Don't use "differently abled" in college: IHE article

[smallcleanrat]

Many people don't really think through the implications of the distinctions between a guideline, an ordinance, and a law nor do they then think about what enforcement entails or should entail in a given society.

Ok...that sentiment sounds quite different from "many people do want you to be forced at gunpoint, they just won't admit it" which is what you seemed to be saying in the earlier post you made in response to mine.

So if the ADA were not law, but individual institutions were allowed to set their own policies with similar rules is this essentially the same thing? Would this have to be accomplished somehow without a legal contract since that also brings government into it? Would a university saying "if you want to work here, you need to allow any accommodations approved by our disability office; if you don't you won't be working here anymore" pose the same problem of forcing conformity? Or is it different because theoretically, if it's institution-based, the employee can seek work somewhere with policies he does not object to?

What if it's a cultural norm, so that even if it's not government-mandated, it's extremely difficult to find an employer that doesn't require this of its employees? Tough luck? Or do there need to be further restrictions on what an employer can require of an employee?

I ask questions when someone says they as an individual should be the sole judge of whether an accommodation is reasonable or if a disability is real, because I wonder how they would handle these decisions. Would anyone feel more of a moral obligation to inquire beyond personal experience to form judgments that are better based on evidence? Or would most people not concern themselves and be content with whatever judgments they've already made? "Define legitimacy? It's whatever I say it is."

"I've encountered or heard about lots of people claiming what you're claiming and they were scammers; so I'll assume you're a scammer too. Denied. No, I'm not interested in looking at your phony doctor's note or anything else you think might change my mind. I have better things to do with my time."

I remember on the old fora someone was mocking a student's 'stupid excuse' to be suffering aftereffects of a concussion because the injury had occurred a month earlier and that poster had to be informed that effects of concussion can indeed last that long and even longer.

What recourse would a student have facing this kind of arbitrary judgment on the legitimacy of their impairment? Is it just working hard to be really, really persuasive?

[financeguy]

You've described one exact remedy which is definitely not force. Saying that I will not hire someone wishes to work in the nude is not forcing him to wear clothing. He can work turn down my job, stay home or go to an beach where his preferences are allowed. This may make it difficult for him to find a job at all when a large number of employers hold the same viewpoint but it is not force.

We're also conflating two issues here. You seem to be attempting to point out that my method (or anyone else's) for determining if someone's condition is legit is a flawed method where I am implying that it doesn't matter if it is flawed or not. Force is force no matter how logical my reasoning is. 

Stating that Susan is using "poor reasoning" because she says she wants a stable, educated, responsible potential co-parent to build a life and family with yet is dating a guy with a motorcycle, neck tattoo and criminal record is not the same as stating that she should be mandated to date the guy in the sweater  who goes into cubicle land daily and doesn't actually interest her at all. Of course Susan is not the state. I have no problem with state institutions adopting whatever policies provide accommodations for any number of issues. I do not wish the state to compel others to follow the wishes of a mob or special interest group but rather to make their own decisions related to their own businesses and properties.

[smallcleanrat]

We're also conflating two issues here. You seem to be attempting to point out that my method (or anyone else's) for determining if someone's condition is legit is a flawed method where I am implying that it doesn't matter if it is flawed or not. Force is force no matter how logical my reasoning is.

No, those weren't rhetorical questions. I wasn't saying because I see potential issues with the hypothetical system therefore it's the wrong system.

I'm trying to envision in further detail what this hypothetical system might look like. As in, imagine the problem of people being forced to provide accommodations is solved. Now it's voluntary. Cool.

Unfortunately, now many people with disabilities are experiencing increased difficulty accessing housing, education and employment. Without going back to forced accommodation, what, if anything, can be done to alleviate this? This was my question.

[financeguy]

I'm happy to answer that question but with a quick disclosure beforehand: The absence of a sufficiently easy, convenient or possible solution still does not mean that I wish force to be applied or that there is what I perceive to be a moral justification. This type of disclosure would not be needed if people who wanted to compel others ever said what they actually want rather than speaking in euphemisms such as "there's room for government" or "there's a compelling need for.." In any case there are a few things.

First off, someone who does not choose to accommodate someone pays a few different costs already. It's not a decision without trade offs. The first of these costs is loosing the business itself from the affected group. As one who has been in business in the past, it amazes me how lightly people perceive such as decision to turn down business is made. Next is the social blow back from overreach that would likely prevent most of these issues from getting anywhere outside of the theoretical. I imagine a material number of consumers would not want to patronize a company refusing an access ramp. On the other hand, I can't imagine anyone refraining from patronizing a business that won't let someone bring a therapy dog.

I'm not living in the fantasy land that assumes my preferences are ever in the realm of likelihood. We've obviously went the "all force all the time" direction as a society. My only influence is to point this out and ensure there is at least a minimal amount of cost paid for the absurd image of armed federal agents raiding a hair salon.

[polly_mer]

Would a university saying "if you want to work here, you need to allow any accommodations approved by our disability office; if you don't you won't be working here anymore" pose the same problem of forcing conformity? Or is it different because theoretically, if it's institution-based, the employee can seek work somewhere with policies he does not object to?

I didn't say I had a moral or ethical problem with enforcing conformity in general or even in specific using the threat of violence or even actual violence.  I have purposefully limited myself to pointing out that the penalty for non-compliance has to be high enough that people who don't want to follow the rules will choose to follow the rule instead of breaking the rule and taking the penalty as a user fee.

Are you really, truly, no-foolin' going to fire someone flat out for not following the accommodations on the very first offense?  When that policy is announced, everyone who understands the implications and can get another job will leave immediately.  Whether that's a problem depends on what percentage of the faculty leaves and how hard they are to replace.

Even if you are really, truly, no-foolin' going to fire someone flat out on the first offense, then how long with you stay that course when it starts being several faculty members every term and a lot of those people claim they didn't really understand the requirements?  If the practical result is that anyone who plausibly states, "oh, I didn't realize, but I sure will do it differently next time.  Thanks for correcting me!" gets several chances, then the behavior will not be extinguished for anyone who would rather be scolded than knuckle under.

What if it's a cultural norm, so that even if it's not government-mandated, it's extremely difficult to find an employer that doesn't require this of its employees? Tough luck? Or do there need to be further restrictions on what an employer can require of an employee?

I'll let someone else deal with the implications of the NRLB.

If an employer cannot find enough qualified employees willing to work under certain conditions, then that employer has a problem, regardless of any social norms imposed by other people.

How much a "social norm" is honored in the breech depends on whether all the employees at a company really care.  For example, even after the laws went into effect for smoking indoors, I know people who still regularly smoked in their offices (and in one spectacular case, the chemical stockroom).  No one was going to call those folks out for disobeying a rule when those folks were so valuable and hard to replace.  There was no way those folks were going to be fired and there was no penalty below firing that would matter.

Officially, my current workplace tolerates nothing like vulgar language, bullying, unwanted touching, or discrimination of any kind on the standard checkboxes.  Yet, swearing is a regular occurrence and I've been warned about how filing a formal complaint marks the complainer as not a team player, not the accused, nearly every time.

As another example, current social norms in the US may mean that "every" company has diversity expectations, but, in practice, those diversity expectations are not enforced in many places.  If anything, in some cases, a significant fraction of the employees make a game out of "conforming" because they don't care about the ostensible goal.  Even for their own physical safety, some people will pull "you can't tell me what to do" as more important than following the norms or even explicit rules.  Again, if the penalty isn't high enough that people are unwilling to pay it or people are unlikely to be catch frequently enough to matter, then humans are pretty good at getting around rules that are inconvenient to them.

After all, even with random drug testing at many places, people still drink and do drugs in their personal lives and insist that they won't get caught.