Petition Letter
To Whom it May Concern,
I was a student in Professor Godlewska's course GPHY351 Indigenous/Settler Relations this past Fall 2019 Term. I received 30 on my final paper. I am appealing this grade on the ground that my paper was substantially undervalued. Professor Godlewska did not evaluate my work according to the rubric she provided, unfairly critiqued my primary sources (despite approving my use of them in my proposal), and my paper was graded on a substantially different standard from my colleagues in the course.
I used a case study approach to critically examine the relationship between Canadian Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian mining industry using a specific Vale corporation mining project. I heavily relied on documents produced by the Vale mining corporation, specifically the Impact Benefit Agreement, to analyze the relationship between Vale and the involved Indigenous peoples and the impacts of the mining project.
Professor Godlewska Unfairly Criticized the Sources I Chose and How I Used Them:
I submitted a detailed outline/proposal of my paper, which Professor Godlewska approved and gave a grade of 78. In this proposal, I specifically addressed the limitations of my approach, stating:
Another obstacle to this paper will be a possible lack of statistics on the socio-economic ripple effects of introducing extractive practices into the lives of Aboriginal Peoples. A final obstacle to how thorough this paper can be will what level of the extractive practice contracts are available to the public.
Professor Godlewska commented Good and Yes, true. When I detailed my intended methodology, she recommend that I restrict myself to one mine, one kind of mining or one mining company just to make it feasible. Professor Godlweska explicitly approved my intended research topic and my use of these sources. I followed her advice and focused on one mine from one mining company. It was unfair to penalize me for following her instructions. Due to the analysis focusing on a single mine, my sources were limited due to the specificity of the refined research question. This was addressed in my proposal and paper multiple times.
Professor Godlewska explained my extremely low mark of 30 primarily by finding my sources inherently unreliable and alleging that I engaged with them uncritically. This was unjustified.
Throughout my paper, Professor Godlewska attacked my use of Vale sources, saying that I needed to use different sources and that these sources were inherently unreliable because they were produced by the mining company. I critically engaged with the limitations of my sources in my paper, expanding on my comments in the proposal, acknowledging the risk of bias and the power imbalance between the corporation and the Indigenous communities, and explicitly justifying how I used them (pages 4 and 9). Nonetheless, Professor Godlewska made these comments on my use of sources:
In the context of colonialism and capitalism this is a huge limitation to your research. In fact, if you have no other sources to verify this, it invalidates it. This is what you need to look for. Mills, S., & Sweeney, B. (2013). Employment relations in the neostaples resource economy: Impact benefit agreements and Aboriginal governance in Canada's nickel mining industry. Studies in Political Economy, 91(1), 7-34 might have been a good starting point. Cameron and Levitan would also have helped you develop a more critical approach to IBAs (page 4, second comment).
This is not a research paper. You do have an argument but you have not harnessed the sources you need to prove the argument. There is good literature on the IBAs and even on Vale. But you chose to accept what the company says about its processes without critical engagement. It might be possible to argue and prove that Vale has done a great job. But drawing on the company's self-promoting publications is not an acceptable way to do that in our society. Because you really have done little research, you have little to say. So the rest of your paper is repetitive or pulls in course elements that, as you present them, have little to do with your argument. This does not work (page 13, final comment).
These comments ignored my critical argumentation in the paper (pages 4 and 9) and her previous approval in my outline (demonstrated by her comments and my mark of 78). I believe this significant oversight was based in Professor Godlewska placing a disproportionate and inappropriate burden on me to justify my sources beyond the legitimate demands of the course because of her personal academic stance. Professor Godlewska took a fundamentally distrustful stance towards Vale sources beyond the academic interrogation and critical engagement required of this course and this assignment, placing a higher burden on myself to justify my sources than other students.
One of my colleagues gave me permission to use his paper in this appeal process. Despite Professor Godlewska commenting that he relied too heavily on one source throughout large sections of his paper to the extent that your paper is more of a summary than a researched piece of analysis, she gave his paper a B+ and mine a 30 (Colleague's Paper, final comment). This is vastly disproportionate without justification.
Professor Godlewska Did Not Mark According to the Provided Rubric, As Required:
The second significant issue that demonstrates the unsubstantiated nature of my grade is that Professor Godlewska's predominant critique was that my sources did not meet the rubric's requirements (see citation section of rubric) for at least a 65 in that section.
First, I believe I have met those requirements: number of sources; the appropriateness of the sources; the citation style; and the use of in-text citations. Second, even if my paper did not meet the standards of the citation section of the rubric for 65, this is one element of many and Professor Godlewska did not provide any other substantial criticism or feedback (beyond the substantially unjustified critique of my sources) which would justify 30.
Conclusion:
I am passionate about the topics this course covered, and really enjoyed my time in and outside of the classroom. My other grades, attendance, and participation marks reflect that feeling (most of my other grades were around B+). This final grade has unfortunately soured my experience of an otherwise insightful and stimulating class. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any clarification. I believe this paper should be graded in line with the comparable paper identified above (B+).
Best regards,
Asher Lisus
15ajl7@queensu.ca
asherlisus@gmail.com
I was a student in Professor Godlewska's course GPHY351 Indigenous/Settler Relations this past Fall 2019 Term. I received 30 on my final paper. I am appealing this grade on the ground that my paper was substantially undervalued. Professor Godlewska did not evaluate my work according to the rubric she provided, unfairly critiqued my primary sources (despite approving my use of them in my proposal), and my paper was graded on a substantially different standard from my colleagues in the course.
I used a case study approach to critically examine the relationship between Canadian Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian mining industry using a specific Vale corporation mining project. I heavily relied on documents produced by the Vale mining corporation, specifically the Impact Benefit Agreement, to analyze the relationship between Vale and the involved Indigenous peoples and the impacts of the mining project.
Professor Godlewska Unfairly Criticized the Sources I Chose and How I Used Them:
I submitted a detailed outline/proposal of my paper, which Professor Godlewska approved and gave a grade of 78. In this proposal, I specifically addressed the limitations of my approach, stating:
Another obstacle to this paper will be a possible lack of statistics on the socio-economic ripple effects of introducing extractive practices into the lives of Aboriginal Peoples. A final obstacle to how thorough this paper can be will what level of the extractive practice contracts are available to the public.
Professor Godlewska commented Good and Yes, true. When I detailed my intended methodology, she recommend that I restrict myself to one mine, one kind of mining or one mining company just to make it feasible. Professor Godlweska explicitly approved my intended research topic and my use of these sources. I followed her advice and focused on one mine from one mining company. It was unfair to penalize me for following her instructions. Due to the analysis focusing on a single mine, my sources were limited due to the specificity of the refined research question. This was addressed in my proposal and paper multiple times.
Professor Godlewska explained my extremely low mark of 30 primarily by finding my sources inherently unreliable and alleging that I engaged with them uncritically. This was unjustified.
Throughout my paper, Professor Godlewska attacked my use of Vale sources, saying that I needed to use different sources and that these sources were inherently unreliable because they were produced by the mining company. I critically engaged with the limitations of my sources in my paper, expanding on my comments in the proposal, acknowledging the risk of bias and the power imbalance between the corporation and the Indigenous communities, and explicitly justifying how I used them (pages 4 and 9). Nonetheless, Professor Godlewska made these comments on my use of sources:
In the context of colonialism and capitalism this is a huge limitation to your research. In fact, if you have no other sources to verify this, it invalidates it. This is what you need to look for. Mills, S., & Sweeney, B. (2013). Employment relations in the neostaples resource economy: Impact benefit agreements and Aboriginal governance in Canada's nickel mining industry. Studies in Political Economy, 91(1), 7-34 might have been a good starting point. Cameron and Levitan would also have helped you develop a more critical approach to IBAs (page 4, second comment).
This is not a research paper. You do have an argument but you have not harnessed the sources you need to prove the argument. There is good literature on the IBAs and even on Vale. But you chose to accept what the company says about its processes without critical engagement. It might be possible to argue and prove that Vale has done a great job. But drawing on the company's self-promoting publications is not an acceptable way to do that in our society. Because you really have done little research, you have little to say. So the rest of your paper is repetitive or pulls in course elements that, as you present them, have little to do with your argument. This does not work (page 13, final comment).
These comments ignored my critical argumentation in the paper (pages 4 and 9) and her previous approval in my outline (demonstrated by her comments and my mark of 78). I believe this significant oversight was based in Professor Godlewska placing a disproportionate and inappropriate burden on me to justify my sources beyond the legitimate demands of the course because of her personal academic stance. Professor Godlewska took a fundamentally distrustful stance towards Vale sources beyond the academic interrogation and critical engagement required of this course and this assignment, placing a higher burden on myself to justify my sources than other students.
One of my colleagues gave me permission to use his paper in this appeal process. Despite Professor Godlewska commenting that he relied too heavily on one source throughout large sections of his paper to the extent that your paper is more of a summary than a researched piece of analysis, she gave his paper a B+ and mine a 30 (Colleague's Paper, final comment). This is vastly disproportionate without justification.
Professor Godlewska Did Not Mark According to the Provided Rubric, As Required:
The second significant issue that demonstrates the unsubstantiated nature of my grade is that Professor Godlewska's predominant critique was that my sources did not meet the rubric's requirements (see citation section of rubric) for at least a 65 in that section.
First, I believe I have met those requirements: number of sources; the appropriateness of the sources; the citation style; and the use of in-text citations. Second, even if my paper did not meet the standards of the citation section of the rubric for 65, this is one element of many and Professor Godlewska did not provide any other substantial criticism or feedback (beyond the substantially unjustified critique of my sources) which would justify 30.
Conclusion:
I am passionate about the topics this course covered, and really enjoyed my time in and outside of the classroom. My other grades, attendance, and participation marks reflect that feeling (most of my other grades were around B+). This final grade has unfortunately soured my experience of an otherwise insightful and stimulating class. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any clarification. I believe this paper should be graded in line with the comparable paper identified above (B+).
Best regards,
Asher Lisus
15ajl7@queensu.ca
asherlisus@gmail.com