UCLA Faculty Association: Televising Classes

Friday, April 8, 2022

Televising Classes - Part 3

We have been covering the issue of recording classes from time to time on this blog. Some of our discussion has dealt with the technical issues involved in proposals for universal course recording, mainly the need for equipment in every classroom that is both adequate to record video and audio (including student responses) and able to operate without undue diversion of faculty attention.*

The Academic Senate at the systemwide level has been reviewing this issue, largely in the context of demands by students with disabilities for universal recording. At a recent Regents meeting, the chair of the Senate expressed major reservations about such policies.** We again provide a link to his remarks below. Senate concerns largely revolve around the ability to control access to recordings and the potential effects on academic freedom. We reproduce below the recommendations on this issue of the University Committee on Academic Freedom:

Recommendations

Mandated recording of all classes for all students violates the academic freedom of faculty and students alike and must not be permitted absent the kind of extraordinary pandemic-related circumstances we hope never to experience again. It is equally clear that both federal law and UC policy related to disability accommodations preclude a blanket prohibition on recording of classes, as such a rule would violate the institution’s obligation to prevent discrimination against students with disabilities.

That leaves the question of class recordings as an accommodation for students with disabilities on a case-by-case basis. Our committee is generally (though not unanimously) comfortable with the need for individual accommodations being mediated by the campus offices responsible for students with disabilities. And, given the challenges of pandemic learning, we believe instructors should be flexible whenever possible.

However, in our experience and the experience of members of the campus-based committees on academic freedom, the concerns regarding academic freedom outlined above are often under-appreciated by officials responsible for determining appropriate accommodations. It also appears that there is wide variation among these offices – even within campuses – that can result in disparate weight given to academic freedom concerns. Although we are aware that the law imposes strict limits on what may be considered a “fundamental alteration” of an academic course, we are concerned that deferring the issue of mandatory recording to disability offices has normalized breaches of academic freedom.

To address this concern within the bounds of the University’s obligation to prevent discrimination against students with disabilities, we make the following recommendations:

1. Campus policy that requires disability management staff to consult with faculty in the accommodations process must be followed, especially when the proposed accommodation poses a legitimate risk of fundamentally altering the nature of the course by chilling either faculty or student speech. Anecdotally, we believe this consultation is not occurring with uniformity across campuses, which is surely due, in part, to resource and staffing constraints on the offices in question that we urge the administration to address. In addition, campuses that do not have appeal processes in place should include them in their accommodations determinations, so faculty can escalate academic freedom concerns if necessary.

2. Disability offices must be informed about the ways in which recording has the potential to fundamentally alter the nature of some courses, and they must be willing to consider creative, reasonable, alternative means of accommodating students with disabilities that lessen the potential for chilling of speech. We note that allowing students to “attend” class only through listening to a recording of the class may, in some instances, fundamentally alter the nature of the course for that student, such that they are not receiving the same high level of quality educational experience as those who attend class in-person.

3. Where recording of classes is deemed an appropriate accommodation, every effort must be made to mitigate academic freedom concerns through limitations on access to, and distribution of, class recordings and/or the duration of time the recordings are made available. University policy states that “[s]tudents or participants with disabilities in University programs, services, or activities may be required to sign an agreement that they will not release tape recordings or transcriptions of lectures, or otherwise hinder the ability of a professor to obtain a copyright.” Students should be required in all instances to sign such agreements and, if necessary, student codes of conduct should be amended to clarify that violations of such agreements may result in disciplinary action.

UCAF appreciates the opportunity to comment on this matter.

Sincerely,

Ty Alper, Clinical Professor of Law, Chair, University Committee on Academic Freedom

Full letter at: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/rh-divisions-recommendations-on-mandated-recording-of-classes.pdf.

===

Academic Senate Chair Robert Horwitz on course recording at Regents meeting of March 16: