Rejected disabled CAT-taker moves court against IIMs : Contends institutes leave disabled category seats vacant

Mayura Janwalkar.

Do the IIMs adequately fill up the disability quota for students?

No, thinks Rahul Girreddy, who took CAT this year and has filed a petition against the IIMs in the Bombay high court.  The commerce graduate contends in his petition that the IIMs are not complying with the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (PD) Act, 1995.  “Though there are 90 to 100 seats reserved for DAs (differently-abled candidates), only approximately 55 candidates are short-listed collectively by the IIMs for the second phase of the selection process,” the petition states. Under the PD Act, 3% of seats in educational institutions have to be reserved for DA candidates. But the number of seats provided by the IIMs against the quota does not amount to 3%, the petition states.

It states that IIM-A stipulates that SC/ST/DA candidates should score at least 17% in each of the three sections of CAT. Accordingly, 396 DA candidates should have been eligible for interviews this year. But the IIMs put the cut-off for the three categories at 80 percentile — much above what the 17% per subject would yield — and called only 31 candidates for interviews. Girreddy contends that even if all the IIMs were to set their cut-off at say 60 percentile — like  IIM-Indore — only 55 DA candidates would have been selected, leaving many seats vacant, which would then be filled up with candidates from the general category. Girreddy, who secured 46.20 percentile, was certain of getting an interview call.

But the high cut-off dashed his hopes. Terming the conditions laid down by the IIMs “illogical”, Girreddy states in his petition: “Though the IIMs do make a provision for 3% of their seats to be reserved for DAs, the modus operandi adopted by the IIMs defeats the provisions of the PD Act, frustrates the objective set out for the state in the constitution, and causes a colossal waste of public money.”  Girreddy’s father GS Reddy says the case will be mentioned before a division bench of the court on Monday, and a date of hearing sought. If the court gives a judgment favourable to Girreddy, it will affect the percentile scores of all candidates.

DNA Bombay

Student Forum Reclaims Radical Disability Studies

By Miriam Berger, Assistant Features Editor

At a University where classes such as “Gender in a Transnational Perspective” and “Ethnographic Approaches to Queer Studies” have moved towards the mainstream, Allegra Stout ’12 nevertheless felt that something was missing.  “I’ve been interested in disability studies for a long time,” Stout said. “A lot of classes have disability as a side note, but I wanted a more focused way to look at it.”  Disability studies—an inter-disciplinary field that approaches disability as a key aspect of human experience and identity with important political, social and economic implications—will now be redeemed from its sidebar status in a new student forum led by Stout, as well as Ariel Schwartz ’12, and Meredith Holmes ’10, that meets Thursdays from 1:10 p.m. to 4 p.m.  “We are going to look at disabilities the way that everyone looks at race and gender,” Stout said. “The forum will study people with disabilities as a marginalized oppressed group and seek to create social theories about that experience.”  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 defines a disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.”  Under the ADA, Americans with disabilities are afforded similar protections against discrimination as the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.  According to Schwartz, disability studies have developed over the last few decades as a more theoretical approach to embodiment and the experience of having a disability.  “When you volunteer for the special Olympics, it’s not the same as looking at the issue from a social science, oppression based way,” Schwartz said.

The discussion-based forum, which requires about sixty to eighty pages of reading a week, is intentionally flexible to accommodate different learning styles and creative pursuits. Each of the eight participants is required to lead one class, submit several papers, and complete a final project.  One component of the discipline is the social model theory of disability.  “The idea is that instead of the traditional medical view of disability in which there is something internally wrong with a person, the social model locates a person in the interaction between him or herself and a society that isn’t set up for them,” Schwartz said. “It’s not that your leg is broken, but that society is disabling you.”  “Crip theory,” another element of disability studies, was developed in connection with queer theory and addresses the oppressive normalizing forces of society that shape the experience of disabled embodiment.  According to Sheila Mullens, Visiting Instructor in American Sign Language, this forum is part of a wider academic movement.  “There is such a need in advocacy, law, and education for an approach like this,” said Mullens, who incorporates lessons on deaf issues into her second year sign language course. “I think that this is a wonderful beginning. It is an important part of the community.”  Across the country, institutions such as Teachers College of Columbia University, University of California at Berkeley, and Temple University, have all instituted disabilities studies programs on both the undergraduate and graduate level.

Schwartz urged Wesleyan to consider taking a similar path.  “There are a lot of classes that deal with disabilities tangentially,” Schwartz said, noting in particular American Sign Language, Psychotherapy Pathology, Ethics of Embodiment, and the Psychology of Gender. “I easily counted 10 classes that could fit under a disability class course structure.”  Stout has a similar aspiration.  “In the same way that a few decades ago women studies and female, gender, and sexuality studies (FGSS) didn’t exist, disability studies are a new, rapidly growing discipline.” Stout said. “I hope that this student forum will lead to interest in more professors and classes specializing in this field.”  Such was the case for Emily Wenzel ’10, who had no prior exposure to these theories before hearing from Holmes about the forum.  “I think that it’s interesting to look at, or attempt to look at, these experiences through someone else’s perceptive who deals with these considerations everyday,” Wenzel said.  Wenzel, whose brother was disabled in an accident, found the open environment of the forum ideal for discussing topics, such as the appropriate terms to use for identification, often hesitantly approached in other courses. For Crystal Abbott ’10 this forum provided the opportunity to build upon previous activism.

“I’ve been involved in the autistic community for some time,” said Abbott, who is autistic. “Disability activism is something that I intend to be involved with all of my life. I see this forum as a resource for me to get a deeper academic knowledge about disability activism and history.”  Stout originally presented the idea for the forum during a meeting of Wesleyan Students for Disabilities Rights, a group that she founded last fall as a freshman. Stout, Schwartz, and Holmes all attributed their interest in this field to personal influences, such as the experience of a family member with a disability or positive volunteer encounters.  Stout, however, stressed that disability studies is not an all-encompassing term.  “Disability studies does not include everything that deals with disabilities,” Stout said. “It is opposed to some approaches to disabilities, such as organizations, medical practices, and charities that evoke pity.”  She echoed Schwartz’s sentiments that volunteering should not merely be about the volunteer helping the person with disabilities, but rather should accentuate the strengths of both parties in order for each individual to gain from the perspective of the other.

While the forum’s facilitators lauded the University’s attempts to increase the accessibility of campus, such as the recent wheel chair ramp installed at 200 Church, they noted that a wider campus awareness of these issues is still needed.  “Accessibility isn’t just about ramps,” Schwartz said. “It’s about lighting, about the way people teach, and a million other everyday things.”

Wesleyan Students for Disability Rights meets on Mondays at 8:30 p.m. in Usdan 114. Students can contact Allegra Stout (astout@wesleyan.edu) for more information on the forum or about the group’s campus work.

Special-education mediation is an alternative to litigation

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

STAFF WRITER

Disputes between parents of students with disabilities and school districts occur frequently. In the area of school law, special-education lawsuits are numerous. For both parties, the monetary and emotional costs of litigation are high and the benefit to students with disabilities dubious.

Unlike other civil litigation, the adversarial relationship between parents and school districts does not end with the court decision. Both parties remain cross, more so the losing party. The student must continue to attend school and bear the effects of a damaged parent-school relationship. This unfortunate situation is exacerbated by attorneys who pit parents against school districts to win a case. Attorneys are well aware of federal and state special-education law that encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures. Instead, they rush to adversarial administrative hearings and the courts, which prolong resolution of the conflict. Obviously, it is in their financial interest not to mediate. Attorney fees are not awarded for time spent in mediation. It is not uncommon for an attorney to require a $5,000 retainer for legal services — fees that courts have held unreasonable — and not inform parents of their right to seek mediation.  Recent amendments to the federal special-education law (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004) allow school districts to seek reimbursement of their legal costs when parent complaints are found to be frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation. Also, school districts can obtain rewards when parent suits cause unnecessary delay and needless increases in litigation costs. Under these provisions, costs are levied against the attorney, not the parent. Special-education law permits the parties to use alternatives to due process hearings and lawsuits to settle their disputes. Resolution sessions and mediation procedures are written in the statute. The law requires that school districts inform the aggrieved parents of their right to mediation. Mediation must be voluntary by both parties and cannot be used to deny a hearing. Mediation is conducted by a trained and impartial conciliator. Typically, the signed mediation agreement reflects a compromise by the parties that ensures that the best interests of the student are paramount. The mediation agreement is enforceable in a federal or state court.

Another provision goes further to resolve parent-school disputes when they first arise. Resolution sessions offer the parties the opportunity to resolve a dispute within 15 days after the parent request for a due process hearing. If resolved, a settlement agreement is produced and is enforceable in either a federal or state court. The Congressional intent of the 1975 passage of the Education of Handicapped Children Act (now IDEA) was to afford parents of students with disabilities a voice in deliberations about their child’s educational program. The due process protections were designed to foster a collaborative/cooperative relationship between parents and the school officials. An unintended consequence of the legalization of special education has been rampant litigation that has harmed the parent-school relationship. Since 1990, Congress has attempted to remedy this state of affairs by adding those alternative dispute resolution mechanisms discussed above.

The reader should not be left with the impression that legal representation for people with disabilities is not needed, only that it is needed in some cases and not others. Attorneys from Disability Rights New Jersey are to be lauded, for example, for their recent civil action in obtaining community-based housing for eligible people with mental disabilities now held in state institutions. Disputes in special education revolve around whether a student with a disability has an appropriate educational program and whether the school placement is least restrictive. Most of these disagreements are resolved by parents and school officials acting in good faith. Many more disputes could be defused and resolved by the use of alternative conflict resolution procedures to avoid costly hearings and litigation. The savings in terms of dollars and mental anguish are huge for both parents and schools — money and time that can be used to improve the student’s education and build trust between parents and school officials. The ethic of professional practice is not only to inform parents of their rights, but to counsel them about alternatives to filing a lawsuit.

Stanley J. Vitello, Ph.D., J.D., is a professor of special education at the Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University. A former Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Public Policy Fellow, he assisted in the 1990 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Dr. Vitello (svitello@aol.com) is founder of The Vitello Group, which provides special-education instructional and mediation services.

NJ.com

Scholarship for Students with Disabilities

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Applications are invited by 31st August, 2009 from the persons with disabilities to award 500 National Scholarships for the year 2009-10 for pursuing technical and professional courses from recognized institutions. Salient features of the scheme are:-

  • Financial Assistance can be given for computer with editing software for blind/deaf graduate and post graduate students pursuing professional courses and for support access software for cerebral palsied students.
  • Scholarship of Rs.1000/-p.m. for hostellers and Rs.700/- p.m. for day scholars studying in professional courses at graduation and above level, and Rs.700/- p.m. for hostellers and Rs.400/- p.m. for day scholars pursuing Diploma /certificate level professional. Course fee is reimbursed upto ceiling of Rs.10,000/- per year.

For detail proposal download check our website at http://www.antardrishti.org