The Kindle Case
The suit against Case Western Reserve University over a pilot that used the Kindle for textbooks was the wake-up call to colleges. In the Dear Colleague Letter in 2010, the departments of justice and education made it clear that technologies and content must be accessible for all. On Thursday, May 26, 2011, the US Department of Education (DOE) released an FAQ document related to the use and accessibility of emerging technology in educational institutions. This document is a follow-up to the Dear Colleague letter (DCL). The FAQ clarifies the scope of the DCL, provides key definitions and specifies the department’s intent regarding what technology the letter does and does not apply to.
One of the early clarifications is that the letter does not intend to prohibit the use of emerging technology in educational environments. Throughout the FAQ document, the DOE states and uses explicit examples to demonstrate how new technology can be utilized in college and university classrooms to allow students to “acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students” with “substantially equivalent ease of use.”
The DOE also specifically recognizes that innovations in technology have the opportunity to improve the educational experiences of all students, especially those with disabilities. In regards to e-book readers and alternative print media, the department has provided examples within the FAQ document to clarify its position regarding the provision of traditional alternative media. In question 12, the DOE indicates that traditional media is still a viable accommodation; however, “the alternative media must provide access to the benefits of technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner” as the new technology used. This means that campuses cannot rely on their traditional alternative media provision alone; each case must be determined on a case by case basis based on what technology the campus is using. As an example, the DOE cites the use of electronic book readers in a library setting that are not accessible. As an alternative, the college purchased tablet computers with additional accessibility features to provide to students with disabilities. The DOE has indicated that this is an appropriate accommodation, whereas providing a person to read the inaccessible material to the student would not be.
The DOE also clarified that the letter is intended to apply to use of educational technology beyond the use of e-book readers, stating, “all school programs or activities – whether in a ‘brick and mortar,’ online, or other ‘virtual’ context – must be operated in a manner that complies with Federal disability discrimination laws.” The FAQs also directly state that any pilot programs involving new technology must also be accessible to students with disabilities. The DOE has clearly indicated that it is expecting colleges and universities to plan for accessibility during all phases of introducing new technology on campus, from initial consideration through piloting and implementation.
As indicated in the FAQ document, professional development for faculty and staff around the issues of emerging technology and accessibility may be needed.
Penn State
Around the same time as the Kindle case, Penn State University settled a suit with the National Federation of the Blind, leading to massive changes for the institution. An excellent website on accessibility was one of the products of this lawsuit. Review that settlement and bookmark the Penn State website!
Publisher Resources
In 2013, Louisiana Technical University settled with the justice department over the use of a publisher product “MyOMLab” that was not accessible for blind students. This has drawn attention to the issue with using third-party tools.
Harvard and MIT
Then in 2015, a suit from National Association of the Deaf against Harvard and MIT for their EdX courses stating they violated antidiscrimination laws over not having closed captions in MOOCs made headlines. EdX settled in April 2015, and is required to “provide accurate captioning for the deaf, oral navigation signals for the blind, and programming changes so those with dexterity disabilities can navigate content without struggling with a hand-operated mouse,” among other stipulations, according to a Department of Justice press release.
It’s important to note that when an institution is sued over accessibility, the faculty member is named in the suit as well. These are just a FEW of the examples of cases that institutions and faculty have had to deal with. If you are interested in exploring further, Laura Carlson from the University of Minnesota Duluth has compiled an extensive list.