SFU asked LET’s to review their draft accessibility plan and answer 3 questions, mentioned below. We provided feedback on the plan and made some suggestions for further emphasis as well as expanding the spectrum of who, on campus, is disabled. We will provide the link to the final plan in our September/October newsletter.
Questions we were asked to think about included:
What resonates and/or should be further emphasized?
What might be missing, particularly given your experiences with what makes the most significant impact in terms of accessibility?
Are there any sensitivities we have inadvertently overlooked that we should address?
Our response included:
These are the 4 points that most resonated with me:
o limited knowledge of disability and accessibility, particularly as it pertains to neurodiversity
o of process delays in accommodations, inconsistency in services, and gaps in procedures and services for graduate students
o develop and consider mandating instructor education, with an emphasis on long-term learning rather than one-time training.
o expand student support services, including the number of counsellors and peer programs across all campuses.
I’m really glad to see the long-term goal of expanded student support services, including counselling. Counselling is crucial to disabled and neurodivergent folks but also to non-disabled and non-neurodivergent students. A question I have is what support is there for disabled/neurodivergent staff? It is vital that student mental health be addressed but so too must the needs of people who aren’t staff.
I will always think of things that could use further emphasis, like the need for better, ongoing, training. However, I think this document works as a starting point with good brief descriptions of items that will be expanded and further emphasised in later protocols/documents/policies.
What might be missing, particularly given your experiences with what makes the most significant impact in terms of accessibility?
The accessibility issue our members talk about the most is the reliance on a diagnosis to receive accommodations and the lack of recognition of the ways multiple marginalized intersecting identities affect one’s ability to get a diagnosis. Additionally, some of our members have had to quit school to get a diagnosis (which is basically equivalent to a full time job) so that they could get accommodations at school. If they have to quit, they are less likely to return.
I don’t see anything about the fact that if professors/instructors incorporated accessibility into the classroom, there would be less reliance on accommodations. If classrooms were facilitated with mandated accessibility, students wouldn’t have to disclose, go through the accommodation process, or utilize SFU resources (funding). While this won’t completely address accessibility issues, it would be a huge step towards less reliance on putting the onus on the student.
Acknowledgement about the lack of understanding of the broad spectrum of disability. When schools and staff don’t know what disability encompasses, it affects one’s ability to feel comfortable disclosing their disability. This is slightly referred to under “Limited awareness and understanding” but it is important enough to specifically note.
I didn’t see anything about more support/resources for the Centre for Educational Excellence to increase ability to meet the needs of students.
Also, another issue often mentioned by our members is interacting with non-disabled staff who decide whether they are eligible for accommodations. It might be good to highlight a need to hire people with lived experience.
Everything is geared to the student. The university has disabled and neurodivergent folks (staff, profs, etc.) that need accommodations, support, counselling, etc. How is the university working to meet their needs?
Culture change is centralized. However, there is a lack of addressing the need for student education of those who are not disabled and/or neurodivergent. Without other students understanding the broad spectrum of disability, the need for accommodations (how it isn’t special treatment or people trying to get out of work), the culture of the university won’t move forward. In my workshops, I talk about 360 degree accessibility and how organizations often only look at disability/neurodivergent needs from certain perspectives. For example, working with Pride organizations, they often only think of accessibility from a spectator perspective, not a vendor or participant experience. For art galleries, they think of visitor accessibility but not accessibility for staff and/or disabled/neurodivergent artists. This plan speaks to student needs but neglects other members of the university community.
Are there any sensitivities we have inadvertently overlooked that we should address?
People who use identity first language are not represented in the document.
(4 people with different disabilities.)