← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Dignity is part accommodation

If they say: We’re treating all students equally.

Say: Equity includes dignity. When an accommodation causes shame, separation, or stigma, it fails to ensure meaningful access.

Legal grounding: In Moore v. BC (Education), the court affirmed that access must be “meaningful.” Supports that isolate or stigmatise can constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

This entry is based on Kim Block’s Part 2(A): Discrimination Test, which walks through how the BC Human Rights Tribunal evaluates whether harm constitutes discrimination. It’s not only about access—but how that access is experienced. Dignity is a legal consideration, not just a moral one.

Key takeaways

Dignified participation is part of equal access
Accommodations are meant to ensure meaningful, equitable access to education—not just physical presence in the classroom. If a student is consistently embarrassed, singled out, or forced to rely on distressing workarounds, that’s a dignity violation—and a legal one.
Emotional and psychological harm are valid impacts
Human rights law does not require extreme or physical harm to trigger protection. Withdrawing socially, avoiding class, losing self-esteem, masking distress, or feeling unsafe all count as adverse effects under the discrimination test.
Intent is irrelevant; impact is everything
Schools do not need to “mean harm” in order to have discriminated. When systems cause distress through denial, delay, or inadequate support—even while trying their best—they are still accountable under Section 8.