Chronology of Events

2007

(A detailed history of events and correspondence from 2007 is available here.)

• January 4: first class of term: students are informed of policy on submission of late work
• January 27: specifications for assignment #2 are posted
• February 15: student submits electronic version of assignment #2 (two days late) along with explanation that he has been sick since February 11; attached is a doctor's note dated February 15 that states the student said he missed classes on February 13 because of his sickness
• February 22 (?): student asks me during class whether I received his assignment; I confirm, and indicate that it will be subject to the late submission penalty
• March 6: student complains about receiving mark of 8/20 on assignment #2 "which is not possible after the amount of work i put into this assignment and on top of that being sick and not being able to submit or even finish on time"
• March 23: the Faculty Administrator, contacts me regarding the late penalty on assignment #2
• March 26: my TAs inform me of plagiarism and non-functioning code related to assignment #3, involving the same student and one other; I instruct them to mark the work as if there was no evidence of plagiarism and I bring this to the attention of the Faculty Administrator
• April 4: after a request from the Faculty Administrator, the TAs annotate the two assignments to indicate their similarities, both in the code and graphs; these annotated copies are provided to the Faculty Administrator
• April 16: final examination held; I grade all exams "blind" (without noting the students' names on the cover), marking each question in turn for the entire class, then shuffling randomly to ensure that exams are not seen in the same order for each question
• April 22: following the end of the course, the Faculty Administrator requests that I calculate two possible grades for the two students (with and without a penalty of "0" for assignment #3, and in the meantime, to submit a grade of "K" (incomplete); for the student in question, both outcomes lead to a failing grade (37% or 43%, respectively)
• April 24, May 2, May 8: I am contacted three times by the ECE Department and the Faculty of Engineering to justify the submission of a grade of "K" for one of the students
• April 28: the student begins sending a series of belligerent emails, requesting a meeting to "discuss the marks i got over the entire semester"
• April 29: the student writes that "... you accused me of cheating remember? Well now that the Senior Faculty Administrator has dismissed that ( for good reason) i would like to meet with you."
• April 29: I query the Faculty Administrator as to whether this is really the case; the Faculty Administrator offers a partial denial
• April 30: I investigate the submissions of assignment #2 and notice large sections of identical code between the same two students; again, I bring this to the attention of the Faculty Administrator
• April 30 - May 11: the Faculty Administrator requests a statistical comparison of the code, copies of the electronic submissions for other students in the class, copies of the assignment questions, and further information regarding the breakdown of grades; each of these is provided
• May 12: I request a meeting with my Senior Departmental Administrator to discuss an entirely separate matter; I send follow-up requests on May 14, May 22, May 23 and June 5, but the Senior Departmental Administrator is too busy to meet
• May 16: the Departmental Administrator asks if I could meet with the student earlier than I had already indicated was possible, suggesting that the student can graduate if he is given a pass in my course
• May 16: following further correspondence, the Faculty Administrator responds, "After a very thorough review with both students I have acquitted both of all charges."
• May 23: I raise these issues at our deparmental meeting, providing extracts of the plagiarized sections of assignment #3 for my colleagues to view; at the suggestion of my colleagues, I raise the issue of academic integrity in an email to my Senior Faculty Administrator, copied to my Senior Departmental Administrator
• May 31: as no response has arrived, I resend the previous email
• June 7: the Senior Faculty Administrator responds, adving me "to consult with your Senior Departmental Administrator and/or the University Administrator on any course of action that you consider."
• June 7: I am summoned by my Senior Departmental Administrator for an urgent meeting to discuss the student's grades; the administrator promises me that "you will be intimately involved in every step of the process with respect to a grade change from the 'K' to something else. I give you my word on this. Furthermore, your opinion will be solicited as to what that 'K' will become"
• June 8: at the suggestion of my Senior Departmental Administrator, I again write the Senior Faculty Administrator, requesting a meeting; the Senior Faculty Administrator instructs me to contact his secretary
• June 10: I contact the Senior Faculty Administrator's secretary to request a scheduling of the meeting
• June 14 or 15: I telephone the Senior Faculty Administrator's secretary as follow-up regarding the meeting; she stammers "the Senior Faculty Administrator... hasn't indicated his availability yet... I'll... let you know... once I've spoke to him" and seems eager to get off the phone
• June 19: I am asked to supply materials for regrading of the student's assignment #2 and final examination
• June 25: the Faculty Administrator asks me to confirm the student's grade "not accounting for penalties in Assignments 2 and 3 for plagiarism."; I respond, reminding him of the promise I received from my Senior Departmental Administrator
• June 27: I am made aware that the student's grade was changed to a 'D' (pass)
• June 28: I contact the University Administrator for advice as to how to proceed, given what has just transpired
• July 4: I am summoned to the office of my Senior Faculty Administrator, charged with disclosing confidential information
• July 18: I am formally reprimanded by my Senior Faculty Administrator
• August 21: the Senior Faculty Administrator orders a systems manager to retrieve my private computer files from backup tapes, all in total secrecy
• August 27: I write the Senior University Administrator, requesting a meeting to discuss my concerns
• September 4: I meet with the Senior University Administrator, but throughout the meeting, get the sense that we're speaking different languages; the reason for this is made clear once I see the email from another University Administrator
• September 25: the Faculty Administrator refuses to explain the rationale for his awarding additional marks to the student's final examination and plagiarized assignment
• September 24: the Senior Departmental Administrator breaks his silence
• September 25: at the Electrical and Computer Engineering departmental meeting, I call for the Senior Departmental Administrator to step down given his handling of this matter

2008

(A detailed history of events and correspondence from 2008 is available here.)

• February 7 and 14: a grievance hearing takes place regarding the Senior Faculty Administrator's access to my private computer files
• March 11: the grievance committee concludes that the Senior Faculty Administrator was justified in his actions (note: while this may seem unbelievable to most readers, it is currently par for the course at McGill)
• April 8: Senate discusses the issue of access to private computer files
• May 14: my Department Administrator calls on me to turn over all copies of an assignment for re-grading, without my having received an actual re-grading request from the student concerned
• August 6: almost three months after I challenged the validity of this request under McGill regulations, the Department Administrator refuses to tell me whether such a request has been made of anyone else, claiming that he will not respond until the Faculty Administrator responds, the latter was silent on the matter for two months
• August 27: finally, a response...