General Recommendations

The focus of the Student IDEA Board was expressly limited to examining the lived experiences of students in the University community; however, the campus climate survey and individual reports indicate that disabled University faculty and staff could also greatly benefit from a similar effort focused on addressing their experiences. In addition, it is noted that the University is one of the largest employers in the State of Michigan, employing approximately 38,249 individuals. As such, it is incumbent upon the University to be a model employer in hiring and supporting faculty and staff with disabilities.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the University undertake immediate and deliberate action to assess and address issues facing disabled faculty and staff. This can be accomplished in various ways, such as convening a Faculty and Staff IDEA Board or charging a Taskforce with providing recommendations and assisting with implementing those suggestions. No matter the specific strategy, the faculty and staff entity is encouraged to leverage or incorporate the findings and recommendations from the Student IDEA Board. This effort should focus on identifying methods for implementing any recommendations in an integrated, centralized, or holistic manner.

Further, it is recommended that the faculty/staff entity’s leadership and membership include individuals from within the University’s disabled faculty and staff community.5 The entity would also be encouraged to examine and, where feasible, streamline the process used by the Student IDEA Board in order to minimize any burden on the entity’s members and reduce unnecessary delay.

It is noted that there may be other entities at the University that have or are currently engaging in this work (e.g., the ADVANCE Program has convened an ad hoc committee on issues facing disabled faculty). Where feasible, the faculty/staff entity should incorporate or explore appropriate ways to partner with these entities.

While the University has many resources available to assist and support students with disabilities, these resources are decentralized or difficult to locate. Many of these resources are critical to ensure that students with disabilities have equal access and opportunity. To address this barrier, the University should create a centralized source—digital, physical, or ideally both—for resources, supports, and services for disabled students. A concierge should also be provided to assist students with disabilities with identifying, accessing, and utilizing the various resources, supports, and services available through this centralized source. The concierge could also be responsible for maintaining the centralized source.

For example, the resources, supports, and services available through this centralized source should include:

• Safety and security resources, policies, and procedures;
• Barrier removal resources, such as ice/snow removal, contacts to remove bicycles, mopeds, and scooters, and the ADA Fund (financial resources to remove architectural barriers for identified occupants in General Fund buildings and programs);
• Construction project plans to be reviewed for accessibility and other inclusion elements;
• Access information for University buildings, such as accessible routes, entrances, restrooms, and other accessible/inclusive features (e.g., foot washes, meditation spaces, gender inclusive spaces, etc.);
• Accessible parking locations and processes for requesting parking accommodations;
• Accessible housing options available to students;
• Universal Design Learning resources for faculty to ensure accessible teaching and learning environments;
• Digital accessibility resources and guidance, including templates for faculty to create accessible course materials, training and guidance for creating accessible digital resources, etc.;
• Potentially anonymous online fora allowing users to: share feedback on the Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) Office services and experiences; report concerns regarding digital accessibility issues; report architectural or other physical barriers to access; or report concerns of discrimination, harassment, or a denial of accommodations;
• Materials provided to prospective students with disabilities;
• Scholarships available to individuals with disabilities; and
• Materials and resources pertaining to career development, including: identifying interests, competency development, communicating strengths, self-advocacy in the workplace, interview skills development, guidance on disclosing disabilities, legal rights under the ADA and similar laws; and
• Information on other existing University resources, including CAPS, the Knox Center, student organizations, UMinDS, interpreters, peer support, academic coaching, disability culture and community events, quiet study spaces, etc.

As these recommendations are implemented and other changes are made at the university, it is critical that individuals with disabilities lead the conversation. Moreover, it is further suggested that these individuals bring a variety of experiences, including various disabilities and intersectionalities. Therefore, one or more entities should be created and given ongoing institutional support. These entities would be responsible for providing guidance and meaningful participation on any university policies, actions, or programs that impact individuals with disabilities. While the nature of their guidance would vary depending on the specific circumstances, getting perspectives, feedback, and buy-in from the disabled community is imperative. Moreover, such entities should be created and consulted in such a way so as not to be merely symbolic or perfunctory (i.e., “tokenism”). In other words, disabled voices and perspectives must lead the way as the university continues to strive to be a leader and model institution.

There are multiple matters where such bodies would be critical as the Student IDEA Board’s recommendations are communicated and implemented. For example:

• Participation when hiring positions that have a significant or disproportionate impact on individuals with disabilities (e.g., the SSD Director, ADA Coordinator, Digital Information Accessibility Coordinator, DEI leads and positions, etc.);
• Creation and periodic review of Universal Design for Learning (“UDL”) materials;
• Review and creation of safety and security policies and protocols, particularly as they impact individuals with disabilities;
• Review of new construction projects in partnership with the ADA Coordinator and other relevant entities;
• Audit and revision of the university’s resources, language, and communications regarding disability;
• Evaluation of DEI plan provisions pertaining to disability;
• Recommending syllabus statements concerning accessibility and accommodations;
• Ongoing and regular review of SSD registration forms and processes;
• Review of recruitment materials and activities to ensure that they are accessible and include detailed and accurate information about disability and accessibility at the University;
• Provide resources and guidance for disability support groups for students, faculty, and staff, including assistance with initial formation and ongoing support;
• Conducting an audit of websites that have a disproportionate or significant impact on students with disabilities;
• Review and revision of essential program requirements; and
• Providing feedback on faculty and staff disability awareness training.

While these entities should meet regularly in order to, at a minimum, address the aforementioned specific issues, an additional annual meeting should be arranged with these entities and high-level University leadership (potentially the University President or Executive Officers) to ensure that disability continues to be a regular consideration and priority.

Many of the Board’s recommendations include requests to create or fund immediate and future employee positions. While these positions have been identified by various sub-groups, these recommendations have broad-reaching impact regardless of the position’s specific focus or intent. In considering these position requests, it is recommended that priority be given to positions that will have an immediate effect of ensuring disabled students’ continued presence and engagement, lending further support to the efforts described in this report. Also, when possible, these positions should be implemented in a manner that is centralized or has broad impact across the university’s numerous populations, including students, faculty, staff, patients, and other members of the community.

Furthermore, the university is encouraged to prioritize feedback and guidance from individuals with disabilities, including members of the Board, regarding how to strategically create and fill these positions. This will help ensure that the positions are implemented so as to meet the ultimate goals put forth by the Board. Such consultation will include issues such as: departmental home, appropriate stakeholders, job description and posting language, search committee representation, interview process, and hiring determinations.

It is understood that this report will be shared with appropriate leadership, including President Mark Schlissel and appropriate Executive Officers. Given the significant recommendations generated by the Board and the expected impact as those recommendations are implemented, it is recommended that this report be made available to the public in an accessible format. Sharing this report widely would communicate the university’s dedication to supporting disabled students and acknowledge the work and commitment of those who contributed to this report. Moreover, it would bolster the institution’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion by explicitly recognizing that disability is diversity, disability is an identity, and disability culture is valued. Finally, this report could serve as a valuable guiding resource to units or entities that wish to improve disability inclusion and accessibility in their specific areas.

If this report is made publicly available, this would also provide an opportunity for community members to share their feedback with the university and further underscore that the institution values disabled perspectives and participation.

See Culture Report, Recommendation 8, Appendix 7.