Talk to UsResponsible AI resourceMenuHomeModel policyDecisionsResearch & approachGet support
Leadership guide/Decisions/Access, accessibility & equitable treatment
A service is not ready merely because it works for the people who tested it first.
HumanSkills recommendation · September 2026
In this guideRecommended positionYour local choicesA campus situationWho is responsibleLanguage to useEvidence of implementationSupporting sourcesDownload PDF→
Read, share and use with your team.
HumanSkills recommendationEvaluate accessibility, affordability, language, connectivity and differential effects in the intended use. Provide appropriate accommodations and workable assistance routes. When AI is required, make the approved means of participation realistically available.
Students may be working from a phone, using assistive technology, attending after hours or managing unreliable connectivity. A technically available tool can still create a barrier. Fairness review needs real tasks and affected perspectives, with privacy-respecting methods.
What the evidence supportsNorth Shore includes equitable access and human-centered protections in its principles. DOJ guidance explains web and mobile accessibility obligations for covered public entities. Institutional applicability and implementation requirements require local review.
The right arrangement depends on the purpose, consequences, applicable requirements and capacity of your institution. Use these options to make the choice explicit.
Provide an approved institutional service
Consider this when: AI use is required or materially important to participation.
The tradeoff: Budget for access, support, accessibility and continuity, including adjunct and evening users.
Provide an equivalent route
Consider this when: An alternative can meet the same learning or service purpose.
The tradeoff: Ensure the alternative does not impose an unreasonable burden or lower the standard.
Restrict or defer the use
Consider this when: A material barrier or harmful differential effect cannot be adequately addressed.
The tradeoff: Preserve service continuity and define the conditions for reconsideration.
A course requires an AI exercise. A student can access the login screen but cannot complete the activity using assistive technology.
Access to the product is different from access to the learning task.
What the team produces: An accessible participation arrangement and an accountable remediation plan.
Board & trustees
Ask whether implementation evidence includes people facing access barriers.
Institutional leaders
Resource accessibility, support and remedies as part of the service.
AI task force
Involve relevant specialists and affected users early enough to influence the decision.
Apply these roles within your institution’s actual governance and delegated authority.
Illustrative model clause
Institutional AI uses must address accessibility and equitable participation for the intended users. Required uses must provide approved access and applicable accommodations. Owners must maintain a route for reporting barriers, obtaining appropriate assistance and correcting material problems.
Copy the clause
Review this clause with the full policy and local requirements. It is an implementation starting point, not a statement of measured consensus.
Model policy §6→Model policy §7→Model policy §10→
When to reconsiderReassess new interfaces, populations, costs, support arrangements and patterns of disadvantage.
Selected precedents and guidance supporting this chapter. These sources do not imply institutional endorsement of HumanSkills or agreement with every recommendation.
Source review: 24 September 2026. Read the editorial approach.
Continue the workTell people what matters.
→
Read the research comparisons and explore the annotated library across US colleges, universities and international institutions. Use the model language as a starting point for your own decision.
Protect access to learning and service.→Make the policy yours→