mark handler
SAWHORSE
Proposed Ohio laws mark step backwards for people with disabilities: Ruth Colker
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/proposed_laws_take_step_backwa.html
In the current legislative session, the Ohio legislature has proposed measures that would represent a move backwards from historic advancements for individuals with disabilities.
In 1975, Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, requiring public schools to educate all of its children, including those who are disabled. In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requiring businesses to be accessible.
By contrast, the Ohio legislature is seeking to put two roadblocks in the way of individuals with disabilities as they seek full participation in our schools and society.
First, the Ohio legislature has proposed House Bill 333, which would require individuals with disabilities to give property owners five months’ notice before they could sue them for failing to make their business accessible. In 1990, the ADA provided businesses about two years to comply before they could be subject to suit for a lack of accessibility. Nonetheless, 24 years after the passage of the ADA, individuals with disabilities cannot assume that they can enter a business to participate in our economy because the facility might still not be accessible.
We do not require victims of any other sort of discrimination to wait five months before they can file suit. Ohio is sending a clear message that it is unconcerned about basic access to business establishments by individuals with disabilities. Their economic dollars are a less valuable shade of green.
Ironically, H.B. 333 was proposed during some of the worst weather in Ohio’s history when many individuals with disabilities were trapped in their houses because of icy, dangerous conditions. These individuals were not able to participate in the political process while meetings and hearings were held to discuss how to take away their basic civil rights. This act was justified as an “emergency measure” to protect businesses against fictitious frivolous lawsuits when a genuine emergency existed in the lives of many Ohio residents who could not safely leave their homes.
Second, the Ohio legislature has proposed Amended House Bill 334, which would enhance the authority of school officials to expel a student from school for up to 180 school days when a student poses a purported “imminent and severe endangerment to the health and safety of other pupils or school employees.” The student is not eligible for reinstatement until a psychiatrist conducts an assessment. If the school superintendent concludes that the student has not shown “sufficient rehabilitation” then the superintendent may extend the expulsion for repeated periods of 90 school days.
This proposed legislation is contrary to the available evidence about how to deal with students who are struggling with mental illness. Excluding them from school is likely to exacerbate their situation. Further, most students who are excluded from school are placed on home instruction where they may not be in a safe and healthy environment.
If we truly want to make society safer, we need to offer humane treatment and appropriate medical care. The proposed Ohio law only brings a psychiatrist into the picture as a means of continuing to exclude a student from school rather than as a way to help treat a student struggling with mental illness. A vindictive response to mental illness is unlikely to benefit a student or society. Nationally, the federal government is encouraging schools to abandon zero tolerance policies because those policies simply perpetuate a school-to-prison pipeline.
H.B. 334 is a supposed response to school violence at Sandy Hook and Chardon High School. Neither Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook shooter) nor T.J. Lane (Chardon High School shooter), however, were current students at the schools at which they committed murder. Passage of this legislation would give us an artificial sense of security.
I like to think of Ohio as a warm place where neighbors seek to help each other out, especially in times of need. H.B. 333 and H.B. 334, however, reflect a vindictive side of Ohio. I encourage people to contact their state representatives and let them know that you support full access to public accommodations and public education. H.B. 333 and H.B. 334 are an embarrassment.
Ruth Colker is a professor and holder of the Heck-Faust Memorial Chair in constitutional law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/proposed_laws_take_step_backwa.html
In the current legislative session, the Ohio legislature has proposed measures that would represent a move backwards from historic advancements for individuals with disabilities.
In 1975, Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, requiring public schools to educate all of its children, including those who are disabled. In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requiring businesses to be accessible.
By contrast, the Ohio legislature is seeking to put two roadblocks in the way of individuals with disabilities as they seek full participation in our schools and society.
First, the Ohio legislature has proposed House Bill 333, which would require individuals with disabilities to give property owners five months’ notice before they could sue them for failing to make their business accessible. In 1990, the ADA provided businesses about two years to comply before they could be subject to suit for a lack of accessibility. Nonetheless, 24 years after the passage of the ADA, individuals with disabilities cannot assume that they can enter a business to participate in our economy because the facility might still not be accessible.
We do not require victims of any other sort of discrimination to wait five months before they can file suit. Ohio is sending a clear message that it is unconcerned about basic access to business establishments by individuals with disabilities. Their economic dollars are a less valuable shade of green.
Ironically, H.B. 333 was proposed during some of the worst weather in Ohio’s history when many individuals with disabilities were trapped in their houses because of icy, dangerous conditions. These individuals were not able to participate in the political process while meetings and hearings were held to discuss how to take away their basic civil rights. This act was justified as an “emergency measure” to protect businesses against fictitious frivolous lawsuits when a genuine emergency existed in the lives of many Ohio residents who could not safely leave their homes.
Second, the Ohio legislature has proposed Amended House Bill 334, which would enhance the authority of school officials to expel a student from school for up to 180 school days when a student poses a purported “imminent and severe endangerment to the health and safety of other pupils or school employees.” The student is not eligible for reinstatement until a psychiatrist conducts an assessment. If the school superintendent concludes that the student has not shown “sufficient rehabilitation” then the superintendent may extend the expulsion for repeated periods of 90 school days.
This proposed legislation is contrary to the available evidence about how to deal with students who are struggling with mental illness. Excluding them from school is likely to exacerbate their situation. Further, most students who are excluded from school are placed on home instruction where they may not be in a safe and healthy environment.
If we truly want to make society safer, we need to offer humane treatment and appropriate medical care. The proposed Ohio law only brings a psychiatrist into the picture as a means of continuing to exclude a student from school rather than as a way to help treat a student struggling with mental illness. A vindictive response to mental illness is unlikely to benefit a student or society. Nationally, the federal government is encouraging schools to abandon zero tolerance policies because those policies simply perpetuate a school-to-prison pipeline.
H.B. 334 is a supposed response to school violence at Sandy Hook and Chardon High School. Neither Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook shooter) nor T.J. Lane (Chardon High School shooter), however, were current students at the schools at which they committed murder. Passage of this legislation would give us an artificial sense of security.
I like to think of Ohio as a warm place where neighbors seek to help each other out, especially in times of need. H.B. 333 and H.B. 334, however, reflect a vindictive side of Ohio. I encourage people to contact their state representatives and let them know that you support full access to public accommodations and public education. H.B. 333 and H.B. 334 are an embarrassment.
Ruth Colker is a professor and holder of the Heck-Faust Memorial Chair in constitutional law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
