by Manju Banerjee, Ph.D.
This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Hailed as landmark legislation in U.S. history, the ADA has been pivotal in defining nondiscriminatory practices and equal access opportunities for individuals with disabilities. For college students with disabilities, the ADA ushered in an era of opportunities. With accommodations such as extra time on tests, reduced course load, and audio alternatives for textbooks, college graduation became a reality for many who in the past had feared to even dream of such a possibility. Support services for students with disabilities were few in the beginning but today are ubiquitous across college campuses.
While the ADA clearly gave voice to the needs of students who learn differently, there were unintended consequences, one of which is a growing chasm between those responsible for its charge and those who must be in compliance. The ADA Amendments Act (ADA AA) of 2008 sought in part to redress a too-stringent threshold for eligibility as an individual with a disability under the ADA. Although the 2011 regulations from the Department of Justice (DOJ) helped to interpret the legislation, ambiguities remain and have become a source of contention among the multiple stakeholders. One of the first sources of conflict involves perceptions of faculty members vs. disability support personnel (DSPs). Historically, DSPs are responsible for ensuring that accommodations are available to eligible students, and that the campus community observes compliance protocol and inclusive instructional practices. This is a powerful responsibility, yet many DSPs feel marginalized because the institutional climate is often one of ambivalence about accessibility and support resources. Faculty members’ rights to their intellectual property and their desire to conduct their courses guided by personal choice can be in conflict with new and emerging technology-based accommodations, traditional practices for course delivery, and assessment of learning.
The confidentiality mandate around disability (FERPA) is another source of potential friction between stakeholders who should be collaborating. Protocol for communication between the disability service office and other student support offices such as the counseling center, writing center, athletic academic support, and academic advising is rarely well defined. Usually, communication is triggered when a specific student situation arises, and individuals feel that their responsibility has either been usurped or made too burdensome. Confidentiality guidelines are meant to protect students but can be easily misinterpreted among campus constituencies when the institutional charge of the ADA is distributed across various support offices.
Another unintended difficulty emerges when there are conflicting views of DSP responsibilities. Students (and their parents) often mistake DSPs for their personal advocates. In fact, DSPs are advocates for equal access and non-discriminatory practices at the institution, not personal council for individual students. Often, accommodations received in secondary school are simply not available or appropriate at the postsecondary setting.
As the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law continues its pendulum swing, it is important that critical areas of disconnect are identified and addressed. Unfortunately, there is an expectation that the disability landscape can only be shaped by lawsuits and legal cases that define the intent of the law. The latest case in point is the 2014 consent decree between the Department of Fair Employment and Housing of the State of California, United States of America, individual plaintiffs, and the Law School Admission Council. A more productive approach would be to create an interactive student support process collaboratively among the multiple stakeholders on a campus.