>X-From_: [log in to unmask] Tue May 18 14:18:22 1999
>Delivered-To: [log in to unmask]
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask] (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
>Date:         Mon, 17 May 1999 19:43:09 -0400
>Reply-To:     "Library Access -- http://www.rit.edu/~easi"
>              <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender:       "Library Access -- http://www.rit.edu/~easi"
>              <[log in to unmask]>
>From:         Prof Norm Coombs <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Civil Rights Letter re Long Beach
>X-To:         [log in to unmask]
>X-cc:         [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>To:           [log in to unmask]
>
>Below is a recent letter between the Office for Civil Rights and Long
>Beach.  It further underlines the requirement of making computers and
>information technology accessible to students with disabilities.  This will
>be on EASI's web site in the near future.
>
>
>                                        April 20, 1999
>
>
>
>
>
>Robert C. Maxson
>President
>California State University, Long Beach
>1250 Bellflower Blvd
>Long Beach, CA  90840
>
>(In reply, please refer to Docket Number 09-99-2041.)
>
>Dear President Maxson:
>
>On December 17, 1998, the U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office
>for Civil Rights (OCR), received a complaint alleging that the California
>State University, Long Beach (University) failed to provide a student with
>the accommodations required by her disability (blindness) in order to
>access the College of Business curriculum and other educational programs.
>
>OCR has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint and over the
>University under both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
>(Section 504) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities (Title II),
>which prohibit recipients of Department funds and/or public institutions,
>respectively, from discriminating against persons with disabilities.
>
>Specifically, the complainant alleges that:
>
>1) The computer laboratories/classes in the College of Business are not
>equipped with adaptive technology so that she can take courses such as
>Business and Information Systems, which is a prerequisite to her obtaining
>a Bachelor of Science degree in her major Business Management.
>
>2) Her course assigned textbooks, which contain substantial amounts of
>graphs and charts, were not made accessible to her.
>
>3) With respect to a particular Business Management course, the instructor
>refused to provide her access to overhead transparencies and to implement
>the appropriate accommodations for the course's final examination.
>
>4) The doors of the offices of the College instructors are not marked in a
>manner that enable her to identify the occupant instructor.
>
>Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II) requires
>a public college to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications
>with persons with disabilities "are as effective as communications with
>others" [28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)].  OCR has repeatedly held that the terms
>"communication" in this context means the transfer of information,
>including (but not limited to) the verbal presentation of a lecturer, the
>printed text of a book, and the resources of the Internet.  Title II
>further states that, in determining what type of auxiliary aid and service
>is necessary, a public college shall give primary consideration to the
>requests of the individual with a disability [28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(2)].
>
>In construing the conditions under which communication is "as effective as"
>that provided to nondisabled persons, on several occasions OCR has held
>that the three basic components of effectiveness are timeliness of
>delivery, accuracy of the translation, and provision in a manner and medium
>appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the
>individual with the disability.
>
>The courts have held that a public entity violates its obligations under
>the Americans with Disabilities Act when it simply responds to individual
>requests for accommodation on an ad-hoc basis.  A public entity has an
>affirmative duty to establish a comprehensive policy in compliance with
>Title II in advance of any request for auxiliary aids or services [see
>Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 857 F. Supp. 800 (D.Kan. 1994)].  A recognized
>good practice in establishing such a comprehensive policy is to consult
>with the disability community, especially those members most likely to
>request accommodations.
>
>As universities have striven to provide effective communication to students
>with disabilities with respect to computer technology, traditionally the
>academic community has relied heavily on a single centralized unit on
>campus to house and maintain the specialized adaptive technology equipment.
> This practice has been seen as a method for enabling a small number of
>staff with adaptive technology expertise to serve a relatively large number
>of students with disabilities.  However, such sole reliance upon a single
>centralized location (when not limited to adaptive technology training, but
>instead used for instructing disabled students in course subject matter)
>may run counter to the strong philosophy embodied in Title II and Section
>504 regarding the importance of fully integrating students with
>disabilities into the mainstream educational program, unless such services
>cannot be otherwise effectively provided [see 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(iv); 28
>C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(iv)].  Thus OCR assumes in most cases computer access
>will be effectively provided to the student with the disability in an
>educational setting with his or her nondisabled peers and classmates at the
>various computer laboratory sites scattered throughout the campus.
>
>In most OCR cases, at any point prior to completion of the investigative
>stage of the case, the college may indicate that it is interested in
>exploring voluntary resolution of the issues identified in the case.  A
>commitment by the University to voluntarily resolve the issues usually
>substantially reduces the necessity for further investigation and may
>eliminate the need for OCR findings of compliance and/or noncompliance.  In
>this case, the University elected to proceed toward voluntary resolution.
>
>By letter received April 1, 1999, the University provided OCR with a
>voluntary resolution plan which resolves the issues raised in this case.
>This plan includes the following commitments (as well as others):  The
>University will:
>
>1) Develop and implement a written procedure describing which campus units
>are responsible for installing and maintaining adaptive workstations
>situated in College and central computer laboratories.
>
>2) Develop and implement a systematic method for ensuring that the issue of
>accessibility to persons with disabilities, particularly blind persons, is
>taken into account when colleges purchase computer technology (software and
>hardware).
>
>3) Develop and implement a systematic method for informing campus employees
>who design/select web pages for use by students to make sure the web pages
>are in accordance with principles known to maximize accessibility to users
>with disabilities, including visual impairments.
>
>If you have further questions regarding this letter, please contact Sarah
>Hawthorne, Civil Rights Attorney, at (415) 556-4146.
>
>                                                Sincerely,
>
>
>
>                                                Robert E. Scott
>                                                Team Leader
>                                                Office for Civil Rights
>
>cc:  Barbara J. Franklin, Acting Director, Equity and Diversity
>Page 3 - (09-99-2041)
>
>


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html