The shift to remote learning came too late
On October 10, the Faculty of Law made the decision to revert back to remote learning as it had done earlier on in the pandemic in March. While I agree with this decision, it came far too late.
At the time of this decision, the seven day rolling average had risen to 694 — up from 116 on July 10 when the decision to adopt the hybrid model had been announced. If you look at the charts, cases are and were clearly on the rise. I can’t speak for everyone, but surely this must have caused anxiety for students attending in-person. Even if students had no qualms about safety, the uncertainty must have made planning for events difficult.
While these numbers are alarming, this should come as no surprise. Experts warned us that the fall would bring a second wave. Given its second wave, why did U of T Law adopt this wishy-washy situation knowing full well there was a good chance of being relegated online?
U of T Law enticed students to attend in-person classes, with the allure of providing as many in-person services and activities as possible, but this was short-sighted (and likely disappointing to many students given how many in-person events were actually offered).
International and out-of-province students had to move or leave their families — in the midst of a pandemic — to attend classes. Given the time differences between Ontario and other locations, it is perfectly understandable why these students may have chosen to do so. But making this decision meant paying the pricey Toronto rent (upwards of $2000) for housing, which now serves little purpose. Students either had to stay in a city they may have had little ties to, forego the money used for rent, or engage in potential legal battles with their landlord. What’s worse is that, due to the pandemic, less job opportunities were available to students who may be paying their way through law school.
And for international students, making this decision posed the additional burden of quarantining for two-weeks upon arrival and securing visas.
If these students want to leave, they face expensive travel costs and, in some circumstances, travel restrictions.
In-person learning, as well as the sudden shutdown, also posed safety issues. Firstly, the masks provided by U of T have been criticized for being inadequate. While this isn’t a direct criticism at the Faculty of Law, this shows a lack of commitment to safety on an institution-wide basis. Secondly, commuters had to face increased COVID-19 risks just to get to class — as the semester went on, public transit became progressively more crowded, making it difficult for social distancing to take place. Finally, students may have chosen to return to their hometowns, risking spreading the virus to their friends and family.
I understand that socializing, participating, and utilizing resources in person is beneficial for a multitude of reasons. I also understand that professors may hate teaching to a blank screen. However, socialization at the school had been limited precisely for safety reasons. What resulted was the worst of two worlds: attending in-person classes with minimal social interaction. Ultimately, the benefits offered by the state of in-person classes did not outweigh the logistical nightmare that U of T Law created.
While U of T Law made the right decision for students’ safety, now, U of T also created this headache by failing to act prudently and decisively.
