To the Editor:
I write regarding the opinion essay by Alan Levinowitz, “Are Colleges Getting Disability Accommodations All Wrong?” (The Chronicle Review, September 25). In this essay I was named, and critical remarks were quoted and/or reported pertaining to my official actions as director of Disability & Access Services at Boston University (a position from which I recently retired after 27 proud and productive years). Although the context for the mention of and commentary on these remarks was a supportive discussion of my approach to making disability accommodation determinations, I am greatly concerned that the legitimacy of these remarks is left unquestioned.
The source for the critical remarks was a 2022 article in the (unofficial and unsupervised) Boston University student newspaper, The Daily Free Press. The article contained numerous statements by a handful of unhappy students who, quite frankly, distorted the facts of their individual cases. (It was quite easy for me to discern the identity of the anonymous students.) Much to my dismay, at the time of publication no official rebuttal was offered by Boston University administration and so these accounts were allowed to stand unchallenged.
The Daily Free Press article was not a fair representation of the work of our office. The practice under my leadership was always that qualified students with disabilities should receive reasonable and appropriate accommodations but that accommodations must be congruent with university policy. Our thorough review of documentation requires evidence of current disability status and accommodation need, but it was always flexible and responsive to individual students’ situations.
One other comment from Levinowitz was concerning. He suggested, in his commentary on the problems with the accommodation determination process, that a fair number of diagnoses may be “fraudulent or mistaken,” thereby implying that a feature of a stricter process might be heightened scrutiny in this regard. To be clear, our practice never sought to expose such errors or discrepancies, only to verify that proper documentation was provided. Our goal was to make sure that a student really needs what they are asking for. No more, no less. Of the approximately 15-20,000 student cases I personally reviewed and/or supervised over my career, the overwhelming majority were approved, especially where academic and exam accommodations were sought.
Denials can and do sometimes happen; indeed, the law is written explicitly to permit such inquiry. Requests for accommodations such as an excessive amount of exam time, substantial course modifications and assistance animals in residence halls do tend to receive greater scrutiny due to the potential impact on academic integrity or the larger campus community. In some cases, even though offered the opportunity to clarify their need, some students simply cannot establish that theirs is a reasonable request or that they truly require the accommodation.
The tone and distortions of the Daily Free Press article reflected the bitter disappointment of some students who were not successful in this process. That article completely failed to reflect the satisfaction and benefit received by the multiple thousands of unheard from students whose requests were approved seamlessly. The work of disability services in this day is difficult enough without having to worry about such egregious instances of misinformation.
Lorre Wolf
Director of Disability & Access Services (retired)
Boston University
