JFActivist

House and Senate Both Consider Legislation to Protect Students with Disabilities from Abusive Seclusion and Restraint

From an House Committee on Education and Labor Press Release (12/9/09):

Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Children from Abuse in Schools

Legislation will, for the first time, address seclusion and restraint in schools; Embodies principles set by Obama administration

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) today introduced legislation that would, for the first time, protect all children in schools from harmful uses of restraint and seclusion. The legislation embodies principles outlined in a letter U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent to Miller today. U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) is also expected to introduce companion legislation today in the Senate. The lawmakers unveiled the bill at a press conference this morning; click here to watch (67.4 MB file).

A U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last spring exposed hundreds of cases of schoolchildren being abused as a result of inappropriate uses of restraint and seclusion, often involving untrained staff. In some cases, children died. A disproportionate number of these victims were students with disabilities.

“Something is very wrong when our children are at risk in their own classrooms,” said Miller, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee who requested the GAO’s investigation. “In some cases, the abuses these kids are suffering are nothing short of torture inflicted at the hands of the very staff we entrust with their safety. Today is a critical first step toward finally ending this nightmare of abuse and ensuring that all classrooms are safe for students, their teachers, and the entire school communities.”

“As a parent, when I send my son Cole to school, my husband Brian and I send him with the expectation that he is safe from danger. We entrust him to teachers, principals, and aides. And we know those school personnel have done an outstanding job to help him and keep him safe. Yet, we know this has not been the case for other children, particularly children with disabilities who are the most vulnerable and need the most protection,” said McMorris Rodgers, a member of the House Education and Labor Committee and vice chair of the House Republican Conference. “I’ve looked into this and have come to the conclusion that there is a lack of training. As difficult situations arise, teachers or principals just don’t know what to do. The legislation that we are introducing today gives states the needed guidance and resources to enable teachers and school personnel to handle difficult situations in the most positive manner possible.”

“The tragedies associated with the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint are not only unacceptable, they are unconscionable,” said Dodd.  “There is no place in our schools for what amounts to torture, and we need clear standards for the use of tactics that lead to the physical and psychological abuse of children.  This legislation will set clear guidelines so that children and educators alike can be sure of a safe learning environment.”

>>> For the Full Release

>>> For an H.R. 4247 Fact Sheet

>>> For the Text of the Bill-H.R. 4247

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                  

December 9, 2009

DODD INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO PROTECT SCHOOLCHILDREN FROM HARMFUL RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) today introduced legislation to prevent the harmful use of seclusion and restraint on students. The Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act would help ensure the safety and security of both teachers and students by preventing and reducing the use of restraint and seclusion techniques in schools. The legislation, which was also introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman George Miller (D-CA), would also provide proper training for school personnel who impose these techniques, in order to ensure the safety of students and educators alike.

Dodd wrote and helped pass legislation to protect children from the misuse of restraint and seclusion in most hospitals and residential facilities after an 11-year-old boy from Portland, CT died from being improperly restrained in a psychiatric hospital in 1998.

“The tragedies associated with the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint are not only unacceptable, they are unconscionable,” said Dodd.  “There is no place in our schools for what amounts to torture, and we need clear standards for the use of tactics that lead to the physical and psychological abuse of children.  This legislation will set clear guidelines so that children and educators alike can be sure of a safe learning environment.”

 “Children should not be abused under the guise of discipline, but time after time, we’ve heard horrific accounts of what is nothing less than torture in classrooms at the hands of untrained staff,” said Congressman Miller. “It is unbelievable that children have protections against harmful restraint and seclusion in other facilities, but not in school where they spend the majority of their time. Senator Dodd and I both know it is necessary to help set the important minimum health and safety standards to stop these horrific abuses. ”

The Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act will:

• Prohibit the use of restraint and seclusion in schools unless the student’s behavior poses an immediate danger of physical injury and less restrictive interventions would be ineffective.
• Prohibit the use of any mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, or physical restraint that restricts air flow to the lungs, and any other aversive behavioral intervention that compromises health and safety.
• Require adequate training for school personnel imposing restraint and seclusion.
• Require immediate parental notification and a school debriefing following each incident of restraint or seclusion.
• Require states to create a state plan that incorporates the minimum standards and report annually on the number of incidents of restraint and seclusion.
• Provide competitive grants to assist with developing and implementing the state plan, providing training and certification to school personnel, and implementing positive behavioral supports to further prevent restraint and seclusion.
•   Instruct the Department of Education to conduct and provide to Congress a national assessment which analyzes data on restraint and seclusion and effective practices in preventing and reducing incidents.   

Dodd is a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and chairman of its Subcommittee on Children and Families. Congressman Miller is the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

 

Action Alert: Send Stories of Inaccessible Medical Services and Equipment

*** Take Action ***  Report Problems Accessing Medical Services or Equipment: inaccessible tables, inadequate lifting practices at medical clinics, etc.

to Jennifer Wolfsheimer at 202-370-3210 or jwolfsheimer@equalrightscenter.org

From The Equal Rights Center (12/8/09):

New Initiative Examines Accessibility of Health Care System

 

In response to complaints about inaccessible medical services and equipment, the Equal Rights Center (ERC) has launched a new initiative aimed at eliminating this form of discrimination.  The initiative began after three ERC members who use wheelchairs called the ERC to report denial of services, inaccessible tables, and inadequate lifting practices at medical clinics in Washington, D.C. 

 

“The inaccessibility of basic medical equipment, such as examination tables, seriously compromises the quality of care individuals with disabilities receive,” said ERC Executive Director, Don Kahl.  “Not providing equal preventative and urgent care services to a large segment of our population is not only illegal but also a disservice to our entire country.”  

 

These complaints are not the first encountered by the ERC in addressing accessibility barriers.  In 2005 the ERC advocated for accessible medical facilities and reached a settlement with Washington Hospital Center, which mandated that medical facilities, such as examination rooms, examination tables and other medical equipment be made accessible.  The settlement also addressed inadequacies in policies and procedures to ensure that patients with disabilities receive the assistance they need to eat, drink, and otherwise care for themselves.

 

“A health center should be a place of safe harbor for all individuals,” said Jennifer Wolfsheimer, the ERC’s Disability Rights Manager.  “Equal treatment at health centers not only improves the wellbeing of the individuals who visit, but also improves the lives of the entire community through a more healthy and active citizenry.”

 

In an effort to ensure people with disabilities do not encounter similar forms of discrimination, the ERC has began an initiative to educate people with disabilities about their rights and health care providers about their responsibilities and, when necessary, advocacy and enforcement directed at those who violate the laws protecting people with disabilities.

 

If you or anyone you know have encountered accessibility issues at a health facility or if you would like to get involved in this initiative please contact Jennifer Wolfsheimer at 202-370-3210 or jwolfsheimer@equalrightscenter.org

Remarks of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. Perez at His Installation Ceremony

From the Department of Justice:

Remarks of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. Perez at His Installation Ceremony
Friday, November 13, 2009 

I have to begin by thanking Attorney General Holder for the opportunity for this homecoming. It's an honor to have been appointed to lead the Civil Rights Division after having dedicated so many years to it. I also have to thank you for constantly reminding all of us that the Division is a priority for you and for the President.

(Thanks to other program participants) 

I was in a meeting recently with representatives from some civil rights organizations, and one of them relayed to me a story that struck a chord. They were talking to the editorial board of a prominent newspaper about the Administration's commitment to revitalizing the Civil Rights Division, and a member of the board posed a question: Why do we still need a Civil Rights Division? 

In 2009, nearly 50 years removed from the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964; nearly a century and a half removed from the emancipation proclamation; and a year after the American people unwaveringly sent an African American family to the White House -- why do we need a Civil Rights Division? 

It's an interesting and provocative question. 

We have undeniably come a long way. An entire generation has passed since our nation's leaders recognized the injustice of legal segregation. Women outnumber men in the workplace. We have an African American President, a Latina Supreme Court Justice and a female Speaker of the House. My parents probably couldn't have imagined any of it, but my children are growing up to know nothing else. 

There are some out there who think the task is complete, who would like to close the book and say we've fulfilled the promise of equal opportunity and justice for all. 

And my job security aside, I wish they were right. I wish that last year's historic election were the culmination rather than a checkpoint along the way. 

But, as the late Senator Ted Kennedy often reminded us, Civil Rights are truly the unfinished business of America. Perhaps as much as any time in the last half century, we still need a Civil Rights Division. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote from a narrow cell in Birmingham City Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." 

And when three men are driven from their burning home by a neighbor because of the language they speak and the color of their skin, as recently happened in case that came across my desk, that is certainly a case of injustice and it is certainly a threat to justice nationwide. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because, as President John F. Kennedy said as he introduced what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "...this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free." 

And when our LGBT brothers and sisters are not afforded the same protections under the law as the rest of us, they are not free, and therefore our nation is not entirely free. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because, as Hubert Humphrey said: "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped." 

And in 2009, despite great gains, too many reside in the shadows. Too many people of color find themselves powerless in the face of discriminatory housing and lending. Too many individuals with disabilities still struggle to access the basic services the rest of us take for granted. Too many students still lack the quality education all children are guaranteed by law. Too many new Americans who came to this nation seeking the same freedom and opportunities that our parents, and our grandparents sought, find themselves the targets of bigotry and hate.
We need a Civil Rights Divisions to bring these people out of the shadows. We need a Civil Rights Division to back up our nation's promise of equal justice for all. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because on the night that Barack Obama was elected the nation's first African American president, four men on Staten Island set out to assault African Americans in retaliation. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because extremists still think it's their prerogative to murder a doctor because he provides a service with which they do not agree. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because while we all thought we had long ago left behind the ways of the Jim Crow south, we read just last month in the newspaper about a Justice of the Peace who took it upon himself to decide that blacks and whites should not marry. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because when the federal government comes into a community to right a wrong, our presence and our moral and legal authority make a huge difference and have a unique capacity to effect positive, lasting change. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because it is the moral compass of our nation. It backs up with actions the promises made on paper by our nation's civil rights laws. It serves as a guiding light as we navigate new paths on the road to equal justice. 

The question is not "Why do we need a Civil Rights Division?" 

Rather, the question we should ask ourselves is this: What does civil rights mean in the 21st Century? 

I've had quite a bit of time to ponder this question. 

Civil Rights in 2009 and beyond means continuing to combat the sort of blatant discrimination that persists, but also tackling the more subtle, and equally dangerous, discrimination that festers in so many of our institutions. 

It means addressing the vast injustice done by the explosion in subprime lending and the subsequent foreclosure crisis, which, though it has touched every corner of our nation, has disproportionately impacted people of color and threatened the stability of their communities at far greater rates than their white counterparts. Unscrupulous lenders all too frequently have the corrosive power of fine print to trick hardworking people and tear apart communities. We have fair lending and fair housing laws on the books. We must enforce them fairly and aggressively and independently. 

Civil Rights in 2009 means working to create services, programs and public facilities that are accessible to individuals with disabilities, recognizing that they have a vast contribution to make to our society and our communities that can only be maximized if they have equal access. It means recognizing that segregating people with disabilities in institutions is every bit as bad and illegal as segregating children of color in inferior schools. 

It means understanding how the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks has subjected the Arab-American and Muslim-American communities to an unjustified backlash, and working to be sure we don't fall into the trap of believing that we either protect our national security and safe streets OR we protect civil rights. We can and must do both. 

Civil rights in 2009 means understanding that civil rights are human rights, and we are citizens of the world who must set the proper example for others. It means taking partnership to new and unprecedented levels - partnership with sister agencies, state and local governments, and, where appropriate, with private attorneys and non-profits, all the while remaining aware of the independence that we must maintain. 

It means recognizing where our laws fall short, and working to fill the gaps. In this nation today, hardworking LGBT individuals are not even protected by our nation's civil rights laws, and have no legal recourse against discrimination in the workplace. It is fundamentally unfair for my sister in law who is straight to enjoy protections against discrimination in the workplace, while my sister in law who is a lesbian has no protections. Civil Rights in 2009 means expanding the universe of individuals who are protected by the law. The recent enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Protection Act was a good start in that direction. 

Civil Rights in 2009 means restoring and transforming the Civil Rights Division - not in an effort to re-create the Civil Rights Division of an earlier era, but rather to prepare ourselves to tackle the challenges before us today, and to ensure we are nimble enough to address the challenges on the horizon. 

In short, the Civil Rights Division is open for business. Our job is to enforce the civil rights laws - all the laws. Civil Rights Enforcement is not like the buffet line at the cafeteria. You can't pick and choose which laws you like, and which ones you don't. We will enforce all the laws in fair, aggressive and independent fashion, and we will use all the tools available to us. 

I would like to close by noting that we are at a critical turning point. Just a year ago we all were basking in the glow of President Obama's election. To be sure, it was a spectacular achievement for a nation with such a long and complicated history of race relations. But as we look back over the history of the advancement of civil rights in our nation, each moment of great progress has been followed by periods of great challenge. 

Thomas Jefferson wrote of the great self-evident truth - that all men are created equal, but it would be nearly a century before slavery was abolished in the land of the free. 

Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and later spoke of a new birth of freedom at Gettysburg, but the great promise of those moments was followed by decades of legal segregation, discrimination and hate.
In 1963, Dr. King wrote "we have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights." He and his fellow "drum majors for justice" helped secure those rights with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act the following year. And yet, today, 45 years later, injustice persists. 

We have made great progress. But as we pass each benchmark, we must turn to face the new challenges ahead. 

I am excited about what lies ahead, and I appreciate the sacrifices that my wife and children make day in and day out to enable me to take on these responsibilities. I know success will not be easy, but it is a great privilege to have been given this opportunity to return to my roots at the Civil Rights Division and to help lead it into its latest chapter in this epic story.

Department of Justice Files Briefs in Three States to Enforce Olmstead and Support Community Living

From the Department of Justice (12.2.09):

Briefs Filed in Three States to Enforce Supreme Court’s Olmstead Decision
by Tracy Russo

Last week proved to be a landmark for federal enforcement of the Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C., a ruling requiring States to eliminate unnecessary segregation of persons with disabilities and to move persons who can function in the community out of segregated facilities.

The Olmstead decision has often been called the Brown v. Board of Education of the disability rights movement. Earlier this year, President Obama issued a proclamation launching the “Year of Community Living,” and has directed the Administration to redouble enforcement efforts.

Last week, the Justice Department filed amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs in three separate cases in Connecticut, Virginia and New York. Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the department’s Civil Rights Division stated:

“As the Supreme Court determined in the landmark Olmstead v. L.C. case, unjustified institutionalization stigmatizes individuals with disabilities as unworthy of participation in community life. New York, Virginia and Connecticut can successfully provide community-based housing, such as scattered site apartments with supportive services, and the law requires them to do so to prevent unnecessary institutionalization.”...

>>> For the Full Post

URGENT: Do You Still Care About Long Term Services and Supports?

National Call-In Day TOMORROW, Thursday, December 3rd

Call your Senators at this toll-free number: (800) 958-5374

Senator Gregg (R-NH) just spent some time on the Senate floor bashing the CLASS Act.  Senator Baucus (D-MT) (Manager of the health reform bill) interrupted him briefly to say, “Frankly, I’m no fan of the CLASS Act myself.”  

See below for info on a national call-in day tomorrow and for the need to collect stories ASAP.  Please feel free to adapt the alert [when you pass it along].  This is critical.  There will be an amendment to strike the CLASS Act.  We need a full-scale effort to build support for keeping CLASS Act in the bill when the amendment is offered.  

I believe this is an empowerment issue.  Some Senators have expressed the view that people with disabilities who need long term services belong in Medicaid!  That would mean continued impoverishment for life to qualify for needed supports.  We need the CLASS Act to offer an alternative to forced impoverishment in the future!

Marty Ford

From the Arc and UCP Disability Policy Collaboration (12/2/09):

Background:

The U.S. Senate is now debating its health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And while the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act has stayed in the bill this far, it could be stripped from the bill any day now.   In fact, we just learned that there will be an amendment to eliminate the CLASS Act from the bill.

 

Our contacts on Capitol Hill tell us that one of the biggest obstacles for the CLASS Act is misperception among Members of Congress and their staff that people with disabilities belong in the Medicaid program and cannot work.  We must set the record straight and let our Senators know that, while Medicaid is an essential safety net, millions of people who now have or later develop disabilities work and want to take personal responsibility for their long term care needs. This is an empowerment issue - People should not be forced into poverty to get the support they need.

 

You can help by doing two things:

 

1) Plan to participate *tomorrow* December 3 in a national call in day.  Join advocates from around the country in making our voices heard!  Please call both of your Senators.  The toll free number is (800) 958-5374.  Here is a Sample Script:

Hello. I am calling to ask Senator ___________________ to make sure the CLASS Act remains in the final health reform bill and to oppose any amendment to strip it from the bill. The CLASS Act will help people to remain independent at home.

 

 

2)           Tell us your long term services and supports story NOW.  Stories are being gathered to share during Senate debate on the health care reform bill. We are seeking personal stories that fall under two categories:

 

Looking Back - What could have been if the CLASS Act program had been available.  Story examples include:

•        You worked for many years and discovered that you were financially unprepared for your long term services and supports needs after you became disabled in a car accident.  If you had been able to pay into the CLASS Act program, you could have paid an attendant to help you remain in your own home and not been forced to move into a nursing home before it was necessary.

•        Your sister who has a developmental disability held a job for several years until her health worsened and she required assistance with daily activities such as transportation and meal preparation.  Had she been able to pay into the CLASS Act program, she could have paid an attendant to help her with these activities of daily living and remained employed.

•        Your wife became disabled after having a stroke.  Had she been able to pay into the CLASS Act program, she could have used the cash benefit to pay for services and supports in the state where you had planned to move to.  Instead, she had to spend down all her savings to qualify for Medicaid and you and your wife were unable to move.

•        Your father’s retirement savings were depleted to pay for his long term care needs.  If he had been able to pay into the CLASS Act program, he could have made the necessary modifications to his home to accommodate his wheelchair and covered his other needs instead of relying on you and your sibling who tapped into your own children’s education funds to help pay for his care.

 

Looking Forward - What could be if the CLASS Act program becomes available. Story examples include:

•        You just started your career.  If the CLASS Act program becomes available, you know that you can be take personal responsibility for your own care and be more self sufficient should you become disabled for any reason.

•        Your son has a disability and is currently employed.  If the CLASS Act program becomes available, he will be able use the cash benefit to purchase the services and supports that he needs to remain employed for as long as possible.

•        Your husband is starting to plan for his retirement. If the CLASS Act program is available, you know that, if he becomes disabled, you will not have to divorce him in order to keep his household income below the Medicaid eligibility level to receive long term services and supports.

•        Your mother is nearing retirement.  If the CLASS Act program becomes available, she can start paying in and supplement her private long term care insurance plan that provides limited coverage.

 

You can submit stories online at http://surveys.aahsa.org/EFM/wsb.dll/s/30g179 , or use the questions in this survey to help guide you in writing your story.  If you would prefer to just email your story (instead of the survey), please send it to acosta@thedpc.org

 

 

Thank you in advance for your advocacy and your commitment to improving the quality of life for millions of people with disabilities and older Americans.  For more information, see www.passtheclassact.org.

 

Action Alert: Tell DOT to Stop Discriminating Against Travelers with Psychiatric Disabilities

Action Alert: Tell DOT to Stop Discriminating Against Travelers with Psychiatric Disabilities

From the Psychiatric Service Dog Society (11/24/09):

In May 2009, new Air Carrier Access Act regulations were enacted requiring differential treatment of passengers using Psychiatric Service Animals (PSAs) as opposed to those using other types of service animals.  Air passengers with PSAs (and only that type of service animal) must provide the airline with 48 hrs notice and a letter from their mental health practitioner who they must be seeing within 12 months of flying.  People with any other type of disability who use service animals do not have to provide any notice, documentation or disclosure of disability.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) enacted these changes due to concerns people might misrepresent pets as PSAs. They cite abuse of a special class of pet, called Emotional Support Animals (ESA).  However, these animals are pets not service animals.

Requirement of documentation and notice for PSAs is not a solution because people will simply fake other types of service animals. DOT has opened a comment period ending December 17, 2009 for people to respond to these new rules.

The Psychiatric Service Dog Society's comments regarding these changes can be downloaded, and are summarized below:

http://www.psychdog.org/attach/PSDSACAAcomments.pdf

1) These changes discriminate against an entire class of people with disabilities.
2) There is no data regarding fraudulent use of psychiatric service animals.
3) Abuse of the ESA category is not a valid reason to discriminate against people with PSAs
4) People with PSAs are no more inclined toward fraudulent behavior than those with any other type of service animal.

ESAs are pets that have been granted status by the DOT. They are not service animals.  PSDS proposes no documentation be required for any service animal.  Documentation may be required for ESAs or they may be eliminated from in-cabin air travel.

Additional background information can be found here:
http://www.psychdog.org/comm_talkback.html

To read the request for comments and to submit a comment, please visit:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a2662c

Please submit a statement by December 17th and circulate this to others in the disability communities.  Minimally, you can state "I agree with the Psychiatric Service Dog Society's position".  If you want to include more detail, you may copy the PSDS position summary from above, or craft your own statement.

Please contact me for more information!  Thank you in advance for your support.

Veronica Morris
Psychiatric Service Dog Society Volunteer
veronica@psd-user.net

ABC to Air "A Place for All: Faith and Community for Persons with Disabilities"

From a Diva Communications Press Release (11/16/09):

Diva Communications' Interfaith Documentary Explores Pressing Issue of Faith and Persons with Disabilities

Diva Communications, Inc., a three-time Emmy award-winning programming and production company, has complete 'A Place for All: Faith and Community for Persons with Disabilities,' a unique interfaith documentary due to begin airing on ABC stations in December.  The documentary, produced in conjunction with the New York Board of Rabbis, had the support of an extraordinary lineup of faith groups including the National Council of Churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ and the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops.  The faiths' relationship with persons with persons with disabilities is a critical issue since it is estimated that 1 out of 5 Americans has a disability.

'A Place for All' explores the courageous stories of persons with disabilities as the succeed in making their faith communities truly inclusive.  It features people such as Rabbi Darby Jared Leigh, a spiritual leader at Congregation Bnai Keshet in New Jersey and one of the handful of deaf rabbis in the world; members of ELCA's DAYLE program where Definitely Abled Youth unite at the 40,00 strong triennial Evangelical Lutheran youth gathering; Rev. Beth Lockard, the pastor of Christ the King Deaf Church; and Brandon Kaplan, a severely disabled boy with limited sigh and speech who recently had the privilege of becoming a Bar Mitzvah...

... ABC  stations nationwide will begin airing the program December 6, 2009 as a part of ABC's Vision and Values series, a presentation of the Interfaith Broadcasting Commission. Check your local station for times. 

>>>For More Information or To watch the trailer

>>>For A Listing of Stations and Times

Survivor, the Disabled Version, Comes to U.K. TV

From Time (11/17/09):

Survivor, the Disabled Version, Comes to U.K. TV
By Catherine Mayer / London

To television executives depressed over the dwindling audiences for reality TV shows and looking for ways to reinvigorate the once hugely profitable genre, the following pitch might be compelling. "We've got this great show for you. We're going to take six strangers and strand them somewhere really remote; we'll film them as they struggle to survive. You say it's already been done — there's  I'm a Celebrity — Get Me Out of Here! and Survivor and, here in Britain, Castaway. But here's the twist: our participants will be ... disabled! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Cast Offs, a uniquely challenging reality TV show."...

...The show, scheduled to begin airing on Britain's Channel 4 on Nov. 24, is a mockumentary-style drama that apes the reality format it satirizes and seethes with sex, profanity and gloriously politically incorrect dialogue. But it stars actors who in real life share the same disabilities of the characters they portray...

...It's the twisted brainchild of producer Joel Wilson, ...[who]originally envisaged Cast Offs "as something broadly satirical that would poke fun at the way disability is generally viewed ... We wanted to show the disabled were no more and no less f___ed up than anyone else."

>>> For the Full Article

Not Everyone Is Happy about 'Glee'

From the AP (11/10/09):

`Glee' wheelchair episode hits bump with disabled
By LYNN ELBER

LOS ANGELES – The glee club members twirl their wheelchairs to the tune of "Proud Mary" and in joyful solidarity with Artie, the fellow performer who must use his chair even when the music stops.

The scene in Wednesday's episode of the hit Fox series "Glee," which regularly celebrates diversity and the underdog, is yet another uplifting moment — except to those in the entertainment industry with disabilities and their advocates.

For them, the casting of a non-disabled actor to play the paraplegic high school student is another blown chance to hire a performer who truly fits the role.

"I think there's a fear of litigation, that a person with disabilities might slow a production down, fear that viewers might be uncomfortable," said Robert David Hall, longtime cast member of CBS' "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation."

All of that is nonsense, said Hall: "I've made my living as an actor for 30 years and I walk on two artificial legs."...

>>> For the Full Article

National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) Sued for Refusing to Accommodate Law School Grad who is Blind

Press Release

National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) Discriminates Against Blind & Low Vision Law School Graduates

A suit filed November 3, 2009 in Federal court alleges that The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) discriminates against blind and low vision law school graduates.

November 3, 2009

OAKLAND, Calif. - A suit filed today in Federal court alleges that The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) discriminates against  blind and low vision law school graduates. The suit charges that the  NCBE is violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act  (ADA) and California's civil rights law by denying accommodations on  the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) and the Multistate Professional  Responsibility Exam (MPRE) to a law school graduate who is blind.

The Plaintiff is represented with the support of the National  Federation of the Blind ("NFB") by Labarre Law Offices, P.C., in  Denver, CO, and by Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, in Baltimore, MD.  The Plaintiff is further represented by Disability Rights Advocates  (DRA), a non-profit law center that specializes in civil rights cases  on behalf of persons with disabilities, based in Berkeley, CA.

The NCBE provides standardized examinations for the testing of applicants for admission to the practice of law. Two of the tests it controls, the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) are required for admission to the bar by most states. The California Bar examination has two sections; a California section and the MBE. Although both parts of the exam are administered by the California State Bar, the NCBE controls the type of accommodations each state can offer test takers with disabilities for the MBE portion of the bar exam.

Even though the California State Bar is a named Defendant in the suit, they have offered to provide the Plaintiff with all the accommodations she requested for the California section of the bar examination. However, the NCBE refuses to allow the California Bar Examiners to give the Plaintiff certain of the accommodations that she needs on the MBE portion of the bar exam. The California State Bar is fulfilling its legal obligation and is only named in the complaint as an indispensable party. Plaintiff hopes that the lawsuit will convince the NCBE to follow the California State Bar's example and provide the requested accommodations on the MBE portion of the barexam.

The NCBE has also denied Plaintiff the accommodations at issue on the MPRE exam.  This is a separate exam that bar applicants need to pass to be admitted to practice.  The ACT is also named in the complaint since it administers the MPRE examination for NCBE and is thus also an indispensable party.

The Plaintiff Stephanie Enyart is a law school graduate who is legally blind and requires accommodations to take the MBE and MPRE. She has requested to take the exams on a laptop computer equipped with screen reading (JAWS) and screen magnification (ZoomText) software. Ms. Enyart has relied on this combination of assistive technology as an accommodation on her exams throughout law school and in her current legal work.

The NCBE has refused to allow Ms. Enyart these reasonable accommodations for the MBE and MPRE on several occasions during the past years. In recent discussions with Plaintiff's counsel, the NCBE has indicated that it will continue to deny Ms. Enyart her requested accommodations.  Instead, the NCBE has offered alternative accommodations that are not suited to Ms. Enyart's disability and are not effective. The NCBE's denials of accommodations are preventing Ms. Enyart from obtaining admission to the bar, impeding her career.

Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), supporting the lawsuit, said "Too often law students who are blind or have low vision have to prolong their prospects for licensing while they fight to get the same accommodations they've had throughout their educational history. Those that opt to settle for inadequate accommodations usually struggle to pass or sometimes do not pass at all. Those who control admission to the practice of law must obey the law."

Janice Ta, President of the National Association of Law Students with Disabilities (NALSWD), which expressed support for the lawsuit, said "The legal profession must recognize and be prepared for the spectrum of conditions and disabilities that law students have. Testing entities need to be open to a wide range of accommodations. But we find that time and again they don't seem to understand their obligation for providing individualized accommodations and adaptive technologies that reflect the way real law students with disabilities get tested, study, and make their way around the world."

CONTACTS:

Chris Danielsen, Director of Public Relations, NFB, (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330

Scott Labarre, Labarre Law Offices, P.C., (303) 504-5979

Daniel Goldstein, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, (410) 962-1030

Larry Paradis, Disability Rights Advocates, (510) 665-8644

>>> For More