A collection of student experiences with Accessibility Services and the Faculty’s accommodations process
Access to sufficient accommodations has been a major issue at the Faculty and the greater University of Toronto for years. Ultra Vires previously published on the controversial University Mandated Leave of Absence Policy (UMLAP), the University’s mental health crisis management policies, the need for recorded lectures in the Faculty, and the widening of Zoom link access at the law school. Here, focus will be given specifically to student experiences, both good and bad, with the Faculty of Law accommodations process and University Accessibility Services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ongoing public health crisis exacerbated the ever-present problems with the Faculty’s (and the University’s) approach to accommodations and likewise raised a host of new issues given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic.
The purpose of this article is not to harangue the administration once more to improve accommodations (well, at least not the sole purpose). Rather, this piece is meant to provide a voice to those students who have felt ignored and left behind by their school. All stories described below are from real people who have experienced real harm. As the term winds down, the Faculty has the opportunity to recognize this harm and improve the law school experience for everyone in the new school year.
Currently, law students with disabilities must request ongoing accommodations through central Accessibility Services at the University of Toronto. For students experiencing extraordinary personal circumstances or a temporary illness or disability and are not registered with Accessibility Services, the Faculty likewise has an internal Academic Accommodations process. All accommodation requests, whether sent directly to the Faculty or through Accessibility Services, are determined by the Student Accommodations Committee.
Unique to COVID-19, the Faculty has an on-going Red-Screen accommodations process based on the UCheck COVID-19 self-assessment form students fill out before coming to campus. To enter a Faculty building, a student must have a “green-screen”. If a student “red-screens” (i.e. tested positive for COVID-19, had a recent exposure to COVID-19, or alternatively fits into a high-risk category of carrying COVID-19), students are told to not come to school and instead email a completed “Red-Screen Accomodation Form” to the Faculty. The student will then receive temporary access to Zoom links for their classes.
The Good
I collected personal experiences from students with accommodations at the Faculty. For some, the Faculty and the University has been incredibly accommodating and demonstrated a strong commitment to assisting the student. Julia Gauze (3L) experienced extreme blurriness and a strong sensitivity to light last semester, making reading and leaving the house when it was bright outside quite difficult. In response to her accommodations request, the school provided Zoom links for an extended period of time (nearly three months) and Accessibility Services quickly provided large-print versions of Gauze’s course materials and PDFs that could be read aloud using Adobe software. Gauze had a great experience with the accommodations process and was grateful for the school’s assistance.
For a particular group of students, the pandemic has had a unique impact. At the Faculty of Law, there is a small cohort of people that balance the rigorous demands of law school with caretaking responsibilities, such as looking after children. Adrianna Mills (2L) is a mother of two and expressed both frustration and gratitude at the Faculty’s improved response to the caretaking obligations of students. During the summer of 2021 and through to the beginning of the new school year in September 2021, Mills was “incredibly disappointed” in the administration’s treatment of students with parental and other caretaking responsibilities. Mills and other parents were told that issues related to parenting, like a child’s school closure or illness, would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and remote class links could not be guaranteed because the problems students raised did not fall within the red-screen accommodation form. Eventually, the Faculty shifted gears and provided greater accommodations to parents, allowing them to use the red-screen accommodation form if their child was sick, for example. Mills explained that last summer she felt ignored by the administration, but now Mills and others in her situation are grateful for the provided accommodations.
The Bad
Many other students have not been so fortunate, and faced staunch opposition from the Faculty and the University over their accommodations requests. A 1L student with a chronic illness that worsened this semester reached out to the Faculty to request Zoom access so they could remain at home when unwell. The Faculty took a week to respond to the student’s request and eventually directed the student to Accessibility Services. The student contacted Accessibility Services on March 4 and as of March 12, the student still had not received a response. The student even phoned the office, but no one picked up.
Some students have experienced difficulty due to an inability to fall within the rigid categories set by the Faculty Accommodations system. The Faculty denied a 2L student a Zoom link last semester after their grandmother passed away and they could not attend class in-person. The student was informed that Zoom links are only available for COVID-19-related reasons and that the student should retrieve notes from a classmate. Similarly, another student suffered a physical injury last term and had their Zoom link request denied because they did not fall into the COVID-19 category. The student experienced fevers and chills from the pain and eventually, their request was approved by the school.
Other students described the process of seeking and having their accommodations implemented as an unpaid part time job. One 2L student has spent nearly two years trying to implement their approved accommodations from Accessibility Services. They have yet to experience a semester or exam period where they were properly accommodated. A particular point of frustration and concern for this student is the Faculty’s lack of effort to accommodate absences caused by illness, disability, caregiving, religious observances, etc. Previously, the Faculty accommodated these circumstances through note taking services. However, notetakers are unpaid volunteers and many classes do not have anyone available to implement the accommodation. Moreover, the Faculty’s new lecture recording policy announced in February by Associate Christopher Dean Essert is only available to students who have attended class, not students who need to occasionally miss class and therefore access the recording to catch up. To this 2L student, this is one example of the Faculty prioritizing a rigid and incomprehensible policy over a commitment to accessibility.
Another student in 2L reported their experiences with both Accessibility Services and the Accommodations Committee. They noted Accessibility Services takes weeks to reply to messages. When speaking with the Faculty Accommodations Committee, the student felt the need to plead for greater accommodations, leaving them feeling humiliated. The student feels as if the law school program, from the reading quantities to the examination and lecture styles, are pedagogically archaic and inflexible to the students’ needs.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The issue of accommodations goes beyond the Faculty of Law and implicates the greater University of Toronto. For those requiring ongoing accommodations, as heard above, Accessibility Services can be both an incredible support and a barrier to education when inquiries go unanswered. In a similar vein, the Faculty of Law’s accommodations process responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with the red-screen accommodation form, but resisted a widening of their system to consider more non-traditional requests.
Universal access to Zoom links is a particular touchstone issue and one that has the potential to resolve many accommodation conflicts, as personally described by Sabrina Macklai (2L JD/MI) in this issue. At the very least, universal access to Zoom links during the pandemic would enable people who may, for instance, have heightened anxiety attending class in-person or a lower risk-tolerance due to personal circumstances, to learn in the environment they are most comfortable. Beyond the context of the pandemic, maintaining hybrid learning and the availability of Zoom attendance would broaden the accessibility of the education and allow individuals to make the choice as to whether they are able to participate in-person on any given day.
The question still remains: why is there such a strong aversion to assisting students? Yes, for some students, the accommodations process has been an incredible aid in their studies. However, for so many others, they find themselves trapped between circumstances that make learning challenging and not fitting within the rigid policies of the Faculty or the University.
The pandemic granted post-secondary institutions a rare opportunity to improve the accessibility of their classes through hybrid learning. Rather than begrudgingly provide this new approach to education, schools should be embracing it. Hybrid learning allows students to choose how best to learn and enhances individuals’ agency. When we spend $30,000 a year to attend the Faculty of Law, have we not earned the right to make decisions about our own education? If we want to attend school online, for whatever reason, then should we not be given that option? The Faculty of Law has the opportunity right now to greatly enhance the accessibility of their education. The question is, will they seize it?
