Bias in academic appeal decision

Short answer

As a general principle, no. Someone who was directly involved in the original assessment or decision should not be the person who decides your academic appeal. The person who was part of the original decision has an interest in whether that decision was right, so having them determine the appeal creates a real risk of bias, or at least the appearance of bias, which undermines the fairness of the process.

This is not a rigid rule of law in the sense of a single statute, but it flows from the common law duty to act fairly that applies to universities when they make decisions affecting students, from the terms of the university’s own appeal regulations, and from the expectations set by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), which reviews student complaints and appeals in England and Wales.

What the OIA expects

The OIA’s Good Practice Framework, which universities in England and Wales are expected to follow, addresses this directly under the heading of bias and the perception of bias. Its clear position is that investigators and decision-makers should not have been involved previously in the matters being considered in a student’s appeal. It specifically identifies staff who were directly involved in the assessment that is the subject of an academic appeal as people who should not decide that appeal.

The Framework also flags other situations that should ordinarily disqualify a decision-maker, including where the person has a personal interest in the outcome, has a close personal connection to the student or others involved, has previously reached decisions on complaints or appeals from the same student, or has previously been the subject of a formal complaint from that student.

The Framework is nuanced on one point. It says this does not mean every member of staff who has ever had any interaction with you must be excluded. In some cases a staff member connected to the matter might legitimately help to resolve an issue at an early or informal stage. The key distinction is between someone helping to resolve things informally and someone acting as the independent decision-maker on a formal appeal. The person who finally determines the formal appeal should be independent of the original decision.

The underlying legal principle

The reason behind this is the rule against bias, part of the common law rules of natural justice and procedural fairness that apply to university decision-making. The test the courts apply is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. A person judging the correctness of their own earlier decision is a classic example of a situation that fails that test, because nobody should be a judge in their own cause.

Importantly, you do not have to prove that the person was actually biased or acted in bad faith. The appearance of bias, judged objectively, is enough to make the process unfair. That is why the safe and proper practice is to allocate the appeal to someone who had no role in the original assessment or decision.

Your university’s own regulations come first

The starting point in any individual case is your own university’s academic appeal regulations and procedures. These are contractual and they will usually say who decides appeals and often contain express wording about independence or conflicts of interest. You should read them carefully, because:

1. If the regulations expressly require the appeal to be decided by someone not involved in the original decision, and that was breached, you have a clear procedural irregularity to point to.

2. If the regulations are silent, the common law duty of fairness and the OIA’s expectations still apply, and you can rely on those.

3. The regulations will also set out the grounds of appeal, the deadlines, and the internal stages you must complete before you can go to the OIA.

What amounts to being “involved”

It is worth being precise about the facts here, because not every connection is disqualifying. There is a difference between:

Someone who marked the work, sat on the exam board, or made the academic misconduct or progression decision now under appeal. That person deciding the appeal is a genuine fairness problem.

Someone who simply works in the same department, or who provided administrative support, or who chaired a panel but took no part in the substantive judgement. This is more of a grey area and may or may not be objectionable depending on their actual role.

Before concluding that the process was unfair, identify exactly what the person did in the original process and what role they are now playing in the appeal. The strength of your point depends on how directly they were involved in the very decision you are challenging.

Practical next steps

1. Read your university’s academic appeals regulations and any conflict of interest or bias provisions, and note the exact wording and the appeal deadline, which is often quite short.

2. Establish the facts: identify who made the original decision, who is deciding the appeal, and what overlap exists. Keep any emails or documents that show the same person in both roles.

3. Raise it in writing, promptly and politely, with the appeals office or the relevant academic registry. Ask that the appeal be reallocated to someone independent who had no involvement in the original assessment or decision, referring to the fairness principle and the OIA Good Practice Framework on bias and the perception of bias. Raising it early is important, because an objection you sit on can be treated as waived if you knew about it and did not object.

4. If they refuse or proceed anyway, keep a clear record. Procedural unfairness of this kind, including the involvement of a non-independent decision-maker, is a recognised ground for challenge.

5. Complete the internal process to the end. You will need a Completion of Procedures Letter before the OIA can look at it.

6. If the internal outcome is still tainted by the lack of independence, you can complain to the OIA, normally within 12 months of the Completion of Procedures Letter. The OIA reviews whether the university followed its own procedures and acted fairly and reasonably, and the involvement of a conflicted decision-maker is exactly the kind of issue it considers.

Things that could change the analysis

The answer can shift depending on facts you have not given, so it is worth pinning these down: exactly what role the person had in the original decision, what your university’s regulations actually say, whether the person is the sole decision-maker or one of several on a panel, and whether their involvement was substantive or purely administrative. If a whole panel is compromised the point is stronger than if one member of a larger independent panel had a marginal earlier role. It also matters whether you have already raised the objection, because raising it now protects your position, whereas leaving it until after an unfavourable result weakens it.

If you tell me what your regulations say and precisely what the person did in the original decision and in the appeal, I can help you frame the specific objection.