[Ct-nfb] AMAZING NEWS TODAY!!!

Justin Salisbury PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu
Tue Jun 23 18:31:16 UTC 2015


Hey Trevor,

You bring up some excellent points. I have discussed those points with legislative director's across the country and also our governmental affairs team, and I think I understand our position well enough to explain.

When we were talking back in January to prepare for Washington seminar, and we discussed the new idea of the purpose based commission with representation from universities, as well as the technology producers and consumers, I asked the question of whether or not it was possible for the wrong kinds of people to become a majority on that commission so that the universities could write themselves a free ticket to the safe harbor without giving us what we needed. Lauren McLarney answered that question and assured all of us that the national Federation of the blind would never agree to something that exposed us to that risk. I can assure you that this has been accounted for, and I can do that because of the utmost trust that I have developed for our leadership in Baltimore.

With regard to the universities arguing that they tried but were unable to meet the guidelines, the universities won't have any claim to the safe harbor if they don't meet the guidelines. If they don't meet the guidelines, they are still subject to current law, which currently says that they have to give equal access to students with disabilities. If they don't follow the law, they must suffer the consequences, and this Safeharbor will not protect them.

A Seatbelt only works if you use it.

Does that help?

Justin

Sent from the iPhone of

Justin Salisbury - Running Thunder Phoenix
Graduate Student
Professional Development and Research Institute on Blindness
Louisiana Tech University
Email: President at Alumni.ECU.edu<mailto:President at Alumni.ECU.edu>
Twitter: @SalisburyJustin


 First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller


On Jun 22, 2015, at 11:13 PM, Trevor Attenberg via Ct-nfb <ct-nfb at nfbnet.org<mailto:ct-nfb at nfbnet.org>> wrote:

Hi Kate and all,
That sounds pretty good. Perhaps I’m the only one that could use a slight bit of clarification; but it seems like now, Universities can avoid damage litigation if they demonstrate through documentation that they followed the available guidelines, which in turn will be established through a board mainly appointed by congress. That is right, yes? I’m just trying to think of how such compromises might backfire, and whether or not the NFB has thought through such perceived loopholes through accessibility. Can a university program demonstrate that it went through the process of considering guidelines, and then state that it will not make adjustments because it feels the changes for whatever strange reason will be too burdensome, even if this means a blind person will be prevented access to important learning materials? Or perhaps the guidelines will in theory consider all possible complaints an institution would have? Forgive me if I’ve lost my understanding of just how TEACH/SMART is intended to work; but I figured it would be nice to talk on this topic, as obviously the act is extremely important.
I’m wondering also if the aspects of the “commission” selection could be elaborated upon. There are three interest groups to be represented, yes? I don’t suppose this would preclude congress reps from nominating and approving someone with dubious credentials in the pedagogical accessibility field, would it?
All the best,
Trevor

From: Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn Webster via Ct-nfb
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 4:31 PM
To: ct-nfb at nfbnet.org<mailto:ct-nfb at nfbnet.org>; 'Connecticut Association of Blind Students'
Cc: Kathryn Webster
Subject: [Ct-nfb] AMAZING NEWS TODAY!!!

Wait for it… wait for it… wait for it…
What we all, particularly students, have been waiting for for months!!!
Finally, I have an announcement to make! No longer will the National Federation of the Blind be pushing the introduction and support of the Technology, Education, and Accessibility in College and Higher Education (TEACH) Act any longer.
Instead, a TEACH Act compromise has been reached!

We’ve spent the last eight months engaging in a long and exhausting negotiation process with the higher education lobby to reach a consensus regarding the TEACH Act. Particular Members of Congress are highly interested in having the schools endorse our effort to get guidelines, and blind students can’t afford to wait, so in order to advance this effort we sought a compromise.


We have successfully done that, without undermining our goals or weakening the quality of the bill!
Now, instead of TEACH Act, we are calling this new bill the
“Stimulating the Market to Make Accessibility a Reality Today Act,” or “SMART Act” for short. You’ll see that it accomplishes the same goals as our original bill.

The similarities between the TEACH Act and now SMART Act are::

-                      It still authorizes the creation of voluntary accessibility guidelines for electronic instructional material and related technologies used in higher education;

-                      It still incentivizes schools to adopt those guidelines and use accessible technology through a safe harbor mechanism;

-                      It still calls for harmonization with pre-existing, nationally and internationally recognized accessibility standards.


Some changes are:

-                      The title; TEACH Act is now the SMART Act

-                      Who creates the guidelines;  The Access Board has been replaced with an independent, purpose-based Commission that will be compromised of representatives from the three major stakeholder groups, most of which will have been appointed by Congress;

-                      What is in the guidelines; In addition to creating new guidelines where none exist for uniquely pedagogical material, the Commission will also compile a list of relevant, pre-existing standards and then annotate that list with suggestions for its application to general IT in the higher education context. This list is a resource to expand the scope of this effort outside of the classroom.

-                      The safe harbor mechanism has become bifurcated; In the TEACH Act and now in the SMART Act, schools will be rewarded with an absolute safe harbor from litigation for only using material that is conformant with the guidelines. In the SMART Act, there is an additional incentivize for schools to implement the guidelines into their policies and practices, and then consult those guidelines during decision making processes. Those schools can be rewarded with a limited safe harbor (from damages only) regardless of their ultimate decision so long as they take the steps listed above and document certain delineated information.

So basically, having the support from these stakeholders is exceptional! Regardless, what’s most important is pushing Congress. I will keep you all up to date with any new information that comes my way, but everyone deserves a big glass of wine tonight!!!

Love,
Kate


_______________________________________________
Ct-nfb mailing list
Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org<mailto:Ct-nfb at nfbnet.org>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Ct-nfb:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/president%40alumni.ecu.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/attachments/20150623/c4126937/attachment.html>


More information about the CT-NFB mailing list