Queen’s emphasis on diversity isn’t always reflected by its faculty’s treatment of students belonging to marginalized groups.
In April, a question on an engineering exam written by Professor Colin MacDougall seemingly mocked both Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Indigeneity (EDII) initiatives, and transgender identities. The question jumbled and combined legitimate , then concluded, “you’re not sure what any of that means.”
Professors have the right to academic freedom without reprisal, but the implication of queerness and diversity in this question held no educational value.
Rather, the question was unfair to a group of already stressed students taking an exam, and further compounded by undermining the existence of some.
If MacDougall wanted to exercise his academic freedom, he was free to write an article proposing changes to the implementation of EDII initiatives in universities.
It’s unfair for students to read upsetting content in an exam and suppress their reaction to focus on the task.
Expressing personal biases in a professional context is unprofessional—particularly in an exam question, where students are forced to engage with the belief being relayed.
Implying mockery of a certain group in an exam, where students are unable to respond, emphasizes the power of the person writing the question over that group. It’s punching down.
This incident reflects a larger problem at Queen’s: the gap between the University’s intentions to diversify its student population, and the that exists for those students once they arrive.
The presence of students from marginalized groups alone doesn’t equal inclusivity. It’s irresponsible of the University to put emphasis on diversity without guaranteeing adequate resources and inclusion to students from marginalized groups.
The role of educators is to create an environment where students can thrive, regardless of their political beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other positionality.
A question like this suggests not everybody is living up to that responsibility.
Professors should be able to discern what commentary is appropriate for the classroom. Even if this question was intended to be light-hearted or self-deprecating, it should have been obvious that it could be taken as hurtful and been omitted to by the risk of making students feel targeted.
MacDougall has written an exam question that upset students before and been made aware of it. In 2021, he designed a question making fun of a nonbinary gender studies student.
Everybody is entitled to their beliefs, but professors are public-facing figures working with students who are paying for their time. Customers cannot be met with oppression, they deserve professionalism.
There has to be some discussion of professionalism with faculty who repeatedly display their personal biases against marginalized groups and EDII in academic settings. Although personal beliefs are protected and private, jokingly relayed biases are unacceptable professionally.
Especially as the diversity of Queen’s student population grows, the University must start thinking about how to address professors who perpetuate unsafe environments in their classrooms.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].