The McGill administration takes concerns of confidentiality to an absurd level. This goes to the point where a certain member of -- and apologist for -- the administration has stated, with an admirably very straight face, that it may be illegal for a professor to publicly acknowledge the existence, by name, of another faculty member, or to list the names of students on a web page. (Right, throw us all in jail.) At any rate, I'm going to the unusual degree of removing all specific references to names and job titles in the correspondence below, even where these are available publicly on McGill's own web pages. Instead, I refer to the various champions of our university's academic integrity by such generic descriptions as "Senior Departmental Administrator" and "University Administrator".
I was by now convinced that the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of the university were ineffective, at best, in dealing with such issues. Nevertheless, at the urging of several colleagues, I pursued a formal grievance against my Senior Faculty Administrator for his secret access of my computer files the previous year. The hearing took place over two lengthy sessions in February. Unsurprisingly, the conclusions of the grievance committee not only endorsed the actions of the administration, but did not even dare to question the tactics employed to obtain access to my files. These tactics included intimidation of a systems manager, secrecy from the staff member concerned, lack of notice after the fact, and violation of the terms of funding of research grants that pay for operation of the research centre's computing resources.
What was surprising, however, was an admission from the upper echelons of the university administration regarding their occasional access to what would ordinarily be considered as private computer files. This matter was then raised publicly at Senate.
Following the decision, I requested a version of the report that could be shared with the public:
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:10 PM
To: [Secretary to University Administrator]
Subject: Re: Grievance DecisionDear [Secretary to University Administrator],
I understand that the grievance hearing itself was and remains confidential. I would like to ask whether the contents of the report you had attached are, themselves, also confidential, or whether they can be communicated to a third party. If the latter, are there certain requirements with respect to removal of nominative information, or replacing these with titles (e.g., [...])? If there is any uncertainty, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with an edited version that is acceptable for public disclosure.
Many thanks,
- Jeremy
The secretary responded that a denominalized version of the decisions would be made available to me once it was ready. On April 9, I received this in hardcopy, and scanned it for posting here. Note that for extra prudence, I removed any remaining names (e.g., of grievance committee members) from the redacted text. Also, to be sure that this was, indeed, a version of the text suitable for public disclosure, as per my request of March 26, I sent a follow-up note:
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:32 AM
To: [Secretary to University Administrator]
Subject: Re: Grievance DecisionDear [Secretary to University Administrator],
I have picked up the vetted hardcopy of the grievance decision. As the envelope in which it was placed indicates "CONFIDENTIAL" I just want to verify that I have permission to distribute the vetted copy of the decision, in other words, that this can be considered as information suitable for dissemination to the public.
Many thanks,
- Jeremy
The reply, which took another week, was a carefully worded formal response, delivered electronically and in hardcopy. In it, the administration indicated its preference to keep the matter private, and while recognizing that it did not have the authority to prevent me from distributing the decision, a veiled threat was made, in urging me to "consider the matter with care, and to consult with my [Senior Departmental Administrator] and [Senior Faculty Administrator]..." Ironically, this was the same advice that ultimately led to the grievance in the first place.
As related in the minutes of the Senate Meeting of April 8, 2008, a question was raised regarding access to confidential files and whether users were notified of such access:
Use of the McGill Computing Facility (MCF) is governed by the Code of Conduct for Users of McGill Computing Facilities, and its ancillary documents Companion Document to (Code of Conduct) Policy and Management Guidelines. Adopted and unrevised since 1994, they remain the current policies and still appear on the website of the Chief Information Officer. Under these policies and guidelines, user files are considered confidential and not open to access by others unless there was a compelling reason. Such reasons would be protection of the MCF or suspicion that the user was using the MCF inappropriately. The clear intent of the policy is that when such access occurs the user should be notified beforehand unless there is some strong reason to the contrary. In such cases the user should be notified as soon as possible following the access. In view of this:
QUESTION:
1. a) Is such access by administrators reported to the CIO/Provost? If so, can the Administration report the number of times that user files have been accessed, in the past three years and the types of reasons why files are accessed? Were the users informed even afterwards, that such access had taken place? And if not, why not?
Answer: ... Electronic files are accessed by systems staff in the course of normal operations and to protect the integrity of the system. Access to any e-mails, files or databases maintained on systems is provided upon request to the Internal Auditors or to heads or supervisors in academic units and administrative departments that require such access in the ordinary course of their work or due to exceptional circumstances requiring intervention. (For example, a staff member may be away, and information must be accessed to ensure appropriate response on an issue or there could be reasonable grounds to believe that our systems are being used in violation of the law or of University policy). Approximately 10 such exceptional requests were fulfilled last year by central IT staff. I assure you that our IT staff are attuned to the need to avoid invading the privacy of users as much as possible.
Reassured yet? Anyone notice that the critical last section of the question wasn't addressed?
Follow-up question: [McGill Senator] asked if we routinely inform individuals that their files have been accessed
[Senior University Administrator] replied that it depends upon the circumstances of the case, and the practices of the unit.
Then, one year after the plagiarism scandal, on May 14, 2008, I received a rather unusual request from a Departmental Administrator, who asked me to turn over (for the most recent session of the Artificial Intelligence class):
While this is, on its face, the modus operandi for handling student re-grade requests, as I pointed out in my reply, the student is supposed to contact the instructor regarding any request to re-evaluate term work:
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Date: May 26, 2008 11:39:56 AM GMT-04:00
To: [Departmental Administrator]
Cc: [Departmental Administrator]
Subject: Re: Reread Request - ECSE 526Hi [Departmental Administrator], [Departmental Administrator],
I received your email and phone messages, respectively, but was out of town until late last week. [Departmental Administrator], please note that I only use my CIM email.
Could you please point me to the relevant McGill regulations stipulating that the procedure for handling an assignment re-read request is to bypass the instructor entirely, as opposed to keeping the individual, who is nominally responsible for the course, included in the process? For example, at some other universities, the normal procedure is that the instructor is given an opportunity to re-read student work that was initially graded by a teaching assistant. Is this not the case at McGill?
Thanks,
- Jeremy
In the meantime, a senior colleague of mine weighed in with his own observations:
I have never heard of a re-read by an outside party (i.e. other than the professor) for a course ASSIGNMENT (as opposed to an exam). I think if this is what things are coming to then we are letting bureaucratic process get in the way of efficient operations.
While I think fairness and, in addition, the conspicuous appearance of fairness, is very important, it is also paramount that the system work with enough efficiency and empowerment of the faculty involved so that the job can and does get done, and faculty morale is also maintained. I think external re-reads of assignments is not reasonable except in extreme cases where the fairness and judgement of the faculty member is explicitly at issue. Certainly, a professor should alway be the first to be contact and the first to examine TA corrections that a student deems unsatisfactory.
After several weeks of deliberation, the Departmental Administrator responded, indicating that this had been referred up the chain of command, referring me to Article 14 of the Handbook on Student Rights and Responsibilities, and suggesting that as the instructor, I could not provide an impartial review.
Article 14 states:
Subject to reasonable administrative arrangements, and provided the request is made by a student within a reasonable time after the notification of a mark:
(a) Every student has a right to consult any written submission for which he or she has received a mark and a right to discuss this submission with the examiner, and
(b) Every student has a right to an impartial and competent review of any mark.
I responded:
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Date: June 8, 2008 10:28:14 PM GMT-04:00
To: [Departmental Administrator]
Subject: Re: Reread Request - ECSE 526Dear [Departmental Administrator],
This leaves me somewhat concerned. The regulation you've cited does not, in fact, stipulate that the instructor is supposed to be removed from the process, kept uninformed of the identity of the student or the reason for the reassesment request. Rather, it sensibly states the student's "right to an impartial and competent review." Since I was not involved in the inital grading of the assignment, the implication of your response is that I am either partial with regard to assessing student work and/or incompetent to grade material in my own course. Frankly, I find this offensive and defamatory. Moreover, since I have not received a request for reassessment of the assignment myself, it appears that you are encouraging at least one student to violate the procedures set out in the Faculty of Engineering's web page ( http://www.mcgill.ca/engineering/student/sao/policies/reassessment/ last updated Aug. 9, 2007 at 1:02 PM ), which state:
Any request to have term work re-evaluated must be made directly to the instructor concerned.
If there is a problem with the grading conducted by the TA or in my own evaluations of student work, I would like to know about it, and have the opportunity to correct this problem. It is, of course, important to the quality of student learning that everyone receive fair and intelligent evaluations of their work, although as we saw last year, certain members of our administration seem to believe otherwise.
I would also like to know which other professors in our department have been asked to provide all copies of a particular assignment, graded only by their respective TAs, to an unknown reviewer, without having been given an opportunity to regrade the work themselves, and without even knowing the reason for the student's request that initiated the process.
Best regards,
- Jeremy
My email was apparently forwarded to the same Faculty Administrator who was responsible for the previous year's plagiarism scandal. After not receiving an answer for several weeks (a familiar story with our administration), I sent a follow-up note on June 24. The Departmental Administrator indicated that the Faculty Administrator was away that week, so a reply "might take a little longer".
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Date: June 26, 2008 6:26:12 AM GMT-04:00
To: [Departmental Administrator]
Subject: Re: Reread Request - ECSE 526Hi [Departmental Administrator],
You could, at least, respond to my last question, which pertains solely to our department.
Thanks,
- Jeremy
Again, with no reply...
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Date: July 7, 2008 3:52:40 PM GMT-04:00
To: [Departmental Administrator]
Subject: Re: Reread Request - ECSE 526Hi [Departmental Administrator],
As I noticed you outside the building this afternoon, I gather that you're not out of town at present. Once again, I would appreciate, at the very least, an answer to my last question, which now goes back one month: which other professors in our department have been asked to provide all copies of a particular assignment, graded only by their respective TAs, to an unknown reviewer, without having been given an opportunity to regrade the work themselves, and without even knowing the reason for the student's request that initiated the process?
Thanks,
- Jeremy
The Departmental Administrator responded tersely that he'd prefer to leave this to the Faculty Administrator.
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Date: July 8, 2008 9:21:46 AM GMT-04:00
To: [Departmental Administrator]
Subject: Re: Reread Request - ECSE 526Hi [Departmental Administrator],
Yes, you've already indicated as such, and as I've noted in response, I have yet to hear back from our [Faculty Administrator]. However, my final question pertained specifically to the departmental level, for which I understand that you are responsible, and as such, I would appreciate a direct reply to my question rather than being ignored continually.
Regards,
- Jeremy
Taking a page right out of last year's playbook of his colleague at the faculty level, as well as his senior at the departmental level, the Departmental Administrator responded that he will not answer my questions while this matter is being dealt with by the Faculty.
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Date: July 8, 2008 11:04:07 AM GMT-04:00
To: [Departmental Administrator]
Subject: Re: Reread Request - ECSE 526Dear [Faculty Administrator],
As [Departmental Administrator] will not answer my question that deals with policy at the department level until you have responded to this matter at the faculty level, I would appreciate a response, this week, to the email forwarded to your attention on June 9.
Thank you,
- Jeremy
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Date: August 6, 2008 11:05:06 AM GMT-04:00
To: [Departmental Administrator]
Cc: [Faculty Administrator]
Subject: Re: Reread Request - ECSE 526Dear [Departmental Administrator],
It has now been one month since my previous email and I have not received any reply from [Faculty Administrator]. I'm wondering how long you consider this matter as "being dealt with by the Faculty" before you'd be willing to answer my very straightforward question. I note that has nothing to do with the faculty, but relates only to the policy of *our department* as administered by you in your capacity as [Departmental Administrator]:
Which other professors in our department have been asked to provide all copies of a particular assignment, graded only by their respective TAs, to an unknown reviewer, without having been given an opportunity to regrade the work themselves, and without even knowing the reason for the student's request that initiated the process?
I look forward to your prompt response.
- Jeremy
Not surprisingly, the administrator repeated his refusal to answer my questions.
Finally, on August 27, I received a response from the Faculty Administrator, indicating that to the best of his knowledge, this situation had not arisen previously. He also noted that the student had recently withdrawn the re-read request. (How convenient.) At last, the Departmental Administrator saw fit to add his own comments, but without actually answering my question. Instead, he provided the following summary of "how we handle re-reads in our Department":
From: Jeremy Cooperstock [mailto:jer@cim.mcgill.ca]
Date: August 29, 2008 10:34:52 AM GMT-04:00
To: [Departmental Administrator]
Subject: Re: Reread Request - ECSE 526Hi [Departmental Administrator],
Thanks for indicating your happiness to answer any further questions I may have about how you conduct re-reads. Before dealing with my follow-up questions, however, I'd appreciate an answer to the initial question I raised in my email to you of June 8, and have repeated ever since in the various follow-up messages until today:
I would also like to know which other professors in our department have been asked to provide all copies of a particular assignment, graded only by their respective TAs, to an unknown reviewer, without having been given an opportunity to regrade the work themselves, and without even knowing the reason for the student's request that initiated the process.
Follow-up questions:
1. As I noted earlier, the procedures set out in the Faculty of Engineering's web page (last updated Aug. 9, 2007 at 1:02 PM), state: Any request to have term work re-evaluated must be made directly to the instructor concerned.
This appears to be in direct contradiction with points 3 and 4 of your four-point summary of how you handle re-reads in our Department. Could you please explain how you reconcile the policies of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering with those of the Faculty of Engineering in this regard?
2. From your assumption stated in point 4, "We assume that the instructor has made whatever checks are necessary before submitting the grades for the class":
a) Does this mean that you expect instructors to check the TA's grading of every question of every assignment of every student before entering grades him or herself?
b) What if the TA is given authorization to enter assignment grades directly in WebCT?3. How long have the policies as described in your four-point summary been in effect?
4. Who formulated these policies and how have they been communicated to other members of our department? For example, were they decided by a departmental committee and announced in a memorandum or by email?
5. Do I have your permission to publicize these policies with your name and email address provided as a contact for follow-up queries?
Best regards,
- Jeremy
The administrator replied that:
Let me get this straight: These "policies", which directly contradict the procedures set out in the Faculty of Engineering's web page:
"Any request to have term work re-evaluated must be made directly to the instructor concerned." (Emphasis is mine.)
were standard practice, even though they were not written or communicated to anyone previously, nor ever applied. In fact, last year, when the department's apparently first-ever assignment re-read request was made, the Senior Departmental Administrator directly told me the name of the student, the identity of the re-reader, and the supposed reason for the request. It's remarkable how easily McGill administrators can devise exceptions for "any" or "must" and interpretations in which statements mean their opposites. Given this deceit from our own administration, is it any wonder that cheating is on the rise among students as well?
George Orwell couldn't have written it any better.