AddaptAbilities » justice

20th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Addy — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:13:30 +0000

The Americans with Disabilities Act turns 20 today!

Thanks to the ADA, Americans with disabilities enjoy better access to buildings, transportation, telecommunication, employment, and education. It paved the way for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which enabled me to graduate from college. There’s still a long way to go before we as a society achieve the four goals of the ADA – equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency — but it’s clear we’ve come a long way.

I’d like to point out, however, that the improved access that has resulted from the ADA doesn’t only benefit “disabled” people. Curb cuts are just one example of this. Curb cuts, those gently sloped cut-aways between the sidewalk and the street, are required by the ADA to enable wheelchair users to easily cross the street like the rest of us do.

The thing is, wheelchair users are not the only people who use curb cuts. Have you ever crossed the street with a piece of wheeled luggage? With a stroller? How about on a bike or a skateboard?

If the answer to any of those questions is “yes”, then your life has been made just a little bit easier by the ADA.

In honor of the 20th anniversary of the ADA, Representative Jim Langevin of Rhode Island is presiding over Congress today. Langevin is the first quadriplegic to be elected to Congress.

For a discussion of what we’ve accomplished with the ADA so far, and what remains to be done, check out this online discussion at the Washington Post, where Andrew J. Imparato of the American Association for People with Disabilities fields questions about the ADA’s history and its future.

Learning-Disabled Student Sues Princeton Over Disability Accommodations

Addy — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:55:58 +0000

Princeton freshman Diane Metcalf-Leggette is suing the University for their refusal to accommodate her learning disabilities by granting her extra time to take exams. The student suffers from several learning disabilities that effect her visual and language processing ability, requiring her to check and re-check her work several times while she’s writing. Metcalf-Leggette was told in a meeting with school officials that

independent study and deadlines are a major part of the school’s instructional program, and the school did not need to offer extra exam time if doing so would harm the “essence” of a Princeton education.

The thing I don’t understand about this is that the plaintiff’s brother, also learning-disabled, received extra time on exams while he was at Princeton (he graduated in 2008). Moreover, “extra time on exams” is a time-honored classic of LD accommodations. I received 100% extra time on college exams as an accommodation for dysgraphia and ADD (I was also able to negotiate extensions for deadlines on papers with my professors, an accommodation without which I simply would never have graduated). Metcalfe-Leggett herself received 100% extra time not only at her private high school, but also when taking the SAT; for her ACT test she received 200% extra time.

As Metcalfe-Leggett’s lawyer points out, the literature is pretty clear that extra time cannot be considered an unfair advantage; when non-disabled students are given extra time, they perform no better than when given time limits. I can further attest that extra time is also of no help to a learning-disabled student who is not prepared for the exam in question. If you’re not prepared, all the time in the world won’t make you know the material.

So why is Princeton suddenly pulling the rug out from under its LD students? How can extra exam time possibly harm the “essence” of a Princeton education?

Metcalfe-Leggett was unsuccessful in having her case heard before midterms, so she will have to take those exams with only partial accommodations. Her case will be heard a week before finals. I wish her luck.

Roman Polanski and the Special Hell

Addy — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:07:14 +0000

That’s a much more polite headline than the original one, believe you me. For those of you who haven’t heard, Roman Polanksi was arrested in Zurich over the weekend on 30 year old charges of drugging and raping a thirteen year old while in California. He pled guilty to statutory rape, but fled the country before sentencing could take place.

For some reason, he’s got all kinds of people in and out of the film industry rallying to his support. Because he’s 76 years old. Because he’s a Great Director. Because he Has A Family.

Why am I writing about this on a disability blog? For a couple of reasons. The first is that people with disabilities are often vulnerable to sexual assault. The second is that people with disabilities can be at an institutional disadvantage when demanding accountability of those who have harmed us. The third is that, as someone who was ridiculed and punished for my disabilities (which were not my fault!), the ridicule and punishment faced by rape survivors (rape is not their fault!) hits pretty close to home.

The feminist blogosphere is involved in a passionate discussion right now about whether it’s appropriate to prosecute Polanski against his victim’s wishes — she’s forgiven him, she says, and wants to get on with her life. A media circus would certainly interfere with that. Legally, of course, what the victim wants is irrelevant (that’s food for a whole other discussion right there), and in this case, it’s particularly irrelevant, because charges have already been brought, and Polanski has pled guilty. The issues are that he fled the country, thus avoiding the sentencing hearing and breaking a few more laws in the process.

As for Polanski’s defenders, they are forgetting, or refusing to admit to themselves, the single most important fact in this case: Roman Polanski raped a child. Kate Harding at Broadsheet says it better than I ever could.