It’s been an illogical semester for PHIL 260 students.
Students enrolled in Introduction to Logic were informed their professor Adèle Mercier had been removed in an email sent to them on Nov. 20. In the email, Faculty of Arts and Science Associate Dean (Academic) Jenn Stephenson told students to attend their Wednesday class for updates.
The change in instructor followed a month-long battle between Mercier and the Faculty of Arts and Science over students’ accommodations for the midterm exam. The evening before the midterm, students received an email cancelling the exam for 8:30 a.m. on Nov. 1. The cancellation came as a surprise to students—and to Mercier.
“The students are very upset, and I’ve been telling them I’m upset too. But there’s nothing we can do because my course has been hijacked,” Mercier said in an interview with The Journal.
Since her interview on Nov. 17, Mercier has been instructed not to speak to the media. Her replacement, Adjunct Assistant Professor Mark Smith, is now at the helm of the course. Mercier’s teaching assistant, Tianze Chen, was dismissed and replaced by the University this week.
***
It all started when Mercier decided to modernize her exam to accommodate two students enrolled in PHIL 260 requiring a computer to write examinations. Mercier and Chen worked all semester to computerize the students’ exam, using a “cheat proof” software. Students have been using the software throughout the semester to complete homework exercises. Logic exams are difficult to write on a computer because the discipline uses symbols not familiar to most word processors, Mercier explained.
“The only way to cheat is if you had, for example, two computers, you could sign into the homework mode of the program and have access to all the checking functions. During the exam, the homework function is disabled, and we can tell when you’re doing the exam, that you’re staying on the exam,” Mercier said.
On Oct. 26, Mercier contacted the Exams Office to inform them of the new format for the midterm exam. Problems arose when Mercier learned policies restricted the Exams Office from allowing students with accommodations to use their personal computers to complete exams. To adhere to the policy, the Exams Office required all students enrolled in the course to revert to a paper-based exam.
“I don’t see how they have the authority to tell a professor you must have a paper-based exam,” Mercier said.
“I don’t see how they’re doing their jobs of helping faculty accommodate students, if that involves dictating to professors how they are to perform their exams, what kind of exams they are to give […] it is not part of their competence.”
In response, Mercier filed an official complaint, objecting to the imposition of “para-academics” to modify the exam format, citing infringement on academic autonomy and the adverse impact on students who were prepared to write a computerized midterm.
Mercier told the Exams Office despite their advisory, she was going to offer students the option of a paper-based or computerized exam. She maintained students who required the use of their laptops for exams would be allowed to do so in her classroom.
The Exam Office told Mercier this wasn’t an option. They reiterated all non-accommodated students had to write a paper-based exam. As for accommodated students, they gave her two options: let the Exam Office step in, or privately administer the computerized exam meeting all the students’ accommodations.
Mercier chose the latter.
“We’d been booking Gordon Hall 400 for those who had accommodations for private rooms or dim lights or things like that, and they could bring their own laptop to Gordon Hall. We arranged our own proctors so that everyone gets to write the exam on the computer,” Chen said.
As students prepared for their exam the following morning, they received an email from Haley Everson, faculty associate director (academic consideration, appeals and advising) cancelling the exam.
Two days later, students received an update, apologizing for the disruption and claiming the faculty was “working with Professor Mercier and the Exams Office to set up exams that meet Queen’s accessibility requirements.” They claimed the decision was made due to a scheduling conflict between the exam time for students with academic accommodations and their other classes.
In her own email to students explaining the cancellation, Mercier told students the “para-academics [are running] the show now, not your professors,” and she was “gravely disturbed by ever increasing infantilization of students, and victimhood-fostering attitudes towards persons with disabilities.”
***
With their midterm exam in limbo, PHIL 260 students were slapped with a 100 per cent final exam. The course is a requirement for philosophy majors, and students were stressed.
“I was confused, I thought maybe we would be getting an explanation of some sort from the University but that didn’t end up happening,” Nicholas Hash, ArtSci ’26, said in an interview with The Journal. “I think confusion is the strongest feeling. People I’m close with are frustrated.”
Like many of his peers, Hash was prepared for a computerized midterm. He expressed frustration at its sudden cancellation with minimal explanation and competing narratives.
In an email obtained by The Journal, a student in the class told Mercier they withdrew their accommodations because they “felt the alternatives [she] gave were just fine and very fair.”
Hash described Mercier as an inspiring professor. In classes, he reported there was back-and-forth between Mercier and the students, creating an energizing atmosphere. Mercier has been teaching logic at Queen’s since 1994.
“I think there’s a lot of love for Dr. Mercier,” Hash said. “As she herself puts it, she’s one of the only
women doing in philosophy what she’s doing, which is teaching logic. It’s a very male-dominated field and she’s been doing it, from what I can tell, fantastically for 30 years. I think there’s a lot of respect for her in the classroom.”
Another student who contacted Mercier after the cancellation told her the situation was an “attack by Queen’s towards [her] teaching, character, and class” and was of “utmost disrespect.”
In emails, Mercier’s replacement by her former student Smith brings certainty to what has been a confusing situation. On Nov. 22, Associate Dean Stephenson introduced the new professor and told students they had options.
The faculty will allow students to drop the course after receiving their final grade with a full tuition refund. Alternatively, students can change the grade shown on their transcript to “CR,” which administrators like Stephenson recognize as indicating an extenuating circumstance.
“You don’t have to decide today, you can decide in January,” Stephenson told the class.
Of the 109 spots in the class, 90 students remain enrolled. Under Smith’s guidance they will have the option to complete two assignments and a final exam, all paper-based take-homes, which will be weighted in whichever way benefits students most.
“There’s a lot of goodwill towards the stand-in professor Dr. Mark Smith,” Hash said. “I think he’s a good instructor. I think he’s going to do good things for the course. But towards the administration, I think there is a lot of confusion, a lot of unanswered questions, and I think the announcement from Dr. Stephenson didn’t address anything directly about the cause of this whole situation.”
For Hash the situation is potentially an infringement on academic freedom. He plans to write a letter to Barbara Crow, the dean of the faculty of arts and science.
“If a tenured professor of so many years, such as Adèle Mercier, can be forced out of her course I worry about younger professors who want to try and provide alternative solutions—or teach their courses in alternative ways for their students in the way that best helps them learn—that they won’t be able to do that.
And if they attempt to do that, they may be subject to sanctions by the school,” Hash said.
For Mercier, the situation makes her want to quit. With her sabbatical approaching next semester, Mercier is unimpressed with the University. She believes the whole ordeal could have been mitigated over one phone call leading up to the midterm exam.
“I think we did a great job of accommodating students,” Mercier said. “Even though the minions don’t know what they don’t know.”
—With files from Sofia Tosello
Tags
academic accommodations, Adèle Mercier, department of philosophy
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
Adèle Mercier
Flagrant absurdity is a sure sign of dysfunction. This one blows my mind, used though it is to reductio ad absurdum.
The logic software used by students in my class makes the unusual symbols of Logikese easy to write, which are supremely onerous to write using an ordinary keyboard. When we heard that some students had accommodations to write their exams on computers, to facilitate their life, my TA and I had the great idea to computerize the exam, using the logic software with which they are already familiar.
Now, student X has *two* accommodations: X has accommodations for afternoon-only exams (the class is in the morning), and X requires a computer to write exams. According to the exams office (Ventus), “students who require a computer for the assessment need it because they require the ability to type their exam instead of handwriting it.” (Keep this in mind until the end.)
Ventus refused to proctor our (cheat-proof) computerized exam; they only proctor paper-based exams, no exceptions. They will provide a regular-keyboard computer for students with computer accommodations like X.
So, we proposed to give X (and all students) a choice:
the Ventus option – to write a paper-based exam (with X accommodated with a regular keyboard in the afternoon); or
the Mercier-Chen option – to write (the same exam) on computer with our logic software during class time in the morning. (For scheduling reasons, we could not offer an afternoon logic-software exam without the cooperation of the Ventus office.)
X chose the Mercier-Chen option. X thought it fine and fair.
The Ventus office objected: ” *all* of X’s accommodations *must* be met. ”
The Ventus office objected moreover to our giving any students options, insisting that all students must write a paper-based exam (except those who must write on computer).
Recognizing the onerousness of writing Logikese on a regular keyboard, X said this:
“If my only option is the paper-based(-with-regular-computer) option, I *prefer to hand write* the logic exam.”
Now, I ask you: what’s wrong with this picture?
In case the illogic here makes your head spin, let me spell it out:
The Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning criticized us for “asking” X to forgo the afternoon-only accommodation. We did no such thing; we merely offered an alternative we thought beneficial, and, indeed, X *preferred* the option where the accommodations were *not* all met. [NB. It is stated in their own policy that not all courses will require all accommodations.] X preferred our morning logic-software exam over the afternoon-accommodated regular-keyboard exam, the only option offered by Ventus.
My TA and I got booted out of class… which leaves X with only the Ventus option, under which X, *forgoing the computer accommodation*, will prefer to write by hand…
According to stated policy: Students with Disabilities have a right to:
• Be treated with dignity and respect.
• Appropriate, individualized accommodation.
NB. I do not require “mercy”, just rationality.
Jon
This did not happen in a vacuum. Professor Mercier has had an antagonistic relationship with her department for several years now. At one point resulting in her being moved out of the building because the administrative staff felt unsafe around her.
Adele Mercier
Jon: Yes, I was moved out of the building, after antagonism with my department over its ill-treatment of women students, corroborated in an External Climate Review… This is when Queen’s became the first university in Canada to have to pay punitive damages to a professor in labour arbitration for treatment found to have been “extraordinary, unprecedented, unreasonable, deliberate and therefore egregious.”
Adele Mercier
From: XXXXXXXXX@queensu.ca>
Subject: PHIL 260
Date: November 24, 2023 at 11:57:25 AM EST
To: adele.mercier
Hi Adele,
I am still confused about what happened in this crazy chaotic course, but I wanted to reach out and thank you for your teaching and guidance this semester.
You are honestly one of the best professors I have ever had. You managed to make a course I was nervous and reluctant to take and made me excited to attend lectures, and eager to learn the material. I rarely feel like my professors really care about me as an individual but since your very first lecture I felt that you do, so thank you.
You have, even with 2 less weeks, bulldozed logic pathways in my brain. I will miss hearing you lecture.
XXXXXXX
Leslie
Prof. Mercier is “gravely disturbed by ever increasing infantilization of students, and victimhood-fostering attitudes towards persons with disabilities.” Suggesting that the provision of academic accommodations fosters perceptions of victimhood, Prof Mercier indicates that persons with disabilities are themselves the issue rather than the societal barriers that limit access to high-quality education for persons with disabilities. This is a view of disability that perpetuates harmful stigma and prevents systemic change. I wonder why Prof. Mercier appears so hesitant in the comments to have the perspective of the students not sufficiently accommodated to be shared.
a
Thank you for these comments, Leslie. A rare non ad hominem comment.
I disagree that my words suggest what you say they do, or indicate what you say they indicate. Although words out of context are endlessly semantically malleable, I have trouble understanding how my being gravely disturbed by attitudes that treat persons with disabilities as victims differs from your being similarly disturbed, or where it suggests that this is due to the provision of accommodations.
Yes, I am gravely disturbed by ever increasing infantilization of students. This has nothing to do with disabilities per se, although students with disabilities are also being infantilized (in ways illustrated in X above). I provide examples below of infantilization as dumbification, at the risk of sounding blunt. The students at Queen’s are being dumbified. I choose my morphemes carefully. Queen’s students aren’t dumb. They are some of the smartest in the country. Many are brilliant. More of them are sick with anxiety, usually over school, than ever before. These facts are perhaps not unrelated.
Only speaking of what I know, a typical Queen’s philosophy student’s abilities are grossly underestimated. That is very harmful. Here’s a 200-level course, as case in point. The students are 20 years old (I’ll call them adults, in deference to those the same age who are sent to fight wars). In this not atypical course, the final exam, worth 40% if you take it, is optional. There is little incentive to take it. The course grade is then based on three one-page papers, and bi-weekly five-minute-two-sentence quizzes “just to guarantee attendance” where everyone gets A+. Typical Queen’s students did more work than that in one term in a typical high school course. An adult does not require candy just to show up for work. This dumbing down is infantilizing. It is also ubiquitous (only speaking of what I know).
A student with a B+ average based on writing three pages in a term will boost their grade to an A+ thanks to generous participation marks, half of which are self-graded. So the student emerges triumphant with an A+ in that actual philosophy course. This dumbing down is infantilizing. It is also ubiquitous (only speaking of what I know).
The students in my 200-level logic course have now also been infantilized (incapabilized). The new arrangement has drastically dumbed down standards. Any student who came to my class, ask them, will feel their intelligence insulted by the midterm in “baby logic” due this week (don’t blame me, that’s how it’s called). This will reward the 50% of students who never submitted a single homework, whose behind-ed-ness in their work has just shrunk by three-quarters. The take-home tests will encourage and reward the cheaters. (68% of students in North America *admit* to cheating on exams –but perhaps Queen’s students are a statistical exception…) In the new distribution of candy, the students can take the midterms, have them count or not, and withdraw retroactively –with refund– if they don’t like their exam grade. I predict most will get an A+.
That’s a problem. Not just, and not even most importantly, a gross problem of fairness and of dereliction of duty. It’s that now, consciously or not, our A+ students feel like frauds. It will be cringe-making, rather than confidence-building (for the rest of their lives) to hear “Wow! You got an A+ in philosophy/logic!,” even from oneself. Because the message transmitted is clear: you couldn’t have gotten the grade without the crutches of trivial quizzes and freebies and one-pagers. The hard-working student who would have gotten an A+ anyway in my (mildly) challenging logic course (and there are always many), will feel fraudulent instead of accomplished. They have been robbed of their right to feel proud. (I use the A+ for effect; any grade will feel shameful if felt as unearned, in all but the most shameless cheater.)
This attitude towards students who don’t need crutches feeds the Imposter Syndrome, a widespread neurosis among students, and one that feeds depression and anxiety. If the subliminal message that is constantly repeated is that you couldn’t make it if we didn’t dumb it down for you, you eventually get the message that you’re dumb. That’s not a comfortable feeling in a university. No wonder students are sick from anxiety. The only way to acquire self-confidence is through conquering challenge.
I do not think at all that the provision of proper accommodations fosters perceptions of victimhood; on the contrary, it fosters dignity and respect. The provision of improper accommodations, however, does the opposite. It is what perpetuates harmful stigma. It also harms persons with disabilities themselves. It fosters self-perceptions of victimhood.
This is not just my impression (although it is). Insightful discussion of how, not accommodations, but *the practices of accommodation offices in Canadian universities* foster victimhood attitudes in persons with disabilities, appears in the aptly-named Journal of Psychological Injury… in the articles “Accommodation Decision‑Making for Postsecondary Students with ADHD: Treating the Able as Disabled” by Allyson G. Harrison & Irene Armstrong;
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-022-09461-1
and in “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Learning Disorders, and Other Incentivized Diagnoses — A Special Issue for Psychologists”, by Allyson G. Harrison of Queen’s.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-022-09460-2
Anyone more interested in my views than in assassinating my character can find them in there.
Especially in the sections on the disconnect between functional impairments and supported accommodation, and on the risks, to persons with disabilities themselves, of indiscriminate accommodation-granting.
I neither thought, said, nor indicated that persons with disabilities are themselves the issue, in fact I said the opposite in context. The context makes clear that what I take issue with are precisely not accommodations (much the opposite, I tried to create new ones), but some *practices of the accommodation offices*. And on that, I know I am far from alone. But it is a scary thing to say, because then, without further ado, one gets booted out of one’s course.
The problem with “the students not sufficiently accommodated” is the age-old distinction between not *being* sufficiently accommodated and *believing* that one is not being sufficiently accommodated. I cannot see, based on the accommodations information I was given from Ventus, that there were any such students in my course, with any but few eminently fixable small glitches. I invite such student to show how insufficiently accommodated they thought they were by our plans, either to prove that that is incorrect or to apologize; I have been asking nothing but that information since the beginning and it is frankly bizarre that no one will provide it.
I do hear an angry student or two, but in an obligatory class of a hundred that many fear and resent having to take, in which 50% show zero evidence of having done any work, every professor knows that there are always students who will deflect their own irresponsibility onto any available externality (and it would not be the first time that blame landed on allegedly defective accommodations). Be that as it may, once Ventus reneged on handling the accommodations for this class, it was my responsibility to see to the accommodations, and I did; and it was the student’s responsibility, who felt insufficiently accommodated, to let me know in what way. As I said before, we’re talking at best of a couple of people, and it would have taken two minutes to fix.
I have always handled my own accommodations, and it has never before been a problem. It became one when the student relied on someone else (an advisor) instead of talking directly to me. I don’t recall my students ever requiring an advisor-intermediary to speak to their professor (another form of infantilization). But that advisor did not do their job of communicating with me. (And one rather chilling possible reason why not occurs on page 6 of the above article.)
I am completely committed to removing the societal barriers that limit access to high-quality education, or to anything else, for persons with disabilities.
I am mortified that some students have lent my words the intentions lent to them by Leslie. Miscommunication happens. I wish they had taken their concerns directly to me. It would have fostered understanding rather than anger and hurt.
Adele Mercier
For the record: I cannot resist commenting on “because the administrative staff felt unsafe around her” because that statement is defamatory. That is what one secretary *said*. She said this *after* she was caught calling me a “witch” to students who very much respected this witch and complained. (She called me a witch because she was angry that I complained about the treatment of women students. Some women are like that.) She said this *after* I complained that she was systematically not recording motions I made at Department meetings in the minutes of those meetings, as it was her job to do.
I told administration that I did not want the secretary disciplined, because I thought she had been weaponized by faculty upset that I had complained about their actions towards women graduate students. I told administration that I wanted the secretary apprised that I had asked that she not be disciplined. (No one told her.) It is only *after* people complained of her actions that she claimed to fear me. (I don’t think it was me that she was fearing…)
An investigation cleared me of ever having been any kind of safety threat to anybody. (So Jon, you will henceforth cease and desist making this defamatory claim if you know what’s good for you.)
It took four years of litigation to find out why this secretary had claimed to fear me. It was exactly this and no more: she “didn’t know what I might do”.
For that, I was booted out of my office for 4 years…
That’s what bullying looks like at Queen’s.
John Sherbino
Re Philosophy Professor:
It should be remembered that Queen’s is a rules-driven business. It is a hierarchy with small spans of control. Pecking orders matter and change, particularly unauthorized change is unsettling.
The Professor is in the right but she should have seen it coming,
Structurally, it was the ‘logical outcome’.
John Sherbino BAH, MIR
a
It is the logical outcome of universities that they have ceased to exist? Oh dear.
The trouble with loving things is that you want to preserve them.
Adele Mercier
It is the logical outcome of universities that they have ceased to exist? Oh dear.
The trouble with loving things is that you want to preserve them.
SF
Did you know that Adele Mercier has published papers that legitimately defend the use of the N-word in multiple contexts? Before becoming an apologist, let’s do some real journalism next time. What about reaching out to the students who had issues with the accommodations given by Professor Mercier? There is a clear perspective that is lacking here.
Adele Mercier
“Did you know that Adele Mercier has published papers that legitimately defend the use of the N-word in multiple contexts”? (a) No, I didn’t know this. (b) This is an “ad hominem” fallacy. (c) You need my course.
We tried to find out which students were claimed by the Exams Office to have had issues with our accommodations, since no student complained to us. The Exams Office refused to tell us which students’ accommodations were imperfect, or how. It would have taken five minutes to fix had they bothered to tell us, less time than it took to write the email cancelling the midterm.
SipsTea
I would appreciate hearing the other sides of this story – administration/staff, QSAS, other accommodated students who may not have had their accommodations met by Professor Mercier’s option…
Professor Mercier reached out on Oct 26 less than a week before the midterm exam (Nov 1) to let the exam admins know of the change in format? That isn’t how a university works. Mercier’s attitude towards staff is incredibly rude – calling them minions is unnecessary. Ventus is not an office, or a person. Ventus is an exam management system. Even this basic fact was not mentioned in the article. Any Queen’s professor should be aware of this.
I hope the Journal does some more investigation into this as this does not make any sense. Mercier’s views are flawed and misinformed.
Adele Mercier
These views are flawed and misinformed.
(a) We offered students a choice: the fully accommodated Ventus option, and another option in case they preferred it. (Many accommodated students did. No one had to.) Tell me what is wrong with that?
(b) Ventus, by which I mean the persons who run the exam management system, rejected it. Not allowed to give students options.
(c) How long in advance does an exam management system need simply to allow twenty students to bring their laptop, that’s it, that’s all? “This is not how a university works.” Correction: this is not how this university works.
(d) You get one thing right. “This does not make any sense.”
Adele Mercier
minion. noun. min·ion ˈmin-yən. 1. : a person who obediently serves or works for a usually powerful person or organization.
This place is crawling with minions. Those who refuse to be get booted out of their courses.
M Rogalsky
Could this situation have been avoided if the exam were privately administered? I am genuinely curious. The university regulations don’t seem to prohibit broad use of computers in midterms and finals by anyone, unless the Prof runs it through VENTUS. See https://www.queensu.ca/registrar/academic-info/exams/faculty#mid-year-finals
Adèle Mercier
“Could this situation have been avoided if the exam were privately administered?” Yes, entirely. I allowed myself to be convinced by the Assoc Dean of T & L to try the Ventus avenue this year, because the class was very large and 30% had accommodations. That was a mistake and I regret it. I will never go through Ventus again.
JS
This article should have included those feeling targeted by the nasty emails sent out by the professor. Telling students you’re “gravely disturbed by ever increasing infantilization of students, and victimhood-fostering attitudes towards persons with disabilities”, is disgusting. Throwing in that you are also a persons with a disability, as if that makes what you’re saying acceptable, shows you’re in need of better accommodations by your employer. If you are so resentful towards students wanting to be fully accommodated with no disadvantages, maybe this is time to reflect on why you feel unsupported by people who are supposed to accommodate you. You’re pushing your frustrations onto students who simply want the ability to function like young adults without the added disadvantages of disabilities. Thinking before you type would have saved you from several students feeling hurt and targeted for your lack of understanding surrounding proper accommodations.
I truly hope the journal reaches out for the real story, instead of neglecting the several voices who are now traumatized by the ableist comments made via email to students all over a cancelled midterm. This is not the entire story, this is not just about a cancelled midterm because of Ventus. This is a professor harassing staff and students and sending ableist emails in response to a midterm being cancelled due to the lack of planning and understanding university exam policies with accommodations.
adele mercier
Woah.
1. Far from being “resentful” of students with disabilities, let me state forcefully that (your defamatory diatribe notwithstanding) I am the most accommodating professor I know, both to students with QSAS-Approved disabilities, and without. Indeed, I founded the Professor Mercier Office of Help with Student Appeals, because I was shocked by the ill-consideration that some deserving students with disabilities received at the hands of some bureaucrats here (in fact, the self-same one who denied CR standing to students with disabilities whom I helped win it on appeal, has just handed CR to the class at large for no reason but to make happy the students made unhappy by the kerfuffle. Find the logic in that.). I have spent several hundreds of hours of my time advocating for students with disabilities.
I challenge anyone to find a single honest student, in my 45 years of teaching, to say that they were treated unfairly by me. I go out of my way, way out of my way, always, to help students, whether my own, or not. And to this day, *not a single student* has told us how exactly they failed to be properly accommodated by us in PHIL 260, and no one from Ventus did either.
2. There is a *possibility* that our accommodations for *at most three* students might, unbeknownst to us, have resulted in a scheduling conflict. *All* they had to do was to say so. It would have taken less than one minute to fix: they could have written at another time. *No one said so.* We are not gods, we do not read minds. There was no reason to cancel a midterm and upset 100 students’ schedules for at most three students who needed to be rescheduled anyway.
3. The only issue here is why the Ventus people withheld information from us (like which students had a scheduling conflict) that would have avoided this debacle, or why they couldn’t let us know (it would have taken less than 5 minutes) so we could fix it.
I fear that the answer to this important question is likely found on page 6 of this excellent article: “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Learning Disorders, and Other Incentivized Diagnoses — A Special Issue for Psychologists” by Allyson G. Harrison of Queen’s.
4. About the alleged “several voices traumatized by ableist comments…” I am reminded of Alan Greespan’s “I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”. It is nothing of the sort, and I can only surmise that some of these voices must belong to the 30% of registered students who never or seldom showed up to class. It is difficult for me to fathom how someone hearing my frustration in class could have so misidentified its target.
5. At the risk of “traumatizing” you more… Students *are* infantilized in many ways at Queen’s these days. (More on this below.) My comment was about the infantilization involved when accommodated students are robbed of the autonomy and dignity to decide for themselves which of two options is most beneficial to them –and when options have to be cancelled for the whole class because otherwise, a student with accommodations would have a choice to make.
It was about the infantilization of X above, who is not allowed to decide for themself that the computerized in-class exam on logic software better suits their needs even though it occurs in the morning, than the “fully accommodated” afternoon Ventus option with regular word processor that is now X’s only option.
My comment about victimhood-fostering attitudes was about Ventus treating X as a victim because X chose to forgo an afternoon-only accommodation –” *all* of X’s accommodations *must* be met”– when X themself thought our accommodations “fine and very fair” …and treating X as a victim again on Dec 9 when X will prefer to write the logic exam by hand, forgoing the regular-software computer accommodation, because X has the good sense to know what’s best for them in this particular situation. X is a diligent student doing fine work and the last thing that is good for X is to be treated as a victim. And were X counterfactually a work-shirking student having not done due diligence in keeping up with the work, the last thing good for X would be the easy out of blaming the consequences of Xs own actions on Xs being a victim of shoddy accommodations (and there are lots of those…). Some of the reasonings of the Ventus office frankly smack of Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
5. I completely support, both in words and deeds (indeed, I’ve fought the administration over it), the entitlement of students to reasonable academic accommodations that are required when the functional limitations associated with their disability interfere with their equal participation in a task or activity. However, if I require a wheel-chair because of disability-related functional limitation, I cannot (normally) choose to go without one. That is the meaning of a *requirement*. If I can pick and choose when I do and don’t want my wheelchair, then (barring the abnormal) my wheel-chair is a preference, not a requirement.
Don’t get me wrong. I also fully support, both in words and in deeds, catering to students’ preferences as much as reasonably possible. For as long as I can remember, I have given students in my classes a choice between an early exam (for those wishing an early exit from town) and a late exam (for late-bloomers needing more time to prepare), dates voted upon together with the class. There is nothing wrong, and much good, in accommodating students’ preferences. But while requirements are entitlements, preferences are not.
6. I hate to be the one saying it, but someone has to: it is clear to anyone paying attention that some de facto accommodations at Queen’s are not *requirements* due to functional limitations. There are numerous reasons why preferences are treated as requirements, and why students receive accommodations they didn’t even ask for or want, and numerous things that are wrong with that. This excellent article lays them all out: Accommodation Decision‑Making for Postsecondary Students with ADHD: Treating the Able as Disabled, by Allyson G. Harrison1 · Irene Armstrong1. I leave the last word here to the authors: “To the extent that accommodation decisions are made
based on subjective impressions, a process designed to reduce discrimination in higher education may actually increase the likelihood of its occurrence.”
Concerned Grad Student
As a grad student at Queen’s, I sympathize with Professor Mercier. However, what I want to know is what happened to the TA for this course, and why was he dismissed-or did he quit? As far as I understand as a TA you have very little control over the course itself, you just mark papers and support the professor. I would like to know what grounds he was “dismissed” by the university (if he was indeed fired from this role rather than moved to another course or voluntarily quitting) and if he has contacted his union to start grievances.
Adele Mercier
Excellent question. And no, he did not quit, he too was booted out… Completely extra-ordinary. Why indeed.
Shawn
In my opinion, this whole situation seems a little blown out of proportion. I can tell that this professor is hurt by the actions of the University and the way she has commented back on this feed only further proves this hurt. I realize that the definition of ‘minion’ is justified from a definitions-based perspective but I find it highly unlikely that she chose that word for its definition and more for the negative connotations that go with it based on her personal frustrations. Pretending to be blind about the words we use when we are angry is no excuse and name calling is still name calling.
When I took Dr. Mercier course all those years ago, I strictly remember an emphasis on making sure you frame the argument in a logical sense where both sides are considered. I think both sides need to take a step back and properly frame this before moving forward.
Based on the article, some interesting questions I have are:
– When the rate of students requiring accommodations each year is consistently rising, how can the University implement a fair-for-all policy that places ALL students on an even footing? How can this be achieved when both the amount and types of accommodations are increasing? The Exams Office only has so many resources available/dedicated to providing this service and if they don’t have enough ‘minions’ to do a proper job, considering PHIL 260 is not the only course they need to administer, what are they supposed to do? Considering the time constraints and work load of that office, this is a beyond a challenging task that goes VERY unnoticed and unappreciated; the professor’s comments only prove this even further. To frame this differently, they are expected to responsibly administer what I can only assume is ~20,000-30,000 exams, with accommodations, all proctored, as well as complete them is multiple different formats (paper, electronic, take-home) and are only given 2-3 months to plan the whole thing. They do not get to reuse the same plan year-over-year, they start fresh EVERY semester.
– If professor’s are required to meet the demands of a younger population, one that has grown up tethered to technology, how can they evolve in the classroom if the policies and procedures of the University are so antiquated and slow. Change in the University setting is virtually unrecognizable. Professors are expected to teach students but seem exceptionally restricted on their delivery, testing methods, interactions with students, etc. I think the modern-day post-secondary experience has become more like a business transaction than a real meaningful engagement between student and teacher. If you want both students and teachers to do their job, the autonomy of how professor’s teach needs to be less restrictive. I seriously believe that the University is failing in this regard, the administrative branches that are meant to leverage a professor’s ability to teach and help them with areas like exams and accommodations have been whittled down in staff so much that they are unable to plan to meet future demands. Computer based exams are a reality, not being prepared to administer them is the fault of the University, not the Exams office.