College Students and Disability Law
248
College Students and Disability Law
Stephen B. Thomas, Kent State University
This article briefly reviews Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and identifies the criteria that are used to determine whether a student is both "disabled" and "qualified." Then,
specific areas of admission, accommodation, and dismissal are examined. Finally, guidelines are presented that may be used by professors and administrators in their efforts to provide qualified students
with disabilities with nondiscriminatory access to higher education.
Today, there are more students with documented disabilities
in higher education than ever before-140,142 freshmen reported having a disability in 1996 (HEATH Resource Center,
1998). That figure represents over 9% of all freshmen (HEATH
Resource Center, 1998), as compared with only 2.6% in 1978
(HEATH Resource Center, 1995). Although the process has
been slow,
colleges
and universities
(hereafter referred to
as
&dquo;colleges&dquo;) have made their programs more and more accessible, sometimes in good faith, sometimes due to coercion by
federal agencies and courts. Only modest progress was made
between 1973 (the passage of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) and 1990 (the passage of the Americans with
Disabilities Act; ADA); however, once the ADA was passed
and amended and regulations were promulgated, institutions
that had made little or no progress in making their buildings
and programs accessible increased their efforts. Presumably,
this increase in part is because of the slightly broader coverage of the ADA, publicity surrounding the passage of the
ADA, an increase in the number of administrative appeals and
lawsuits, and growth in the number of students requesting accommodation. The greater demand for accommodation can be
attributed primarily to the fact that many current college students received either an Individualized Education Program
(IEP; as is required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990; IDEA) or a service plan (as is required by
Section 504) while in elementary and secondary schools, and
have become increasingly aware of their rights to accommodation while in higher education.
Of particular significance in recent years has been the
growth in the number of students with learning disabilities.
Over 35% of the freshmen in 1996 who reported having a disability were purported to have a learning disability-an increase from 24.9% in 1991 (HEATH Resource Center, 1998).
The growth in the number of students with learning disabilities has created a new challenge to professors and colleges.
Over the years, there has been considerable resistance by proAddress:
fessors to alter the way they instruct, particularly if such alteration were to accommodate a student with a mental, as
compared to a physical, disability. Many professors prefer that
all students meet the same set of requirements, within the
same time period (see, e.g., Morse v University of Vermont, 1992),
and in the same way, and are ill-prepared either to adapt their
instruction to address the individual needs of students or to
identify appropriate, fair, and reasonable accommodations.
This situation is ameliorated somewhat by the assistance
provided by administrative units such as Student Disability
Services (SDS). This and similar units are responsible for reviewing documentation provided by students and for making
a determination as to eligibility status and appropriate accommodations and adjustments, if any. However, such units
often are inadequately funded, given the growth in the number of students requesting accommodation, and seldom have
experts on staff who are knowledgeable about the wide range
of disabilities that colleges are now attempting to accommodate.
Organizationally, this article briefly reviews Section 504
and the ADA and identifies the criteria that are used to determine whether a student is &dquo;disabled.&dquo; Then, specific areas of
admission, accommodation, and dismissal are examined.
Finally, guidelines are presented that may be used by professors and administrators in their efforts to provide qualified
students with disabilities with nondiscriminatory access to
higher education.
Legal Protection for College Students
with Disabilities
Prior to
1973, the only federal law that provided extensive
for persons with disabilities was the Fourteenth
Amendment. That law requires states to provide for the equal
protection of persons within their respective jurisdictions and
protection
Stephen B. Thomas, 455 Dansel St., Kent, OH 44240
(e-mail: sthomas@emerald.educ.kent.edu)
249
give due process any time state action could adversely affect life, liberty, or property. In addition, federal law 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 (Civil Action for the Deprivation of Rights) permits a plaintiff to receive a jury trial and to be awarded damages where state action is responsible for a violation of federal
constitutional or statutory rights (see Thomas & Russo, 1995,
pp. 10-15). However, these laws failed to provide persons
with disabilities with specific protection, as had already been
done for persons claiming race, gender, and many other forms
of discrimination. In response to this apparent void, Congress
enacted two statutes (i.e., the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA)
to provide additional protection and to extend coverage into
the private sector.
to
Section 504
Act of 1973
of the Rehabilitation
Section 504
stipulates that no otherwise qualified person due
disability may be denied the participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (29
U.S.C. ¡ì 794(a)). Note that this statute applies only to public
and private &dquo;recipients&dquo; of federal aid (see Table 1). However,
nearly all public and most private colleges are recipients.
Moreover, if aid is received anywhere within a college, the
entire institution is required to comply with the act¡¯s provito
sions. To demonstrate compliance, a college must file an assurance of compliance (i.e., a document attesting to the fact
that the institution does not discriminate based on disability),
provide notice to participants that the recipient¡¯s program does
not discriminate based on disability, identify a specific employee to coordinate compliance, conduct a self-evaluation,
engage in voluntary action to correct those circumstances that
may have limited the participation of students with disabilities, adopt grievance procedures, and remediate violations
of the act (McCarthy, Cambron-McCabe, & Thomas, 1998,
TABLE 1.
Note.
ADA
=
p. 168). The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for
much of the enforcement of Section 504 in educational institutions.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
In addition to Section 504, Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities (e.g., state government, public schools, public colleges) from denying qualified persons with disabilities the
right to participate in or benefit from the services, programs,
or activities that they provide, and from subjecting such individuals to discrimination if the exclusion or discrimination is
due to the person having a disability (42 U.S.C. ¡ì 12132). The
OCR also is responsible for the enforcement of Title II of
ADA.
Title III of the act further prohibits entities that operate
places of public accommodation from discriminating against
persons with disabilities by denying them full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advan-
tages, or accommodations they provide (42 U.S.C. ¡ì 12182(a)).
Discrimination, harassment, constructive dismissal (i.e., forc-
ing a student to withdraw),
and retaliation (i.e., adverse treatdirected toward a student for having filed a complaint
with the OCR, Department of Justice [DOJ], or the courts)
claims are feasible under the ADA, as well as Section 504
(see, e.g., &dquo;Doe&dquo; v Marshall, 1995; Kapiolani Community
College, 1997; Ostrach u Regents of University of California,
1997; Rothman u Emory University, 1997; Wood v President
and Trustees of Spring Hill College, 1992). Private colleges
(including nonrecipient institutions) operate places of public
accommodation and must, therefore, comply with Title III.
The DOJ is responsible for the enforcement of Title III.
The aforementioned section provided brief discussions
of Section 504 and the ADA. Due to these laws, all public and
private colleges are required to demonstrate compliance with
applicable federal mandates. Where violations of either Secment
Applicability of Selected Federal Laws Related to Disability
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
Recipient recipient of federal financial assistance.
=
250
tion 504 or the ADA are claimed, the plaintiff first must show
that he or she is disabled, as that term is defined under federal statute, and is qualified.
Qualifying as a Person with a Disability
A person with
disability is anyone who has a physical (e.g.,
quadriplegia) mental (e.g., anxiety disorder) impairment
that substantially limits one or more major life activities (e.g.,
learning), has a record of such an impairment (e.g., a record
of having a specific learning disability), or is regarded as having such an impairment (e.g., a student who is denied admission to medical school because he is HIV positive; see also
34 C.F.R. ¡ì 104.3). With respect to postsecondary education,
a qualified student with a disability is one who is able to meet
a program¡¯s admission, academic, and technical standards
a
or
able
training&dquo; approach, the court found that although the
plaintiff read at approximately the same level as an average
person, her reading skills were below that of a typical law or
even college student. Accordingly, the court held that she was
otherwise qualified and had been discriminated against due to
disability; the court then required the board to accommodate
her in her effort to retake the examination and to provide reimbursement for prior test taking when accommodations were
not provided.
Another federal district court employed a third option
that is similar to the second when it concluded that the plaintiff in its case (i.e., a football player who had been declared
academically ineligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics) should have his ability to learn compared to the average
unimpaired student (Bowers u NCAA, 1998, p. 475). To this
court, the term population meant &dquo;student population&dquo; in this
context as compared to &dquo;general population.&dquo;
In contrast, another federal district court used
(i.e., all essential nonacademic admissions criteria) either with
without accommodation.
For a person to qualify as disabled, the disability must
&dquo;substantially limit&dquo; a major life activity. Clearly, &dquo;substantial&dquo; connotes something more than trivial or minor, but federal courts have disagreed beyond that point. At least four
options exist as evidenced by recent case law: &dquo;in comparison to most people in the general population&dquo;; &dquo;in comparison to the average person having comparable training, skills,
and abilities&dquo;; &dquo;in comparison to the average unimpaired student&dquo; ; and &dquo;the disparity between inherent capacity and performance.&dquo; The first of these options was discussed in Price
v National Board of Medical Examiners ( 1997), where three
medical school students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder failed to qualify as disabled because their individual
abilities, notwithstanding their disabilities, still exceeded
those of most people in the general population. Comparisons
between actual and potential performance were insufficient
alone, while comparisons of the plaintiffs¡¯ respective performance levels to those of other medical school students were
unnecessary. Federal regulations for the ADA support the
&dquo;general population&dquo; approach and state that a person is substantially limited when his or her life activities are &dquo;restricted
as to the conditions, manner, or duration under which they
can be performed in comparison to most people&dquo; (emphasis
added) (28 C.F.R. App. B to Part 36).
A second approach was used by the district court in Bartlett u New York State Board of Law Examiners ( 1997), when
an applicant was denied accommodation to take a state bar
examination. After considering the &dquo;average person&dquo; benchmark, the court selected the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission standard for working (as compared to the life
activity of learning) in which &dquo;substantially limits&dquo; was defined as occurring when a person is &dquo;significantly restricted in
the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of
jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities&dquo; (emphasis added)
(29 C.F.R. ¡ì 1630.2(j)(3)(i)). Consistent with this &dquo;comparor
a
fourth
option when it proposed that in some instances a disparity between inherent capacity and performance permits the inference that the individual has a learning disability, even though
such an individual¡¯s performance may meet or exceed that of
the ordinary person (Pazer v New York State Board of Law
Examiners, 1994). However, the court did recognize that each
had to be assessed on its merits and that every low
achiever would not necessarily qualify as disabled (see, e.g.,
Tatum u NCAA, 1998, where another court held that a student¡¯s poor performance was due to a lack of motivation, preparation, and effort, rather than disability).
Given these inconsistent interpretations by lower courts,
it is important that Congress or appellate courts resolve the
threshold standard for &dquo;substantially limits.&dquo; Presumably, if
testing agencies and colleges ultimately are held to the standard for &dquo;working,&dquo; given that both degrees and licensure are
required for employment, the demand for accommodation
could increase significantly. Nonetheless, once it is determined that a plaintiff is impaired and that such impairment
substantially limits a major life activity, it then is necessary
to ascertain whether the plaintiff also is &dquo;otherwise qualified.&dquo;
case
Otherwise
Qualified
Actually, only Section 504 employs the term &dquo;otherwise
qualified&dquo; (29 U.S.C. ¡ì 794(a)); the ADA specifies only that
the person with a disability be &dquo;qualified&dquo; (42 U.S.C. ¡ì
12112). However, for all practical purposes, the terms are
equivalent-that is, the person must be able to meet the essential eligibility requirements of a program, with or without
reasonable accommodation, in spite of the restrictions imposed by the disability. In a related case, the Supreme Court
reviewed an appeal by an applicant who was denied admission to a nursing program solely due to a serious hearing
disability (Southeastern Community College u Davis, 1979).
After exploring possible options, college officials determined
251
that there existed no reasonable accommodation that would
allow the plaintiff to safely participate in or receive the benefits of the nursing program given her dependence on lip reading. She had requested that she not be required to take clinical
courses and that a full-time supervisor be assigned to her.
Accordingly, her participation would have required major program modifications and the lowering of standards. In ruling
for the college, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was
not otherwise qualified and that legitimate physical requirements at times may be necessary (see also County of Los
Angeles u Kling, 1985). Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 504 did not require affirmative action, but conceded that
the distinction between accommodation and affirmative action might not always be clear.
In 1985, the Court provided additional direction when it
proposed that reasonable accommodation would allow a qualified person with a disability to have meaningful access to
a program or activity but would not require &dquo;substantial&dquo;
changes, adjustments, or modifications to an existing program,
or &dquo;fundamental&dquo; alterations in the nature of the program,
with the latter representing affirmative action (Alexander v.
Choate, 1985). With this less-than-efficacious guidance, however, it is not surprising that courts and colleges continue to
struggle in their efforts to identify reasonable accommodations and procedures that will allow for nondiscriminatory admissions and participation.
Admission
This section includes a discussion of preadmission activities,
the process used for making admissions decisions, judicial
deference that typically is given by courts, and the use of probationary admission practices. Case examples are provided
for each.
Preadmission Activities
activities include the completion of
of
the
forms,
payment fees, interviews, and testing. The apmust
be completed honestly and accurately and subplication
mitted prior to deadline. However, with few exceptions (e.g.,
efforts to correct past discrimination or voluntary action to
overcome prior limited participation of students with disabilities ; 34 C.F.R. ¡ì 104.42(c)), colleges may not make preadmission inquiries as to whether an applicant has a disability,
although postadmission inquiries may be made on a confidential basis when the disability may require accommodation
(34 C.F.R. ¡ì 104.42(b)). Also, colleges may not use a test,
first-year grades, or other criteria that have a disproportionate adverse effect on students with disabilities, unless the criteria have been validated as predictors of success in the
program and alternate measures of admission with less disparate impact are not available. Importantly, the burden of
showing that an appropriate alternative is available rests with
Typically, preadmission
the assistant secretary of education. Nonetheless, those tests
that are used must accurately reflect the applicant¡¯s aptitude
or achievement level (or whatever other factor the test purports to measure), rather than the applicant¡¯s impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (34 C.F.R. ¡ì 104.44(c); see
also University of Minnesota, 1995). And, admissions tests
that are designed to accommodate persons with disabilities
must be offered as often as are other admissions tests and
be made available in facilities that are accessible (34 C.F.R.
¡ì 104.42(b)(3)).
Testing accommodations may include provisions such as
large print, Braille, additional time, oral instruction, or readTwo caveats, however: Students without disabilities need
accommodated; testing services need not provide an
accommodation to a student with a disability that would &dquo;advantage&dquo; the applicant rather than simply &dquo;accommodate&dquo; his
or her disability. For example, one court has ruled that to reers.
not be
quire testing boards to grant accommodations without proof
of qualifying disabilities would allow persons to advance to
professional positions through the &dquo;proverbial back door&dquo;
(Price u National Board of Medical Examiners, 1997, p. 422).
Where appropriate and needed accommodations are
provided by testing groups (e.g., National Testing Service), it
is common that college officials are alerted (e.g., with the
placement of an asterisk by the score) to the fact that the test
was not taken under standard conditions. When an application includes a nonstandardized score, it becomes even more
important for admissions officers to thoroughly scrutinize the
candidate¡¯s file. Although the accommodated score is not necessarily comparable to an unaccommodated score, it does
provide an additional piece of information that can be used
to determine whether a student is qualified. Thus, officials
should not devalue or fail to consider the score.
In 1995, the Seventh Circuit had a case in which a law
school applicant had been denied admission based in part on
his low GPA and LSAT score (Mallett v Marquette University,
1995; see also University of Michigan, 1991 ). The examination
was nonstandard because of accommodations that were provided by the testing service. The testing service had even suggested that the test results be interpreted with great sensitivity
and that additional criteria be used. In compliance with these
recommendations, the law school admissions committee considered the score, but also gave careful attention to plaintiff¡¯s
entire file, including life experiences and background.
Following a careful review, the committee concluded that the
applicant was not qualified for admission. The plaintiff then
sued, claiming a violation of Section 504. The lower court
granted summary judgment (i.e., disposition of a controversy
without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over factual
issues) for the university; that decision was upheld on appeal.
Making the Admission Decision
Once all data are in and the admission file has been completed,
officials then attempt to determine which candidates are qual-
252
ified for admission and, in selective programs, which are comparatively better qualified. Generally, the same procedures
(e.g., grade-point average, scores on standardized and locally
administered tests, evaluation of writing samples, letters of
reference, performance during an oral interview, extracurricular activities, work and life experiences) may be used during the processing of admissions for students with and without
disabilities (Baker u Board of Regents of Kansas, 1993; Department of Justice Opinion Letter, 1996). But, admission procedures should not be designed to arbitrarily deny (e.g., to
accept evaluations performed only by MDs or PhDs when
those by persons with lesser degrees would be satisfactory) or
unnecessarily delay the admission of students with disabilities (e.g., a requirement for excessive or redundant documentation ; Guckenberger u Boston University, 1997). Moreover,
after college officials have made agreements with students as
to the requirements for admission or readmission, such agreement should be adhered to (Agron v Trustees of Columbia
University, 1993).
Although admission to many undergraduate programs is
by a single person on the basis of paper credentials, most graduate and professional programs use multiple
criteria and involve multiple people in the process. Many
determined
programs now use their own variation of a holistic model in
an effort to assess the qualities and abilities that each individual candidate could bring to the program. Although timeconsuming, such a process provides faculty and admissions
officials with comprehensive information on which to base
life-changing decisions. However, even where holistic models are not employed, most admissions officials still use multiple criteria and attempt to identify those candidates who are
best qualified from among the pool of applicants. Although a
difficult task, faculty generally undertake the process in good
faith and their decisions have typically received deference by
the courts (Southeasten Community College v. Davis, 1979).
Deference by the Courts
Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court acknowledged that academic freedom includes the right to decide who may teach,
what is taught, how to teach, and who may be admitted to
study (Sweezy u New Hampshire, 1957, p. 263). Accordingly,
unless a related decision is arbitrary or discriminatory, lower
courts have been directed to give deference to the judgment
of educators. In a due process Fourteenth Amendment context, the Supreme Court declared that academic decisions require even less stringent procedural requirements than do
decisions based on discipline (Board of Curators of University
of Missouri u Horowitz, 1978; see also Jansen u Emory University, 1977; Lewin u Medical College of Hampton Roads,
1996). The High Court in Regents of University of Michigan
u Ewing (1985) argued that
_
when judges
a
genuinely
are asked to review the substance of
academic decision, ... they should
show great respect for the faculty¡¯s professional
judgment. Plainly, they may not override it unless
it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or
committee responsible did not actually exercise
professional judgment. (at 225)
Many lower courts have applied this reasoning when reviewing disability discrimination cases (see, e.g., Betts u Rector
and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 1997; Doherty v.
Southern College of Optometry, 1989). In Doe u New York
University (1981), the Second Circuit proposed that
are particularly ill-equipped to evaluate academic performance ... For this reason, although
the Act requires us rather than the institution to
make the final determination of whether a handicapped individual is otherwise qualified, ... considerable judicial deference must be paid to the
evaluation made by the institution itself, absent
proof that its standards and its application of them
serve no purpose other than to deny an education
to handicapped persons. (at 776; see also Wynne v.
Tufts University School of Medicine, 1991, p. 25;
but see University of California Santa Cruz, 1993)
courts
In Doe, a former student with psychiatric and mental disorders (i.e., personality disorder, self-destructive acts, antisocial behavior) was denied readmission to a medical school
(see also Gent v Radford University, 1997). She had a lengthy
record of self-abuse, suicide attempts, and attacks on others.
In upholding the university¡¯s decision not to readmit, the court
reasoned that even if the risk of recurrence of her prior behaviors was only minimal, the university may legitimately
consider that fact in determining whether the plaintiff was
more or less qualified than were other applicants (see also Anderson u University of Wisconsin, 1988; Gill u Franklin Pierce
Law Center, 1995).
Professional judgment apparently was not exercised,
however, in a Tenth Circuit case where a previously denied
student with multiple sclerosis was found to be otherwise qualified for admission to a psychiatric residency program (Pushkin u Regents of the University of Colorado, 1981; see also
Carlin u Trustees of Boston University, 1995). When viewed
in the aggregate, the testimony and written records supported
the position that the plaintiff was denied admission based on
&dquo;assumptions of inability&dquo; and &dquo;assumed disabilities.&dquo; One of
the faculty involved in the admissions decision proposed that
although the plaintiff was teachable, face-to-face interaction
would stir feelings of guilt, pity, and rage in his clients and
that such a working environment would be too much to ask
of them or of him. Other faculty viewed him as angry, emotionally upset, of questionable health, and of less overall quality as compared to most doctors interviewed for the program.
Despite the virtual consensus of university officials as to the
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- college students and disability law
- legal rights of students with disabilities in post
- legal rights of students with disabilities under
- using collaboration to enhance services for college
- the rights of college students with disabilities
- differences between high school and college
- fact sheet the rights of college students with disabilities
- table of contents
- college students with disabilities desk reference guide
- 75 teaching students with disabilities at the college
Related searches
- grants for college students with low inco
- grants for college students with low income
- grants for college students 2019
- words college students should know
- should college students work
- college students with disabilities articles
- scholarships for college students 2019
- grammar for college students worksheets
- why college students should work
- why do college students work
- college students qualities
- college students with disabilities rights