Lecture recordings, accommodations, and Dean’s Committee updates among important topics discussed
The February 9 Faculty Council was eventful to say the least. Dean Jutta Brunnée began by clarifying the administration’s policies on recorded lectures, accommodations for virtual learning, and the provision of KN95 masks. During the Chair’s Welcome, Dean Brunnée responded to requests made by the Students’ Law Society (SLS) to clarify the official Faculty recording policy. Dean Brunnée recognized and affirmed the right of individual instructors to decide for themselves whether they record their lectures but warned that recordings will not supplant mandatory attendance. Video and audio recordings will be made available through the law school’s accommodations committee. The Dean foreshadowed a revised recording policy in her opening remarks that was subsequently released via email by Associate Dean Christopher Essert on February 15.
After reading week, the Faculty intends to return to in-person learning “to the fullest extent possible.” According to Dean Brunnée, “we are not out of the woods yet, but are heading very much in the right direction.” Students can expect a format similar to what was implemented in Fall 2021, with some courses being taught online at the discretion of the instructor. The “red screen accommodation” process will continue to operate. Upon the return of in-person instruction, the Faculty will make KN95 masks available to students who want them. Information on how to access these masks was subsequently communicated in Associate Dean Essert’s February 15 email.
Anonymous attendees expressed concerns about the accommodation process at the Faculty and detailed their negative experiences during the Fall 2021 semester. Dean Brunnée reiterated that as decisions are being made, the administration is mindful of the array of circumstances that students may find themselves in and are working to provide remote access through the accommodations committee. Professor Trudo Lemmens expressed his support for students seeking accommodations and urged the Faculty to be liberal in providing accommodations on an individualized basis. Prof. Lemmens offered his own experience requesting accommodations to teach online due to his hearing disability as a reminder to the Faculty that individualized circumstances can and do occur. Dean Brunnée stated that “students who feel their circumstances require remote access should approach the accommodations committee.”*
SLS President Willem Crispin-Frei (3L) addressed some of these policy changes in his Presidential remarks. He articulated four primary issues facing students and the associated policy decisions he hoped to see the Faculty adopt: clear enunciation of the lecture recording policy, access to digital notes during open book exams, no camera-on policies, and liberal accommodations for students who have challenges not directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Crispin-Frei stated that he was glad to see that work is already underway on these issues and congratulated students for completing what was certainly a difficult January. As of February 16, the Faculty has acquiesced to three out of four student demands in a series of emails from Associate Dean Essert. The status of mandatory camera-on policies instituted by some instructors (Professors Catherine Valcke and Brian Langille, in particular) remains uncertain. According to Crispin-Frei, the SLS remains hopeful that further changes will occur over the coming weeks.
Graduate Law Student Association President Sara Maadanisani informed Faculty Council that while COVID-19 restrictions derailed the graduate student social, an online social event is in the works. Maadanisani also thanked the Faculty for returning to in-person instruction and commended them for diversifying the work streams available for graduate students.
Multiple Dean’s Committees provided interim reports. The Curriculum Committee interim report, provided by Associate Dean Essert, proposed sessional dates for approval. There was some discussion about the shortened period for first year exams but the Faculty assured student representatives that first year classes will be constructed in a manner where no 1Ls will be prejudiced.
A mandatory course on Indigenous issues in the Canadian legal system is on track to be implemented next year. There are currently seven broad topics being considered, but Associate Dean Essert emphasized that the selection will be up to individual instructors. As it stands, there are two proposals to fit this course into the law school curriculum: either it will replace the Legal Process course in the 1L curriculum or it will be worked in as a mandatory upper year course. Moving forward, the committee hopes to consult a variety of stakeholder groups.
Associate Dean Essert also provided the Revision Commmittee’s interim report. A working document summarizing the governance documents from multiple sources is newly completed. Essert congratulated Branden Cave, 3L Student Life and Academic representative, for doing most of the work on the summarization. The goal of this document review was to clarify the relationships between administration and Faculty Council, the Faculty Council and academic freedom, and the Faculty Council and the implementation of administrative decisions. The Committee hopes that their final report will provide next year’s Committee members the relevant information to engage in the normative process of envisioning what Faculty Council’s Constitution ought to look like.
Professor Douglas Sanderson provided the Truth and Reconciliation Committee’s interim report, emphasizing the importance of a historical account that encompasses social, legal, and political elements to help students situate Indigenous claims in the present day. Three free online programs have become available in the last year in addition to the University of Alberta’s “Indigenous Canada” online course. All other courses require payment. The Committee has considered the relationship between the new mandatory Indigenous law course and other JD courses, graduate students, and the broader community. When asked their views about inevitable overlap between the mandatory course and other 1L courses, student representatives unanimously agreed that “overlap is okay, but there needs to be an effort to coordinate between Faculty members.”
This statement led to a discussion on an issue that is front of mind for many students: whether professors teaching the same course talk to each other. According to Prof. Sanderson, there was a time that instructors in different doctrinal areas would meet roundtable-style to coordinate. This practice has since fallen to the wayside; currently, there is no official forum for communication between instructors on course content and delivery. Conversations do happen, albeit informally, but Prof. Sanderson emphasized the importance of formal coordination at least for the mandatory Indigenous law course.
*Editor’s Note: The print version mistakingly attributed the quote to Professor Trudo Lemmens instead of Dean Brunnée. Our apologies.
