I am not a lawyer and don’t know very much about interpreting law. However, it seems to me that the case of Micah Fialka-Feldman is a pretty classic example of those in power hiding behind “policy” as a way of masking their discrimination. Fialka-Feldman is 24 year old student with a mild intellectual disability who wants to live on the campus of Oakland University near Detroit. Micah attends 16 credit hours of classes per week and pays full time tuition. Yet, University trustees and officials have repeatedly rejected his requests to live on campus and forced him take a 2 hour bus ride each day to attend their university. They justify this decision by pointing to their “policy” of only allowing students in degree granting programs to live in one of their 1,800 dorm rooms, some of which remain vacant. The logic behind this decision, which has been tentatively supported by a federal judge, is that Micah would be seeking unequal opportunity by asking that the policy be waived for him when other continuing education students were denied the opportunity to live on campus.
On the face of it, this seems like it may be a justifiable decision, right? After all, the university is not JUST rejecting Micah’s claim on housing resources, but all 1,400 continuing education students who are taking classes but not earning a degree (although, it’s my understanding that there was some backpedaling done to try and be consistent with this policy and some English as a Second Language students were no longer allowed to live in the dorms, once it was apparent a law suit was in the works). Let’s put the ESL cases aside and look only at the “facts” that are being reported in the main stream media. That is, let us take the university at its word and consider the justifiability of denying Micah housing because of this policy.
Micah on his campus
First, it needs to be understood that virtually EVERY case of discrimination and bigotry can be framed in terms of a “policy.” The rhetoric is always the same. Opponents of same sex marriage argue that they have nothing against gay people, but don’t want to give them the “special privilege” of a state sanctioned marriage that can only happen by waiving the policy that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Women are not being discriminated against when they are denied employment and advancement, but rather, there is a policy in place that excludes people who may become pregnant at some point. People with disabilities aren’t being segregated and incarcerated in nursing homes rather than receiving support services while living in their own homes with friends and family, they are merely being medically treated in accordance with the policies of Medicaid.
The fact is, policies aren’t handed down from God, accidentally resulting in some discrimination. This policy is not some kind of natural law. Policies are MANUFACTURED , sometimes according to bigoted attitudes that are already in place. The activist has always recognized this and never accepted the excuse of “that’s our policy.” Essentially, policies are the codification of existing habits, many of which are chauvinistic in various ways.
The question to ask is not “why does Micah deserve special treatment and a waiver of this policy?” but “why is the policy written in this way and what else could it look like?” When we ask the question in that way, it becomes clear that this policy is a thinly veiled case of discrimination. There is no housing crunch at Oakland University. I can hardly imagine that all of the 1,400 continuing ed students would want to live on campus, squeezing out the matriculated students. Typically, continuing ed students are not of typical college age and lifestyle and it would be absurd to think that they will flock to the dormitories.
So, if the possibility of a housing crisis is not driving the manufacture of this policy, what could be the justification for keeping away “non-degree earning students?” I have seen plenty of references to the “policy” justifying the exclusion of Micah from living on campus, but where is the justification of the policy itself? Why is whether a student is enrolled in a degree granting program or not at all relevant to whether they should be able to live on campus? Of course, the University could not allow just anyone who wishes to live in university housing to do so. It could not be the case that anyone off the street is allowed to move in, regardless of affiliation with the academic institution. However, why is the bright line drawn at whether a student is earning credit toward a degree? How is this at all relevant? Wouldn’t it make more sense to draw the line at whether a student is enrolled full time and needs to have space on campus because she is spending a lot of time there?
So, if there is no housing crunch at Oakland U that would be impacted by a more inclusive policy and there is no obvious connection between earning degree credits and living on campus, why has the university chosen to manufacture this policy in this way? What existing habits are being codified here and are they worth preserving?
Is it unreasonable to suggest that this policy is a throwback to the dark ages of not wanting to live with “those kinds of people?” Is it far fetched to think that a policy of keeping non-matriculated students off campus is a desire to keep at arms length those who differ from us in age, class, and, yes, disability?
Finally, as an educator and especially as an “almost philosopher,” some critical questions that were recently raised by Micah’s dad struck a strong chord with me. When trying to clarify our thoughts on this situation we should not limit ourselves to a critique of this particular policy, but also try to think in new ways about some of the most fundamental assumptions we make about education. This situation highlights in some very interesting ways questions about what a student is and what the purpose of education ought to be. I will leave these for another post.
