Perhaps rather ironically, the elephant in the room during final exams every semester at the Law Center are the students who are not present: the students that claim certain disabilities, thereby allowing them to enjoy separate accommodations. For instance, students that claim a learning disability, most commonly Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD/ADD), are permitted time and a half on all law school exams as well as a separate testing room. In other words, when a student is normally given only four hours to take an exam in a room full of people, a student claiming a disability like ADD is given six hours and their own silent room. The Law Center’s policy is fundamentally unfair to all other students since students are graded on a highly competitive basis and time is essential to exam success. Admittedly, some claimed disabilities are certainly real and warrant accommodations, but the current policy is so imbalanced that even a fourth grader would know it’s wrong.

In a nutshell, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that the Law Center provide disabled students with “reasonable accommodations” during testing. Our current policy ensures that students who claim ADD as a disability can receive: (1) time and a half; (2) a separate room; and (3) (presumably) medication. As a result, our policy grossly exceeds the ADA requirement to provide “reasonable accommodations.”

In theory, providing these accommodations should ensure an equal playing field for all students, and thus allow disabled students to achieve the average Law Center grade point average. This, however, may not be the case. Everyone has heard stories about students claiming disabilities that are on the honor roll, regularly receive top grades in classes and are often selected for law review. Furthermore, the fact that a student received additional time for all of their exams is not noted on their transcripts, and they are not precluded from receiving top awards and honors. As such, the potential for abuse is far too high, especially since there are many students who easily qualify but don’t invoke these accommodations (this author included). In my section last year, for example, there was a lot of discussion that suggested there was a significant increase in the number of students who claimed disabilities in the spring but did not seek accommodations during the first semester. An unfortunate corresponding trend in the other sections was discussed as well. Precise numbers, however, are incredibly difficult to attain due to federal laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

There are a number of acute problems directly tied to the Law Center’s policy aside from the ones already mentioned. First, it puts all other students at an incredible disadvantage. In the event that a student has an additional two hours or so, that student will undoubtedly have the opportunity to outperform the other students in the class. Our grading system is categorically a zero sum game. As such, the current disability policy allows certain students to perform better at the direct expense of others. Second, this policy hurts the Law Center’s brand. Firms, government agencies and other employers actively recruit LSU Law students with the faith that the student’s awarded degree is on par with all other graduates. Perhaps more importantly, clients have a similar belief that their attorney has a verifiable legal education consistent with the general academic standards that the other graduates of the school possess. Third, this policy sends a terrible signal and creates a dangerous slippery slope for society as a whole. Consider: Will a policeman be permitted extra time during a robbery? Will a doctor be permitted an additional two hours for emergency surgery in order to save the life of a patient?  More specifically to the legal field, will a judge award extra time for a prescription claim? The signal that policies like this sends is rather straightforward: If a person cannot adequately perform on par with their peers but can claim a disability then conditions will be necessarily altered to create an unequal playing field that fails to reflect the real world.

Again, disabilities are a problem in our society and we should understandably be sympathetic to those who have actual problems. However, we cannot allow our sympathies to weaken our educational and legal systems by undermining basic academic fairness, especially when there are such far reaching consequences. The Law Center’s policy has justifiably generated discontent and frustration among the students that play by the rules. The administration defends the policy by claiming that we defer to the undergraduate disability policy; unfortunately, we don’t defer to their grading policy, so this defense is largely moot.

The Law Center should certainly revisit the current policy and revise it so as not to allow the current unfairness to continue. At the end of the day, the Law Center should immediately abandon its current one-size-fits-all policy of time and a half and a separate room. For isn’t medication supposed to be the great equalizer anyway? Disability claims, especially those involving invisible disabilities, should be properly vetted by health professionals. Another equitable solution would be to allow all students six hours to complete an examination. That way, if a student finishes an exam in four hours then they can just turn it in whereas students who need additional time can use up the entire six hours. There may not be a silver bullet but the current policy is unacceptable in a highly competitive environment and doesn’t reflect the real world.

By: Brad Kelley, Staff Writer