These are my initial thoughts reading the proposed revisions to the Policy Concerning the Rights of Students with Disabilities, as presented at Senate for information on January 15th. It will be approved by Senate later this semester.
A Broad Look
Revisions to the Policy About Disabilities (my name for the policy, which has changed name in its review) are much needed, given that 20 years have elapsed since it was last amended.
Reading the original policy, I saw glaring flaws that I’m glad the new policy addresses. The use of examples – especially the list of potential accommodations in ‘Modifications’ – is illustrative but falsely implies these are the only types of accommodations available.
However, the revisions don’t eliminate the problematic writing of the original policy, but all of it. I think some of these elements should be safe-guarded. Particularly, I would like to see continued use of the McGill Calendar to publicize its support services, and the continued use of educational programs for attitudinal barriers. Not every barrier at McGill can be solved on an individual basis. If this policy isn’t an appropriate place for McGill to ‘think big’, then another document should.
Small Notes
Page 1 says “The following Policy upholds the values as articulated within the University’s Mission Statement and Principles, namely those of academic freedom, integrity, responsibility, equity, and inclusiveness”. However, academic freedom, integrity, responsibility, equity, and inclusiveness are the only values. For precision, I would strike “namely those”.
In section 3.4, The Charter of Student Rights seems like a relevant document to cite, along with the Policy Against Harassment and Discrimination.
In section 6.1.2, use of the word “discomforts” invokes in me a defensive reaction, given baggage surrounding the dismissal of my disabilities. Since that seems to be a common experience, sticking to the word “challenges” gets the message across without alienating readers.
A standard is created by ‘undue hardship’ in section 6.1.3. The next sentence about an accommodation being “reasonable” seems to impose an additional standard, one that’s more restrictive than the undue hardship burden. This is confusing.
Questions
I am a fan of section 2.3 but there is a discrepancy between “educational experience” (in section 2.1) and “experience” in this section. Is this a purposeful distinction, i.e. is section 2.3 meant to be broader? Or should this phrase be standardized?
A phrase in section 5.2.2 reads, “Personal information […] will not be shared without the Student’s or Qualified Student’s consent, or except as required or permitted by law or with a Student’s consent”. Is the mention of a student’s consent twice an error, or am I mis-parsing the sentence? If I am mis-parsing it, presuming that I’m a reasonably competent reader, could it be rephrased to be clearer?
In section 6.1.5.4, who does the “active consultation” need to be with?
To check, as per section 6.1.5.5, does every faculty have an Associate Dean Academic?
Does section 6.1.5.5 create an obligation for SAA to consult with the Associate Dean for every students’ case? If not, could that be clarified, especially since 6.1.5.5 follows the requirement that SAA evaluate students on a case-by-case basis?
For 6.1.9, are these core competencies able to be communicated to the SAA before individual accommodations are requested, to ensure that the description of the competencies are in good faith?
Given that a student is responsible for participating in discussion with course instructors about accommodations (section 7.2.4) shouldn’t this also be a responsibility of staff?
For section 8, would the director of the SAA have more information about the implementation of the policy than the DPSLL?
For section 10, could a seat be reserved for a member of the subcommittee for people with disabilities, provided that this group is active?