Not all logic students stand behind ousted philosophy professor Adèle Mercier.
Following a last-minute midterm cancellation and a new professor in week 11, a PHIL 260 student spoke up about the accommodation fiasco turned Human Rights Investigation involving Mercier.
“This is all because of a midterm and that’s what I keep telling myself,” PHIL 260 student Ella* said in an interview with The Journal.
In an email to students with accommodations on Oct. 30, two nights before the exam, Mercier apologized to students for all the complications. She then said they would be writing in Gordon Hall during their regularly scheduled 8:30 a.m. class time.
“Your accommodations (extra time, special room, et cetera) will be respected there, to the fullest extent possible,” Mercier wrote in the email.
Requiring all her accommodations to be met to fulfill her full academic potential, Ella began emailing the istration, attempting to clarify the situation. In an emailed response, Queen’s Student Accessibility Services (QSAS) advised Ella not to attend the exam on Nov. 1 if she thought she’d be disadvantaged.
Ella, and several other students, filed a complaint with Queen’s Human Rights and Equity Office (HREO) over the midterm accommodations provided by Mercier, and subsequent communications. Mercier was made aware of the investigation on Nov. 20.
The initial problem was raised when students with accommodations weren’t permitted to use personal computers to complete the computerized logic exam. For Ella, the whole situation could have been avoided if the logic software had been ed onto the Exam Office’s computers ahead of time, and students with accommodations could have completed it like any other midterm.
“Why is all their anger directed at two people who were struggling to pick up the pieces in very short order because Ventus abandoned us because they wouldn’t proctor our attempts to accommodate students with disabilities by computerizing the logic exam which we produced in order to accommodate students with disabilities,” Mercier said in a statement to The Journal.
After the exam was cancelled by the Queen’s Exam Office, Mercier emailed students criticizing the istration and was “gravely disturbed by ever increasing infantilization of students, and victimhood-fostering attitudes towards persons with disabilities.”
Reading the email, Ella said she felt gross. As a student needing accommodations, she felt targeted by Mercier’s emails.
“I wanted to cry because I’ve just never felt so gross having to be in this position,” Ella said.
“Ranting about all this, the accommodation stuff, the infantilization of disabled students, and implying there’s some sort of victim complex surrounding us, and then to draw that to ‘I want to quit.’ How would anyone feel reading that when I know that’s about me—I’m someone who had an issue with it.”
READ MORE: Philosophy professor removed after accommodations battle, academic freedom in question
Of the 90 students enrolled in PHIL 260, 18 required accommodations and were ed through Ventus. Mercier’s personal accommodation approach, which saw students with accommodations writing their midterm in Gordon Hall, met the requirements for all but six students. Of the six unaccommodated students five couldn’t write a morning exam and two required additional time that extended beyond the three-hour slot.
After two students elected to waive their morning restriction, and three others scheduled to write the exam on paper in the afternoon, Mercier almost succeeded in accommodating all her students without the Exam Office.
“It’s all or nothing. That is how my disability works. I’m glad to hear another student was okay with waiving their accommodations. But that’s not me,” Ella said.
Mercier was frustrated not to have known students were unhappy with her arrangement.
“It was easily fixable if anyone had said anything. We didn’t have any information about scheduling conflicts,” she said. “Everyone had my phone number, it’s on the syllabus.”
Mark Smith, Mercier’s replacement, and the current professor for logic students, didn’t respond to The Journal’s request for comment.
The University said they were unable to comment on The Journal’s media request regarding PHIL 260 and Mercier on Nov. 22.
This is the second investigation involving Mercier this year. Mercier was investigated for PHIL 359, a course covering the philosophy of language and linguistics, for an April lecture discussing slurs. In a letter from Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science Barbara Crow, the incident was found to be genuine academic discourse and Mercier didn’t breach any policies or applicable laws.
“I prepared an intelligent, respectful, educative lesson for mature students in an institute of higher learning on a current, important issue in Canadian society—one that is often gravely muddled—on which I am a multiply-faceted expert. Both I and the students discussed the topic responsibly, respectfully, in a proper and justified context,” Mercier said in response to the complaint.
While the investigation into PHIL 260 accommodations is ongoing, Mercier is left in limbo. No longer instructing the course, Mercier is focused on the road ahead before her sabbatical. She said she was “sickened” over being removed and from her perspective, the accommodations situation was a “bureaucratic turf war.”
For Mercier, a second investigation bolsters her claim to being bullied by the University since filing a complaint about the treatment of women graduates in the philosophy department in 2008.
Though she expressed love for her hardworking students, Mercier is unsure if she can continue teaching philosophy at Queen’s.
“I have only despair for Queen’s University INC. but I love my hard-working, invested students; and although I have vowed never again to teach philosophy of language in this university because the ideological thought-police make it too dangerous to do so, I remain standing,” Mercier said.
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].
KA
I commend Ella and other students who have launched formal complaints with the HREO. As a student receiving accommodations for lifelong disability, I am incredibly grateful for QSAS and the University accommodating me. I truly would not feel comfortable and would not perform to the best of my capabilities if I didn’t notify QSAS. I am horrified by Adele Mercier’s past, her comments, and her treatment of students. Her claim that she is “ gravely disturbed by ever increasing infantilization of students, and victimhood-fostering attitudes towards persons with disabilities” feels like a stab in the gut. Mercier claiming to have a disability herself and essentially degrading and putting down her own students living with disabilities is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read. Her controversial history with the school already should have raised red flags. I will hold these students in my heart and hope they can heal from this experience.
Adele Mercier
At the risk of sounding like a broken record,… I categorically deny that any student, including Ella (whatever is her real name), was denied *any* accommodation. If Ella required 15 or 30 surplus minutes per hour, we had her covered in class; if she required 45 surplus minutes per hour, we had her covered in Gordon Hall. If Ella required a private room, or a semi-private room, or a small room, or a room with dim lighting, we had Ella covered. If Ella required to write her exam in the afternoon, she was covered. If Ella required the use of a computer, access to scrap paper, disposable ear plugs, food/drink allowance, noise-cancelling headphones, restroom breaks, stretch/rest breaks, seating near exit,… we had Ella covered. For the last time: *nobody* was asked to waive their accommodations.
Ella knew this from two emails I sent to the class about the accommodations for the midterm, if she bothered to read them.
Yes, there was confusion, because my TA and I had a day and a half to organize every accommodation, instead of several weeks plus office staff. At 6pm, when we heard from the students that the exam had been cancelled, we were preparing individualized emails to each accommodated student, reminding them where and when their particular accommodations were to be met (in class or Gordon Hall).
“Requiring all her accommodations to be met to fulfill her full academic potential, Ella began emailing the istration, attempting to clarify the situation.” And there’s the rub: why did Ella email the istration –an istration that had just abandoned the handling of accommodations in Phil 260 because my decision as to what was academically best for students conflicted with their rigidity– rather than emailing, or better yet, picking up the phone and calling, her professor? Why did the not pick up the phone and call me? Ella would have been reassured in seconds. (For a potential answer to the latter question, I refer you to Allyson Harrison’s excellent article, p.6)
No, this fiasco could not have been solved by ing the software onto the Exam Office’s computers ahead of time. The software requires the use of the internet, and the Exam’s Office prohibits it.
This fiasco would not have happened if the Exam’s Office had simply allowed 18 students to show up with their laptops, and granted them an internet connection. Then, the students could have completed the midterm like any weekly homework.
I’m sorry Ella felt targeted by anything I said. But feeling targeted and being targeted are not the same thing. If Ella had come to class and paid attention, she would have known that I was not criticizing accommodations (on the contrary, I was creating new ones), but the *practices of the accommodations office*. It *is* infantilizing for people who don’t know what they don’t know about a formal logic course, to disallow adults from determining for themselves what’s best for themselves in a formal logic course.
John
I feel like you are still missing the point. You are placing the blame on Ella for not being sufficiently accommodated. “Had she come to class…”
Adele Mercier
I repeat: miscommunication notwithstanding, Ella *had been fully accommodated.*
PS. A disability does not (normally) exempt one from the duty to show up to class.
L.M
First and foremost, I am so sorry Ella and others took away what they did from the emails received by their professor.
I think there are two things to keep in mind here, the exam office should have reviewed the software in advance of the exam period to ensure it would be eligible for the Ventus examination accommodations. Cancelling the midterm last minute is not fair to the professor, or students and can absolutely cause chaos. The Exam office and Professor should’ve communicated a proper plan in advance of the midterm- yes, I do realize a professor shouldn’t have to jump through so many hoops, and that’s an issue on the ’s side because they need to ensure accessibility to resources for professors to create accommodating exams too. Professor Mercier should absolutely have had proper notice, but at the same time, I wonder if it would have helped to take extra time to speak with about the program and familiarize with them how it actually works in exam mode, if they would be able to work WITH the professor to create an appropriate plan.
On the other hand, students may interpret emails sent to them, the tone, wording, etc, as they wish. If several students have now found the email to be offensive in of language used, maybe more clarity in the email would have been beneficial. I understand frustration, but it is important to understand how some may perceive an email being written off quickly in the midst of chaos. After reading an email I found offensive, I wouldn’t blame the student(s) for not going to class the next time out of feeling uncomfortable or targeted. If you’re sending emails with charged language without the full context, your argument that it was geared towards and the exam office and NOT disabled students, should have been included.
I feel for both parties in this regards, even if this was a miscommunication, understanding the words we write when we are frustrated, hurt, angry, do have an impact on those reading them afterwards. Communication from to prof is a concern. But sending emails stating concerns about the infantilization of students in an email addressing accommodations without the context that it was targeted to NOT the students with accommodations, in the same email, is not proper communication between professor and students.
As an outsider, I do hope a resolution can be found. I see Adele apologized for hurting one student and it was not her intention- which is a step in the right direction, but there are several people hurt right now. Adele is a human being, and I feel for her because the failed to communicate effectively and accommodate her way of istering an exam at Queens with the Ventus office. I also feel for the students who took offence to the way the email was worded (or the part in the journal at least), as it would absolutely send me into concern too. If accommodated students feel targeted by language used, that is absolutely within their right to. If context had been provided in the email, clarifying these statements, maybe there wouldn’t be as much upset surrounding the language used and in which context it was received with.
Adele Mercier
Words are interpreted in context. If I say “I am going to the bank”, while walking downtown to go cash a cheque, it will mean something different than if I utter the same words while walking to the river to go fetch my boat. If I utter the sounds “nine”, it will mean a number if I am speaking English but a negation if I am speaking German.
“If accommodated students feel targeted by language used, that is absolutely within their right to.” It is anyone’s right to feel targeted by anything. “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” does not mean that everyone’s opinion is equally true. It *just* means that everyone has the right to believe what they want, true or false, and to be as mistaken as they care to be. If I am going to the bank to cash my cheque, it is anyone’s prerogative to suspect me of going to steal their boat by the river. That does not make them correct. It does not make them correct even if someone has mistakenly been telling them that I am a boat thief with designs on their boat.
“If context had been provided in the email, clarifying these statements, maybe there wouldn’t be as much upset surrounding the language used and in which context it was received with.” Lots of context was provided in the rather lengthy email, attempting to explain to students bombarding me with questions, what exactly happened to our midterm, to the extent that I had any inkling as to why what happened, had happened.
From the perspective of Ella, who (*falsely*) believes that her accommodations for the midterm have not been respected by her professor, a *false* narrative perpetuated by the Accommodations Office that failed to check with me, the only person who knew, since the Exam’s Office had abandoned all handling of accommodations to me; a false narrative reenforced by the Accommodations Office by its extraordinary and unprecedented action of cancelling the midterm without even discussing it with the professor; I can now see how my words could have been misinterpreted as the opposite of friendly to students with disabilities. From that mistaken perspective, Ella thinks I’m speaking German. I cannot say how deeply I regret that any student thought I was speaking German and was hurt by it. If I have devoted my entire career to students, it is certainly not to hurt them.
From the perspective of the professor, who *has fully accommodated* all her students to the best of all information provided, who has even gone out of her way to create new (and arguably better) accommodations for students, and who has fought with an Accommodations Office that *refused to allow those students to choose for themselves* which accommodations better suited them in the context of a course in formal logic whose special needs the Accommodations Office entirely ignored, my words meant just what they mean in English.
The silver lining in this debacle is that a much overdue conversation has hopefully begun into the ways in which the Accommodations Office at Queen’s treats students with disabilities. I fully accommodations to overcome functional limitations, not just in learning but in all areas of life. I am far from alone in thinking that some practices of this Accommodations Office, far from benefitting students with disabilities, actually harm them.
Leslie
Thank you very much for addressing the other side of the situation. A nod to your credibility as a journalist.
Erica C
Even by just reading the article without Prof. Mercier’s comments, I feel for her. What a job! Appears to me she had tried her utmost, against all odd, to try to accommodate every need.
I am a mother of a university student who has medical conditions. She’s my only child and I love her to pieces. I would be utterly grateful if Prof. Mercier had done for my daughter what she did for these students who needed accommodations. I might think it was a bit too much too nice for my daughter as I would like my daughter to build some resilience for her own good. But of course I don’t know Ella’s situation and by no means I’m implying anything.
What I don’t understand is, if it was a matter of software ing, why directing anger at Prof. Mercier? She was not the root cause. And we all know how much can be lost in communications by email, particularly in the situation Prof. Mercier was in. We are all only human beings. There were means provided to speak with Prof. Mercier to seek clarity. It is debatable if it warranted such a serious escalation, using considerable public resources and unfairly risking a professor’s reputation and career.
Well, now that there is an investigation, I hope the investigators look from both sides (and more sides?) and reach a fair conclusion and hopefully also a fair solution.
Adele Mercier
Merci Erica. Enfin!
Alex
Adele you missed the point, As a professor, you accept the responsibility of the education for your students, including finding ways to accommodate students, this does not include belittling or harassing them.
“…rather than emailing, or better yet, picking up the phone and calling, her professor”. This could be due to how even in your victim claiming novel written here in the comments you read as incredibly condescending and your students do not feel safe communicating with you directly.
This is the second issue queens has had with your professional manner and that doesn’t paint things kindly either.
Also to state “(whatever her real name is)” acting as you’re not certain, but to later state “ If Ella had come to class and paid attention”, makes you seem aggressive. So because this student didn’t meet your attendance requirement you penoalized her success? Please meet with someone who can edit what you put out there in regards to this, your flaws and poor ethics are showing.
Adele Mercier
I am putting this on record, baffled by the absurdity of it all…
What is wrong with this place?
My charming and competent, and recently fired, TA –who is several advanced courses in logic ahead of his nearest competitor (student or faculty) in this department of philosophy where you don’t need a full hand to count those who can read basic logic (that most foundational of all philosophical topics…)– was recently “caught” *volunteering* his aid to students in logic. (They already know him; they sought his help.)
He received a (vaguely threatening) reprimand for *donating* his time and energies to help students, from the Head of the Philosophy Dept. who wrote:
“It has been brought to my attention that you may still be tutoring Phil 260 students. I am writing to remind you that you have been clearly instructed to stay clear of the course. That includes the informal tutoring of students still taking it. I hope the report is mistaken and you are not choosing to disregard the Faculty Office directive.”
What??? Never mind that it’s mind blowing that he was fired as TA –for what? (we don’t know).
Here is a rare competent student who is *not allowed* to help other students, for free, out of the kindness of his heart, in a school…
There are no words.
Tarski's World
Comments like the one above by Adele should serve to make people more critical of her presentation of any of the issues or facts around this case, given she has grievances with the department to the point she says stupid and disparaging things about the department (as she notes above, “student or faculty”): Adele is rarely around, does not interact with her colleagues old and new, has no graduate students working with her (except perhaps her recently fired TA, an MA student who started this Fall), and it would be surprising if she could name a single PhD student in the department, but she is definitely sure that everyone is incompetent and unable to read ‘basic logic.’
Adele Mercier
Anonymous above needs an elementary course in pre-logic to learn about ad hominem arguments.
Yes, I am highly critical of any person, department, or university that would tag a distinguished professor as a safety threat for complaining –rightly, according to an External Climate Review– about the mistreatment of women students. And who would blame me for refusing to interact with those who made me the first professor in the history of Canada to be awarded punitive damages for egregious treatment?… It is a fallacy unworthy of a philosophy student or faculty to think that any of this makes what I say false.
For the record: the reason I rarely take graduate students anymore is not because I am not solicited as a supervisor (I am, each year, and internationally) but because I cannot in good conscience encourage those interested in what I understand as philosophy to come here; I have the selfless integrity to help them get into better schools elsewhere instead. One of the last students I supervised had trouble finding people in the dept competent to read her dissertation for her defence committee. (This student went on to get a better job than most students graduating from this department. It is noteworthy that our placement record for our PhDs disappeared from our website over a decade ago…)
To be perfectly honest (at the risk of incurring the wrath of those who would prefer not to it it), there are few reasons for anyone interested in what some of us call ‘philosophy’ –la philosophie “pure et dure”, as those of my ilk call it– to come to this department, which has, over the last decade, mostly turned into a cultural studies department; that’s what happens when the people in charge of the department, and some in it who vote on the curriculum, have no degree in philosophy. (I have nothing against cultural studies, mind you! It’s just not philosophy as most professional philosophers think of it in my neck o’ the woods.) A quick look at our course offerings, either graduate or undergraduate, will confirm that our resources do not amount to a philosophy curriculum, to anyone who knows enough about philosophy to distinguish it from politics, sociology, cultural, gender, and “ism” studies. I am not the only one to think so; just the only one courageous (or foolhardy) enough to say so.
Anonymous gives zero reason (apart from vomiting on me, which is not a reason) to believe that I am wrong about the level of logic competence in the department. Would that it be so! (With one exception), I challenge any graduate or faculty, including “Tarski’s World” (whom I challenge to explain the first thing about Tarski), to the exam in my second undergrad logic course, much less my third or fourth.
Negative polarity items, anyone?