_________________________________________________
D A I S
A newsletter from Disability Access Information & Support
Providing information and technical assistance regarding
issues of disability in higher education
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May, 2000, Volume IV, No. 5
Jane E. Jarrow, Ph.D.
___________________________________________________
<<< CONTENTS >>>
1. A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR
2. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE??? Policies and Procedures Aren't Enough
3. ACCOMMODATIONS ARE A *MEANS*, NOT AN *END*
4. YOU'RE IN GOOD HANDS WITH..." Personnel Make a Difference, Too
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
<<< A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR >>>
There are lots of plans -- and lots of changes -- at DAIS these days.
The DAIS website is undergoing a dramatic change, to be unveiled at the AHEAD
conference in mid-July. Everything you have been able to find there in the
past will STILL be available, but a whole lot more will be available as well,
with a very different look. While DAIS undergoes these growing pains and
works to redefine its focus and redesign its image, it seemed appropriate to
devote this newsletter to promoting a little self-examination for DSS
providers/programs. It is time to think about your mission, your activities,
and your people. Perhaps the articles that follow will get you started!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
<<< MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE??? Policies and Procedures Aren't Enough >>>
Regular readers of this newsletter and/or of the DSSHE-L listserv have
seen me rant and rave often enough about the importance of having written
policies and procedures to guide the institutional response to students (and
others) with disabilities. Besides the benefit in providing consistency and
credibility to your interactions, written policies/procedures go a long way
toward demonstrating your good-faith efforts to comply with both the spirit
and the letter of the laws (504/ADA). You are not required, by law, to put
your policies/procedures in writing, but I believe that any institution that
operates without such documentation is an accident waiting to happen. In
fact, I often liken written policies/procedures to the seat belt law we have
here in Ohio. You cannot be stopped and cited for not wearing your seat belt
in the front seat of your car. But if you are stopped for any other reason
and you are not wearing your seat belt, you WILL be ticketed. The
postsecondary institution that is unable to produce written
policies/procedures on demand isn't in trouble until the reason(s) behind its
actions in a given circumstance are questioned -- and by then it's too late!
Why rehash all this now? Because I have lately come to realize that
policies and procedures -- important as they are -- are not enough. To carry
the automobile metaphor (above) just one step further, it doesn't matter
whether or not you have your seat belt on if the car isn't moving. The
direction in which you head your automobile (or your program!) is determined
by the mission you have undertaken as you slip behind the wheel. I am
beginning to think that too many DSS programs are spinning their wheels
without getting very far, in part because they have lost sight of the Finish
Line! (Can you tell this article was outlined as I watched the Indy 500?!)
I did a little exploring of DSS program websites in preparation for this
discussion. I found some (in my opinion) wonderfully articulated Mission
Statements, some that I felt were woefully inadequate, and MANY that were
nonexistent (that is, there was nothing I could find on the website that
suggested WHY that office existed).
My personal favorite? The McBurney Resource Center (UW-Madison) website states:
Mission
The McBurney Center’s mission is to assist in creating an accessible
university community where students with disabilities have an equal
opportunity to fully participate in all aspects of the educational
environment. We cooperate through partnerships with students, faculty, and
staff to promote students' independence and to ensure recognition of their
abilities, not disabilities.
Vision
Our vision is a university community where a disability is neutral; a
community where services are integrated throughout the university such that
only unique and uncommon accommodations and services are provided through the
McBurney Center. We envision a university where the enrollment of students
with disabilities is comparable to the occurrence of disability in the
general population.
My LEAST favorite example?
Our aim is to provide support services to students, faculty and staff which
encourage students with disabilities to become self-sufficient in managing
their own accommodations.
(NOTE: I picked this one because it comes from an institution that does NOT
subscribe to the DAIS newsletter, so I am not likely to embarrass anyone
reading this article. ;-) There were several others I looked at that had the
same inherent problems.)
What is the difference between the two statements? The first responds
to the SPIRIT of the law (capitals on purpose) and focuses on systemic
change. The latter is limited to serving individual students as the need
arises and suggests a continually reactive, rather than proactive, stance. I
submit that it is unlikely the Finish Line will come to you.
What difference does it make what your mission statement says? I would
suggest that how your policies and procedures are implemented is a direct
reflection of your mission statement. I recently have been advising someone
who, in order to receive full medical insurance coverage, was trying to move
the university to accept the idea of full-time status for someone who is
taking less than the typical full-time course load because of disability.
The institution in question has a mission statement that reads much like my
least favorite example (above). The response from the service provider was,
"We don't do that here. If your insurance company won't provide you coverage
it is a problem YOU will have to solve. Write 'em another letter." When and
if this student is able to resolve her insurance problems, the next student
who needs full-time status with a reduced load will be no better off. On the
other hand, at an institution with a Mission like that of McBurney, the
resolution for a single student would have led to a resolution for qualified
students to follow, because the response would be to change the system as
needed, rather than to solve the individual circumstance. From grievance
policies to course substitution policies, changing the system to be more
inclusive is very different than patching the system to meet the needs of
this individual student right now, this minute.
This is not to suggest that it isn't wholly appropriate to deal with
circumstances as they arise on a case-by-case basis. That is, and always has
been, the ONLY appropriate response to meeting the institutional mandate for
equal access under 504/ADA. But will that case-by-case response lead to
philosophical discussions about "who/what we are as a campus" or simply to
"what are we gonna do now, today?"
In remembrance of the 25th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, there has
been a great deal of coverage recently regarding the Vietnam War. Several
military strategists commented that, in many ways, it was impossible for the
US to win that conflict because the US had no focus -- no mission. We
weren't out to DO anything, we just didn't want the other side to do it! In
the end, inexorably, we were backed into a corner and had to concede the
battle.
I submit that the DSS office that has NO identified mission, or whose
stated purpose is simply to provide support services on demand, is in much
the same position. We are backing out allies but not actively seeking to
change anything -- and I am not sure we can ever win! I wonder, then, why
those DSS providers are so surprised when someone suggests "warning" a
potential roommate that their assigned roomie is a person with a disability,
or why 10 years after the passage of the ADA and more than 20 years after the
implementation of Section 504, we still find technical standards for a
nursing program that amount to "people in wheelchairs, don't bother to
apply," or the athletic coach who bypasses a gifted deaf athlete for a
scholarship because providing an interpreter is going to cost too much.
Resolving individual circumstances may establish an institutional
"de-militarized zone" in which we agree to an uneasy truce, but it doesn't
mean we won -- only that the powers-that-be have chosen not to fight about
that particular issue any more right now!
I have a sign over my desk which reads,
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there!!!"
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<<< ACCOMMODATIONS ARE A *MEANS*, NOT AN *END* >>>
FDR had it right all along, lo those many years ago. I was recently
reminded of an FDR quote regarding disability and what he hoped the future
would hold for individuals with disabilities:
"'We know that equality of individual ability has
never existed and never will, but we do insist that
equality of opportunity still must be sought."
In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act which largely
celebrated that vision and legislated its implementation. A decade has
passed and I sometimes wonder if, at least in the world of DSS, we haven't
lost that vision somewhere along the line. When (and WHY!?!) did we stop
fighting for equal opportunity and start focusing on the accommodation
process?
Neither Section 504 nor the ADA focus on providing accommodations to
persons with disabilities. Both statutes prohibit covered entities from
discriminating against people with disabilities on the basis of disability.
Neither law was drafted or intended to be an entitlement program (in which
one automatically receives certain benefits if he/she is a member of the
target class/population). We are not supposed to be providing accommodations
to someone because that individual has a disability, as defined by the law.
We are supposed to be providing protection from discrimination to people with
disabilities. If the only way to avoid discrimination is to provide
accommodation, then so be it. Accommodation is not the mandate of the law --
it is a RESPONSE to the mandate for nondiscrimination. Why is that so hard
to remember?
In the past month, I have reviewed Policy/Procedure statements for five
different institutions. All began with a statement that said (in effect),
"This institution understands its obligations under Section 504/ADA and is
committed to complying with those laws." So far so good. Four out of five
then said, "In recognition of these obligations, we will provide reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities (...and now we are going to tell
you how that will happen)." Only one of the schools stated, "In accordance
with Federal law, this institution is committed to assuring equal opportunity
in all programs and activities for persons with disabilities and will take
such steps as are necessary to achieve that goal." They didn't even MENTION
accommodation. They shouldn't have to. Accommodations are a means, not an
end, to fulfilling the promise of equal opportunity regardless of disability
(and in this case, the end justifies the means! GRIN).
A mission statement that focuses solely on the provision of services
falls short of providing the impetus for systemic change. In the same way,
the DSS office that focuses all of its time and attention on the
accommodation process is potentially unapproachable and, too often,
ineffective in helping students with disabilities to deal with incidences of
discriminatory treatment in campus life.
(As an aside, I think service providers who ARE arranging accommodations
would often have an easier time in discussions with faculty if they
concentrated on equal access instead of academic adjustment. Instead of
arguing whether a scribe is or is not an appropriate accommodation for the
blind student on a test, how about reminding the faculty member that the
obligation is to provide an equal opportunity to demonstrate mastery of the
material being tested. You believe this can best be done by providing a
scribe to work from dictation. If the faculty member can think of an
alternative method to arrive at the same goal -- equal access -- you are
certainly ready to consider it (smiling sweetly!). When the faculty member
CAN'T think of a better way, then in order to fulfill the institutional
mandate for equal access... you get the picture!)
Go back and look at your institution's documentation policy. If the
suggestion is made, or understood, that the (ONLY) reason a student would
identify himself/herself and provide documentation of disability status to
your office is to request/receive accommodation, then you need to think it
out again. If the only reason to make themselves known to you is to receive
accommodation, then by inference the only reason you exist is to PROVIDE
accommodation. That isn't enough -- and that isn't what was intended. The
paraplegic on a flat and accessible campus may have no need for
accommodation, but may be desperately in need of your protection in dealing
with that faculty advisor who believes that people in wheelchairs can't be
_____ and is kindly pushing him to change majors "for his own good." Do your
policies and procedures make it possible or likely that the student will
bring such behavior to your attention -- or have you defined yourself out of
the business confronting discriminatory treatment in favor of assuring
arrangements for accommodation??? Don't sell yourself, or your students,
short!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<<< YOU'RE IN GOOD HANDS WITH..." Personnel Make a Difference, Too >>>
Have you ever thought about how subtle this advertising slogan is?
"You're in good hands with Allstate."
Besides the immediate message -- Allstate insurance is good insurance to have
and will protect you well -- there is an underlying message that subtly
suggests much more. There is a message that while all insurance companies
offer protection, the PEOPLE of Allstate insurance (those "hands") offer
something special and make their handling of your insurance needs very
different than what others will offer you. If it is true in insurance, then
why wouldn't it be true in DSS work as well???
It is. People make a difference. The personnel who are hired to work
in a given DSS program will have a dramatic impact on how any policies and
procedures play out. Above, we discussed the impact of mission on program
implementation. Now let's talk about personality.
In a recent conversation with a colleague, he mused that he had seen two
different LD specialists in his program apply exactly the same documentation
guidelines to the same student documentation and give vastly different
readings on what accommodations were needed by the student. What makes the
difference? The orientation of the decision-maker.
I have seen very knowledgeable LD service providers who will diligently
read and carefully act upon information that helps to define needed
accommodations for an LD student -- and then turn around a give away the farm
(accommodations-wise) to the student with a psychological disability because
the psychiatrist's report SAID the student should get these things and the
service provider either doesn't know what to ask, or doesn't feel it is
his/her place to question the DOCTOR. I have seen individuals who approach
all of life more hesitatingly who will subjugate their own judgement to the
statements of outside professionals because they are not comfortable with
testing their judgement against someone else's, and they are not good at
confrontation (as in, the confrontation that will come from saying "no" to a student whose diagnostician said "yes!").
We often read queries on the listserv from someone who is new to their position and looking for affirmation for actions they believe to be necessary that are a departure from the way their predecessor handled things. These posts generally start with something along the lines of, "The person who was here before provided…," or "The person who has been in this position had a policy…" It is not uncommon for the rest of us to agree with the new person that change is necessary and appropriate. But I wonder how often the difference between the former person/policy and the new provider's insight into appropriate action is more a different in CONFIDENCE than a difference in COMPETENCE -- with a little difference "mission" thrown in!
Many years ago, at a large state institution, services were in place (had been for some time) for students who were blind, deaf, or in a wheelchair. But suddenly, all these students with learning disabilities started showing up on campus. The services they needed were outside the experience of the existing DSS program and the students didn't fit the mold of "students with disabilities" on that campus. So they were largely ignored. Someone from the Counseling Center said, "SOMEONE has to do something for these kids!" So she did. She developed an LD service program that ran outside the auspices of the DSS program -- and with a very different mission. The DSS program was focused on providing equal access. The LD program focused on "helping these kids." The Director of DSS came from a disability rights/access background. The Director of the LD program came from "the helping professions." You'd better believe that their approach to students with disabilities, their level of support, and the kind of services provided were VERY different.
Do personnel shape the mission of the program, or is it the other way around? I think the mission of the program should direct its activities -- but I think a bad fit of personnel to the mission can undermine that intent. While such personality inventories as the Myers-Briggs are seen as "trendy" and "touchy-feely" by some, they can provide some interesting insight into how well your staff (if you have any!) are prepared to work together in the accomplishment of your mission -- or how well you, as a service provider, match the mission of your program. You didn't have anything else to do with your time this summer, did you? Why not check it out!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(End newsletter)
