was to argue one of the points provided by Dr. Greenfield. When I submitted my paper, I felt confident that I successfully met the grading criteria, which I followed closely during the many hours of the paper creation. After receiving my mark on the paper, 24/100, or 9/40% of my final mark, I was in complete disbelief. Additionally, communication with my professor has not only provided no clarification of the mark given, but has left me feeling emotionally abused.

Specific Evidences
I have written more than seven essays in this term alone, and received at least 70% or more on all of them. This gave me reason to believe I was able to do the same for this paper. After receiving my mark, I went to check the rubric I received from Dr. Greenfield. In all but one section of the rubric, I received passing grades. The feedback was not constructive and offered no insight into the mark assigned. In the one section I failed, “style,” Dr. Greenfield states the English in the essay was, “...so poor, the construction so jumbled, that it makes it very difficult to follow or understand the points being made. This is too badly written to pass…” From this I understand from Dr. Greenfield that the defining reason for my failure is my usage of the English language to communicate the curriculum expectations of the paper. However, my writing was the same, if not better, on the mentioned previous seven essays. This includes a closed book, in-class essay that was marked by a TA. I am unable to reconcile the mark assigned on the paper that is the subject of this appeal, and the substantive, highly contrasting feedback I already received in the course.

After I received this, I emailed Dr. Greenfield on April 11, 2024, asking about how I did so poorly, and where the English went wrong using an example of him stating that the word “detoured” was not proper English in the paper. He responded a day later on the 12th, in which he responded in a manner inconsistent with constructive criticism standards, and laid several personal pointed remarks pertaining to my writing that I can not use as future advice, if anything it was emotionally abusive. Dr. Greenfield, in his response, reiterated the fact that I need to seek help on my English writing, and I quote, “The alternative would have to be that your instructors were sufficiently careless or illiterate themselves not to comment upon it, and I would hesitate to believe that.” In this statement, he is not only questioning my ability to write but my other professors and researchers that have taught me at Queen’s University. In the same email he also states, “I have recently been mentoring a grade eight student for a project on the crusades and the English in which their final essay was written was far superior to that which I see here.” Within the email I received from him for feedback, it felt unprofessional to bring up content not pertaining to the course and thus, I could not use any of the feedback provided for my future assignments. The theme of bullying and degrading comments continue in his response. For example, he also stated, “There are one or two points of legitimate analysis in the subsequent sections, but so buried in the jumble that it is hard to know if you have put them there on purpose or they have slipped in by accident from something you have read”. Another comment, “...betrays a complete lack of historical understanding and might be interpreted as something much more unpleasant”.

His final point was that in my essay I mistakenly called the siege of Constantinople, the fifth Crusade. In the email he explains that, I quote, “This displays such a fundamental lack of knowledge about a key event that the person who makes it cannot be said to merit a passing grade in a course in Byzantine history. Hence my lowering of the initial F48 to F24”. This means that because of one small mistake, likely due to a copying or communication mishap, I lost 24 marks on an essay that is worth 40% of my grade. Additionally, this criteria was not part of the paper rubric, and so should incur no penalty, especially one so huge. Lastly, he released the marks for the essays, something he has never done in the course on a broadcast on Onq, showcasing that I was the only person who failed and stating, “In other words, 95.5% of the class did well or very well, and only 4.5 didn’t. Good job (almost) everyone!”. Once again singling me out and degrading me publicly and privately.

These examples among many others outside the email have given me the notion to request an appeal on their own, as I didn't receive any constructive criticism or a courteous response which was what I was initially looking for. The criticism and mark I have received for my assignment is unjust for which the professor predicted that I would appeal this grade, including the link to appeal the mark at the end of his email, and him calling me stupid, illiterate and implying that my writing was racist. In light of this, I think that a formal review on my grade would be fair because I worked very hard on this essay and feel as if I deserved more and this type of interaction with students does not showcase what kind of school Queen’s University is.