I was working in disability law in 2008, and the pre-2008 law really was too narrow. IIRC, it essentially meant: if you could be accommodated, you weren’t disabled; if you couldn’t be accommodated, you could be discriminated against.
The problem isn’t that we expanded the definition of “disabled” - it’s that we got too loose on what counts as a “reasonable” accommodation.
Pre-2008, Little League could have legally banned eyeglasses because needing them wasn’t a disability. To most people, that’s absurd and defeats the purpose of the 1990 ADA. On the other hand, suing for an extra strike in baseball shouldn’t have been allowed under any version, because it fundamentally changes the game and isn’t reasonable. Similarly, extra time on tests isn’t truly reasonable as it materially alters what the test measures.
The issue arises from (a) courts being too willing to deem accommodations “reasonable” and (b) schools wanting to avoid the fights. As a result, people receive clearly unreasonable accommodations. This is especially problematic with testing time: it costs schools almost nothing, so they don’t resist, but it’s unfair to other students judged against those who get extra time.
It’s understandable that LSAC doesn’t want to spend more than its annual budget defending itself in discrimination lawsuits.
Maybe we need to fund expedited arbitration for such disputes. With a class action-type vehicle for entities receiving more than 20 reasonable accommodation requests a year, or something like that.
The cost of litigation is a problem in a lot of aspects of American life. However, it's kind of how our system is set up, so it causes problem, removing it can cause more problems.
There actually is a process for expediting these disputes - they generally have to go through the EEOC (or the state equivalent) first, and at least when I was dealing with them 15 years ago, they can be pretty reasonable. It's just that, if you don't like their decision, either side can go to court.
Depends on the circumstances, but the answer may be "nothing."
The thing a lot of these discussions miss is that being "disabled" isn't an on/off switch for whether you get an accommodation. It's supposed to be the first step in the process. If you are disabled (defined broadly), the next question is whether there is an effective modification or adjustment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job or enjoy equal benefits, and does not impose significant difficulty or expense or fundamentally disrupt the employer’s legitimate business operations or the goals of the education process. Poor eyesight may get you the right to wear your glasses or to sit somewhere with better lighting, but it doesn't get you a wheelchair ramp. And sometimes, there is no reasonable accommodation. A quadriplegic may be able to get a wheelchair ramp installed to get into the building, but they aren't going to get to be a firefighter.
The problem with unlimited time on tests isn't that people with ADHD/anxiety/depression aren't disabled, it's that it isn't reasonable to give them extra time while denying it to others, particularly in a situation where class rank matters, either implicitly or explicitly.
Well yeah.. colleges are the havens of bleeding heart liberals, are they not? If they want to cut themselves off at the knees(by turning out substandard professionals) i say let them. This will only make those that dont take the easy routes more valuable. That piece of paper is only good for so much, but people that know how to do something well, or get shit done right, are usually recognized and utilized. My point is, these shitty systems need to be allowed to fail.
"Anything that substantially harms the ability to engage in “sleeping,” “learning,” “reading,” “thinking,” or “working” counts!"
So smartphones give people disablities?! Lets sue the fucking phone companies! Ive seen phones/social media do this and much worse to countless people. If thats the definition of disabled then we've got a case!
Our culture has been taken over by those of different value systems where getting ahead no matter what is the rule. Cheating is fine as long as it results in achieving the goal. Honor is not important. Fairness is not important. Being a victim and being disabled are no longer stigmatized but lauded and come with advantages, so practical people take them.
It sucks. But the fix would take drastic painful almost impossible steps to take. So, I'm for burning it all down and starting over.
This has been going on for decades. In 1997 a parent told me how much his son had improved his scores by getting the extra time. ADD. I had a son the same age who did pretty well on his SATs but didn’t get 1600 like this other kid did. Extra time would benefit almost everyone and if it is going to be granted widely theSAT shouldn’t even be a timed test. GRR.
_"There’s a lesson here about moral panics. Recently, certain writers have asked why some people would “die on the hill” of saying Epstein is not a pedophile. But this is exactly how mass hysterias end up taking over society."_
I'd never really thought about it in this way before, as I mostly saw it as a personal and political interest, but one of the benefits of freedom of expression may be in stopping societal movements building up such momentum that society swings away too far from some reasonable baseline
I went to a private Jewish high school where basically everyone I knew had at least one doctor in their family, which meant getting "academic accomodations" for a "learning disability" was widespread. I would guess roughly 25-35% of my classmates got extra time on tests, some of whom were quite a bit smarter than I was and very clearly did not have any learning problems. One friend of mine would openly brag about gaming the system. Was extremely frustrating at the time and was obviously unfair to people who didn't get this fake disability status. Thank you for speaking up about this.
Has anyone tried arguing that having a low IQ or being bad at maths amounts to a disability, and thus they should be accommodated by being given an exam with easier questions and lower pass marks?
Regarding books that should be written about the ADA, back in 1992 Richard Epstein wrote Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws.
I don’t know, I think you’re overstating the impact of the ADA. It was designed by the Bush administration to be circumventable. First, it basically requires people with disabilities to sue in order for accommodations to first be established, which is a relatively substantial burden of time, effort, and money. Second, there are circumstances in which accommodations are denied: there’s a reason why, despite litigation, that NYC subways aren’t ADA compliant.
I think the examples you cite of ADA misuse reflect the issues with the litigation mechanism: PGA golfers and Ivy League parents are able to use the ADA to their advantage because they’re the ones who can afford it.
You say that the law might’ve been passed because of the halos lawmakers put on disability activists, but I think a lot of those activists would argue that the opposite was the case. Ultimately, the original ADA was a reluctant compromise for disability advocates, a way for the government to eschew responsibility for accommodations by making the implementation mechanism litigation against private businesses. Also, if I’m not mistaken, the ADA was paired with reductions in welfare spending, because the idea was that my making accommodations more prevalent, it would reduce the need for disabled people to depend on government subsidies and enable disabled individuals to obtain employment.
That's not how the law works. Institutions don't just sit around and wait for someone to sue them. They try to comply with the law as they understand it. If they're not complying, activists will sue to force change. The rules they create are broadly applicable, it's not the case that every single person has to sue for the law to be effective.
It's a controlled intersectional demolition of western civilization by the capture institutions. Satan is ultimately behind Marxism, feminism, and Postmodernity.
"Disabled" means different things in different contexts. Being "disabled" under the ADA very much does not get you SSDI benefits. If anything, the broad ADA standards make it harder to get SSDI, since to qualify for SSDI, your disability must result in an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity and the ADA makes it easier to get a job, even if you are disabled.
Not only are many households on welfare ("benefits" as they call it, or the dole) but there are whole housing tracts of families (loosely defined) who have no living memory of anyone of three generations ever being in work. Work ethic is just a completely foreign concept to them, like dark matter. Their only knowledge of work comes from watching TV shows where actors are depicting characters who appear to be at work as part of the storyboard or there might be a news item about some trouble in the Tube where strange creatures called "commuters" are being interviewed about their delay. "Blimy. E'm fookin' glad I dinna hae to be oot in tha' shit."
I was working in disability law in 2008, and the pre-2008 law really was too narrow. IIRC, it essentially meant: if you could be accommodated, you weren’t disabled; if you couldn’t be accommodated, you could be discriminated against.
The problem isn’t that we expanded the definition of “disabled” - it’s that we got too loose on what counts as a “reasonable” accommodation.
Pre-2008, Little League could have legally banned eyeglasses because needing them wasn’t a disability. To most people, that’s absurd and defeats the purpose of the 1990 ADA. On the other hand, suing for an extra strike in baseball shouldn’t have been allowed under any version, because it fundamentally changes the game and isn’t reasonable. Similarly, extra time on tests isn’t truly reasonable as it materially alters what the test measures.
The issue arises from (a) courts being too willing to deem accommodations “reasonable” and (b) schools wanting to avoid the fights. As a result, people receive clearly unreasonable accommodations. This is especially problematic with testing time: it costs schools almost nothing, so they don’t resist, but it’s unfair to other students judged against those who get extra time.
It’s understandable that LSAC doesn’t want to spend more than its annual budget defending itself in discrimination lawsuits.
Maybe we need to fund expedited arbitration for such disputes. With a class action-type vehicle for entities receiving more than 20 reasonable accommodation requests a year, or something like that.
The cost of litigation is a problem in a lot of aspects of American life. However, it's kind of how our system is set up, so it causes problem, removing it can cause more problems.
There actually is a process for expediting these disputes - they generally have to go through the EEOC (or the state equivalent) first, and at least when I was dealing with them 15 years ago, they can be pretty reasonable. It's just that, if you don't like their decision, either side can go to court.
What (if anything) would be a reasonable accommodation for a person with ADHD/anxiety/depression?
Depends on the circumstances, but the answer may be "nothing."
The thing a lot of these discussions miss is that being "disabled" isn't an on/off switch for whether you get an accommodation. It's supposed to be the first step in the process. If you are disabled (defined broadly), the next question is whether there is an effective modification or adjustment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job or enjoy equal benefits, and does not impose significant difficulty or expense or fundamentally disrupt the employer’s legitimate business operations or the goals of the education process. Poor eyesight may get you the right to wear your glasses or to sit somewhere with better lighting, but it doesn't get you a wheelchair ramp. And sometimes, there is no reasonable accommodation. A quadriplegic may be able to get a wheelchair ramp installed to get into the building, but they aren't going to get to be a firefighter.
The problem with unlimited time on tests isn't that people with ADHD/anxiety/depression aren't disabled, it's that it isn't reasonable to give them extra time while denying it to others, particularly in a situation where class rank matters, either implicitly or explicitly.
Well yeah.. colleges are the havens of bleeding heart liberals, are they not? If they want to cut themselves off at the knees(by turning out substandard professionals) i say let them. This will only make those that dont take the easy routes more valuable. That piece of paper is only good for so much, but people that know how to do something well, or get shit done right, are usually recognized and utilized. My point is, these shitty systems need to be allowed to fail.
"Anything that substantially harms the ability to engage in “sleeping,” “learning,” “reading,” “thinking,” or “working” counts!"
So smartphones give people disablities?! Lets sue the fucking phone companies! Ive seen phones/social media do this and much worse to countless people. If thats the definition of disabled then we've got a case!
Social media is cancer and in the future will absolutely be seen in the same way the lead in the pipes were.
I will join that lawsuit, brother!
Our culture has been taken over by those of different value systems where getting ahead no matter what is the rule. Cheating is fine as long as it results in achieving the goal. Honor is not important. Fairness is not important. Being a victim and being disabled are no longer stigmatized but lauded and come with advantages, so practical people take them.
It sucks. But the fix would take drastic painful almost impossible steps to take. So, I'm for burning it all down and starting over.
Yes, surely a system perfectly embracing your preferred ideology would rise from the ashes.
You can tell quite a bit from someone’s eagerness to see the world burn. That they don’t have much worth saving from the flames, for example. Sad!
It will burn itself down and fix itself. In fact id say we're witnessing that right now.
Learning things the hard way takes the most toll, but produces the best results(assuming those learning survive the hardships doing the teaching)
Just an excellent post. Learned a great deal from it. Thank you!
This has been going on for decades. In 1997 a parent told me how much his son had improved his scores by getting the extra time. ADD. I had a son the same age who did pretty well on his SATs but didn’t get 1600 like this other kid did. Extra time would benefit almost everyone and if it is going to be granted widely theSAT shouldn’t even be a timed test. GRR.
Reasonable accommodations have sullied standardized testing. But eliminating timed administration would destroy it beyond recognition.
_"There’s a lesson here about moral panics. Recently, certain writers have asked why some people would “die on the hill” of saying Epstein is not a pedophile. But this is exactly how mass hysterias end up taking over society."_
I'd never really thought about it in this way before, as I mostly saw it as a personal and political interest, but one of the benefits of freedom of expression may be in stopping societal movements building up such momentum that society swings away too far from some reasonable baseline
I went to a private Jewish high school where basically everyone I knew had at least one doctor in their family, which meant getting "academic accomodations" for a "learning disability" was widespread. I would guess roughly 25-35% of my classmates got extra time on tests, some of whom were quite a bit smarter than I was and very clearly did not have any learning problems. One friend of mine would openly brag about gaming the system. Was extremely frustrating at the time and was obviously unfair to people who didn't get this fake disability status. Thank you for speaking up about this.
Has anyone tried arguing that having a low IQ or being bad at maths amounts to a disability, and thus they should be accommodated by being given an exam with easier questions and lower pass marks?
Regarding books that should be written about the ADA, back in 1992 Richard Epstein wrote Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws.
Yet another Epstein for Hanania to go to bat for!
I don’t know, I think you’re overstating the impact of the ADA. It was designed by the Bush administration to be circumventable. First, it basically requires people with disabilities to sue in order for accommodations to first be established, which is a relatively substantial burden of time, effort, and money. Second, there are circumstances in which accommodations are denied: there’s a reason why, despite litigation, that NYC subways aren’t ADA compliant.
I think the examples you cite of ADA misuse reflect the issues with the litigation mechanism: PGA golfers and Ivy League parents are able to use the ADA to their advantage because they’re the ones who can afford it.
You say that the law might’ve been passed because of the halos lawmakers put on disability activists, but I think a lot of those activists would argue that the opposite was the case. Ultimately, the original ADA was a reluctant compromise for disability advocates, a way for the government to eschew responsibility for accommodations by making the implementation mechanism litigation against private businesses. Also, if I’m not mistaken, the ADA was paired with reductions in welfare spending, because the idea was that my making accommodations more prevalent, it would reduce the need for disabled people to depend on government subsidies and enable disabled individuals to obtain employment.
That's not how the law works. Institutions don't just sit around and wait for someone to sue them. They try to comply with the law as they understand it. If they're not complying, activists will sue to force change. The rules they create are broadly applicable, it's not the case that every single person has to sue for the law to be effective.
24% of Britons are registered disabled.
53% of households in the UK are on welfare.
It's a controlled intersectional demolition of western civilization by the capture institutions. Satan is ultimately behind Marxism, feminism, and Postmodernity.
"Disabled" means different things in different contexts. Being "disabled" under the ADA very much does not get you SSDI benefits. If anything, the broad ADA standards make it harder to get SSDI, since to qualify for SSDI, your disability must result in an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity and the ADA makes it easier to get a job, even if you are disabled.
Not only are many households on welfare ("benefits" as they call it, or the dole) but there are whole housing tracts of families (loosely defined) who have no living memory of anyone of three generations ever being in work. Work ethic is just a completely foreign concept to them, like dark matter. Their only knowledge of work comes from watching TV shows where actors are depicting characters who appear to be at work as part of the storyboard or there might be a news item about some trouble in the Tube where strange creatures called "commuters" are being interviewed about their delay. "Blimy. E'm fookin' glad I dinna hae to be oot in tha' shit."
They can't do delivery gigs cos foreigners are doing them. And perhaps they lack the cognitive capabilities to do office jobs. It's a growing issue.