"EFFECTIVE" FOR WHOM?

by Jane Jarrow - Disability, Access, Information & Support

3 PEPNet Perspectives

Title II of the ADA states, in part:

 

"A public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others... In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities" [28 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 35.160]."

 

What does that mean when it comes to deciding which services are to be provided to a student who is deaf/hard of hearing at the college level?

 

While Title II applies directly to public institutions, for a variety of reasons having to do with jurisdiction and the miscellaneous provisions of the ADA, it is appropriate to consider this statement applicable guidance to both public and private institutions of higher education.  The US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, has repeatedly held that the term "communication" means the transfer of information, and it includes the right of the person with a disability to equally access the verbal presentation of a lecturer, or the printed text of a book, as well as the resources of the internet. 

 

In order to understand the institution's obligation under this tenet, it is important to recognize the significance of the word "effective" in the regulations.  In this context, the emphasis on effective communication makes it clear that providing access is not enough, if that access is not readily usable by the individual in question.  If we were talking about architectural barriers, this would be the difference between providing an elevator and an open entry way for someone who is quadriplegic to enter a science lab, but not providing a lab station that is lowered so that the individual can be fully involved in the learning process.  In the case of deaf/HOH students, this means that in assigning services there must be consideration of whether the mode of access you are providing is usable to the student in question.

 

 

 

 

We recognize that it would be inappropriate to provide a sign language interpreter to a late-deafened adult who does not know sign language, or that simply providing an assistive listening device to someone who is culturally deaf, immediately following a cochlear implant, may not be enough to satisfy this requirement.  But who decides what constitutes "effective" communication?  Shouldn't "effective" have to do with the accuracy of the information conveyed and its appropriateness in the academic setting?  What if the mode of communication access jeopardizes the academic integrity of the curriculum being conveyed?

 

This discussion arose recently on a regional listserv.  At issue was the use of ASL interpretation for deaf individuals in postsecondary settings.  While everyone agreed that native users of ASL often had difficulty in reading/understanding written standard English because textbooks are not written in ASL, the question was raised as to the impact of the use of ASL in learning.  After all, ran the argument, if we recognize ASL as a legitimate language in its own right, and we often treat native ASL users in the same way we do those for whom English is a second language (ESL), then perhaps we should rethink the idea of allowing the interpretation of academic classes in ASL.  We don't translate classes into Spanish, or Vietnamese, or Singhalese for those who are native users of those languages.  Why, then, is it appropriate to allow the standard English presentation of the classroom to be interpreted into the native language of the ASL user?

 

There are lots of answers to that question, but the most immediate comes from the provisions of the ADA regulations quoted above.  The deaf person relies on ASL as a direct result of their disability.  That automatically makes the deaf person an "individual"

... continued on page 4