This article is written in conjunction with the IE Law Society.By Aronnya Saha
We are all painfully aware of IE’s 80% mandatory attendance policy; it is indisputable that it serves as a cornerstone of academic discipline.
The policy requires students to attend at least 80% of their classes to pass a course and is designed to nurture engagement, accountability, and interaction. Nonetheless, as with most institutional policies, various responses are sparked amongst students and faculty. Many see it as an essential framework to promote academic success, while others view it as an inflexible barrier to learning and personal responsibility. This article will explore the rule and the legal challenges that follow it.
Institutional Autonomy and Proportionality
IE’s ability to impose the policy is grounded in institutional autonomy, a principle that allows private universities in Spain to construct their academic regulations. While IE is within its legal rights, students are protected by the right to education, as observed in Spanish law and the European Convention on Human Rights. This right warrants that any regulation impacting a student’s capability to access education must balance institutional goals and its students’ freedom. Legally speaking, this highlights the proportionality principle, which holds that any policy that affects fundamental rights must be proportional to its objectives.
In simpler terms, the 80% rule should not excessively limit a student’s right to education, especially in cases wherein absences are due to legitimate circumstances beyond their control.
Fairness and Transparency in the Appeals Process
IE does allow a process to appeal absences for students who believe their non-attendance should be excused. Students can submit evidence and documentation to request exemptions from the 80% policy.
Although this process offers a safety net, concerns about fairness and transparency must be raised. The burden of proof falls heavily on the student, who must “prove” their situation to their respective program offices. This can be a daunting task for students dealing with pressing personal issues. Legally, this underscores a tension between establishing compliance with institutional policies and safeguarding student well-being and rights.
Discrimination Concerns in Attendance Enforcement
This policy also intersects with issues of discrimination. According to the Spanish constitution, Article 27(2) states that educational policies must not discriminate against students based on personal conditions, such as health, religion, or family responsibilities. In cases where strict enforcement of the 80% rule disproportionately impacts students with chronic illnesses or caretaking responsibilities, the rule’s perceived objectivity may adversely affect them.
This brings the debate to a crossroads. Should the 80% attendance policy be considered a necessary disciplinary foundation ensuring academic engagement and excellence? Or does it risk becoming an obdurate barrier, preventing students from accessing education due to conditions beyond their control?
Attendance Policies at Other Private Universities: How Does it Work?
To assess IE’s policy, it seems fair to investigate other Private Universities and their conduct concerning attendance policies. When comparing IE’s rule with NYU’s, attendance policies are set at the course level instead of a uniform mandate across the institution. Various programs may require attendance, whereas others are more flexible. This grants the onus of attendance requirements to the professors, who may be better suited to know when students must be present based on their course design. This decentralized approach directly contrasts with IE’s standardized attendance rule.
While IE enforces attendance at an institutional level, American private universities like NYU allow individual departments the autonomy to create their policies. This reflects the difference in how IE and NYU use their institutional independence, demonstrating a dichotomy between how each university views student freedom and flexibility. There are systems to appeal such absences in cases where NYU courses dictate mandatory attendance. However, it is worth noting that the degree of burden placed on students to justify absences varies based on the administrative structure.
The resolution may not be found in a definitive answer but rather in balancing structure and flexibility. While IE has the right to enforce attendance regulations, these 80% rules must be more adaptable to accommodate the diverse needs of its students. As education and pedagogy evolve, the attendance policy’s legal framework must reflect the increasing demand for student autonomy, personal freedoms, and institutional accountability.
