On That Accomodation Thing Up At York U

I find myself in the minority on this one, thinking that the University should have accomodated student X, even if the accomodation was to placate his religuously induced discomfort with women.

An interesting bit of news came out this morning:

[Rhonda Lenton, Provost for York U] told host Matt Galloway the student's request for accommodation was supported because the class was billed as an online course and no interactions with other students would be required.

"The course had been advertised as an online course and the student had signed up for the course on the understanding that he would not be required to attend on campus," said Lenton. "If it had been an in-class on-campus course, the likely response here would have been that an accommodation would not have been provided."

I think much of my sympathy for student X stems from my own fairly recent experiences with on-line courses.  They're kind of a rip-off, and really the only advantage to them is the fact that you don't have to be at a particular place at a particular time to complete the work and get your credits. And it is that feature, generally speaking, that you are paying for when you enroll in one.

Now, the reason you don't want to be at a particular place at a particular time...should that be relevant?...as long as the course you sign up for states up front that you won't have to be?

I don't think so.  Since we know that the course syllabus said your physical presence was not required, and we know another student was granted an exemption from the same project, this project was obviously considered non-core material.  In a sense, student x was punished by his professor for his religuous beliefs...made to do work he wouldn't otherwise have had to if he hadn't invoked his religion as a means of getting out of it.  If he had begged off because he was going to be elsewhere at the time...snowboarding in the Alps, perhaps...there wouldn't have been a problem.

Students Against Israeli Apartheid Banned At York University

...for being too noisy. Which sounds like a way of getting rid of them while circumventing the free speech issues a more direct approach might  entail.  Although this comment from the SAIA York Facebook page gives some credence to the York Admin's stated rationale:

Again, it looks better when you click on the image.

Jason Kenny: Minister Of Way Passed Cheap Assed

Let me get this straight. A guy whose department has seen expenses rise 35 per cent on his watch won't cough up $1,000 to cover his own security tab, and so cancels his March 10 speech at York U and implies its the fault of anti-Semites? Sounds like the guy didn't want to go to York (who does?) and speak in front of losers (= 99% of the York Student body--if you're a Dork or can hold a fork you can go to York--I can say that because I'm an alumni). But he wanted to frame his cancellation in terms a little more heroic than "I need to stay home and bathe my hamster".

More Fun At York U: Peter Kent, Peter Shurman, And York's Student Elections

The CNW news release is entitled Conservative Politicians and York University Administrators Revealed Interfering in York Student Elections and it kicks off with:

TORONTO, July 6 /CNW/ - Emails secured through a recent Freedom of Information request revealed that Conservative MP Peter Kent, MPP Peter Shurman, and senior York University administrators were interfering in this year's general elections of the York Federation of Students (YFS).

That sounds a bit overblown to me. Picking quickly though the .pdf, it looks like a number of Jewish or perhaps pro-Israeli candidates raised several issues re the "badly flawed electoral process" employed during the 2009 York student elections with MP Peter Kent and MPP Peter Shurman. In response, they made some inquiries with Robert Tiffin, York University's Vice-President of Students, and that's about as far as it went. No results were overturned.

Weird though the Tories are that obsessed with goings-on at York.