Seems that for 200 years they got along fine in some manner, maybe not as equals, which in fact they are not, does not mean they are not important or can’t provide for a family and society either, they have and they do!

But hey it makes sense for all of us to pay a half a billion dollars so that a couple hundred folks restricted to chairs can see the river in the bottom of the Grand Canyon don’t it?

The education system is running scared as hell, so they spend and spend and over spend out of FEAR! FEAR of lawyers!

This site is loaded with ample examples whey business and government is constantly acting like asses out of nothing else than self preservation; ie, litigation avoidance!

The large cost of ramps and curb cuts are wrong because there is negligible usage of the required items. The law entices the abuse seen in SAT testing and other educational settings. Those abuses are by those with statutorial problems.

There was a blind fellow, Eddie, who did very well on the Jeapordy Program. He inspired me and many others. We should be accomodating to those with real disablements.

Burning billions of dollars for the hypothetical and statutorial disabled does nothing for the truly disabled and diverts funds from those who really need the funds, including the truly disabled.

There is no need for English teachers so great, literature must be read out loud to dyslexics. If the latter has a talent for small engine repairs, he would be better off learning those.

By the same token, must an English major be accomodated for his hopeless lack of ability in small engine repair (need a latin word for klutz, here)?

It is ironic, but predictable, the ADA reduced the employability of the disabled, due to unjust, unrealistic coerciveness.

In the past, the disabled and the employer accommodated each other informally. The disabled competed on lower salary. The employer had lower productivity expectations in return.

Now, a disabled person walks in, the employer sees massive health costs and endless litigation over sink and mirror heights in the bathroom. The ADA made the disabled unwelcome everywhere. The open hostility of the ADA to business misled the disabled into thinking they could make money by lawyer bullying and intimidation of productive sectors.

It should be repealed to increase the employability of the disabled again.

The “cost of our legal system” is generally described in negative terms; the posts usually describe or imply a method in which those costs can and should be reduced.

I’m just not seeing it in this post. If the point of this post was to be purely informative, it succeeded. I was unaware of facts and figures relating to college students with disabilities.

If the point of the post was to persuade me of something, I have no idea of what. Perhaps I’m just being overly cynical and this post was intended to be a contrast to many of the other ADA-related posts which focused on abuses of the system.

Why are you trying so hard to read an “implication” into an explicit post?