OPEN

LETTER TO

Peter Devlin

President of Fanshawe College

1001 Fanshawe College Boulevard
P.O. Box 7005
London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6

Date: April 15, 2015

FROM

Concerned Members of the London Deaf Community

Dear Peter Devlin,
This open leHer is to make you aware of incriminaNng issues that Hard of Hearing and Deaf
students have experienced at Fanshawe College. This leHer is compiled by a group of Deaf
people consisNng of past, present and future students of Fanshawe College. We met in February
2015 to discuss our concerns and decided to not ignore these issues any longer.
Fanshawe College has failed these Deaf students and deprived them of their fundamental
human rights to the educaNon that they paid and came for. The majority of the group who met
in February experienced similar barriers, prejudices, unprofessional behaviour by sta,
discriminaNon and negligence by Fanshawe College.
The primary purpose of Fanshawe College is to provide an accessible place of learning while
adhering to Accessibility for Ontarian with DisabiliNes Act (AODA), Ontario Human Rights Code
(OHRC) and the general principles of inclusion. Fanshawe College has longstanding roots in the
London community which also has a strong Deaf presence due to London being home to the
Robarts School for the Deaf. It is imperaNve that these issues are idenNed and discussed
openly, that swiY acNon is taken to ensure that Fanshawe becomes an inclusive place of
educaNon for all members of this community.
We the members of Londons Deaf community have lost our condence in Fanshawe College.
We hope that steps will be taken to restore condence in your administraNon and the college

Issues
The obstacles faced by the individuals in this group can be echoed by other Deaf in other
communiNes and other faciliNes. However, we must confront these issues in every
circumstance to ensure that change happens and the isolaNon of the Deaf stops. The
paternalisNc pracNces we idenNfy are systemic, evident throughout the college and highlighted
within the department of the accessibility counsellor. The issues idenNed in the group meeNng
were discussed in condence with each parNcipant consenNng to share these issues in the
hopes that they will be heard.

I. Accessibility Counsellor Role

A majority of issues discussed among the group reected the diculNes arising from the
fact that the accessibility counsellor seems to be the one point of contact for every aspect of
their educaNonal endeavours with Fanshawe College. The counsellor has failed in providing
the duty of care owned to past, current and prospecNve students;
1. The role of the accessibility counsellor has not been clearly and concisely dened
for us. The demonstrated role appears to be that the accessibility counsellor is
posiNoned as a gure of authority and an expert regarding the needs of the Deaf
students, acNng as an interpreter advisor, counsellor and decision maker.
Furthermore, as a counsellor, the demonstrated role appears to be that the
posiNon is to advise students about their chosen career and educaNon paths as
well as accessibility for all Deaf students. By expecNng one role/person to fulll
all of the diverse needs of student life, Fanshawe has succeeded in marginalizing
the students by limiNng their resources. Pu`ng them at risk for manipulaNon
and enforced helplessness. Other students have a range of resources available;
Deaf students have one go-to person acNng as the conduit for their educaNonal/
career choices with no accountability on behalf of the college.

2. The emphasis on having the posiNon of accessibility counsellor as a one-size-ts-

all response to the concerns of Deaf students results in a confusion within the
organizaNonal structure. A counsellor who has knowledge of American Sign
Language regardless of uency - may not have the appropriate training or
experNse to assess accommodaNon needs for Deaf students. Nevertheless, a
counsellor should not be given the responsibility or the right to speak for the
Deaf person.
3. Deaf students should be given the respect of having condenNal resources. By
combining the roles of counsellor and Deaf accessibility expert into one posiNon,
Fanshawe College has set up a situaNon where the Deaf students have reduced
access and biased services. As it currently stands students are subjected to
paternalisNc oversight.
4. Despite se`ng up the posiNon of accessibility counsellor, the college fails to
ensure adequate accessibility are provided to meet all current and prospecNve
students needs.
5. The accessibility counsellor has neglected students by failing to be prompt in
response to their needs;
(1)

Failing to ensure appropriate accommodaNons is being made

(2)

Failing to aHend scheduled appointments

(3)

Failing to reschedule the appointment within an appropriate Nme frame

(4)

Failing to provide adequate preparaNon materials for teachers and

interpreters

5. The posiNon of accessibility counsellor must have an acceptable and respecgul

code of ethics idenNed with an idenNed complaint process in place for
students to idenNfy/address issues. Currently, students have experienced the
following:

(1)

Students private personal informaNon was shared with the contracted

interpreters private and personal informaNon is not needed by
interpreters to complete their duNes

(2)

Some students feel that they have been given less support and
discouraged from pursuing higher levels of educaNon which has hindered
their ability to succeed in their program(s)

(3)

Some students were persuaded to withdraw for false reasons and with
an understanding that they would get a full refund from the College.
When discussing obstacles, the quesNon of are you considering a
withdrawal from the program was asked instead of the quesNon of
what do you need to achieve success? Such a disNncNon in phrasing
supports discouragement rather than empowerment and clearly
demonstrates a need for training for the accessibility counsellor as well
as a clear standard for success dened within the role that Nes
performance to desired outcomes.

(4)

The accessibility counsellor role requires that the sta member wear too
many hats, many of which result in breaching professional boundaries in
one area to fulll perceived requirements in another area and conict of
interests.

(5)

Some students have idenNed a high level of supports available while

others have idenNed a reduced level of supports which points to a
degree of favouriNsm within the system.

(6)

The process of scheduling interpreters for each Deaf student is faulty

and results in inadequate accommodaNons.

6. The responsibiliNes of theIn addiNon, the accessibility counsellor should be

required to educate third parNes about the responsibiliNes for providing
accommodaNon. Students have been excluded from parNcipaNon in required o-
campus acNviNes due to this failure in communicaNng the needs of interpreNng
service to the third parNes.

By failing to address this issue, Fanshawe College is se`ng their Deaf students up for failure and
violaNng the students rights to the educaNon for which they have paid an educaNon you
promised to provide when you accepted that payment!

II. Counselling & Accessibility Services Department and Fanshawe College

AdministraNon
1. IneecNve accessibility service with no oversight or accountability as evidenced
by the aforemenNoned concerns.
2. Failing to provide accessible educaNon due to:
(1) Inadequate, qualied interpreNng services i.e. quality of interpreter,
incomplete scheduling, lacking course preparedness materials, failure to
provide interpreters for prolonged exam Nmes or change in class schedules.
(2) Failure to provide reasonable accommodaNons in a Nmely fashion i.e. FM
system, qualied interpreters, and notetakers were not provided.
(3) Lack of training for educators and sta regarding the requirement to provide
accommodaNon and accessible services appropriate for the needs of Deaf
students.
(4) Inexible program courses which fail to provide appropriate and relevant
adjustments to accommodate a Deaf students physical limitaNons.
(5) Unfairly recruiNng hard-of-hearing and Deaf students into the college with
knowledge that its interpreNng capacity is overtaxed and understaed.
3. Having failed to plan and sta accessibility services adequately for the students
Fanshawe recruits or accepts into its programs, the college refuses to refund
student tuiNons when they are unable to conNnue pursuing this educaNon due to
the increased diculty created by the colleges inadequacies. By so doing, the

college is actually bene`ng nancially by contravening the AODA; money is

saved by spending on services for accessibility and money is acquired from
students who are unable to conNnue.
4. Interpreters are assigned inappropriately as consideraNon is not always given to
the maHer-specic vocabulary required in specic academic streams (eg.
Technical language vs sociological language).
5. Less qualied replacement/temporary interpreters provided during vital course
and exam Nmes resulNng in students being unfairly disadvantaged.
6. The relaNonship between the accessibility counsellors department and the
students is marked by frustraNon, conict and poor communicaNon.
7. Interpreter assessment and screening were not eecNvely uNlized which
undermined the quality of interpreNng service which, in turn, leY students with
so liHle hope of success that they were forced to withdraw or ended up failing
their courses.

In Hindsight
The current system and policies at Fanshawe College are failing to meet the needs of its Deaf
students. In parNcular, the situaNon with the accessibility counsellor, the college has failed to
protect students due to a lack of appropriate policies and accountability. It seems that, given
the scope of the issues, the Counselling and Accessibility Services department has set up a
process which is imbued with power but without checks and balances to ensure that the
departments goals are being achieved. As a result, student needs are not met through that
oce.
The issues presented by this concerned group clearly show a strong paHern of wrongdoings
within the Counselling and Accessibility department and failure of administraNon to provide
strong leadership and training among its accessibility service sta.

The boHom line is that Fanshawe College has allowed the negaNve situaNon to happen by not
taking responsibility for ensuring the departments goals were achieved and by not following up
with the consumers to ensure that the their needs were met.

Next Steps
Fanshawe College should take steps to correct these broken processes and system that
has wronged those that came for educaNon. To restore the condence in Fanshawe Colleges
inclusion policy and ability to deliver an accessible and inclusive educaNon, the accessibility
department must be revamped with frontline consultaNon in its process by this group the
consumers and primary stakeholders in this process! Fanshawe College is a place of

learning not a place where barriers to educaFon exist.

We ask that Fanshawe College facilitate a meeNng at the main campus within 6 weeks of receipt
of this leHer, by May 27th, 2015 latest. We ask that Fanshawe College be prepared, at this
meeNng, to outline a course of acNon to address the issues outlined in this leHer. As well as
begin to plan resoluNons and to discuss our concerns directly.
We ask that any communicaNon be made through, Jason Rose, who will act as liaison between
Fanshawe College and the concerned group.

Send communicaFons to:

Jason Rose
E: j.jrose0410@live.com

We want our educaFon now, not one year later!

Signed by:
PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE DEAF STUDENTS
Vicki Cronmiller
Jason Rose
Corinna Den Dekker
Brandon Dunster
Kristen Williams
Michael Jefferson
Jeffery Paulter

OPEN RESPONSE LETTER TO

Peter Devlin

President of Fanshawe College

1001 Fanshawe College Boulevard
P.O. Box 7005
London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6

Date: April 29, 2015

FROM

Concerned Members of the London Deaf Community

Dear Peter Devlin,
We, Deaf students of Fanshawe College, directly addressed you, Peter Devlin, President of
Fanshawe College, in the hope of opening a dialogue with the college. We have been placed at a
disadvantage in our educaMonal endeavours at your college under your administraMon! In our
rst open leRer to you on April 15, 2015, we highlighted two major issues: counsellor(s) and the
administraMon (the system). The discriminaMon we experience at Fanshawe is systemic and
bars us from acquiring the quality educaMon that we purchased from Fanshawe!
Instead of you responding to the group directly, the Fanshawe College Vice President of Student
Services proceeded to underline and highlight the validity of our complaints by responding to
the group open leRer that the college is doing everything necessary, no need for anyone to be
alarmed. How condescending and paternalisMc was it to have an ocial response that, in eect,
pats us on the head and say, Everything is ne, we are taking care of you whether you believe it
or not. Clearly, our complaints have fallen on deaf ears (pun intended). We are extremely
disappointed to see that the college intends to conMnue to snub the Deaf community.
Your leRer states Fanshawe College takes pride in its commitment to serving the individual
needs of every student who aRends here. Nowhere is this eort more evident than in the areas
of accessibility/accommodaMon. You cited the policy that you adhered to in your response
leRer; the irony laid out here is in your own Accessibility Services Policy 2-A-09 which states,
the college will focus on the removal of barriers to educaMon AccommodaMons will be

provided in such a way that integraMon and full parMcipaMon of persons with disabiliMes is
encouraged.
This so called evident eort in accessibility area is not true. If it were, this majority of Deaf
students and others with disabiliMes wouldnt have brought this maRer to your aRenMon in the
rst place.
Some of our students in the group were compelled to withdraw from their programs rather
than being encouraged to complete their educaMon with the proper accommodaMons. In this
day and age, in this progressive and modern society, the goal of inclusion is not elusive. Your
students shouldnt have to experience such discriminaMon and paternalism which has occurred
under your watch at Fanshawe College.
Under your watch and in response to our rst open leRer, an accessibility service senior
manager has vigorously pressured current students to meet her regarding their accommodaMon
needs, turning our collecMve concerns into individual and condenMal maRers, changing the
topic of discussion in an aRempt to force individuals to meet individually. This is the tacMc used
everywhere to subjugate people with disabiliMes while acMng like youre being accommodaMng
and inclusive divide them up dont let them get together as a group. Call it condenMality
and private. You are ignoring the fact that we have collecMvely addressed our collecMve issues
and requested a meeMng where we could collecMvely develop soluMons that meet our collecMve
needs.
Fanshawe College has a responsibility to open dialogue and bring much needed reforms to your
accessibility service administraMon, to develop supports for every student with disabiliMes, to
adhere to your own Accessibility Services Policy 2-A-09, to adhere to AODA, to adhere to
Human Right Codes and to adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights. The college
administraMon must be transparent to students and taxpayers. Fanshawe College must provide,
in full, the services and educaMon that you promote.

We once again ask you to take this opportunity to sit down with us in an open meeMng and hear
our concerns and stories so that Fanshawe College can take the necessary steps to create
posiMve changes.

Do the right thing,

Deaf Students & Community Members - Please send communicaMons to:
Jason Rose

E: j.jrose0410@live.com

Signed by:
PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE DEAF STUDENTS
Vicki Cronmiller

Kristen Williams

Jason Rose

Michael Jefferson

Corinna Den Dekker

Jeffery Paulter

Brandon Dunster

Note: Original open leHer were sent to the same C.C. with few addiJonal C.C.:
gmalkowski@chs.ca
mturner@fanshawec.ca
ghessian@fanshawec.ca
hcummings@fanshawec.ca
info@ombudsman.on.ca
premier@ontario.ca
informaMon.met@ontario.ca
rmoridi.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
rmoridi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
cballard.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
gcrack.mpp@liberal.ola.org
hdong.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
hjaczek.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dmaRhews.mpp@liberal.ola.org
sqaadri.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lsandals.mpp@liberal.ola.org
swong.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
tarmstrong-qp@ndp.on.ca
PsaRler-qp@ndp.on.ca
je.yurekco@pc.ola.org
je.yurek@pc.ola.org

irene.mathyssen@parl.gc.ca
Susan.Truppe.C1@parl.gc.ca
Susan.Truppe@parl.gc.ca
dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca
ASAC-SDC@ontario.ca
gareld.dunlop@pc.ola.org
LGretzky-QP@ndp.on.ca
LGretzky-CO@ndp.on.ca
PsaRler-co@ndp.on.ca
mtaylor-qp@ndp.on.ca
mtaylor-co@ndp.on.ca
bill.walker@pc.ola.org
bill.walkerco@pc.ola.org
dmaRhews.mpp.co@liberal.ola.or
g
kwebberg@on.ndp.ca
ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca
ahorwath-co@ndp.on.ca
kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
jim.wilson@pc.ola.org

jim.wilsonco@pc.ola.org
andrew.forgione@ontario.ca
bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bduguid.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
info@ohrc.on.ca
john.miner@sunmedia.ca
jonathan.sher@sunmedia.ca
randy.richmond@sunmedia.ca
hank.daniszewski@sunmedia.ca
newsonline@ctv.ca
news@ctv.ca
newschannel@ctv.ca
oce@deafontario.ca
w5@ctv.ca
londonnews@ctv.ca
Peter.Ousey@bellmedia.ca
lifeMmelondon-windsor@ctv.ca
steve.young@bellmedia.ca
fsupres@fanshawec.ca
s_lai6@fanshawec.ca
Kate.Dubinski@sunmedia.ca