Resource allocation and social justice
by Ahmed E. Souaiaia *
On February 23,
University of Iowa’s president, J. Bruce Harreld, held a “town hall” meeting.
It consisted of a one-hour data dump followed by a poorly managed Q&A
session. Unsurprisingly, very few people in attendance were able to ask
questions and receive meaningful answers. However, throughout the event Harreld
repeatedly mentioned two phrases—“allocating resources” and “spreading the peanut
butter”—that might be key to understanding the thinking and strategy of the new
leadership of the University. Should the people who are served by this public
institution, mainly students, worry? The short answer is, yes. Sadly, early
signs suggest that those who need resources most will not get them: students
with disabilities.
Faculty who teach large
General Education courses may have recently received a letter from the Student
Disability Services (SDS), as I did. Most of the content of the letter is
familiar, but the first recommendation is noteworthy. It reads:
[Named student] will need
a copy of notes that’s thorough and more comprehensive than a PowerPoint or
outline... The instructor may choose to share a copy of their own notes, make a
confidential announcement to solicit a volunteer student note taker from class,
or have a TA take notes.
CLAS’s Undergraduate
Educational Policy and Curriculum Committee (UEPCC) noted that “SDS announced
on January 21 that [it] can no longer offer testing accommodations… SDS has
thus asked instructors to handle testing arrangements for these students.” UEPCC members were unsure if instructors were
qualified to do some of the tasks they were asked to do.
Why should students and
their parents be worried about this change in services at this public
university? Because if the administrators are willing to re-allocate resources
that were meant to provide for a group of students protected by state and federal
laws, one can only imagine the future of programs that provide for other
marginalized social. This “resource re-allocation” is a dangerous precedent
because:
Posts
