In response to criticisms against the University and Faculty’s COVID-19 recovery efforts
Editor’s note: this article was written in response to “Sad Attempt at a Semester”
Amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many Canadian universities and their law schools opted to shift operations completely online. In a somewhat controversial move, U of T Law elected to offer a blend of in-person and remote classes.
There is little doubt that the university, and the law school, have had far from a perfect response to the pandemic. For example, criticisms regarding continued high tuition fees and the lack of recorded lectures are valid and should be considered by the administration. However, some criticisms against the school seem unnecessary and, frankly, reek of entitlement.
Over the summer, students had to decide their preferred mode of delivery for the upcoming academic year (either in-person or remote). They were cautioned that their decision would be final.
It is fair for students who selected in-person studies to be frustrated when the majority of their class time is spent remotely. This is especially true given that many students may have made the decision to move and suffer the high costs of Toronto rent.
It is unfair, however, to fault the Faculty for decisions made in light of rapidly evolving public health recommendations. I am a 1L student who moved to Toronto with the expectation of in-person classes. Currently, around a third of my class time is spent in the law building. I’m obviously disappointed, but I respect that these decisions were not made lightly. If professors feel more comfortable conducting class virtually, especially as positive COVID-19 cases in the city rise, who am I to object? In the likely event that cases continue to rise and more classes shift to remote delivery, it is important to recognize that these decisions, while unfortunate, are in the best interest of the law school community’s health.
The alternative to being open to an evolving situation would be to have all classes operate remotely. In this case, students would not have to make the difficult decision to move to attend an uncertain number of in-person classes. I may be bold to assume, however, that this alternative would not appease the critics.
While the criticism that remote students are treated unfairly does have some merit, it is unreasonable to expect the Faculty to circumvent the university’s health precautions by allowing remote students access to the building. Students were warned that their decision to study remotely would be final. It is unfortunate these students are not given access to the same law school facilities as in-person students, but this is not an argument that in-person students should not be given Zoom links. If an in-person student falls ill or has a situation change that increases their risk of exposure, they should be given an option to attend remotely, as the Faculty has done. To do otherwise would be to unnecessarily put in-person students at higher risk of COVID-19 exposure.
Perhaps the most nonsensical criticisms I’ve seen are those directed at the Bora Laskin Law Library. The decision to close the physical library stacks was made by the University of Toronto Libraries (UTL) system to accommodate changes in library operations intended to protect both students and library staff, and for the university to have access to the HathiTrust ETAS, a collection of digitized versions of the library’s books. To abide by copyright laws, stacks must remain closed. By negotiating an agreement with the HathiTrust, UTL ensures that collections remain accessible to students who cannot visit the library in-person.
This does not mean that students lack access to any physical library resources. In fact, if one asked a librarian or simply referred to the website, one would notice that many libraries, including the law library, offer curbside pickup. Essentially, students and faculty may request books from the physical stacks that are not present in the HathiTrust ETAS collection to be picked up at Robarts Library.
Criticisms against the library’s protocols for sanitation appear even more outlandish. UTL has implemented several safety measures to ensure library materials and services are safe for use. While one may find it ridiculous to quarantine a book, I would trust the information professionals to understand the sanitation protocols required to make their materials safe for use. Furthermore, while students may use library facilities without cleaning between uses, they are offered and encouraged to use hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes.
I will not debate the merits of mask-wearing in public spaces, even if one is in a room entirely alone. This is not a decision made by the Faculty nor UTL, but rather in accordance with the University’s policies. If one wants to attend in-person, which should honestly be viewed as a privilege and not a right, then one should adhere to the rules made in the interest of public health and safety.
It is reasonable that students of the Faculty paying the highest law school tuition in the country should expect a legal education of the highest quality. But given the current unpredictability and general unusualness of our daily affairs, it is important students recognize that, for the most, the administration is doing their best. Voice concerns, but be kind. It’s the least we can do in these times.
