The verification of illness requirement to access lecture recordings if sick should be removed
Everybody gets sick. In 2023, Ottawa released a new law requiring ten permanent paid sick days per year for all workers in federally regulated industries. It makes sense to incentivize sick workers to stay home to heal and avoid spreading bugs around the workspace. So why then does the University of Toronto Faculty of Law implement a huge barrier for students to take sick days?
The current pre-COVID policy revived this year requires a Verification of Illness (VOI) signed by a licensed practitioner to be approved for a deferral or to access lecture recordings. This heavy-handed requirement was temporarily relaxed during the peak of COVID. Last year, if you were unwell, you only needed to submit a COVID self-assessment of symptoms for your lecture recording request to be approved. Pretty much any symptom qualified for approval because COVID is such a varied illness. The self-assessment requirement in practice allowed students afflicted with most illnesses to stay home and rest. I was personally hopeful a relaxation on requiring VOIs was here to stay. But alas, the VOIs returned.
I fully understand the need for a VOI in seeking academic accommodation for an exam or paper deferral because these deferrals impact other students in the curved grading scheme. However, the requirement of a VOI for lecture recording access is potentially harmful overkill.
The most reasonable objective I can conceive of for the VOI requirement is to enforce mandatory class attendance to ensure a quality legal education. Is this purpose pressing and substantial? Sure. The Academic Handbook describes how the importance of attendance is rooted in the collaborative values of legal education. But even with this objective, is requiring VOIs for lecture recording access justifiable?
Requiring VOIs may be rationally connected to this objective. The requirement creates barriers to skipping class for illegitimate purposes. It probably does somewhat decrease the number of days skipped by students. However, there are better alternatives to ensuring class attendance, and the VOI requirement arguably results in more overall harm to the students than benefits.
I believe requiring VOIs is not minimally impairing. So, what is a reasonable alternative to VOIs? I can immediately think of two. My first solution is for professors to offer all lecture recordings on demand for every class. Many professors already do so, electing upon request to freely offer access to their lecture recordings for all. I have not seen a dramatic reduction in attendance for these classes. If mandatory attendance is still a serious concern, it could be enforced in other ways. For example, students could sign an attendance sheet at the start of every class. This sheet would quickly reveal students who are missing too many classes and whom professors should contact to ensure they are staying on track. This approach would be a much kinder way to address absences. Perhaps the reason that professors do not offer all lecture recordings is because some have privacy concerns. If this is the case, I have a second solution.
Alternatively, I propose that each student be granted three “free” days’ worth of access to lecture recordings per semester by request. This number reasonably reflects the number of sick days students could be taking and will allow students acutely afflicted with illness to stay home and heal comfortably and stress-free. This alternative would not result in a marked increase in class absence because three days represent a very small fraction of the total number of classes per semester. The Academic Handbook states the school can accommodate absences of up to twenty-five percent of a course. This policy is clearly a recognition that a small handful of missed days is okay. My alternatives to a VOI requirement are even more attractive when one considers the deleterious effects of requiring VOIs.
Requiring VOIs encourages the spread of illness in the community. COVID is not the only infectious disease that can wreak serious havoc. For example, in Canada, influenza and pneumonia are ranked among the top ten leading causes of death. Between three to eleven percent of the population develops flu symptoms each year. The VOI requirement leaves inevitably flu-ridden students with only two options: 1) go to class sick and potentially infect their fellow classmates, or 2) go out in the community to get a VOI and potentially infect fellow Torontonians. Walk-in clinics have also become even busier recently due to the current family doctor deficit in the country. I personally do not want to hog space at a walk-in clinic for a doctor’s note confirming I threw up last night—she literally could not know, but I would pinky-promise her—when others may need doctors to address serious health concerns. When the salutary effects of mandatory class attendance could be accomplished in much less deleterious ways, the necessity of the VOI requirement is defeated.
I believe that the VOI requirement for lecture recording access should be removed. COVID marked a missed opportunity for the Faculty to reexamine and improve their lecture recording access policy. Perhaps a policy review is still on the table. Until then, we can do our best to take care of each other where the Faculty falls short. If you are sick, please stay home, heal, and get well soon. I promise you can have my notes after class.
