The Faculty’s revised accommodations policies are not good enough
In our first issue of the year, I wrote on how getting a Zoom link for class shouldn’t be this hard. Now, six months later, I’m writing in our final issue to say that not much has changed.
Yes, the Faculty has made strides to increase accessibility in the law school, from permitting lecture recordings to allowing digital note access during examinations. And yes, they do give us free coffee and snacks two days of the week that I am very grateful for. But they have failed to meaningfully adjust their accommodations policies to allow students to attend classes virtually.
Twice in one week, the current procedures prevented me from attending class. The first occurred on a day where I felt sick midday and sent an accommodation request after 2:00 pm, requiring Zoom access for my night class at 6:00 pm. Guess what? No approval was granted in time! Cool, that’s my bad. Next time, I’ll tell my immune system it’s only allowed to start acting up during reduced business hours. A few days later, due to miscommunication with the professor, at least ten students in a different class, including myself, thought our guest lecture was available online. We only figured out the problem when we clicked on the Zoom link to our class and were told we needed to register. At that point, it was too late for most of us to make it to campus, and, as expected, our requests for the Zoom link were left unapproved. Our professor was later able to provide us with a recording of the guest lecture (and noted he was, ironically, also locked out of the Zoom room) but the situation created unnecessary stress and anxiety during an already stressful time.
I’m not suggesting that the Red Screen Accommodations Team should work past their hours. But students can and do have classes after 2:00 pm. The need for accommodations doesn’t magically disappear after lunch.
I’m sorry if I sound frustrated. The simple truth is, I am. There is no worse feeling than actually trying to attend class and being blocked by a bureaucratic approval process. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the Zoom links already exist. The infrastructure is already in place to facilitate online access to class. Would it kill the Faculty to provide us all with Zoom links, like they did a year ago during the height of the pandemic?
The other changes to the accommodations policy, while positive, are also insufficient. Both recordings and notes are not guaranteed; lecture recordings are permitted, not mandated, and, as I’ve written in the past, the note-taking service is wholly unreliable. But even if they were sufficiently implemented, I should not have to rely on these measures. If I am able to attend class synchronously but not able to come in person, for whatever legitimate reason, why should I be prevented from participating? Especially if such infrastructure is already in place? Whatever the Faculty’s reasons are for preventing otherwise capable students from accessing their legal education, it’s not clear to me that they’ve been adequately communicated.
This is the last issue of the year. I’m not sure what September will be like; whether we will be fully in-person again or if another wave of the pandemic will hit. But regardless of whether we are in person or not, there is no good reason why remote learning cannot be an option. If we’re going into debt for this degree, the least we can ask for are Zoom links.
