Faculty debate grievance policy
for dissatisfied students
Compiled By Gold Torch Staff
Monday, October 17, 2005
Faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences are considering implementing a formal grievance policy for students who are unhappy with their final grades. As it now stands, these complaints are typically handled by the course instructor, though students may also approach the appropriate department head and the dean. There is no formal grievance policy. If the college adopts a policy, both the student and instructor might appear before a university committee to address the student’s complaint. We include below a transcript of an Internet debate among faculty.
Professor Joe Ross
Is this a policy of Central State University or certain factions of the University?
What is the genesis of this policy? Is there evidence of rampant unfair grading? We are already burdened with lenient grading standards! Why are we trying to add to our woes?
Professor Robert Marcus
It is the purpose of the open forum to discuss the pros and cons of this proposed procedure…. This is not a policy of the University. It is not the policy of a faction of the University. It is a proposed policy for the COAS. Hopefully, as a result of the open forum and discussion at the next meeting of the COAS, we shall determine whether the policy is needed or not.
Professor Jeff Crawford
Due process is important and due process may be better served by what is proposed than by what happens now. Here’s an attempt to back that statement up.
Due process for University-wide academic matters (readmissions, waivers, straightenings-out of mistakes) 8 years ago were more routinely done by individuals than they are now. Now such things are done by a University-wide Academic Standards Committee. You were dismissed for bad grades? Used to be a person decided whether you would get back in. Now a committee decides, and my perception is that the process of readmission has more integrity now than it did then.
I do not know that a committee in the COAS will do a better job of providing due process to students with grade grievances, but I believe a committee could ideally do a better job. Grade appeals now may not be exactly broken, but if, ideally, a different way could do a better job, I say try it.
Professor Marcus
The development of a Grievance Policy is an attempt to make things better. A Grievance Policy can cover what you have mentioned below and/or it can cover other circumstances of grievances. While I am not an expert on what (if any) grievance policy we are currently working under, I am sure we can develop a policy (i.e. procedure) that is better than what is the current policy (or procedure).
Professor Crawford
I guess part of the reason I favor working to get a Grievance Policy in place is that I remember when the faculty said it wanted a grievance procedure and the Board said “but then we might have some grievances.” Of course, this is just how I remember it.
But if we favored -- and eventually got -- a grievance procedure with a committee, then students should have the same.
Professor Gary Pierson
The fact that the existence of a grievance procedure creates grievances should be considered. I would like to see students who feel a grade was unfair talking to the department chair. I would assume that a chair would have sufficient familiarity with the content and the departmental standards to make a meaningful judgement.
I don’t see any reason to encourage a student to continue the matter if both the instructor and the chair are content with the grade. Neither the dean nor an outside committee is likely to be well placed to evaluate the work in question.
The only time I would wish to see involvement outside of the department would be a case where the chair and the instructor continue to disagree. At that point the chair not the student should be the one to ask the dean’s participation. Even in that Case I would hope that the instructor would still have final say.
Professor Marcus
Gary, You may have the genesis of an acceptable policy here.
Professor Crawford
I like the cut of Gary’s jib. But, the fundamental democratic principle is a principle of due process.
The process, due or not, that is envisioned in the APC’s draft is that students will talk with the faculty member and then with the department chair before any committee gets involved. Perhaps a committee could be seen as a committee of last resort. Rather like the Supreme Court.
A committee would consider appeals, in writing, from students, with written documents from a faculty member and a chair, but would only hear those cases that warranted being heard.
When our COAS Grievance Committee decided to hear a case, if ever, it would have to be for the same kinds of compelling reasons that have driven the Supreme Court to hear Anna Nicole Smith’s case concerning whether she will get her hands on any of her poor deceased husband’s millions.
Professor Marcus
Jeff, point well taken. We all know that the devil is always in the details.
.:. Top of Page