The Inclusive University: LEGAL EDUCATION AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

This section includes articles concerning the inclusion of students with disabilities in legal education. A majority of these resources are law reviews and are specific to learning disabilities, the ADA, clinical settings, and accommodations.

Adams, S. J. (1996, June). Because they’re otherwise qualified: Accommodating learning disabled student writers. Journal of Legal Education, 46(2) 189-215.

Discussion of learning disabled (LD) law students looks at what constitutes a learning disability and explains circumstances leading to increasing numbers of LD students in law schools. Manifestations of learning disabilities in writing are examined, problems with this in the law school setting are noted, and early identification and interventions are explored. Focus is on law schools’ responsibility.

Adams, S. J. (1998, June). Leveling the floor: Classroom accommodations for law students with disabilities. Journal of Legal Education, 48(2), 273-296.

Examines the provision of disability accommodation in the law school classroom, including the crucial threshold task of establishing a durable and flexible accommodations policy; educating the school’s administration, faculty, and student body; maintaining confidentiality; accommodating learning disabilities; law review accommodations; and support groups.

Anderson, A., & Wylie, N. (2008). Beyond the ADA: How clinics can assist law students with “non-visible” disabilities to bridge the accommodations gap between classroom and practice [Boston College Law School Faculty Papers]. Boston: Boston College Law School. Retrieved April 12, 2008 from http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=bc_lsfp.

“At the very time that the importance of experiential learning is being trumpeted as critical to the preparation of all law students for practice, all too little has been written about the role of clinical education in helping students with non-visible disabilities succeed in their chosen careers. In her groundbreaking 1999 article, Sande Buhai alerted the academy to the unique role that clinics can play in the legal education of students with disabilities. Buhai demonstrated persuasively that law school clinics offered such students an opportunity to identify and experiment with accommodations which would assist them in practice. To achieve that goal, she proposed that clinicians and students base those accommodations on the employment provisions of the ADA.

This article seeks to build upon these important insights. It presumes the applicability of the ADA to law school clinics and focuses instead on what clinics can offer students with mental health impairments, neurological disorders, and learning disabilities, whether or not they technically qualify for ADA protections, to prepare them most effectively for practice. Given the harsh demands of practice, particularly for lawyers with disabilities, it is incumbent on the academy to maximize the teaching opportunities available in clinics before graduation.

Part I opens with a brief summary of the current law on accommodating lawyers with disabilities in practice. Part II provides an overview of how other professional disciplines (e.g. medicine, education, and social work) are adapting clinical pedagogy to meet the needs of students with disabilities. While educators in other professions attempted to address these questions earlier and more comprehensively than did the law academy, ultimately their contributions leave unanswered many questions about how best to assist students with non-visible disabilities in clinical settings.

Then, in Part III, we offer two case studies, built on our own clinical teaching experiences, of law students with mental health and learning impairments. We then use those histories to discuss one law school’s efforts to accommodate the needs of students with learning disabilities and mental illness. In particular, we look to the role of law school administrators (including student services and career placement) in counseling students with disabilities. Then we investigate how clinics can help these students seek assistance and develop tools and strategies for dealing with their disabilities, while preserving ethical and academic standards. We close in Part IV by offering proposals for best practices for maximizing the effectiveness of clinical education in the legal training of lawyers with mental health and learning disabilities” (pp. 3-4).

Bensen Lipskar, L. (2001, Spring). Learning disabilities and the ADA: A guide for successful learning disabled students considering a career in the law. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor & Employment Law, 6, 647-669.

“This article focuses on the issues facing an individual of above average intelligence with a learning disability when deciding to apply to law school and enter the legal profession, in light of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)” (p. 647).

Boyle, R. A. (2006). Law students with attention deficit disorder: How to reach them, how to teach them. The John Marshall Law Review, 39(2), 349-383.

Most law school classes are likely to include students with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or its related disorder – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. It is imperative for teachers to be equipped for teaching law students with ADD. To be effective in reaching those students, law professors should understand the common learning-style traits of ADD students. This article describes what researchers know about ADD and how it can impact learning. It summarizes empirical research and describes the Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model. It also discusses federal statutes and court cases mandating individualized approaches to teaching students with learning disabilities. Finally, it recommends ways in which law professors can diversify their teaching methods to assist ADD students and their classmates.

Buhai, S. L. (1999). Practice makes perfect: reasonable accommodations of law students with disabilities in clinical placements. San Diego Law Review, 36, 137, 185-186.

“This article discusses the reasonable accommodation of law students with disabilities in a clinical law environment. Although law review articles and bar journals, case law, and administrative regulations have discussed reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities in the law school setting, none have focused on the unique problems and issues that arise in clinical law placements” (p. 137).

Christensen, L. M. (2007). Law students who learn differently: A narrative case study of three law students with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Journal of Law & Health, 21, 1-28. Available: http://www.law.csuohio.edu/currentstudents/studentorg/jlh/documents/21-1-gChristensen_FINAL.pdf.

More law students than ever before begin law school having been diagnosed with a learning disability. As legal educators, do we have an obligation to expand our teaching methodologies beyond the typical law student? What teaching methodologies work most effectively for law students with learning disabilities? The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of law students with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) about their law school experiences. The case study yielded four themes relating to the social, learning and achievement domains of the students. First, law students with ADD experienced feelings of isolation in law school. Second, the more successful law students with ADD understood their personal learning styles whereas the less successful student students did not. Third, the Socratic Method, as the predominant teaching methodology, inhibited students’ learning in the classroom. Fourth, the students expressed feelings of uncertainly about their future careers as practicing lawyers with ADD. It is time for legal educators to welcome nontraditional learners into their classrooms. By seeking to create an environment of inclusion versus exclusion, by expanding our teaching methodologies and by recognizing the multitude of talents and skills our students possess, we can humanize the law school experience for everyone.

Coleman, P. G., Jarvis, R. M., & Shellow, R. A. (1997, July). Law students and the disorder of written expression. Journal of Law and Education, 26(3), 1-9.

Persons with the Disorder of Written Expression (DWE) regularly commit errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, syntax, and paragraph organization. If, with reasonable modifications, a student can produce an acceptable written product, law schools must provide such accommodations. Administrators must create appropriate accommodations for students with DWE which do not alter their school’s basic program of instruction.

Colker, R. (2008, Spring). Extra time as an accommodation. In A. Bernstein (Ed.), Lawyers with Disabilities [Symposium]. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 69, 413-474. Available: http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/issues/69/69.3/02Colker.pdf.

Although the provision of extra time has become the standard method of accommodating students with various disabilities when they take the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) or in-class timed exams, this Article suggests that we consider other means of attaining fairness on exams. Through a survey of the psychometric literature, as well as a modest empirical study, this Article argues that the rank order of students is likely to be significantly affected by the type of examination instrument used. This Article places the psychometric literature on examination results in the context of testing of prelaw students as well as law students and suggests that we place less emphasis on timed instruments in ranking students. While questioning the validity of the LSAT for all students, this Article also argues that the LSAT scores of students who take the exam under conditions of extra time are likely to be as valid as the scores of students who take the exam under regular conditions. The Article urges the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) to conduct a proper validity study so that students who receive extra time are not disadvantaged during the admissions process. Finally, this Article suggests that law faculties examine their testing practices to see if they offer a sufficient variety of testing methods to compare students fairly. The current overemphasis on in-class timed exercises is likely to inappropriately disadvantage certain students and not give them an opportunity to demonstrate their mastery of the material.

Diamond, A. S. (1994, Fall). L.D. law: The learning disabled law student as a part of a diverse law school environment. Southern University Law Review, 22, 69-97.

This Article explores the educational experiences and the life challenges of the learning disabled law student. Part I of this Article introduces personal, historical, and statutory perspectives on the experiences and educational rights of the learning disabled law student. Part II constructs a theory of why the presence of the learning disabled law student presents an issue of inclusion and diversity. Part III discusses how the law school’s academic support system may help realize the promise of diversity offered by the learning disabled law student’s presence in the law school environment.

Eichhorn, L. A. (1997). Reasonable accommodations and awkward compromises: Issues concerning learning disabled students and professional schools in the law school context. Journal of Law & Education, 26(1), 31-63.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, colleges and universities are prohibited from discriminating against qualified students with learning disabilities and must reasonably accommodate such disabilities so that students have a genuine opportunity to complete academic programs successfully. Not surprisingly, just like their non-disabled peers, a number of learning disabled college graduates are choosing to enter professions such as law and medicine. Their entry into professional schools has raised a number of legal issues concerning their qualification to matriculate, their need for accommodations, and their eventual ability to practice successfully. This article discusses each of these issues in the specific context of legal education after providing general explanations of learning disabilities and of the federal statutes governing the rights of learning disabled students.

Francis, L. P., & Silvers, A. (2008, Spring). No disability standpoint here! Law school faculties and the invisibility problem. In A. Bernstein (Ed.), Lawyers with Disabilities [Symposium]. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 69(3), 413-474.

“In this Article, we consider whether there is reason to urge an increase in the number of individuals with disabilities, especially visible or otherwise evident disabilities, in the ranks of law school faculties” (pp. 413-414).

George, M., & Newby, W. (2008, Spring). Inclusive instruction: Blurring diversity and disability in law school classrooms through universal design. In A. Bernstein (Ed.), Lawyers with Disabilities [Symposium]. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 69, 475-498. Available: http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/issues/69/69.3/03Newby-George.pdf.

“This Article addresses the difficult issues faced by law schools in determining the use of accommodations for students with disabilities in the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 19901 (ADA) and, in particular, for those with “invisible disabilities,” such as learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, and attention disorders. Because the manner in which accommodations are delivered is specific for each university and fact intensive for each student, there often is confusion about the role played by accommodations in supporting an educational process while providing equal access in academic environments as mandated by the ADA. We suggest an alternative to the exclusive use of accommodations as the vehicle through which access is attained. We argue that law schools should adopt Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) principles as the foundation of pedagogical practice in law school classrooms and for assessment of learning outcomes. Changes based on these principles have the potential to provide access for students with disabilities without altering the essential nature of the curriculum and program objectives” (p. 475).

Grossman, C., & Jaffe, D. (2007). Proceedings of Assisting Law Students with Disabilities in the 21st Century: Brass Tacks. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 15.

This entire issue includes the proceedings of this conference that was originally podcast. The conference featured how cutting‐edge technology, court decisions, resource allocations, and individual perceptions each have the ability to affect the education of a law student with a disability. For student, career, and disability support professionals, for university counsels, faculty, and students themselves, knowledge of rights and responsibilities can be critical to academic achievement. Federal and state laws may help frame the issues, but they do not always assist with the day-to-day application and support we provide our students. This conference sought to address the major disability issues in the academic arena and identify the best practices for assisting law students with disabilities.

Jolly-Ryan, J. (2005). Disabilities to exceptional abilities: Law students with disabilities, nontraditional learners, and the law teacher as a learner. Nevada Law Journal, 6, 116-155.

“Law schools and the legal profession have teaching and hiring disabilities. Legal educators often suffer from disabling intellectual paralysis and lack of vision when it comes to teaching students with disabilities and nontraditional learners. They fail to accommodate the variety of learners and learning styles presented in the classroom. The legal profession also suffers from disabling stereotypes and prejudices regarding lawyers with disabilities, and particularly those with learning disabilities. Students with disabilities, lawyers with disabilities, and nontraditional learners face many barriers in law school and the legal profession. Among the most significant barriers are the disabling intellectual paralysis, lack of vision, stereotypes, and prejudices that prevent legal educators from teaching to a variety of learners and law firms from hiring lawyers with disabilities. Many of these individuals would greatly benefit the profession.

Legal educators and the legal profession must overcome their own teaching and hiring disabilities and allow students with disabilities and nontraditional learners to benefit our classrooms, our teaching, and the legal profession, with their diverse learning styles and unique potential.” (p. 116).

Katz, B. E. (2002, April). Disabled, not disqualified. Student Lawyer, 30(8). Available: http://www.abanet.org/lsd/stulawyer/apr02/disabled.html.

With proper accommodations, law students with disabilities can succeed in law school and their careers.

Lane, J., & Kelly, R. (2012) Autism and Asperger’s syndrome in the law student: Making accommodations in academic assessments. Paper presented at 47th Annual Conference (Re)assessing Legal Education, 1st April – 3rd April 2012, Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, UK. Available: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/13546/.

“Students with ASD and Asperger’s Syndrome will form an ever-increasing sector of the student cohort, both in Further and Higher Education, and it is important that we, as academics, take a proactive stance and fully embrace our legal and moral duties towards fully supporting these students. There are a number of adjustments that can be made, and most of them will result in improvements to the learning experience of the entire student cohort.” (p. 14).

MacCurdy, A. H. (1995, Winter). Disability ideology and the law school curriculum. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 4, 443-457.

“The role of disability ideology in the legal system has been less studied, though people with disabilities have experienced the brutal edge of law in nearly every legal category. As advocates, we deal every day with the ways in which legal power is used against individuals with disabilities, so the idea that disability bias is embedded in the structure of law is built into how we do our jobs. We see how rigid conceptions of competency are manipulated to deny people with disabilities control over their property, their living arrangements, and their bodies. We have learned that core values of individual autonomy, equality, and due process are left behind by “treatment” models and paternalism. We no longer question, though we each might express the point differently, that the law proceeds as if there were an identifiable standard of “ableness” that describes most of us, and justifies different treatment of everyone else, and that such a standard is myth.

In questioning how law comes to perpetuate hierarchies that devalue people with disabilities, we at the Pike Institute were led to examine what aspiring lawyers are taught about disability. We had been contacted regarding the possibility of developing teaching materials that would expose law students to disability issues in the core courses taken by all aspiring lawyers, rather than through disability law courses with limited enrollments. The timing was fortuitous as I had just begun reading critiques of the law school curriculum for class, sex and race bias in an attempt to develop methods to evaluate the curriculum in terms of disability. The proposed project seemed the ideal vehicle for a broader critique of disability ideology in the curriculum, providing both the empirical evidence to support the critique and concrete proposals for change in the form of classroom materials. With that in mind, and armed with a three year grant, we formulated ambitious project goals which reflected the perspective of those earlier studies. Our first goal was to develop a methodology for examining and critiquing various curricula and texts. Next we would examine and critique such materials for: (1) discriminatory language, ideas, and doctrine; (2) omission of issues of importance to individuals with disabilities; (3) failure to consider the perspective of individuals with disabilities; and (4) signs of “disability consciousness,” that is, an ideology of subordination of individuals with disabilities. From that examination, we would then develop supplementary materials to remedy such defects and omissions. The ultimate product, we hoped, would be teaching materials that served the purpose of integration while remaining relevant to their respective subject areas” (pp. 443-445).

McGuigan, S. (2009). Documenting learning disabilities: Law schools’ responsibility to set clear guidelines. Journal of College and University Law, 36(1).

In his freshman year of college, Tommy was diagnosed with a learning disability. A school psychologist, using two primary test instruments for adults, determined that, while Tommy’s aptitude was strong, he displayed significant weaknesses in several areas and suffered from a Mathematics Disorder, DSM-IV-TR, 315.1 & a Disorder of Written Expression, DSM-IV-TR 315.2. The college’s office of disability services granted Tommy accommodations, including lengthy assignments broken down into smaller components, extended time for written tests, and a peer notetaker. Tommy blossomed, successfully graduating from college with honors. After six months in the workforce, Tommy decided to apply to law school.

Roach, C. A. (1994, Fall). A river runs through it: Tapping into the informational stream to move students from isolation to autonomy. Arizona Law Review, 36, 667-699.

“Section I of this article explores the problem of isolation in law school, particularly as it affects minority and other non-traditional students. It challenges the assumption by most law schools that once a student is admitted into law school she competes on a level playing field. Ostensibly, the playing field is level because as a result of the standardized first-year Case Method instruction, presumably all students have roughly equal access to the same type and amount of information upon which ultimately they are all tested. Consequently, it is assumed, students with superior knowledge of the material and greater ability will perform better and receive higher grades. Section I suggests, however, that those assumptions are no longer valid.
Section II moves from the research on isolation and academic performance and explores the voluminous new research on learning theory and “methods” instruction. Section II suggests that unfortunately, much of the disparate research on psychological and academic isolation, as well as the new research on learning theory and methods instruction has been conducted in a vacuum, without sufficiently acknowledging the interrelationship of each separate branch”(p. 668).

Ranseen, J. (2000, August). Reviewing ADHD accommodation requests: An update. The Bar Examiner, 69(3), 6-19. Available: http://www.ncbex.org/uploads/
user_docrepos/690300_Ranseen.pdf.

“With the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1992, requests for accommodations on the bar examination have grown steadily. While bar examiners may be better equipped than other testing organizations to understand the legal ramifications of this legislation, they have still been caught up in the general confusion about definitions and procedures that so often envelops introduction of a new law. No amount of legal sophistication could prepare them to grapple with the tide of requests based on psychiatric diagnoses, especially attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities. It was within this context that i was hired as a consultant to various state bar examining authorities to explain diagnostic evaluation issues related to adult ADHD, to make recommendations regarding accommodations requests submitted by examinees, and to assist in development of review procedures for submission of these requests. My experience as a consultant has challenged me to bridge the divide between psychiatry and the law in ways that I did not anticipate. It has forced me to look more closely at issues critical to clinical practice. For instance, what are the essential features of ADHD among post-secondary students and how should clinicians verify these features? How should clinicians determine that ADHD symptoms are associated with “impairment” sufficient for “disability”? Does current ADHD research truly help us understand the functional impact of symptoms and how this impact can best be ameliorated, particularly within the academic environment? Does medication treatment alone ameliorate ADHD symptoms that affect test-taking skill?” (p. 6)

Rothstein, L. (2004). Disability law and higher education: A road map for where we have been and where we may be heading. Maryland Law Review, 63, 122-161.

“This Article takes a retrospective view of higher education disability law judicial decisions and opinions from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. It also reviews generally Supreme Court decisions to evaluate the status of disability policy with respect to institutions of higher education. This review will be used to offer a road map to where national policy is headed with respect to disability discrimination issues in the context of higher education” (p. 123).

Rothstein, L. (2008, Spring). Law students and lawyers with mental health and substance abuse problems: protecting the public and the individual. In A. Bernstein (Ed.), Lawyers with Disabilities [Symposium]. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 69(3), 531-566. Available: http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/issues/69/69.3/06Rothstein.pdf.

“This Article evaluates whether mental illness and substance abuse policies, practices, and procedures appropriately balance the concerns of the individual lawyer with the interests of the public. This Article concludes by offering recommendations to improve the handling of these issues and suggestions about areas where additional study is needed” (p. 533).

Runyan, M. K., & Smith, J. F., Jr. (1991, September-December). Identifying and accommodating learning disabled law school students. Journal of Legal Education, 41(3-4), 317-349.

This article explains the nature of learning disabilities and suggests accommodations (e.g., test modifications, course modifications, academic support services) that law schools can make in the light of federal law and litigation protecting the rights of disabled students. Interviews with two learning-disabled attorneys, a glossary, and student questionnaires are included.

Smith, K. H. (1999). Disabilities, law schools, and law students: A proactive and holistic approach. Akron Law Review, 32, 1-106.

As previously noted, this article examines and discusses the spectrum of issues raised by the presence of disabled students in law school student bodies. In order to accomplish this task, the article is divided into five substantive parts. Part I provides information concerning the nature and effects of the disabilities which are likely to be present in law school student bodies. This information is required in order to assess the presence of disabilities, the accommodations which are reasonable in light of a given disability’s effects, and why a holistic approach to disabilities is required. Part I describes three categories of disabilities: 1) physical and medical disabilities; 2) learning disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorder, and Attention-Deficit Hyperactive Disorder; and 3) emotional and mental disabilities. Part II summarizes the federal legal framework which governs disabled students in law schools, thus setting the stage for Part III and Part IV. Part III examines the definition of “disability” under the relevant federal statutes and regulations. Part IV briefly explores the concept of accommodations under the federal legal framework, outlines the principal accommodations currently provided by law schools, and discusses the factors which should be considered when determining whether an accommodation is reasonable. Finally, Part V ties together this article by considering principles which should guide a law school’s treatment of disabled students and by setting forth the outline of a model program for disabled law students” (p. 5).

Stone, D. H. (1996, May). The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on legal education and academic modifications for disabled law students: An empirical study. Kansas Law Review, 44, 567-600.

“Law schools face the challenge of providing disabled students with reasonable accommodations in their academic setting in a fair and equitable manner. Disabled law students continue to demand academic modifications in course examinations by claiming to be persons with mental or physical disabilities. Law schools are also beginning to see requests for extension of time for degree completion, priority in course registration, and authorization to tape record classes, all by virtue of an entitlement under the mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Persons with a wide range of disabilities are seeking academic modifications from their law schools. What disabilities are most often represented? Are persons with learning disabilities inclined to seek additional time in completing their final exams? Are students with a mental illness more or less inclined to self-identify and seek similar reasonable accommodations? For those disabled students who are provided with additional time to complete their course examinations, how much additional time is fair and equitable? Should law schools provide readers for blind students and sign language interpreters for deaf students, or modify classroom equipment for physically disabled students?

When law schools consider providing reasonable accommodations in academic programs to their disabled students, what is the role of the law school professor in approving the requested modification? How does anonymous grading affect a disabled student’s request for an academic modification? Do most students who seek an accommodation have the request honored? Is there an administrative appeal process within the law school community? For those disabled law students who desire an academic modification, what, if any, medical, psychological, or educational documentation is required? Do law schools have written policies and procedures for addressing requests by disabled students?

A fundamental issue underlying the provision of reasonable accommodations within a law school setting is the future impact such an accommodation may have when the disabled lawyer subsequently represents a client in a legal proceeding. Do law schools provide a disservice by offering an “advantage” to a disabled law student when as a lawyer, no such “benefit” is provided? Do law schools, under the mandate of the ADA, recognize that providing academic modifications to disabled students has a significant impact beyond legal education, affecting the bar admission process, bar examination, attorney grievance and disbarment procedures, and employment of lawyers in the work place in general?

The empirical data contained in this Article is submitted to serve as a backdrop for purposes of elaboration and comparison of these and other questions. Eighty law schools from across the country were surveyed to obtain data and elicit their opinions on such questions relating to academic modifications. The significant number of disabled students seeking an academic modification in their law school education warrants such inquiry. Law schools continue to grapple with disabled students’ claims for fair and equitable treatment, as well as the desire to avoid a backlash from the nondisabled students who want to avoid providing disabled students with an unfair advantage in the law school setting.

This Article discusses and analyzes court decisions in the area of reasonable accommodations in the academic arena in order to understand the impact of the ADA and the direction courts are heading as they tackle this difficult and important area of law. Finally, this Article offers recommendations regarding fair and equitable reasonable accommodations for disabled law students in the academic setting” (pp. 567-568).

Stone, D. H. (2000, Winter). What law schools are doing to accommodate students with learning disabilities. South Texas Law Review, 42, 19-57.

“This article discusses and analyzes court decisions addressing reasonable accommodations in the academic arena of law school examinations. The text illustrates the impact of the ADA and the direction courts are heading as they tackle this difficult and important area of law. In a prior study, eighty law schools from across the country were surveyed to obtain data and elicit their opinions on questions relating to academic modifications. The empirical data is intended to serve as a backdrop for elaboration and comparison of these and other questions. The significant number of disabled students seeking academic modifications in their law school education warrants such an inquiry. Law schools continue to grapple with claims from disabled students for fair and equitable treatment. An additional concern is the desire to avoid a backlash from the non-disabled students who want to prevent providing disabled students an unfair advantage in the law school setting.” (p. 24)

Transcripts: Assisting Law Students with Disabilities in the 21st Century [Special Section]. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 19(4).

This featured section of the Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law provides transcripts from the fourth annual conference on assisting law students with disabilities. Papers presented include:

Kicking Down the Door to Employment I: Of Mentors and Schedule A
Kicking Down the Door to Employment II: Resources and How to Access Them
The International Law Student: Culture, Access, and When We’ll Stop Scrambling
Technology: Are You (And Your Vendors) Ahead Of, Or On the Curve?
Research Project Bar Examination Accommodations for ADHD Graduates
Selected Bibliography Relating to Law Students and Lawyers with Disabilities

Tucker, B. P. (1996, Summer). Application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 to colleges and universities: An overview and discussion of special issues relating to students. Journal of College and University Law, 23(1), 1-41.

Gives an overview of the obligations of postsecondary institutions toward students with disabilities under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Asserts that, although these statutes assist students with disabilities in becoming integral members of society, the attitudinal barriers they face remain formidable.

Weiss, S. (2004, Spring). Contemplating greatness: Learning disabilities and the practice of law. The Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Minority Issues, 6, 219-259.

“This article provides an expanded review of what constitutes a “disability” under the ADA and what its introduction has meant for law schools, state bar examiners, and legal employers. Part II examines the evolution of the ADA, its application, and specific learning disabilities under the statute. Part III analyzes the ADA in conjunction with the study of law and accommodations given to those with a learning disability. Part IV discusses how learning disabilities are interpreted by bar examiners and what accommodations and deemed reasonable when providing for them. Finally, Part V harmonizes what learning disabilities have meant to the modern-day practice of law, the ethical implications associated with the advent of the ADA, and the hazards involved in disclosing a learning disability” (p. 220).

Wilhelm, S. (2003, April). Accommodating mental disabilities in higher education: A practical guide to ADA requirements. Journal of Law & Education, 32, 217-237.

“This article does not challenge the philosophical underpinnings of the ADA in its application to mentally handicapped individuals in higher education. An enlightened society must make educational opportunities available to all of its citizens. The aim here is more practical. Offered instead is an examination of the law and cases involving mentally disabled students so as to assist institutions of higher education in developing guidelines and policies for accommodating students” (p. 219).