Some may remember the information access complaint with the
University of Illinois in June of 1997 that was shared recently
online.  This is a followup to that post where individuals from
around the country can get involved.

Nationally, one of the biggest accessibility barriers to
technology for people with disabilities is its availability in
local communities, such as schools, colleges and libraries.  This
applies for those who don't own a computer and those that do but
need access to one in a training environment or academic program.
There is a lot of technology that is accessible to people with
disabilities, even though the quest for greater access continues
with Microsoft Windows and various network applications.
Unfortunately, the phenomenal benefits of the Internet, the gains
in Windows accessibility, and the vast opportunities opened in
this digital age have not reached the typical blind person in the
community.  Whatever all of us have been doing has not worked
well enough.  Our expectations must be set higher.  It will be
important to recognize that we all play a role in ensuring access
to technology.  Just as technology allows us to be more
interdependent, access to such information technology needs to
function in the same way.

The information and technology access problems at the University
of Illinois can be found on campuses in nearly every state.  What
can't be found in every state is an institution that plays a
significant role in both the development of advanced technology
and disability research, with world class experts on staff in
both areas.  The university's National Center for Supercomputing
Applications is one of six centers of its kind in the United
States.  It developed Mosaic, an early graphical browser for the
World Wide Web, the basis for Netscape Navigator and Internet
Explorer.  The university is ranked by U.S. News and World Report
as having one of the top five departments in computer science.
It has a leading rehabilitation program and it raises substantial
funding from the U.S. Department of Justice to operate the Great
Lakes ADA Technical Assistance Center.  The University's
rehabilitation program and Institute on Disability pull in
millions of dollars in federal grants each year.  It is the only
university in America to offer a doctoral program in disability
studies.

This dual expertise in technology and disability research led to
a high-profile meeting at the White House on January 6, 1997
between Joseph Hardin of the University of Illinois
([log in to unmask]) and Tom Kalil Senior Director of the
National Economic Council ([log in to unmask]).  Hardin was in
Washington to cut a million dollar deal on a World Wide Web
accessibility initiative in which the university would likely
participate.  The meeting included officials from the World Wide
Web Consortium, Netscape Communications, Microsoft, the FCC, and
the National Science Foundation.  Also present at the meeting was
Howard Moses of the U.S. Department of Education,
[log in to unmask]

The complaint shows that at about the same time Joseph Hardin had
his power meeting at the White House, a blind student at Mr.
Hardin's institution was informed on the first day of class by
another faculty member that he would, without question, fail a
required statistics class (IDS 270) solely because he was blind
and therefore on that basis alone could not use a computer needed
to complete assignments and calculation tasks.

The problem was not limited to a single interaction between a
student and a professor.  The fact was that no student with a
disability could receive a computer accommodation in a computer
classroom.  Accommodations include speech synthesis that speaks
information on the computer screen, screen magnification, or
being able to connect alternative keyboards to a computer.
Further, the University of Illinois did not provide access to its
computer labs or its computer network to students with
disabilities.  The vast technological expertise of the National
Center for Supercomputing Applications could not deliver the
Internet let alone the university's own computer network to the
blind using the basic technology of a screen reader and a speech
synthesizer.  This world class institution on information
technology has many experts like Joseph Hardin who apparently did
very little at the time to assist those at their university to
use commonly available  software to scan textbooks so that blind
students could have access to course materials in a timely
manner.

Here in Chicago, we have corrected many of the technology and
information access barriers at this university.  What hasn't been
changed are the systems and structures at the national level that
condoned such inaccessibility and denial of basic access and
allowed it to continue.  Our leaders must reward excellence and
set a basic standard of program accessibility for those
admitted to the elite circles of  disability technology policy
making and research.  This is where people around the nation can
let their voices be heard loud and clear.  If you are concerned
about this happening at a college near you, a good place to start
is with the U.S. Department of Education.  You can let Howard
Moses or Judy Heuman ([log in to unmask]; 202-205-5465) know of
your concerns.  Judy Heuman is a disability rights activist from
Berkeley and serves as the Assistant Secretary of Education for
the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services,
which includes the federal rehabilitation system and the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.  She is the
highest ranking official with a severe disability in the Clinton
administration.  Howard Moses ([log in to unmask]) is her
assistant and attended the meeting in question.  He has been
active on technology access issues at the Education Department.
Also consider contacting Tom Kalil of the National Economic
Council ([log in to unmask]) and blind computer user Mike
Paciello ([log in to unmask]) who organized the meeting.

We expect that our leaders and leading institutions on technology
access for people with disabilities will provide basic access to
information and technology in their work and programs.  If they
are not doing so, then their leadership is open to challenge and
the status of leadership conferred by others is questionable.  No
one is suggesting that the Web Accessibility Initiative, the
basis for Joseph Hardin's White House meeting, is not a worthy
project for federal funding.  On the contrary, the WAI will
undoubtedly, if its goals are achieved, benefit millions of
people with and without disabilities worldwide.  But will its
goals be achieved?  With the University of Illinois as one of the
project's lead institutions, greater clarity is required as to
what the initiative's definition of access is, as the University
of Illinois would not provide access to the World Wide Web to
students with disabilities until a student filed a lengthy
internal complaint that hinted strongly of protracted and
expensive litigation if it were not resolved.
If you have questions or concerns about this project and its
accessibility criteria and goals, you can contact Daniel
Dardailler, of the World Wide Web consortium at [log in to unmask]
or join the initiative's mailing list at
[log in to unmask] and type "subscribe" in the subject
line, leaving the message body blank.

A commitment to technology access is shown by actions and *real
accessibility, not simply talk of accessibility.  People with
disabilities, including minorities with disabilities such as the
complainant, can only enter careers in high technology when they
have access and accommodation to academic and training programs
in this field.  Let the officials listed above know that you want
and expect access to technology in your local community and that
they do their part.  Together, we can all be free in the
information society.


kelly

June 21, 1997

Patricia Gill
ADA compliance Officer
Office of the Chancellor
University of Illinois at Chicago
802 S. Marshfield
Room 717
Chicago, IL 60612

Dear Ms. Gill:

I am a blind student at the university, and will be continuing my
junior year this fall semester of 1997.  I am writing this letter
to inform you of some of the access problems I have had at UIC,
and to request services I feel will help to solve them.  I
believe that these problems are violations of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act and Section 35.160 of title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  I will assert in this complaint
that the practices, policies and procedures of the University of
Illinois have posed significant barriers to my attainment of a
degree in my chosen major and have negatively impacted my
comprehension of course material and the grades received in
particular courses.

The discrimination started after registering for classes my first
semester at UIC.  I was told then by the disabilities
coordinator, Jean Goreman, That it was my responsibility to
contact Recording for the blind and Dyslexic to inquire if my
text books were available on tape, and if not, it was my
responsibility, to purchase the text books from the UIC
bookstore, and take them to another not-for-profit agency, the
Blind Service Association of Chicago at 22 West Monroe, and have
them read on tape there.  I was also told by Jean Goreman, that
if the text books were not available at the UIC book store within
a week before classes start, to call the disabilities office, let
her know, and she would try and find some one to read the books
on tape for me.  These policies turned out to be disastrous as
there was not enough time to find qualified readers in my
specific area of study, math and statistics.  Because of this, I
would receive the chapters needed for my classes a couple days
before an exam, a couple of weeks after an exam, or not at all.

In the Spring semester of 1996, the two text books required for
Psychology 100 were not available at RFB&D, and I was forced to
find readers on my own after classes.  In a Fall, 1996 Math 160
class, the text book was not available at RFB&D.  I requested
that the text be provided in Triangle/Ascii text format, which
would allow me to read the material using my computer, screen
reading software and a speech synthesizer.  I was promised that
the text would be provided in this format by the disabilities
office.  However, because of the late start, the first chapter of
the text was not ready until two days before the first exam.
Because of this, and the fact that sometimes I would be assigned
a proctor that could not read the exam, I believe I lost positive
points on the exams, which had a negative effect on my final
grade.  In the spring of 1997, I had the following access
problems.

In Economics 218, the text was not available at RFB&D, and I was
forced to find readers for some parts of the text, scan and have
the disabilities office edit other parts.  Because of the
graphical nature of the class lectures, the text, and the exams,
and the lack of adequate accommodation, my final grade was
negatively effected.  The text book used in IDS 270 was also not
available at RFB&D.  For access to this class.  I had to scan the
entire text, and submit it to the disabilities office for
editing.  Unfortunately, I received some of the chapters only
days before exams, and I did not get the last chapter at all.  I
had to both scan and edit the textbook for my Accounting 110
class myself, as it was also not available at RFB&D.
Another barrier I encountered was the accessibility of classroom
lectures and presentations.  At the beginning of the Spring 1997
semester I believed that my need for reading and description of
material on blackboards and displayed on overhead projectors
could be provided by professors and their teaching assistants by
simply describing material written or displayed in class. This
assumption turned into a disaster when instructors would fail to
read or describe this material.

This was particularly evident in my IDS 270 class.  The Professor
would sometimes fail to read tables, equations, and graphs.  When
I interrupted his lecture to reiterate my request for
accommodation, he became upset and irritable.  Additionally, I
asked the teaching assistant for assistance in describing some of
this material.  She declined, telling me it was "my problem" and
to go to the disabilities office and get it from there.
Obviously, the staff at the disabilities office could not do this
because they were not familiar with the course material.

Yet another problem I am having is taking exams.  I am an IDS
(Information and Decision Sciences) major, and many of the
proctors assigned to administer the exams to me are unfamiliar
with charts, graphs, and/or the symbolic mathematical notation on
these exams, and are unable to read and write questions and
answers for me.  I discovered this when I took exams in my ECON
218 course, where students assigned by UIC to assist me were not
at all familiar with advanced mathematics.  I believe that I
should have exams administered by competent persons who can read
and write mathematical notation.
An additional accessibility barrier is in using computers and
computer software.  The Business computer Laboratory in the
Educational Social Work building does not have a computer
accessible to the blind, equipped with speech synthesis to read
the monitor.  Access to this lab is essential because many
business classes are taught there.  This includes IDS 270, which
I took in the Spring 1997 semester.  Because of the lack of an
accessible computer in this classroom, I purchased the Minitab
software program with my own funds and installed it on my laptop
computer which I brought to class.  I do not believe that I
should have to provide my own computer, accommodation, and
software to take a class when the other students are not expected
to do so.  Further, I will be penalized if my equipment were to
break.  I will be taking other classes which require the use of
this  lab in the fall.

I believe that the university comes under the provisions of
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its
implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 104, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the U.S.
Department of Education.  UIC receives such financial assistance
and, therefore, is subject to the provisions of those statutes
and regulations.

The Regulation, at section 1 04.43(c) states: "A recipient to
which this subpart applies may not, on the basis of handicap,
exclude any qualified handicapped student from any course, course
of study, or other part of its education program or activity."
Section 104.44(d)(1) states: "A recipient to which this subpart
applies shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that no
handicapped student is denied the benefits of, excluded from
participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under
the education program or activity operated by the recipient
because of the absence of educational auxiliary aids for students
with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills."  I also
believe that UIC is subject to the regulations under Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its implementing
regulation at 28 C.F.R. Part 35.  UIC is a public entity as
described in the regulation.

Title II at 28 C.F.R. SS 35.130 (b)(1)(iii), states, that
recipients and entities in providing any aid, benefit or service,
may not afford a qualified individual with a disability an
opportunity to participate that is not as effective as that
provided to others.  Title II recognizes the special importance
of communication, which includes access to information, in its
implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. SS 35.160 (a).  The
regulation requires a public entity, such as a state university,
to "take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with
applicants, participants, and members of the public with
disabilities are as effective as communications with others."

Thus, the issue is not whether I or any other student with a
disability is merely provided access or an accommodation of some
kind, but the issue is rather the extent to which the
communication is actually as effective as that provided to
others.  Effective communication for me might include textbooks
produced by the university and delivered in a timely manner
consistent with my course schedule, in-class readers or
notetakers to describe complex charts and graphs and readers
competent in the subject material for exams.  Title II also
strongly affirms the important role that computer technology is
expected to play as an auxiliary aid by which communication is
made effective for persons with disabilities.

In order to remedy the access problems stated above, I am
requesting the following accommodations given that title II
Section 35.160 (b) requires a public entity to "furnish
appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford
an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to
participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or
activity conducted by a public entity."

1.  The university must provide access to textbooks, workbooks
and related course materials in a timely manner with competent
and qualified readers or scan the text into an ASCII text file
with Triangle format enhancements for scientific notation.  To
accomplish this, the University of Illinois would need to change
its policy of accepting textbook production requests only one
week before the beginning of a semester.  This is a policy and/or
practice that without question sets up the student with a print
impairment for failure and below par performance as such a late
start cannot keep pace with academic reading schedules.

Although referral and identification of community resources that
could assist people with disabilities is welcome, it does not
lessen the university's responsibility in respect to the ADA or
the Rehabilitation Act to provide access to textbooks to blind
students.  The reading services coordinator of the blind Service
Association stated in a June 18 conversation with Kelly Pierce
that the association has no contractual relationship with UIC to
assist the university in meeting its legal obligations in respect
to the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.  Providing university staff
to students to read textbooks in person is not acceptable.  The
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil rights in a letter
of finding dated January 15, 1992 (Docket Number 09-91-2157.)
states:  "Although readers may supplement audio-cassette and/or
Braille versions of textbooks, because accessibility through
readers is much more time consuming and provides significant less
flexibility to the student, it does not meet the purposes of 34
C.F.R. 104.43 and 104.44."  In addition, the letter of finding
concurs with the belief that blind students who are not read to
or provided material in a specialized language,  such as scienti
ic notation, prevents students from participating in university
programs and majoring in particular subject areas.  "Failure to
translate specialized material, such as mathematical symbols and
equations, into a language specifically created to communicate
such material to the visually impaired, has the result of
strongly deterring visually impaired students from taking
courses, or concentrating in areas, that involve higher
mathematics," the Department of Education states.

2.  Develop a written procedure that complies with the cited laws
that permits effective and timely production of written course
materials.  At a minimum a replacement system to provide access
to course materials should permit the receipt of production
requests following course registration or admission to the
university.  The textbook should be available on tape in digital
form, or in braille at the same time the reading assignment is
made to the class, or if the reading assignment is made after the
semester commences, at least one month before the due date of the
assignment.  Handouts should be made accessible at the time they
are handed out to the classmates of the student.

3.  Provide proctors who have some background and/or
familiarization in the course the student is being tested for.
These could include departmental graduate students or others
familiar with the chosen field of study with the student.
Additionally, the request for auxiliary aids extends to the
examination and the answers to the same degree provided to non-
disabled students.  This could be accomplished by recording the
test on an audio cassette, followed by the answer, and a
description of the accuracy of the response or by professors or
teaching assistants reviewing the test and its answers personally
with the student.  Any policy developed that requires the student
to make an appointment with the disability services office may be
unworkable as it may not provide the explanation and context
needed for the student to learn from inaccurate responses on the
examination.

4.  Establish written procedures of how course materials and
exams will be provided in specialized languages, such as
mathematical notation.  The procedure includes identification and
selection of readers and proctors as well as textbook production.

5.  Provide in class readers or note takers in classes to read
blackboards, equations, charts, graphs and elsewhere where
needed.

6.  Provide access to the universities computer labs, classrooms,
and software using screen reading software, and electronic speech
synthesizers.  Specifically, I request that the business computer
lab be equipped with speech synthesis and be accessible to the
blind, including any instruction or documentation of software.  I
believe that I should be accommodated with adaptive technology
and not merely supplied with a reader.  The Office of Civil
Rights in the U.S. Department of Education has stated in a letter
of finding dated January 15, 1992 that a state university has a
responsibility under Section 504, as set out in 34 C.F.R.
104.44(d) to "make its computer services accessible to the
visually impaired student upon request."  This accommodation
should include that access to the software for students to use be
available during the same hours and in the same conditions in an
integrated setting that is available to non-disabled students.

In a letter of finding dated January 25, 1996 (Docket Number
09-95-2206) the Office of civil rights in the U.S. Department of
Education notes that "the 'information superhighway' is fast
becoming a fundamental tool in post-secondary research.  Rather
than implementing adaptive software, some institutions have
attempted to utilize personal reader attendants as the exclusive
or primary way of making this form of computer information
accessible to persons with visual impairments.  In most cases,
this approach should be reconsidered.  One of the most important
aims in choosing the appropriate auxiliary aid has been to foster
independence and autonomy in the person with a disability.  When
reasonably priced technology is available that will enable the
visually impaired computer user to access the computer, including
the World Wide Web, during approximately the same number of hours
with the same spontaneous flexibility that is enjoyed by other
nondiabled computer users, there are many reasons why the
objectives of Title II will most effectively and less expensively
be achieved by obtaining the appropriate software programs.  (An
institution's reliance on adaptive software to provide access
includes a responsibility to provide the special training
necessary to teach the computer user with the disability how to
use such software programs."

I am currently registered in the following classes for fall 1997:
Accounting 111, Math 205, and IDS 371.  For Math 205, I have two
textbooks that are not available from any source and request that
UIC provide them to me in an accessible format in a timely
manner.  The texts are "Introductory Linear Algebra with
applications, by B.  Kolman, 6th ed.  Prentice Hall, New Jersey;
1997 textbook #2 for Math 205 Prof. Raghavan Chapters 1-5 from
Mathematical Statistics with applications by Mendenhall, et. al.

I authorize UIC to communicate with Kelly Pierce regarding this
matter or any related claim.  He is assisting me with this
complaint.  He can be reached by e-mail at [log in to unmask] or by
telephone at (773) 472-7206.

If there is no response that substantially resolves this
complaint within 30 days, I will assume that UIC is not willing
to provide the accommodations requested above or change its
practices that would allow me to participate on a basis of
equality.

Respectfully,



Robbie L. Miller
7651 South Hoyne Ave.
Chicago IL. 60620
Voice: 773 723-1403
Internet: [log in to unmask]