Services Discriminate Against Neurodiverse Student By Katie Ignatowski

Imagine a college student is taking an online test, they look away from the computer screen for one second, and suddenly, they are accused of cheating! “Services Discriminate against Neurodiverse Students' ' by Katie Ignatowski is a persuasive article that discusses the discrimination that has occurred from exam proctoring software at universities. I think Ignatowski does a great job of persuading the target audience that the effects of proctoring software have been detrimental to students, but the title is misleading because the author doesn’t include a lot of discussion regarding neurodiverse students like I expected. Since the Covid 19 pandemic, universities must prioritize their students so that the rapport between faculty and students

As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, cheating amongst university students was on the rise; therefore, universities decided to implement methods to help ensure students were completing their work with integrity. Methods include punishing students who use unauthorized online resources, like Google and Quizlet, and utilizing exam proctoring software. Unfortunately, these methods do not easily accommodate the needs of each student, so a student could be flagged as cheating for something out of their control. Regardless, Ignatowski believes that universities should be prioritizing their students because these methods are going to cause detrimental damage to the rapport between students and faculty.

As a result of universities implementing discriminatory anti-cheating methods, Ignatowski wants to grab the attention of the faculty working for universities. The author attracts their target audience by including emotional and ethical appeals. Ignatowski sympathizes with university students by advocating how their stress has increased since the implementation of anti-cheating methods. The author argues that students rely on specific online resources in order to be successful, and if they are denied access to these resources, then their GPA may

Unfortunately, if students do not fulfill these needs for the software to function properly, then the software could flag a student for cheating even though it was not their fault. In a particular case, neurodivergent students were flagged for cheating because the proctoring software alerted their instructor that they were constantly looking away from the computer monitor. In another case, students of color were asked to shine a light on their faces, so the proctoring software can monitor their faces easier. These are just two examples of exam proctoring software that was unable to accommodate students, and it is inhumane that a student would have to accommodate something they are born with. Universities must have the student's best interest in, otherwise, that will cause tension and incivility.

From a reader’s perspective, Ignatowski misguides the audience from the initial point about how proctoring discriminates against the neurodiverse. Although the author mentions the discrimination of neurodiverse students, in the article’s title, these students are not discussed as much as one would expect. Ignatowski mainly discusses the negatives of exam proctoring and how students rely on online resources to succeed. As a reader, it is recommended that authors title articles based on the primary topics, rather than picking a minor detail that is rarely discussed.