This series is written to inform people of my experience at Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law. I am a practicing Social Worker and current law student. I am trained with an eye to structural oppression, marginalization and abuses. Often I am advocating for the benefit of others, Now I am advocating for myself with benefit to others like me: students with disabilities.
My situation at TRU Law should be a warning sign for students who have disabilities or accommodation needs of any type. I do not want to see other future law students endure what I have. The climate in relation to discrimination at my law school is not the fairest of weather. I think it was best put by a fellow law student who receives academic accommodations who recently said to me, while pointing to the Dean of Law’s office, “it is like the fucking 1950s up there!”
I do know I am not alone, as studies done by the Law Society of BC also indicate that it is not necessarily uncommon that law students with disabilities drop out of law school or never work in legal profession due to the prevalence of disability discrimination in the legal education system and law profession.
There is one major benefit I have drawn from this experience, I now more fully accepted my disabilities as they are. A deep rooted damage that stems from a traumatic childhood, and I know I am not alone in this struggle.
So what is all the commotion about?
Well, let me first provide you with this link to another blog article (Part II) that I wrote about TRU Law in the media. This article outlines some of the going-ons in the first five years of TRU Law. After reading that article you should now have an eye to the fact that there is potentially a culture of institutional bullying at our institution.
Now, I want to highlight another poignant factor as you read this series. This Op-Ed that I wrote demonstrates that there are some issues not only with the faculty and administration, but within the student body as well. This is also evidenced by TRU Law ILSA Report that recaps 2011-2013 concerns that the Indigenous Student body has had as well. Lastly, the Law Society of BC and Upper Law Society of Canada identify structural issues within legal profession as well as law schools in context of discrimination of disabilities vis-a-vis academic accommodations; this is further elaborated upon by REACH Canada and ARCH, both are disability advocacy groups in Ontario. I must also flag one piece, of many great pieces, written by the renowned David Lepovsky about law schools and disability discrimination.
There is a structural issue, which manifests within the professional legal culture straight across Canada. I have been impacted negatively by this. Even more concerning is that the legal profession at large is aware of these matters and it has not yet been resolved.
It was not until my second year in law school that I was introduced to a student body report written by TRU Law students in 2014, which I referred to above. This report indicated the ongoing concern of what can only be described as systemic racism and discrimination issues at TRU Law, which were from the top down in the institution, administration, faculty and student body. I was discouraged from speaking publicly about this report. I need to remind you, that I did not read this report until after I had already published this article about racism and discrimination, which includes targeting disabilities. In response the Indigenous Law Students Association asked me to moderate a panel on institutional racism. These measures would not be necessary if it were not for the existing concerns in-house.
In addition, there are concerns directly expressed in the student report related to academic accommodations at TRU Law not being fulfilled, which were indicated to have stemmed from faculty and administration decisions that followed what seems to be a backlash from the larger student body. Apparently students were not to happy about academic accommodations, as the general perspective was that accommodations were seen as benefits; obviously this is reflective of much of what our society needs to unlearn about disabilities and accommodations.
Essentially the report stated that discrimination and ignorance within the student body was worthy of concern. It appears that these arcane attitudes towards marginalized students receiving benefits resulted in some feeling attacked and unsafe at TRU Law. As someone who has experienced this myself, I understand this in a very real way. It appears that my situation is not an isolated scenario, but rather an ongoing pattern in Canada’s newest law school. I am left to wonder if all law schools carry these arcane cultural attributes and exclusionary conduct, which result in creating barriers for those of us in need of accommodations. Accommodations we are legally entitled too.
My motives for writing this Series
I write this for a few reasons. First, administration has attempted to silence me, and due to the nature of my disabilities (PTSD related to being a voiceless abused child) my voice is the most important thing I have. I will not be bullied into silence, not by anybody.
Second, I do not want other students to endure what I have; it is my opinion that TRU Law has been negligent or purposefully insensitive and does maintain archaic practices and attitudes while bullying students who are already disadvantaged and marginalized, as evidenced in my situation. This paper I wrote speaks to the grip that law schools tend to have upon arcane reproductions of hierarchy, and what I refer to as supremacist doctrines that are instilled into our legal system. I believe that much our our social justice issues in society are rooted in the law itself, and we just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over.
Thirdly, I believe our society needs to understand how deep discriminative attitudes go within our legal system. Equally so I believe the immediate community of Kamloops deserves to know what is ‘going on‘ within the law school. Similarly I believe much of the faculty at TRU, who do amazing and great work for our society should also be aware of the discriminative pattern that has emerged within TRU Law, and encourage both faculty of law and other faculty to come together to develop a solution that will resolve much of the issues related to academic accommodations, including disabilities. It does not seem that TRU Law is yet capable of affecting much needed structural changes in context to the issues at hand. However, it does seem that TRU Law is very sensitive to how the public views the law school, so I am hoping this blog series will activate the needed internal and external conversations as it relates to the core issues.
Unfortunately, I am left to wonder if this pattern is not isolated to TRU Law.
Do all law schools in Canada treat students with disabilities in this way?
Is the entire legal profession discriminatory against people with disabilities?
Does this mean that it is acceptable o discriminate against people with disabilities within our legal education system in Canada?
What does this say about our legal system in general?
We do know that the Canadian legal system is racist (this is inarguable as we maintain white supremacist based legislation), and as demonstrated in the most recent Human Rights case of Cindy Blackstock and the TRC report that Canada is definitively discriminatory in practice even against the most vulnerable human beings in our society: CHILDREN!
The legal system, and legal professional culture that maintains the legal system seem to be continuously challenged due to it’s inherent tendency to be discriminatory. This is of no surprise to me, as a reformed neo-nazi who has unlearned racism and discrimination. I have identified that my past ‘buying-into’ arcane belief structures was the result of the collective consciousness of Canada. I grew up in a racist society and became the epitome of that problem.
Fourth, many community members have an invested interest in my attaining a law degree. Last year I sent out an email to all of my contacts requesting that they lend me money as TRU Law administration was not going to allow me to write exams, because I was behind on my tuition. My email did result in receiving substantial support from three main communities: my family and friends in Edmonton and Chetwynd, Saulteau Nation at Moberly Lake and my dear friends from Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation. These people all deserve to know, with transparency how and why I am the brink of constructively being forced out of TRU Law. While I do appreciate how and why some people would doubt that this is happening, as it is hard to believe, I do have witness testimony to substantiate these allegations.
I do not doubt that TRU Law will initiate a lawsuit against me, and that is fine. At this point, I am financially sunk as a result of law school anyway. I had not ever ben in debt until law school. I have accepted the long-term fall out to speaking out against the maltreatment I have endured. Due to the nature of my disabilities I cannot continue focus on my studies in such a hostile and toxic environment.
Lastly, I want to encourage people who have endured injustice, abuse, discrimination or malicious actions from institutions to step forward, report and resist. Simply, I want to encourage people to not be intimidated by institutions, corporations and legal system. A couple of my role models in relation to this are long term anti-racist advocate Alan Dutton and Prof. Stephen Collis who were hit with SLAP suits by a corporation for speaking out against capitalist greed and discrimination. This is similar in some contexts to what I have endured from TRU Law administration and faculty. The law is most often only accessible to those within the system or those with enough money and resources; those of us from the margins do not and cannot access justice.
Not having access to justice as a law student with disabilities, up against an entire institution filled with lawyers, is overwhelming. Moreover, the legal community has refused to offer me services and has indicated I am better to not take on this fight no matter how ‘in the right’ I am. But, I did not enter law school with intention of financial success. I came in with aspirations to effect positive change in Canadian society. There is a good chance some TRU faculty are going to continue their campaign of harassment as I was successful in holding my seat in 2L, in spite of explicit advocacy to have me rejected firmly (this will be explained in detail in the next two articles of this series).
Academic Accommodations
TRU does have academic accommodation policy, as do all post-secondary institutions in Canada, why? because it is Canadian law that all employers, public services (including universities) and government have a positive duty to accommodate those with disabilities. There are also other reasons people can receive accommodations as well e.g. culture/ethnicity, but I will focus only on disabilities as it applies to me at this point.
TRU general academic accommodation policy states that it will adhere to Human Rights standards. Human Rights law says a failure to accommodate a person with disabilities (of any type recognized disability) is a breach of Canadian Human Rights legislation. Thus, if an institution does not uphold the standard they are to be held accountable as per Human Rights law, then they have breached their duty. Thus, have discriminated against a person with disability.
Accommodations are sometimes universal, which means that there can be standardized accommodations available to students. However, the university also has a positive duty to fulfill individualized accommodations; essentially the law states: ‘get creative folks and ensure that barriers to learning are removed and not created.’
Types of accommodations
There are two types of academic accommodations. First is exam accommodations e.g. extended time on exams, individual rooms and technology aids. Second type are learning process accommodations. Some typical standardized learning process accommodations include peer notes, audio recordings and several other options. However, these standard accommodations are not always sufficient, and when individualized accommodations in this context are not upheld then that can be determined to be discriminative.
At TRU the standardized modes of academic accommodations are common, as they are at most universities., but where TRU Law students depart from the rest of the university is in relation to creative individualized accommodations. TRU Law has outright refused creative solutions and have resisted some reasonably suggested accommodations. TRU Law policy, to date, only speaks to exam accommodations.
TRU Law Dean had indicated, to me in context of academic accommodations and appeals processes, the extent that general TRU policies apply to TRU Law students is yet to be determined. Essentially stating that the Faculty of Law has a different take than the university at large in context to academic accommodation standards and processes, and subsequent course of action to seek remedy, which is similar to saying that Human Rights standards do not apply to law students the same way they do to other university students.
I do agree with this in one context: as per the Law Society of BC’s Professional Code of Conduct, lawyers have a special responsibility in context of Human Rights and discrimination. And since the LSBC reports has made all BC lawyers well aware of the nature and prevalence of disability discrimination in the legal profession and law schools; I agree that TRU Law should be an exception to the rule. But, not in the direction that TRU Law Dean stated. Rather I argue that TRU Law has extra ordinary duty as lawyers, not a less duty.
To say that law students are to receive less accommodation than other comparative groups is to demand false consciousness and an attempt to demand complicity that actually is counter to the law in context of Human Rights. This is essentially saying “Daniel, we don’t think you deserve this and you will cost us too much money, and thus we decided you will not receive what you are legally entitled to. So you are going to just have to suck it up buddacup.” The fact that I speak up and out results in the ongoing abuse I have experienced, which is precisely what is laid out here.
It is my experience, as has been expressed by other law students with accommodations, that the administration creates barriers for students with disabilities, rather than remove barriers as intended. This is discrimination.
Moreover, TRU Law administration repeatedly and forcefully restricts students from discussing their accommodations with other students or any other person, and they do this by repeatedly warning students that they will be punished vis-à-vis academic misconduct for discussing their academic accommodations. When I originally asked why, I was told by administration they did not want accommodations to the standard ‘benefit.’ This made more sense when I read the student body reports the following year. This in itself is absurd.
Types of discrimination
If at any point an institution creates barriers to someone’s learning, that is a violation of Human Rights standards and is determined to be discrimination. There are two types of discrimination when it comes to the duty to accommodate.
First, is direct discrimination. This can occur when an institution says ‘you get out of here because you are not good enough’ or ‘we do not want to spend money on accommodating you.’ It could also be rude and insensitive comments made by persons from the institution, or exclusionary policies and environments.
Adverse discrimination is the other type. This is where the actions of the institution may not necessarily be intentional, but the affect of the actions (or inaction) is the same: discriminatory. This can be characterized as a more subtle form of discrimination, but nonetheless its impacts are the same, and sometimes even more insidious.
Conclusion
In any event, TRU Law has a duty to accommodate as per TRU policy and Human Rights legislation; in spite of what the Dean of Law convinces himself to the contrary. This is just yet another example of how TRU Law is putting students in the middle of an administrative tug of war, as I outlined in the second article f this series.
In the remainder of this blog series I will provide some core happenings that reflect what I have endured, and why I am essentially constructively forced out of law school.
