[Papa John]

Unlike the folks on the Internet who are howling about the atrocities of accommodations, I wonder if Stanford and other universities are trying to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and perhaps other laws related to religious rights. Regarding the ADA, for the first time in my life I looked up the text of the law and found the following definition of disability:

The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual—

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

( C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

(B) Major bodily functions

For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

(3) Regarded as having such an impairment

For purposes of paragraph (1)( C):

(A) An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.

(B) Paragraph (1)( C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.

This is a legal definition, not medical, not social, not religious, etc. So, whatever the true numbers are about how many Stanford students have been granted disability accommodations, isn't it possible the school is erring on the side of caution so that it is in compliance with the ADA? And contrarians might think that students are "gaming" the system, but in reality the majority of those students are taking advantage of their legal rights?

I wonder if we have any legal scholars here who have some expertise in this area.

[Papa John]

Unlike the folks on the Internet who are howling about the atrocities of accommodations, I wonder if Stanford and other universities are trying to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and perhaps other laws related to religious rights. Regarding the ADA, for the first time in my life I looked up the text of the law and found the following definition of disability:

The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual—

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

( C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

(B) Major bodily functions

For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

(3) Regarded as having such an impairment

For purposes of paragraph (1)( C):

(A) An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.

(B) Paragraph (1)( C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.

This is a legal definition, not medical, not social, not religious, etc. So, whatever the true numbers are about how many Stanford students have been granted disability accommodations, isn't it possible the school is erring on the side of caution so that it is in compliance with the ADA? And contrarians might think that students are "gaming" the system, but in reality the majority of those students are taking advantage of their legal rights?

I wonder if we have any legal scholars here who have some expertise in this area.