A RANT

(My teacher is a world-class asshole, but I think I handled this appropriately.)


Mr. Banks,

This is Aja Aeloc writing in regards to the grade received for my Persuasive Speech. As you know, I disagree with you on this matter. If you will continue to read, I think you will find I have my reasons for this and I hope I may convince you that although my speech was probably “asking for it,” (this was taken into consideration during the writing of the outline and preparation) it was delivered in accordance with the goals and requirements and was deserving of a grade representing its caliber.
The rubric you provided to the class listed six requirements, all of which I fulfilled. I met each noted requirement including time window, submission of topical outline and detailed bibliography, minimum sources (plus one), no infiltration of my own opinions on the issue, proper and thorough research, element of genuineness (meaning I did not read my speech word for word from a paper), and finally spoke adamantly.

The criticisms you wrote on my grade sheet were:
o Look at us more.
o You will first have to change the Bill of Rights.
o How does this stop global warming?
o You need more sources.
o You should do a real topic.

Forgive me, but I am confused because previously the first criticism has only resulted in the deduction of one point on other speeches I have given. The second criticism, if you ask anyone, is irrelevant and should not affect the final outcome of my grade. Correct me if I am wrong, but the solution that I proposed to the problems addressed was not required to be realistic and had no restrictions regarding how drastic it was allowed to be.
I was also confused by the third comment, or rater, query, “How does this stop global warming?” This gives me the impression that you did not listen during my speech at all, as this was answered more than once in more than one way to ensure that any attentive audience member would be left with no question as to the specific effects of each individual aspect of the solution proposed. If this were the case, which I hope it was not, you should not have graded my speech at all, which would make this all the more convoluted, and I certainly do not wish to repeat my speech for your clarification.
I am further baffled by the following comment. The claim that not enough sources were provided is a completely false, as the rubric states that only three are needed. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, the bibliography I provided obviously proved my acquisition of not three, but four legitimate sources.
The final comment sort of shocked me. I’m afraid that at this point the use of the word confusion would be terribly redundant, and I would not like to present myself as being sub-intelligent in any way. But honestly, I do not think I should have to rebut this claim. To me, this assertion is an outstanding demonstration of ignorance and pretention, both of which are detestable qualities to be found in a teacher. For this reason, I have supplemented the attached sheets in hopes of showing you that my solutions (for I think that is what you meant, because asserting that global warming and prison overpopulations are not REAL would be downright stupid) are surprisingly not unheard of. The proper term for the usage of a human corpse as fertilizer is actually promession, and natural burials are actually quite common in Europe. I hope you will at least review these.
Believe it or not, I am quite sorry to have been so frank, I realize that some of the thinks I said were harsh, but I feel greatly outraged that you could feel it proper to grade me based on your bias.

Concerned,


Aja Aeloc