A clash between a philosophy professor and a university’s Exams Office leads to the professor’s removal from a logic course due to disagreements over accommodating students who require computerized exams.
A philosophy professor at Queen’s University in Canada, Adele Mercier, has been removed from the logic course she was teaching after a dispute with the university’s Exams Office regarding accommodations for students who require the use of a computer during exams. The details surrounding the issue are somewhat unclear, but it appears that Mercier’s attempts to modernize the exam format were met with resistance from the Exams Office. This article aims to delve into the events that transpired, shedding light on the perspectives of all parties involved.
Modernizing the Exam Format
At the beginning of the semester, Mercier sought to accommodate two students enrolled in the to Logic course who required the use of a computer for exams. Together with her teaching assistant, Tianze Chen, Mercier spent the entire semester computerizing the exam, utilizing a “cheat-proof” software. Throughout the term, students had been using this software for completing homework exercises.
Clash with the Exams Office
On October 26, Mercier informed the Exams Office about the new format for the midterm exam. However, she soon discovered that university policies restricted the Exams Office from allowing students with accommodations to use their personal computers for exams. In order to comply with the policy, the Exams Office mandated that all non-accommodated students revert to a traditional paper-based exam.
Filing an Official Complaint
In response to the restrictions imposed by the Exams Office, Mercier filed an official complaint, arguing that the involvement of “para-academics” in modifying the exam format infringed upon academic autonomy and had a detrimental impact on students who were prepared to take a computerized exam. Despite the Exams Office’s objections, Mercier decided to offer students the option of either a paper-based or computerized exam, allowing those who required the use of laptops to do so in her classroom.
Cancellation of the Exam
The Exams Office informed Mercier that her proposed solution was not acceptable. They reiterated that all non-accommodated students must take a paper-based exam. As for accommodated students, they provided two options: either allow the Exams Office to administer the computerized exam with all necessary accommodations, or privately administer the exam meeting the students’ needs. Mercier chose the latter option. However, the night before the exam, students received an email from the faculty associate director, Haley Everson, stating that the exam had been canceled due to a scheduling conflict between the exam time and students’ other classes.
Replacement and Tuition Refunds
Two days later, the administration announced that Mercier and Chen would be replaced by another faculty member, Mark Smith. They also offered students the opportunity to drop the course and receive a full tuition refund after receiving their final grade. The reasons behind this decision remain unclear.
Student Reactions and Academic Freedom Concerns
Some students expressed their dissatisfaction with the situation. One student, who had initially requested accommodations, withdrew them, stating that they felt the alternatives offered by Mercier were fair. Another student raised concerns about a potential infringement on Mercier’s academic freedom.
Conclusion:
The clash between philosophy professor Adele Mercier and Queen’s University’s Exams Office over exam accommodations has resulted in Mercier’s removal from the logic course she was teaching. While the details surrounding the dispute remain somewhat unclear, it is evident that there was a significant disagreement regarding the use of computers for exams. This incident raises questions about the balance between accommodating students’ needs and maintaining academic autonomy. The implications of this case extend beyond the immediate situation, highlighting the ongoing challenges universities face in navigating the complex landscape of accommodations and academic freedom.
Leave a Reply