Accommodations and "Special Treatment"

One excuse for not providing disability accommodations is that they somehow don't exist in the "real world", which is a misinformed perspective on the way disability accommodations function in society (e.g. handicapped parking spaces and closed captioning are undeniably part of the "real world"). Another misinformed excuse for not providing disability accommodations is that they are "special treatment" or somehow give a person a distinct advantage over others. These excuses may be more prevalent for a person with an "invisible disability" such as a learning disability or autism.

An article Boston U student with a learning disability explains that accommodations are not "special treatment" says,

However, she said the most frustrating challenge for her is the general perception of students with learning disabilities.

“People need to realize that one, we’re not dumb, and two, that students with learning disabilities don’t get special treatment,” Fleishaker, who was diagnosed [with dyslexia] in the 8th grade, said.

Disability accommodations are intended not to give an advantage, but to "level the playing field." If it takes a person twice as long to read and understand the questions on an exam, then they will not have the same amount of time as the other students to actually answer the questions. Extra time on an exam does not give that student more time to answer the questions, it gives the student the same amount of time as the other students to answer the questions. This same idea extends into the workplace.

Like anything, the misperception of accommodations as advantages particularly for people with learning or cognitive disabilities probably happens for a variety of reasons. Invisible disabilities are difficult for people to understand as it is hard for anyone to imagine cognitive experiences that they themselves have never had. The types of accommodations that help people with learning or cognitive disabilities are often ones that would give an advantage to a person who did not have a disability (unlike accommodations such as an ASL interpreter or first story building access which are unlikely to give an advantage to a person who does not need them). Also, there is a mandate for all individuals to be held to the same academic or work place standards, and there is often fear on the part of instructors or employers that academic or work place standards would be compromised by the accommodation.

The BU article also touches on something that has come up in the context of ADA and service dogs: people abusing systems meant for accommodating disability in order to actually get special treatment or an advantage. Is there proof that this truly happens with sufficient frequency to justify the level of fear it invokes?

This issue is of concern because the more precautions that are taken to prevent systemic abuse, the more difficult it is likely to become for people who legitimately need accommodations to get them. Especially for people who have difficulty with communication, organization, language, or social interaction, putting together accommodation eligibility materials may become an accessibility barrier in and of itself.