<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Ruth Colker</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2010  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/ruth_colker</link>
<description>Recent documents in Ruth Colker</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 01:31:16 PDT</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>


	
		
	







<item>
<title>The Learning Disability Mess</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/ruth_colker/2</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/ruth_colker/2</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:37:06 PDT</pubDate>
<description>This essay explores the problems that have plagued society since 1975 when Congress first tried to define what is a “learning disability.”  The statement that “No one really knows what a learning disability is” rings as true today as in 1975.  Rather than solve this problem with an improved classification scheme, Professor Colker recommends that schools, testing entities and the federal government should place less weight on which students are classified as “learning disabled.” Plodders University should become the norm, where students are admitted based, in part, on their scores on exams taken under extended time conditions.</description>

<author>Ruth Colker</author>


<category>Civil Rights</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Mythic 43 Million Americans with Disabilities</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/ruth_colker/1</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/ruth_colker/1</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:53:15 PST</pubDate>
<description>Although Congress stated in its first statutory finding that it intended the Americans with Disabilities Act to protect at least 43 million Americans from disability discrimination, the Supreme Court has interpreted this statute so that it covers no more than 13.5 million Americans.  More importantly, by using Census data, this article demonstrates that the ADA covers virtually no Americans who are both disabled and able to work, eviscerating the employment discrimination provisions of the ADA.	This article places that problem in the larger context of the Court undermining Congress’ efforts to protect discrete and insular minorities from employment discrimination.  Although Congress has sometimes responded to that hostility by enacting “restoration legislation,” this article argues that such restoration efforts should be unnecessary. The Court should correct its errors and engage in a respectful relationship with Congress so that Congress can move on to new items on its legislative agenda rather than revisit prior items.</description>

<author>Ruth Colker</author>


<category>Civil Rights</category>

</item>





</channel>
</rss>

