SAN FRANCISCO- Northern District of California Judge Charles Breyer ruled in favor of Stephanie Enyart, a Blind graduate of the UCLA Law School, who will be allowed to use her preferred assistive technology on her upcoming Bar exam in late February. The National Conference of Bar Examiners previously denied her request due to concerns that the integrity of the text could be compromised. The Bar also noted that Federal disability law "does not require testing organizations to provide disabled examinees with their preferred accommodations." Nonetheless, the judge ruled Enyart’s request reasonable, noting she the Bar should permit her to use the assistive technology she is accustomed to. Ms. Enyart is currently employed with
SOURCES:
Disability Rights Advocates, an organization based in Berkeley, California. Court Rules in Favor of Visually-Impaired Grad
http://www.dailycal.org/article/108028/court_rules_in_favor_of_visually-impaired_grad
Sounds Fair: Court Says Blind Law Student Can Use Software For Blind On Bar Exam
http://www.businessinsider.com/court-says-blind-law-student-can-use-software-for-blind-test-takers-for-bar-exam-2010-2
Blind student wins computer aid for bar examhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/30/BARA1BPRQF.DTL
25 comments:
Braille Institute is looking for virtual volunteers for their new online community site www.solutionsinsight.org/ the new site is focused on helping people with low or failing vision and the people that care for them. Thanks and have a good day :)
Wow. It seems obvious that a person should be allowed to use AT if needed. While I am happy that the ruling was in the student's favor, I think something should be done to change the fact that "Federal disability law 'does not require testing organizations to provide disabled examinees with their preferred accommodations.'" In my opinion, that is a form of discrimination and steps should be taken to ensure other students will be able to have the help they need. AT is not used to give individuals special advantage, but rather to allow people with disabilities the opportunity to perform at a level equal to their peers without disabilities.
I would think that the entire issue violates the American Disability Act It states they don't have to "Provide", okay - but if she had her own?? You would think a bunch of lawyers would have considered that before denying her! So glad it was appealed :)
It is very disconcerting that it would even be an issue for a person who is blind to be able to get the bar exam translated into Braille. With so many people with disabilities in the United States and so many advocates for people with disabilities I don’t understand how the National Conference of Bar Examiners would feel like this decision would be accepted. For a person to have gone so far as to complete both a bachelor’s degree and law school and be eligible to sit for the Exam it seems unreasonable to prevent an individual from completing their goal. Although I am glad that the decision was reversed, the situation should never have caused such a problem, I’m sure the aspiring lawyer was caused unnecessary stress. The Bar quoted part of the Federal law that was convenient for them that said they didn’t need to provide individuals with “their preferred accommodations.” Clearly as the individual is blind the accommodation isn’t preferred, it’s a necessity.
I think that the state of California allowing blind students to use their assistive technology (AT) devices to take the bar exam is awesome! If they are trying to keep equality in mind then this is definitely something that practices equality! If the student would not have been able to use her AT then that would have been discrimination because she needs that in order to read and properly complete assessments and other assignments. Considering that San Francisco supports the Gay and Lesbian communities is also something to take into consideration because if they support them why not support a person with a disability that needs this device for daily living and functioning. If California supports them then it is only fair to support Stephanie Enyart. Kudos to the state of California for allowing the use of AT with respect to the bar exam!
Amy G.
I believe that is a wonderful thing that the girl was able to use her assistive technology. I am assuming this is a precedented case and now others will be able to have the same allowances. I feel that this could be viewed as discrimination towards those whom have disabilities. It is only fair that are able to use their AT devices. I am so happy for the ruling!!!
Criselda Gonzalez
This topic is far to in depth to be simply a yes or no answer. While it is important to consider the rights of a disabled individual it is also important to consider that assistive technology based upon its sophistication could be used to cheat on the test, which undermines the entire principle of this argument which is to allow a disabled person to test on a balanced level with a non disabled student. The most plausible solution to this problem is to have a list of approved assistive devices so that not only can the devices capabilities be reviewed before hand, but also the test administrators can be more familiar with the devices that they will come in contact with. To further increase the efficiency of this method it would be a good idea to have available the approved devices to be used in place of a disabled student’s non-approved device.
-sukania mendez
Stephanie Enyart had every right to fight in court. Just because she is blind does not mean she should not get the right accommodations she needs. Every student with a disability should have the right to have their own accommodations. I am surprised that no one has ever filed a lawsuit in a case like this. Stephanie really needed to take her bar exam which was really important to her career. It is not fair she could not reach her dream and goals because she is blind. Everyone needs a chance and can be whatever they want in the future no matter their disability. You just need to know your rights, so you can get it accommodated to the disability you have. Good thing everything finally worked out for Stephanie Enyart. If it were me I would have done the same thing. I would fight in court until I could make it happen.
Jennifer Valerio
I am glad that concession will be made for the Blind UCLA student at the BAR examination, even though a Judge had to Instruct them to do so. I can also understand the reluctance of the BAR association. This will provide other individuals who don’t do well on these exams to question the concession made for the blind student as giving her an unfair advantage or questioning the integrity of the student. Sure we would like all kinds of concessions made on our behalf but are they a necessity. Who wouldn’t want all their exams to be open book or group work? The trouble with that is every individual will benefit, including those who didn’t apply themselves or preferred to let others do their work. Even if every precaution is taken to ensure the integrity of the student, exam, or facilitator of the exams, will come into question by others. Some will even say it is unfair to other students, even though they don’t have the same affliction but want the same concession. Simple solution, take away their sight permanently and give them what they want, but I can bet they won’t agree to it. While I believe these cases should be ruled on a case by case basis, it shouldn’t be open to every request. The blind student in my view had a reasonable request. It shouldn’t be difficult to have someone verify that there are no questionable methods being used. The same can be used for someone, who has broken their arm and cannot write down their answers, a neutral person be used to mark the answer chosen the by individual. All we have to do is use common sense and reasonable judgment. We have to remember laws cannot remain too rigid; otherwise they become counter -productive. For instance, Killing a person is against the law but not if it is deemed to have been done in self-defense. Can you imagine going to jail because you were speeding, regardless that you were on your way to the hospital because the person in your vehicle was in a life or death situation? I know my examples are extreme but then again the student didn’t ask because their eyes were just closed in order to give them the advantage. Too often we find ourselves comfortable with what is currently precedent that we no longer take a look at circumstances.
A. Lazo
I think it is great news that Ms. Enyart is able to use the Assistive Technology that she is used to using. The fact that the National Conference of Bar Examiners originally denied her the ability to use her AT on her bar exam is so disheartening. Students with disabilities should be able to request and be granted any of the accommodations that they feel are needed. If there is a certain boundary that one feels they cannot get over without the help of their AT, then they should have the right to use their preferred AT. Personally, I cannot even believe that this was an issue to debate. I am glad that she is going to be able to use her AT on her bar exam but I just hope that they change the Federal disability law and do provide people with disabilities with any accommodations that they feel are needed.
Victoria Lopez
Alright, the consensus is clear, the fact that testing organizations are exempt from complying with the special needs of students with disabilities is ridiculous. Without the compliance of special needs, students who cannot complete tests without accommodations would be left out of the opportunity to progress and advance as regular students could. This places special needs students at a double disadvantage and is clearly discriminatory. It is odd that this stipulation is in place and that it has yet to be amended. Lastly, the word "integrity" associated with this test and it's regulations implies that needing special accommodations is cheating. That predisposes individuals with disabilities, inferring that they are unfit to be lawyers, hmmm.
I do not see the problem in letting Stephanie use AT for her examination especially if the accommodation has already been given to previous test takers. There must have been some other issue with this student if they were making such a big deal about it. I think this might even be linked to her disability. Maybe they do not think that she would be a good lawyer because she is blind or fear that she may do a good job. I do not think this case should have gone as far as it did because she has been using the same AT for a while now and to take this away would mean for her to learn and study a new way. I think it would take longer for her to study and take the test if she relied on a human reader. A computer does not get tired and she can do the reading she can with her software. Some people might consider it cheating for one reason or another.
James D.
It is amazing that a group of people that have studied and seek to insure justices have done just the opposite. The examiners of the Bar should be more than aware that people with disabilities have rights and those rights need to be ensured in order for them to have a fair playing field. What surprised me the most is the fact that, according to the Daily Californian, accommodations similar to the ones Stephanie Enyart requested have been allowed in previous times. If in fact the issues was the security of the test, would it not be reasonable to believe that the accommodations were never allowed in the past? According to the Business Examiner, "The National Conference of Bar Examiners had argued that it had already planned concessions, such as allowing the woman, Stephanie Enyart, extra time and a live reader." Once again, if the examiners are arguing that they fear the test questions would leak out to the public, would not a live reader be more liability or risk because they too can expose test questions to others? In fact, I believe that allowing Ms. Enyart the opportunity to use the software she is accustomed too would be much safer because current technology offers the public so many options to ensure security and block out hackers. Good job for Ms. Enyart that has opened up the flood gates to all who want to pursue a similar route. Let's hope we can all have the courage and strength to fight for our dreams.
Here we are 20 years later after the passing of the ADA and were still trying to interpret what the ADA states what we can and cannot do. AT’s do not make individuals smarter they just assist individuals with what they need assistance in completing. It’s great that this individual was able to use her AT to take the exam but it’s sad that she had to go as far as she did to get the court to see the need for it. First case won if you ask me for UCLA student! It’s all about advocating about what is right for individuals with disabilities and this will definitely open doors to others. Great job UCLA student!
This is one of the many stories that keep astonishing me every time I read or hear about them. It's hard not to be amazed at the fact that there are still barriers for many people with disabilities. I congratulate the judge for ruling in favor of Stephanie Enyart. She has worked so hard throughout law school and deserves to take the Bar exam with her preferred assistive technology. This event will only show and proof that anyone can accomplish what they set out to do. Stephanie will become a role model for many who will come after her. This is a great accomplishment for an entire community.
A.Huerta
It is great to hear that this UCLA student can use her preferred form of AT. Having just learned about this a few weeks ago makes me understand now how difficult it must be for people not only to have exceptions made, however being able to use what works best for them. I think that people place all people with disabilities in the same categories and not consider that they are individuals with different needs and abilities. There is no "cookie cutter" way of addressing these needs and I am glad to see organizations such as this one moving forward.
-Anna L. Ocanas
Knowing that the Judge was in favor of the student request,talks about his equal judgement and proper justice. Using the AT when taking a state exam would equal to using personal eye glasses to focus better. Changing the rules would benefit more future students. Maybe not providing accommodations but allowing them to bring their personal things needed to better assit them in taking state exams.
I had no idea that Bar exams did not accomodate to an individuals needs. It is extremely disappointing that these exams are being exempt from the laws, that accomodations should be provided for individuals with disabilities. In this day and age making sure that every individual feel equal, should including having the right to take an exam with special accomodations when neede in order for that person to perform like any other individual that does not need it. However, thankfully this judge allowed the use of AT in a bar exam, but this is just onw of many individuals who need special accomodations when taking certain tests.
Nancy L.
Well I am happy to hear that a person with a disability was helped this types of news make me happy. What I really hate is that knowing that this person has a disability she was having such a hard time to do her exam. Persons who are not well inform about persons with disabilities do not show or try to have accommodations for them. One example would be the couple that went in to a restaurant with a service dog and the hostess who was at the entrances kept on telling the couple that no dogs allowed. These things make me mad because all workers should be inform by there employer about persons with disabilities. In Stephanie’s case it is really sad she had to go thru all that when in some schools as stated in the article students with that type of disability did not have to go thru that. It is all about the communication.
It is important to understand that people that use assistive technology is the only way they can be productive. I am a person with low vision and without my zoom-text program that is insult in my computer I won’t be able to do work productively. I am glad that Stephanie Enyart took a stand and defended herself and show others that they can do the same. I hope I can defend myself if I run to a situation like that. The National Conference of Bar Examiners should know better that they have to accommodate people with disabilities.
Nora
It is inspiring to me to hear about individuals like Stephanie Enyart, who has not let her inability to see, hinder her from pursuing her goals. Society could use more role models like her. I think it is wonderful that she will ultimately be allowed to use her assistive technology to take the Bar exam, yet still cant believe that the National Conference of Bar Examiners would ever deny her request due to concerns about integrity. I find their decision and justification ironic considering the fact that they are supposed to represent fairness and ethical values. Individuals with disabilities are provided accommodations in schools only when they are deemed necessary for the student’s success. By denying individuals like Ms. Enyart the use of these accommodations, the National Conference of Bar Examiners would basically be cutting their wings and denying them success all together-discriminating in a sense, and violating what they stand for. As disappointing and upsetting as it was to hear their take on the issue, the fact that the ruling was in Ms. Enyart’s favor is a monumental victory for everyone.
Martha G. Garza
I think that the California should have not doubted the possibility of the student using AT for the bar exam. Their reasons for not wanting her to use the magnified text and the text read to her are not acceptable. She made it through law school using this accommodations so there was no reason to question the possibility to use them for her Bar exam. I am glad that they allowed her use this AT since it was the technology she felt comfortable using throughout the years she spent in law school.
I think that the California should have not doubted the possibility of the student using AT for the bar exam. Their reasons for not wanting her to use the magnified text and the text read to her are not acceptable. She made it through law school using this accommodations so there was no reason to question the possibility to use them for her Bar exam. I am glad that they allowed her use this AT since it was the technology she felt comfortable using throughout the years she spent in law school.
I think that the California should have not doubted the possibility of the student using AT for the bar exam. Their reasons for not wanting her to use the magnified text and the text read to her are not acceptable. She made it through law school using this accommodations so there was no reason to question the possibility to use them for her Bar exam. I am glad that they allowed her use this AT since it was the technology she felt comfortable using throughout the years she spent in law school.
I think that the California should have not doubted the possibility of the student using AT for the bar exam. Their reasons for not wanting her to use the magnified text and the text read to her are not acceptable. She made it through law school using this accommodations so there was no reason to question the possibility to use them for her Bar exam. I am glad that they allowed her use this AT since it was the technology she felt comfortable using throughout the years she spent in law school.
Post a Comment