[Ct-nfb] AMAZING NEWS TODAY!!!

Tue Jun 23 22:38:46 UTC 2015

Sure does help, you’re the man, great job justin. Beth 

From: Ct-nfb [mailto:ct-nfb-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Justin
Salisbury via Ct-nfb
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 2:31 PM
To: NFB of Connecticut Mailing List
Cc: Justin Salisbury
Subject: Re: [Ct-nfb] AMAZING NEWS TODAY!!!

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

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> 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; '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
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.e
du

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/ct-nfb_nfbnet.org/attachments/20150623/eeb4d501/attachment.html>