Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
NEEDS and WANTS are two vastly different things, don't you agree?
|
Oh yes, definitely! If I were the lawyer for the plaintiffs, that would be how I would argue them into not requesting certified ASL interpreters for those classes they don't really need.
For example, one plaintiff wanted to take that class in History of WW II. He could have used the computer or gone to the library instead. A class addressing medical issues may be different.
No interpreting would be necessary in some art classes as long as the teacher would be willing to spend just a few minutes face-to-face with the deaf student who after all has to keep his eyes on the paper. That is what my college instructors did with me back in those days when there was no such thing as interpreting in classes.
It takes both sides to compromise. That would have been my mantra all along...compromise, compromise, compromise.
However under the ADA the deaf has the right to request such services in a "fun" class if they are offered to anyone else.
If I lived in TV, I would have requested a volunteer position as an ombudsperson between the LLC and the deaf students. This is where TV made its mistake - not having an ombudsperson. Randy McDaniel and Janet Tutt might have meant well, but they had no expertise in this area.