... "EFFECTIVE" FOR WHOM

with a disability" and entitles them to protection from discrimination under the law.  The fact that someone else thinks that ASL may not be the best way for a deaf person to be integrated into a hearing society (or a hearing college/university!) is immaterial.  Because he/she is an individual with a disability, the deaf person is legally entitled to effective communication - something that works for THEM.  The fact that others question the usefulness of ASL for the individual because it may impact on their ability to understand the written word does not make it any less effective in understanding the spoken word.

 

What about the phrase, "primary consideration" in this context?  Does that mean that whatever the individual asks for must be provided, no questions asked?  Not quite.  It means that if the institution is not going to provide the auxiliary aids and services requested by the deaf individual, it had better be able to prove that the aids and services it does provide are equally effective for THIS individual.  Sometimes, in an effort to contain costs, an institution will decide to provide a service in a specific way to all

 

 

 

students who are similarly

situated (for example, providing ASL interpreters to all deaf students, rather than Signed English interpreters for a Signed English user, or providing CART services for all deaf students in order to justify the hiring of a CART stenographer and to eliminate the need for sign language interpreters).  In the final analysis, such one-size-fits-all thinking will almost always fail in the context of the case-by-case analysis demanded by 504/ADA, and in light of the admonishment to give primary consideration to preferences of the user. 

 

At times an institution can refuse to provide something requested.  For example, in most cases, the provision of a sign language interpreter and CART simultaneously during a class is unnecessary as the two are meant to provide the same thing - immediate access to what is being said - and thus would be competing services.  In such cases, the refusal is based on the nature of the services requested, not on a subjective assessment of the effectiveness of the accommodation. 

 

Remember, that isn't your call!

 

 

4 PEPNet Perspectives

The first spin of the wheel looks lands on 1996—the year PEPNet was founded (with support from U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and OSEP) to assist postsecondary institutions across the nation to attract and effectively serve individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. Among those working with PEPNet to achieve those goals are two and four year colleges, vocational training and rehabilitation programs, adult education programs, private/public community service agencies, deaf/hard of hearing individuals, consumer and professional organizations, state and national organizations and clearinghouses.

 

 

 

For most of PEPNet's 10-year, two-funding-cycle history our Project Officer has been Ramon Rodriguez.  We thank him for his leadership.  

 

Let's give the wheel another whirl - and it lands on four - the number of regional centers PEPNet established to effectively serve the United States and its territories. The centers and their original/current directors are:  PEPNet Midwest (MCPO); Ray Olson/Dave Buchkoski; PEPNet Northeast (NETAC); Alan Hurwitz/Dianne Brooks; (NETAC produced the Tipsheets and is located at  the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, the world's first and largest technological college for deaf students; PEPNet Southeast (PEC); Bill Woodrick/Marcia Kolvitz; PEPNet West (WROCC); Herb Larson/Cathy McLeod.

... continued on page 6