About Reunify Gally
Most of my current blogging at ReunifyGally centers on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. As you might know, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was meant to protect the rights of Americans with disabilities, including the right to be protected from discrimination by employers on the basis of their disability. However, a series of court decisions have undermined the original intent of the ADA and narrowed the definition of who can be protected under the law to such an absurd point that an employer can now claim, “We don’t want to hire you because we think you’re too disabled to do this job,” and simultaneously tell the courts, “This person isn’t disabled enough to be covered by the ADA.” If the courts agree, then they won’t even listen to evidence on whether the employee is qualified for, or capable of doing the job, or evidence on whether the employer’s treatment of them was fair.
This is not what the ADA was meant to do. That’s where the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 comes in. The Restoration Act is meant to repair the damage done to the ADA. The idea is to clarify to the courts that their job is not to diagnose workers with disability. Their job is to determine whether employers have unfairly discriminated against employees and applicants on the basis of disability.
Most of my blogging has been aimed at bringing attention to the ADA Restoration Act. It is my particular hope to help inspire other bloggers to blog more frequently about the ADA Restoration Act and keep on blogging until it is passed and implemented. If you want to see what other bloggers have already said on the ADA Restoration Act, then take a look at my continually-updated list of blog posts from around the web. That list is in the page entitled “On the ADA Restoration Act,” and is available from the top navigation bar at any page at ReunifyGally.
I also blog sometimes on other topics. For example, I might also at some point start blogging on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the efforts to get that ratified and implemented.
If I ever find the time or energy, I might also still return to the original “roots” of ReunifyGally by making an occasional post on diversity within the Deaf/deaf/hoh communities, or maybe the reunification/healing of the Gallaudet community. But this will probably not happen — at least, not often — in the near future. Honestly, if I’m not blogging on the ADA Restoration Act or the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, I will most likely be devoting my time to my new blog at wecando.wordpress.com.
The text below the following line was written back in November 2006 when I first set up the ReunifyGally blog. It was an accurate description of the intent and purpose of ReunifyGally at the time I wrote it. It is no longer reflective of the topics I focus on today. It is included here primarily for historical interest. In other words, if you only care about what I’m likely to blog about from this point forward, you can afford to stop reading here.
OLD TEXT FOLLOWS:
[Please note that the following text was written in November 2006 and no longer reflects most of my current activities at ReunifyGally. It is included primarily for the sake of historical interest.]
I established this blog in the hope of helping to support the healing and reunification of the Gallaudet community by enabling dialogue on sensitive topics raised by the protests. By “Gallaudet community,” I mean both people on campus and also those of us across the country and around the world who feel some link to Gallaudet, whether or not we have ever been there.
I am particularly interested in exploring how we can build bridges between pro-FSSA supporters and pro-Fernandes supporters. I also hope we can explore issues related to racism, and issues related to all shades of audism (toward ASL users; toward SEE users; people who grew up oral; who have CIs; deaf-blind people; etc). Feel free to suggest other ideas of topics that should be explored.
Also feel free to suggest alternate discussion formats, such as mailing lists or discussion boards. If enough people are interested, maybe we can create a spin-off site or list together with the appropriate team of owners/moderators.
The most important rule in this blog is to please demonstrate RESPECT toward others. Since May 2006, discussion related to the protests and to Fernandes has often become polarized and hostile. So let me please re-emphasize that “The Reunification of Gallaudet” discussion board is meant to be a safe place for ALL people on ALL sides of the protests to air their views without fear of being attacked. All those who participate are asked to please respect the spirit and intention of this discussion board.
Learn vocabulary and feed the hungry at freerice.com
[...] 2. You may want to start by looking about the “about Reunify Gally” page to be sure you understand the purpose of this blog before submitting your essay. (Go to http://reunifygally.wordpress.com/about/) [...]
Be a Guest Blogger at Reunify Gallaudet! « ReunifyGally
16 November 2006
Thank You
Alex
22 April 2007
Will someone please explain to me, as a qualified individual with or perceived as having vision and other disabilities, why the ADA Restoration Act as introduced in both houses does not address the contention of Texas Attorney general Greg Abbott, whose campaign and official Web sites feature him in his wheelchair and his alleged and purported support for the ADA and Texas’ Disability Committee, and others, adopted in some courts, that, even after Tennessee v. Lane, Title II of the ADA dealing with state governmental entities violates the eleventh Amendment and common law comity and sovereign and official immunity, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amednment and Sec. 5 thereof adopted later, and is unconstitutioanl and void? While we’re at it, why is not Garrett v. Trustees of Univ. of Alabama, which efectively gutted much of Title I, included in the list of cases the bill is intended to overrule? These are of great importance to me personally. One Texas federal case found that anyone who has ever either (a) had, OR (b) been diagnosed with, OR (c) been treate for, a list of actual or alleged mental disorders, constitutes substantial evidence of permanent disqualification from the practice of law, and that even ten years without a problem is no evidence to the contrary as a matter of law. Now think! Who is “treated for” something with which they were not “diagnosed,” much less did not “have”? and what woudl that prove except malpractice?
I can’t afford hte commercial reporters and am having trouble tracking cases of which I have read.
By the way, does anybody have easy access to a list of House and Senate members who voted for, and against, the original ADA?
I need some legla help and expert testimony on some legal ehtics issues and nobody here will touch this .
I’m starting a blog, currently on BlogSpot, and will be posting re ADA and ADA Restoration Act, etc., but I’m new to blogging. Should I post on my own blog, on another blog or blogs–and which?, or both?
Peter S. Chamberlain
12 January 2008