Court disables learning

Last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Andrew Wong, a medical student claiming to be learning disabled, on his claim that the University of California denied him special rights as protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court found that Wong's affliction did not qualify as a disability protected under the ADA. \nThe student's claim is not easily disputed; even the court's majority opinion admits "Wong was diagnosed by the University's Disability Resource Center as having a learning impairment that limited his ability to process and communicate information." The court actually takes a stand against those doctors.\nLet's examine a crucial portion of the Court's opinion, written by Judge Richard R. Clifton.\n"Wong's academic history has been filled with contradictions. In kindergarten he was identified as suffering from a learning impairment, but in grammar school he was certified as a gifted student. In middle school he was assigned to a special class for assisted learning. While attending high school and college, he regularly requested extra time on assignments and essay examinations. To keep up with his college classes, he said that he spent all of his extra time outside of school reading for his classes. The effort paid off, however, for he graduated from San Francisco State University, magna cum laude."\nThe court is disciplining Wong for spending extra time at school and succeeding. It's the equivalent to a paraplegic being told to walk up a staircase on his arms because he has shown the ability to do so in the past. Because Wong has shown the fortitude to fight through his disability and succeed in academics, he is being disallowed special accommodations. Perhaps Wong should have tried a little less.\nThe opinion continues to say Wong's verbal communication deficiency is not a learning disability as stated in the ADA. "By the demanding standards of the Acts, Wong is not substantially limited in a major life activity, so he does not qualify for the special protections the Acts provide for someone who is 'disabled.'"\nThe opinion of the court is, therefore, either that a speaking disability does not substantially limit, which any learning disabled person knows it does, or speaking is not one of life's major activities. If that's the court's final decision, it represents an enormous smack in the face to the University of California and every other academic institution in the United States, including IU. Movie theaters are required under the ADA to provide seating for people in wheelchairs. The 9th Circuit, therefore, is telling us that movie-watching is a major life activity but speaking is not.\nIn his dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney R. Thomas correctly notes that Clifton's opinion "precludes all students who, despite learning disabilities, have nonetheless achieved 'academic success,' from receiving ADA mandated accommodations," further calling the opinion "antithetical to ADA's requirement of individualized assessment of disability."\nLearning disabilities are real and serious, despite what the court might think. Yes, afflicted students can succeed. But those students' successes are in spite of their conditions, which should not be disregarded. The court's decision inhibits the success of students with learning disabilities and sets a precedent that could affect all students with disabilities in the future.