Journal of Learning Disabilities

This article explores the genesis and development of the Guckenberger v. Boston University case, detailing the pertinent facts and issues of the case and analyzing the court's decision. The overall question posed by the case (as considered from the perspective of the plaintiffs' attorneys) was whether Boston University violated federal law in its response to the requests for reasonable accommodations by students with learning disabilities. The article quotes primarily from the decision issued by Federal Judge Patti Saris. The court's decision signified an important development in the field of higher education and set an extraordinary precedent in favor of students with disabilities under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

This article describes the Guckenberger lawsuit from the perspective of the attorneys who litigated the case on behalf of Boston University. It first discusses the events leading to the lawsuit, including then-Provost Jon Westling's speeches, his articulation of new polides regarding documentation for accommodations requests, and the university's refusal to allow course substitutions for required foreign language courses. The article then describes the main events in the lawsuit that resulted from those policy changes, focusing first on pretrial matters, such as the university's search for experts, the various motions filed prior to trial, and tactical issues. Moving to the trial itself, the article discusses the nature of the witness and expert testimony presented to the court and touches on the differences of opinion expressed at trial by experts in the field of learning disabilities. Finally, the article sets forth the court's ruling on the major issues in the case and reflects on the case's impact on institutions of higher education.

This article reviews issues related to the definition of learning disabilities in the context of the Guckenberger v. Boston University case. Four major questions are addressed: (a) Who is learning disabled? (b) How should learning disabilities be assessed? (c) Who is qualified to make a decision about whether or not an individual has a learning disability? and (d) What accommodations should be provided by a postsecondary institution and how should they be selected? Although these are complicated and difficult questions, it is possible to develop a simple, reasonable classification system for learning disabilities, and to conduct assessments based on a coherent and relevant set of achievement tests in which individuals who score below a cutoff are considered learning disabled. Scores on IQ tests are irrelevant and not useful and may even be discriminatory. The issues of decision making regarding learning disabilities and appropriate accommodations remain significant dilemmas for the field; resolution of these issues seems virtually impossible without agreement on appropriate procedures for the definition, identification, and assessment of learning disabilities.

It has been observed for decades that some students have a particularly difficult time learning another language. Colleges and universities have an obligation to offer special language programs designed to help these students succeed in their attempts to learn another language. However, for those few students who cannot learn another language even with special instruction, allowing them to meet the foreign language requirement though the substitution of related courses is appropriate and does not constitute a fundamental alteration of the goals of a liberal education.

Two studies examined students classified as having learning disabilities (LD) who had received course substitutions for the college foreign language (FL) requirement. In the first study, 42 students at one university were divided into groups and compared on measures of IQ, academic achievement, FL aptitude, college grade point average (GPA), and FL and English grades. Findings showed that most of the 42 students had been classified as LD in college after experiencing problems in FL courses. Comparisons based on students' performance on measures of FL aptitude, native language skill, and performance in FL courses showed few significant group differences. In the second study, the 42 students from the first study were compared with 86 students at another university who had also been classified as LD and received course substitutions for the college FL requirement. Comparisons on demographic information and measures of IQ, academic achievement, FL aptitude, college GPA, and FL GPA showed few significant differences between the two groups. Both studies suggest that students classified as LD at different universities exhibit similar demographic, cognitive, academic achievement, and FL aptitude profiles and that educators should not make the a priori assumption that students classified as LD require course substitutions for the FL requirement or experience problems with FL learning.

The Boston University (BU) case illustrates how the psychometrics of ability differences interact with the concept of learning disability and with the sodopolitics of schooling and society. It also illustrates that learning disabilities advocacy will not be on a sound footing as long as the field refuses to rid itself of its IQ fetishism, refuses to jettison its fixation on aptitude-achievement discrepancy, and fails to free clinical practice from the pseudoscientific neurology that plagued the field in the 1970s. A more inclusive definition of learning disability—one that abandons discrepancy notions-and a more self-critical attitude toward its own claims would advance the field of learning disabilities and help to rid it of distractions such as the BU case.

A recent landmark settlement between the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the US. Department of Justice addressed many crucial issues relating to the eligibility of high school students with learning disabilities (LD) and their participation in college freshman athletics. Although the changes agreed upon in the consent decree should have wide-ranging ramifications generally in favor of students with LD, the more subjective nature of these changes opens the door for inevitable inconsistencies, biases, and possible abuses. In addition, larger issues remain unresolved, including (a) the NCAA's denial that is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, (b) the inconclusive status of whether college athletics is a major life activity, (c) the NCAA acting as a de facto national school board without rigorous research for setting policy on an informed basis, and (d) the lack of serious initiative on the part of the NCAA to take on a more supportive role in educational reform.