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

[Hibush]

Like namazu, I don't personally remember ever seeing "differently abled" in common use. "Disability" or "disabled" I see used often.

My admittedly fuzzy recollection is that it was something I heard used fairly often in a well-meaning way around the 1990s (though this may well not have come from anyone in the actual community) but that subsequently, the balance tipped heavily in favor of ironic or snide usage.

I think "special" had the same fate about the same time.

[writingprof]

It is also my understanding that "differently abled" is no longer a generally preferred term in that community.

There is no community.  And the handicapped are not a political monolith.  Rather, able-bodied leftists and an infinitesimal minority of the handicapped occasionally join forces on Twitter to create a new shibboleth.  Eventually too many people learn it, and the process has to start again.

Negro -> African American -> black -> person of color -> Black

Crippled -> disabled -> handicapped -> differently abled -> handicapable

It's all bullshit.

[phi-rabbit]

It is also my understanding that "differently abled" is no longer a generally preferred term in that community.

There is no community.  And the handicapped are not a political monolith. 

I never intended to claim the existence of any political monolith, and I'm sorry if it read that way.  I said "generally" since I wanted to flag that it is a generalization that admits exceptions.

[financeguy]

I don't have the answer to every single condition's legitimacy on a scale of severity. I'm just aware that the times I've needed to deal with people needing to use the disability office have been nonsense.

My experience also includes a brief tangential involvement in property management. Try having a building that is dog free, a feature some tenants would prefer. This is simply not possible when everyone who wants one knows they can skirt the system by getting a "therapy dog." Yes, I absolutely do believe a therapy dog, moose, iguana or whatever else someone claims to need is nonsense and infringing on the wishes of the other 30 people on a buss or plan, in an apartment building or deli or any other circumstance that don't want to deal with this.

I am also in a state that has an insane level of ADA complaints to shake down business owners. Since many of these are settled with a demand letter prior to filing of court docs, you never hear how frequent it is. EVERY person I know who has a brick and mortar business rather than virtual one is the target of this crap. Apparently you don't even need a physical space since many are now attacking those with websites that aren't accessible to various speech tools. These guys ask for a few thousand, just enough to be a major expense but not enough to fight it.

[Hibush]

I am also in a state that has an insane level of ADA complaints to shake down business owners. Since many of these are settled with a demand letter prior to filing of court docs, you never hear how frequent it is.

This shakedown is happening with websites as well. But those shakedowns are being done by people in the shakedown business, using a nominal disabled person as the justification. It is not fair to blame disabled people for being exploited by that industry.

The shakedowns are bad for the disabled. First for generating the animus described here. And generating skepticism about disabilities in general. Further, the financial settlements do absolutely nothing to increase access. It sometimes results in reduced access for everyone, when the resource is simply removed rather than made accessible. If accessibility is expensive to provide, the legal settlement may use the money that would otherwise have been used for accessibility.

[smallcleanrat]

I don't have the answer to every single condition's legitimacy on a scale of severity. I'm just aware that the times I've needed to deal with people needing to use the disability office have been nonsense.

If you can judge something as nonsense, you must be using some set of criteria for "legitimacy." It's not at all clear to me what criteria you are using. Do you have an opinion on some of the examples I mentioned?

Also...you've never once, in your entire career, had a student requesting accommodations for a legitimate reason? How did you even judge this? Or was it more that the student(s) may have had a legitimate reason to request accommodations but the specific accommodations themselves didn't make sense for your specific course(s)? Because that issue seems separate from the question of whether or not you think someone has a "real" disability.

My experience also includes a brief tangential involvement in property management. Try having a building that is dog free, a feature some tenants would prefer. This is simply not possible when everyone who wants one knows they can skirt the system by getting a "therapy dog." Yes, I absolutely do believe a therapy dog, moose, iguana or whatever else someone claims to need is nonsense and infringing on the wishes of the other 30 people on a buss or plan, in an apartment building or deli or any other circumstance that don't want to deal with this. 

Not what I asked. I was asking if your contempt also extended to service animals (or if you even made any distinction). Guide dogs, alert dogs, dogs trained to support people with PTSD...just as nonsensical as a comfort iguana? Should someone with a seeing-eye dog also be denied access to buses, apartment buildings, or any other place people "don't want to deal with this?"

I am also in a state that has an insane level of ADA complaints to shake down business owners. Since many of these are settled with a demand letter prior to filing of court docs, you never hear how frequent it is. EVERY person I know who has a brick and mortar business rather than virtual one is the target of this crap. Apparently you don't even need a physical space since many are now attacking those with websites that aren't accessible to various speech tools. These guys ask for a few thousand, just enough to be a major expense but not enough to fight it.

And do you have an idea of what proportion of those complaints are actually "nonsense" vs. "legitimate"? Or are they all nonsense?

I certainly don't doubt that people try to take advantage of the laws or that businesses are unfairly targeted by the overly litigious. What I was getting at was how do you, financeguy, identify legitimacy?

[writingprof]

I certainly don't doubt that people try to take advantage of the laws or that businesses are unfairly targeted by the overly litigious. What I was getting at was how do you, financeguy, identify legitimacy?

I'll answer that.  An illegitimate ADA request is one that inconveniences me more than is reasonable.  I reserve the right to determine what's reasonable.

[Hibush]

I certainly don't doubt that people try to take advantage of the laws or that businesses are unfairly targeted by the overly litigious. What I was getting at was how do you, financeguy, identify legitimacy?

I'll answer that.  An illegitimate ADA request is one that inconveniences me more than is reasonable.  I reserve the right to determine what's reasonable.

The ADA does not actually reserve that right to you, and you don't have authority to do so yourself  in any functiona*l way. More generally, the due process makes it so that the prospectively inconvenienced person is not also the arbiter of reasonbleness.

*Of course, you can determine the threshold for when you feel annoyed. But funcionally, nobody has to conform.

[financeguy]

I think I did address the issue of seeing eye vs therapy dog indirectly when I said, "Bob is blind. We'll accommodate him in whatever way necessary. Susan can't learn physics without her poodle in her purse..."

To answer of how I determine if something is "legit" or not, this is obviously subjective, which is totally fine since I am not a government official with the capacity to use violence to compel anyone in either direction. The minor social capital I have to wield disapproval in whatever direction I see fit is how a society with free speech works. You may have the ability to bring your dog into my building legally but I also have the minor ability to increase the likelihood that people think you and others doing so are engaged in fraudulent activity. The question of how "I, financeguy, determine legitimacy" is simple. However I want. You have a legal right to access, you do not have a legal right to my opinion or the freedom from judgement. You would be totally right to say that my statement that Delta Airlines must allow some nutjob who claims to need a badger and two beagles in seat 32 is absurd as "just this guys opinion and not backed up with sourced peer reviewed data."

[marshwiggle]

Not what I asked. I was asking if your contempt also extended to service animals (or if you even made any distinction). Guide dogs, alert dogs, dogs trained to support people with PTSD...just as nonsensical as a comfort iguana? Should someone with a seeing-eye dog also be denied access to buses, apartment buildings, or any other place people "don't want to deal with this?"

The problem with sweeping accomodations for rare conditions is that they can conflict.

What happens when a person with severe allergies to animals has to coexist with a person who needs a support animal? Can buildings be designated animal-free for the sake of people with allergies, denying them to people with service animals? Or, must every building allow service animals, making them off-limits for peopole with severe allergies?

The more sweeping the protection for one, the more restrictive it is for the other.

[writingprof]

I certainly don't doubt that people try to take advantage of the laws or that businesses are unfairly targeted by the overly litigious. What I was getting at was how do you, financeguy, identify legitimacy?

I'll answer that.  An illegitimate ADA request is one that inconveniences me more than is reasonable.  I reserve the right to determine what's reasonable.

The ADA does not actually reserve that right to you, and you don't have authority to do so yourself  in any functiona*l way. More generally, the due process makes it so that the prospectively inconvenienced person is not also the arbiter of reasonbleness.

*Of course, you can determine the threshold for when you feel annoyed. But funcionally, nobody has to conform.

Sorry, I thought we were describing our ideal system. 

In the world that actually exists, I ignore at least half of the requests that I get from the Disabilities Office.  I always get away with it, perhaps, ironically, because the "victims" of my negligence are too handicapped to do anything about it.  [Chuckles wickedly.]

[smallcleanrat]

I think I did address the issue of seeing eye vs therapy dog indirectly when I said, "Bob is blind. We'll accommodate him in whatever way necessary. Susan can't learn physics without her poodle in her purse..."

I wasn't sure. It was already obvious what you thought of the poodle in the purse; there was no need to ask about that. I asked whether you also thought allowing service dogs was nonsense and your response was "Yes, I do think that I absolutely do believe a therapy dog, moose, iguana or whatever else someone claims to need is nonsense..." which answered a question I didn't ask. For all I knew, you might not think Bob's guide dog was "necessary," but you were fine with other accommodations not involving animals.

You may have the ability to bring your dog into my building legally but I also have the minor ability to increase the likelihood that people think you and others doing so are engaged in fraudulent activity.

I never questioned your right to your opinions, I was asking how you arrived at them. Someone with different opinions asking about the reasoning underlying yours is not threatening your rights.

So...with the dog in the building example, unless you were certain there was fraudulent activity involved with that individual, why would you even want to increase the likelihood that people would suspect fraud in this case?  And are you still talking specifically about poodle-in-purse type pets, or would you also have the same attitude towards Bob's guide dog if he moved into your building?

You object to grouping people without legitimate disability (even if you don't elaborate on how you judge legitimacy outside "it's legitimate if I say so") with people you consider actually in need of accommodation. I understand that sentiment. I don't see how to enact a practical solution without a clearer definition of legitimacy; but as a gripe, I get it. People demanding accommodations fraudulently or frivolously cause a lot of headache for other people.

But I'm curious as to whether you care at all if it goes the other way? If people group anyone asking for accommodations related to a neurodevelopmental, neurological, or psychiatric issue in with people who printout an online certificate for a comfort pig just so they can take their pet anywhere they please? Do you care at all if people with real need are falsely assumed to be frauds and thus suffer social or professional consequences? Because this is a real problem too.

The minor social capital I have to wield disapproval in whatever direction I see fit is how a society with free speech works.

Ok...again, just asking you questions about your thought process and expressing a few opinions of my own. People do that sometimes in a society with free speech.

You have a legal right to access, you do not have a legal right to my opinion or the freedom from judgement.

Glad you think so, but it's not something that can be taken for granted (see writingprof's solution to accommodations requests). So if accommodations for a student are approved by the admins, you don't just ignore those messages and refuse to do anything you don't agree with?

What ended up happening with your serial complainer?

[smallcleanrat]

Not what I asked. I was asking if your contempt also extended to service animals (or if you even made any distinction). Guide dogs, alert dogs, dogs trained to support people with PTSD...just as nonsensical as a comfort iguana? Should someone with a seeing-eye dog also be denied access to buses, apartment buildings, or any other place people "don't want to deal with this?"

The problem with sweeping accomodations for rare conditions is that they can conflict.

What happens when a person with severe allergies to animals has to coexist with a person who needs a support animal? Can buildings be designated animal-free for the sake of people with allergies, denying them to people with service animals? Or, must every building allow service animals, making them off-limits for peopole with severe allergies?

The more sweeping the protection for one, the more restrictive it is for the other.

Is it just a problem with sweeping accommodations for *rare* conditions?

Not a legal expert, so I don't know about solutions to this in detail. I did read the ADA laws regarding service animals and it does mention potential conflicts like someone who cannot be around dogs because of allergies. It's hard to figure out details for every possible conflict. I have read about classroom solutions of simply arranging the schedules of each student so they don't have to be in the same room at the same time. For an apartment building, I'm not sure. There are hypoallergenic dog breeds; of course, that wouldn't help much if someone has a dog phobia.

I remember a while back seeing an OpEd piece arguing for specific animals-ok college dorm buildings to loosen the standard no-pets policy without people with allergies or people who just didn't want to be around animals being bothered. I don't know if that's actually been done anywhere.

I did read in the ADA guidelines that the right to have the animal does not include the right to be irresponsible (e.g. not picking up waste, letting them run around off leash). But there's probably a lot of variability as to how easy that is to enforce, and a lot of people who should get kicked out won't be.

Yeah, I don't see how an animals-accepted-everywhere policy would fly, but I still think it's worth the effort to attempt to find some middle ground. I cringe when I hear people talk so casually about gaming the system (like getting one of those meaningless online "support animal" certifications), because this sort of obnoxious behavior does sour people's opinions on accommodations in general. I don't know enough about government policy to have a clear idea as to what it would take to weed out the cheaters without penalizing people who actually need their accommodations. All I know how to do at this point is to try to understand the various issues involved.

[marshwiggle]

Yeah, I don't see how an animals-accepted-everywhere policy would fly, but I still think it's worth the effort to attempt to find some middle ground. I cringe when I hear people talk so casually about gaming the system (like getting one of those meaningless online "support animal" certifications), because this sort of obnoxious behavior does sour people's opinions on accommodations in general. I don't know enough about government policy to have a clear idea as to what it would take to weed out the cheaters without penalizing people who actually need their accommodations. All I know how to do at this point is to try to understand the various issues involved.

It requires having clear, objective criteria that have to be met. The more fuzzy the criteria, the more people will try to game the system. If people can simply self-declare, then all kinds of people will do so. (How many people have declared "medical conditions" that exempt them from mask-wearing in public?)

[smallcleanrat]

Yeah, I don't see how an animals-accepted-everywhere policy would fly, but I still think it's worth the effort to attempt to find some middle ground. I cringe when I hear people talk so casually about gaming the system (like getting one of those meaningless online "support animal" certifications), because this sort of obnoxious behavior does sour people's opinions on accommodations in general. I don't know enough about government policy to have a clear idea as to what it would take to weed out the cheaters without penalizing people who actually need their accommodations. All I know how to do at this point is to try to understand the various issues involved.

It requires having clear, objective criteria that have to be met. The more fuzzy the criteria, the more people will try to game the system. If people can simply self-declare, then all kinds of people will do so. (How many people have declared "medical conditions" that exempt them from mask-wearing in public?)

I know at my university, the policy for "support animals" in student housing allows them with a letter from a doctor, but does include restrictions like 1) certificates or similar bought online won't be accepted and 2) you have to have had some minimum amount of time in treatment and your doctor has to vouch for that.

I don't know how they enforce #1; maybe they have a list of commonly-used phony certificate websites. Or, if it actually comes in the form of a certificate rather than a doctor's letter then the application gets chucked right away.

#2 is designed to screen out people who go in for one or two sessions with a therapist solely for the purpose of obtaining a letter for an animal. Unfortunately, too many therapists agree to do this, but I've known some who would refuse.

Doctors don't all have to be pushovers for scammers to get their way. If one person says no, they just doctor-hop until they find someone who will say yes. You only need to find that one.

There is also a form for the doctor to fill out in addition to a letter. It asks for specifics like:
1) Has the person received any kind of diagnosis
2) In what way does the condition they've been diagnosed with impair them
3) How long has the person been in treatment (trying to establish whether there has been sufficient time for the doctor to actually get an accurate picture of their situation)
4) How exactly the animal provides support for symptoms related to diagnosis (can't just be "companionship" or some other generic benefit of having an animal)
5) Whether the animal is a pet (in which case, rejected) or meets a list of criteria to qualify as a support animal (can't remember all the criteria offhand)
6) Whether the doctor has personally observed that the animal serves to mitigate symptoms
7) Any additional animals require separate applications including detailed description of why they are needed and what support they provide the current does not

I think there were a few more, but I'd have to look them up. There were some conduct rules (basics like picking up waste, keeping dogs leashed) and I think some common areas animals weren't allowed; don't remember what else.

And, unlike service animals, permission does not include bringing them to class or on the bus. Service animals have to meet more stringent criteria.

Not perfect, but not 'anything goes' either.

I personally know people who have talked about how easy the process was to get their animals approved to live with them (not at my university), and none of them seemed to have needed an application with anywhere close to this level of detail or restriction. So I'm not sure how common restrictions like these are.