I appreciated everything that Adam said.
How strange that professors would receive an accommodation letter saying a student gets more time on tests... and then would write BACK to say "I don't give tests, so this doesn't mean anything to me." -- My goodness, how self-absorbed! I get those letters regularly, and I'm always delighted to see that it doesn't apply to my class, so I can just say "no problem!" with a cheerful attitude, and everything's groovy. So that's great, right, because the student won't feel left out!
Re: captioned videos. One of the best things to happen recently is Vimeo made it so much easier for me to go in and edit the closed captions myself, so that they're correct, which I'm always happy to do.
The advice "Ask yourself why you're making the student do this" is pretty great advice. It's why I don't demand detials if a student says something god awful happened that prevented them from turning something in.
As for self-advocacy, I had a student once say she had lived with anxiety all her life, she was fed up with it, and she wasn't going to read or write any fiction that involved conflict.
Initially, that seems unreasonable, but if I thought about it, it was like... why would I fight her on this? She ended up creating a garden in twine that other students could visit. It was unusual. I had bad anxiety in undergrad and I just told my instructors I didn't look at grades. Now, I'm sure it was just a coincidence, but there was a gender divide in the way instructors (profs or TAs) took that -- women were fine with it, men were weird and vaguely confrontational. NOT a huge sample size, it was just funny... one guy practically followed me around so he could verbally tell me he gave me an A- (I was unaffected by this)... I never said I wouldn't read their comments or feedback, I just... didn't want to know the numerical grade.
Anyway, Adam mentioned a national trend that offices are stretched thin and lacked resources, so I'm happy with my current policy of messaging accomodations office with "It is an honor to provide this accomodation for [student]" if I think one of them is unreasonable, I'll probably just delete the assignment for everyone, honestly -- not because I'm unwilling to deal with the complexities, more because... I've never cherished an assignment so much that I couldn't live without it, I guess...
It doesn't happen every day, but it amazes me how often students will object to the very existence of optional paths for students with different needs. The objection seems to be that it's slightly less convenient, like "having to look at" signs written in two languages. I'm sure the protesting students don't see it that way, and in fact giving them the benefit of the doubt helps me articulate my awkward position re: Universal Design/Design for Inclusion: It's hard to distinguish accommodating diverse people from disorganization. The image of the "well-organized" teacher or curriculum is so inextricably braided with exclusion that seeing one without the other causes panic. P. 150 - "I believe that it reflects an uncritical and disturbing acceptance of dominant ways of thinking about discrimination. Consider first the definition of discrimination that seems to be operative in antidiscrimination law:Discrimination which is wrongful proceeds from the identification of a specific class or category; either a discriminator intentionally identifies this category, or a process is adopted which somehow disadvantages all members of this category.29 According to the dominant view, a discriminator treats all people within a race or sex category similarly. Any significant experiential or statistical variation within this group suggests either that the group is not being discriminated against or that conflicting interests exist... In much of antidiscrimination doctrine, the presence of intent to discriminate distinguishes unlawful from lawful discrimination. See Washington v Davis, 426 US 229, 239-45 (1976) (proof of discriminatory purpose required to substantiate Equal Protection violation)"
I appreciate that this article is a little more grounded and practical (and realistic about the challenges of implementing these concepts) and I found some inspiration... or... just help I guess... in that it suggests I just create these multiple pathways even if people object to it. I haven't had much luck explaining the inclusivity is the reason for having those multiple avenues to completion, but I could be more stark/flat about it.Crenshaw
This is beyond important. I'm familiar with how these laws work toward gays in Florida, unfortunately. To demonstrate discrimination as a gay man (God willing I won't have to, but if I should have to) I would have to find another gay man who was mistreated in exactly the same way _AND_ find a straight person who was in pretty much exactly the same situation and not mistreated in any way. If any one of those elements is missing, then there would be a dismissal. (There's a dozen other things that protect discriminators from responsibility, the ones I listed are relevant in the rare case that the discriminator can't use any, and I mean any, other made up excuse for their behavior) -- This has always pissed me off, but Crenshaw's article has provided so much more nuance -- and of course, I know that it's not about me or my demographic, but I'm pissed off for my own reasons. Without saying Crenshaw's are similar, or that I know what she means (or vice versa), her point about the frustrating absurdity of discrimination law and standards are very helpful. Here's where I think Florida might amaze even her, p. 151: "Underlying this conception of discrimination is a view that the
wrong which antidiscrimination law addresses is the use of race or
gender factors to interfere with decisions that would otherwise be
fair or neutral." -- my understanding is that the USE of that category for that discriminatory purpose isn't a problem unless the abuser was somehow totally free of any self-delusion -- if they can so much as NAME any reason OTHER THAT the protected class, even if it is CONNECTED to the status of that protected class ("I believe he carries disease, and I believe most gay people carry disease, but I am not sure that all gay people do. My reason for discriminating is the carrying of disease, not being gay" = not discriminatory).
The passages where she talks about sacrificing the privilege of one aspect of oneself for solidarity with members of another aspect of oneself (she talks about this re: Soujourner Truth, who was shushed by white women who feared she would distract from the cause of sfferage with the cause of emancipation [155 - 159]) are archetypal intersectional issues, which are crucially important. The conclusion is something I need to go back to for more pondering -- the way we think about intersectional identity and discrimination, Crensxhaw says (p. 167) "is also due to the influence of a way of thinking about discrimination which structures politics so that struggles are categorized as singular issues." -- The point is that compartmentalizing is a great tool for undermining. I should probably leave it at that -- it's not something I knew before, and there's lots of wisdom in it. I hope I have the power to see it more clearly when it's happening from now on.