Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for standing by, and welcome to Athletic Opportunities for Students with Disabilities webinar. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will conduct a question and answer session; instructions will follow at that time. If you require operating assistance at any time, you may press star then zero on your touchtone telephone. I would like to introduce our host, Jessica Madrigal, you may begin.
Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. My name is Jessica Madrigal. I am from the Great Lakes ADA Center. I would like to welcome you to today''s ADA Audio Conference. Sorry we are getting started a few minutes late. We appreciate your patience with that. I am just going to walk you through some logistical items before I introduce our presenters today. So for listening to the session, we are broadcasting the audio through your computer or through the telephone, based on your preference. If you are using the computer, just make sure that your speakers are turned on or that your headphones are plugged in, and if you need to adjust your audio, you can do that using the audio & visual panel. If you click on the blue microphone with the red star on it, that will help you go through the audio setup wizard. So if you start to have any kind of trouble with the audio coming through your speakers, please do that audio setup wizard to try to alleviate that problem. We also offer the webinar via mobile devices, such as the iPhone or the iPad, very popular nowadays. So you can access that using the Blackboard Collaborate mobile app, which is free from the Apps Store, Google Play, or Amazon. We do want to point out that closed captioning is not available in the mobile app and there is limited accessibility for screen reader users. We do provide captioning, real-time captioning, in the webinar platform. You can access that using the CC icon in the Audio & Video panel, and you can then resize and change the color and size of the captioning based on your preferences. With our audio conference series, we know that we get a lot of questions from our participants, so we have a few ways for you to submit those questions to us today. If you''re in the webinar room, you can type and submit your questions in the chat area text box. You can also do this by pressing control-M and entering the text in the chat area. You will not see the question after you submit it, but I assure you that I am monitoring that chat window, and I will be collecting all of those questions and submitting those to our speakers once we get to the Q&A portion. Mobile users can also submit their questions in the chat area. For those of you who are listening by phone, I will have the operator come back on once we get to the question-and-answer portion, and you will be able to ask your questions then. Then also, if you prefer, you can email us those questions at email@example.com and we will be monitoring those as well. We will be recording today''s session and you can access that usually within 24 hours of the conclusion of the session and then we also offer the transcript for this series, usually within seven business days after today. You can also customize your view. We do have a great PowerPoint presentation for you today, so if you want to resize the whiteboard where the presentation slides are shown, you can do that by choosing the "fit page" option in the top center, and you can change that to your preference. You can also reposition all of those panels that are on the left side, so the audiovisual, the participants, the chat using the icon that is little lines over each other in the upper right corner of each panel. So you can customize your view that way. And most importantly, our technical assistance, if you have any trouble today, we are here to assist you and try to make it as enjoyable as possible. So if you are in the webinar platform, you can double-click Great Lakes ADA in the participant list and type a comment or question in there to submit that and get your question answered regarding your technical assistance. You can also email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Or -- and probably the easiest way -- is to call us. The toll-free number for technical assistance is 877-232-1990. So there are our logistics. Now let''s get started with today''s session. Our title is "Athletic Opportunities for Students with Disabilities." You may have participated in our previous session earlier this year where we focused on elementary, middle, and high school. Today we are going to be focusing on colleges and universities. I''m very glad to say that we have some great presenters with us today. We have Ted Fay, who is a professor at the State University of New York at Cortland. He is a PhD from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and he has a senior research Fellow for the inclusive sports initiative at the Institute for Human Centered Design. We also have with us Linda Mastandrea of Athletics Equity Consulting. She is a disability law attorney with experience in education, vocational rehabilitation, employment, and also access to sports and recreation. She''s also a well-known Paralympic and world wheelchair track competitive athlete. Our third presenter today is Anita Moorman. She is a professor of sport administration at the University of Louisville, where she teaches sport law and the legal aspects of sport. She has a law degree from Southern Methodist University, and she was also admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, when she was co- counsel for nine disability sport organizations, so lots of great experience there. Last but not least, we have Stephanie Wheeler from the University of Illinois. She is currently the Head Coach for the women''s national team, and she began coaching there in the fall of 2009. She is a former member of the Illinois Women''s Wheelchair Basketball team, and she also has a number of medals for her sports participation. So without further delay, I am going to pass it over, and we will get started on today''s session.
Thank you, Jessica. Hello, everyone. This is Anita Moorman at the University of Louisville. I want to welcome you to our webinar and thank the Great Lakes ADA Center for hosting, of course. Our goal today is to provide some information that we can share on the OCR guidance and its application in the collegiate environment, but also to give you an opportunity to ask a number of questions at the end, so feel free to log in and chat those questions or call in. Initially, let me tell you that the guidance contains five key principles, and we are going to hit each of these key principles as we go, but I kind of wanted to give you a little bit of background for the context in which Section 504 and this guidance fit in the larger landscape of disability discrimination. Essentially, most of you are probably familiar that there are three key pieces of legislation that apply in this context. One is the IDEA, which is Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and it guides our schools to provide free appropriate education for all children. And it''s really based on this general notion that every child is educable and should have an equal opportunity to acquire that education. Then Section 504 applies to educational institutions who are receiving federal financial assistance. And 504 basically prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision or operation of programs and services. Section 504 has been held to apply very broadly, and virtually every educational enterprise, public or private, elementary, secondary, collegiate is going to fall under this 504 umbrella. And then lastly, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act, which basically extended protection into the areas of employment, government services, and public accommodation. And I mention these three different legislative pieces simply so that you understand that the 504 claims will often also include an ADA claim. So if a law suit is filed, it will often times assert claims under both pieces of legislation, and that''s because many of the terms in the requirements are interchangeable. Therefore, it''s fairly safe to assume that many cases, regardless of whether they were an ADA case or a 504 case, have some precedential value as we''re trying to understand our legal obligation under these laws. So back to the five key principles, the guidance covers areas of generalizations and stereotypes, helps us understand what equal opportunity means under the law, discusses the notion of inclusion and that being a bit of a gold standard, and then focuses on what also needed aids and services, and then lastly, expanding or creating opportunities where none exist. So we''ll jump right into those five key principles now, if you want to advance that slide, Jessica. First let''s think about stereotypes. The guidance is very clear that a college or university cannot operate its athletics programs -- which would include intramurals, club sports, and athletics -- largely athletics -- they may not operate those programs based on any kind of generalization, assumption, or prejudice. And generally what we''re seeing here is two broad areas that we need to keep our mind focused on, which is the notion of either interest or safety. We can''t assume that a student with a disability has less interest in participating, and we also can''t rely on paternalistic notions of what they''re able to do or whether or not they would get injured doing it, any paternalistic notions of safety. Although, certainly, courts defer to educational institutions for determinations regarding safety, there still has to be some sort of objective proof of harm. So it can''t be based on an instinctive fear. It really has to be based on some sort of objective evidence that demonstrates that the individual cannot participate safely. Also, institutions have cited increased insurance risk in order to justify excluding students with disabilities, but again, there''s not any objective evidence that supports that assumption, so that assumption would probably also run afoul of the guidance which warns against relying on generalizations and assumptions. And what is particularly important about this initial observation, this avoiding a stereotype, is that it''s our first glance as a very fundamental requirement under the 504 and the ADA, which is it requires an individualized inquiry. And the Supreme Court confirmed that in the Casey Martin case in 2001. And the 8th Circuit has also recently talked about the inherently fact-intensive nature of these request that depend quite a bit on context, so that sort of sets the stage for what equal opportunity means, how it''s defined, and how we know whether we are complying with the law. So if you want to go to slide 12. The guidance essentially provides that a college or university has to make necessary reasonable and necessary modifications to programs or services or provide the aids and services that are necessary in order to meet their burden under 504. Of course, what does that mean? In essence, what we are talking about there is, I think, a fairly straightforward formula. After -- as we''re conducting this individualized inquiry, we''re going to either have one or two requests, or perhaps both of these requests. We are either going to get a request to modify a policy or a rule or a program service, or we''re going to get a request to either be provided with an auxiliary aid or to be able to use an auxiliary aid. Most requests are going to be in one of those two formats, and we have a distinct approach on how to handle these requests. Once we receive this request, we have to look at the individual needs of the student and whether modifying the rule or providing the aid for that specific student in that specific circumstance is necessary and reasonable to afford them equal opportunity and equal access. If it''s necessary, it''s only going to be unreasonable if it will fundamentally alter the program. So let''s think about necessary. In order -- it has to be necessary to receive full and equal enjoyment. So that''s not limited just to access. And courts are beginning to reject the idea that as long as access is provided, even though it is substandard or significantly different than the access that nondisabled students are provided, it may be uncomfortable for the student athlete -- as long as they''re provided access, they are meeting their requirement. And courts are really beginning to reject that argument and saying we''re looking at full and equal enjoyment, not just simply saying, yeah, we included them. It wasn''t a very meaningful experience, but we included them. So that wouldn''t satisfy meeting that necessary for full and equal enjoyment. In terms of the reasonableness of the accommodation, the Supreme Court actually gave us a very good formula for determining whether or not a request is reasonable, and of course, it''s basically reasonable unless it fundamentally alters the program or the service. And it has to be an essential aspect of the activity or game, not a peripheral. So those of us that are active in athletics programs, campus rec programs, club sport programs, there are many, many rules that do not actually define and establish the nature of the game. What they do is they define a variety of aspects of that, whether it''s eligibility criteria, whether it''s performance criteria, and so each of those requests that have to be looked at individually to see whether it was an essential aspect. If it is an essential rule, such as an extra strike in baseball or an extra base in baseball, two bounces in racquetball, if it''s an essential part of the sport itself, then, obviously, changing it would be a fundamental alteration. But if it''s a peripheral rule or a nonessential rule, changing it is probably not going to be a fundamental alteration; therefore, it will be presumed to be reasonable. The only other time a change would be considered unreasonable is if it provides the competitor some sort of competitive advantage. And we have a number of examples that folks have been successful at in providing visual cues to hearing impaired students, allowing swimmers to touch with something other than a one-handed touch or a two-handed touch if they are amputees in some way, and even having a designated runner in a recreational softball league has been a fairly simple modification. So the key is really whether or not you are going through the analysis correctly. Are you conducting an individualized inquiry? And then have you really determined is it necessary for equal access and equal enjoyment of the opportunity? And is it reasonable in that it does not fundamentally alter my program or my service? Okay, which gets us to our next fundamental principle, which is this notion of inclusion. Inclusion is really the gold standard. Certainly, while the Section 504 permits the providing of separate teams or different services, you can''t do it unnecessarily. So it gets back to that whether or not this is a necessary modification. What I''ve noticed in the inclusion area and I think is the greatest challenge for the college environment is trying to understand who is going to be responsible for making that decision. And I think the organizational structures in the collegiate environment are going to be very different than the secondary school, high school environment. My initial thought is that for club sports and campus recreation programs, I suspect that for most universities there are already organizational structures in place through collaborations with the disability resource centers and the student affairs offices that would generally govern those activities. And they probably already have some structures that could be just enhanced to accommodate and to respond to requests for modification. Athletics, varsity athletics, is going to be a bigger challenge. They may not necessarily flow into that organizational structure as smoothly, and athletics may want to manage these requests in house and I would also envision they could take that up in compliance, academic services, perhaps some other department they set up specifically to address these concerns. And probably in the varsity athletics venue is where the coach is really the key. If the coach understands his or her obligation for inclusion, then it''s going to make the process flow better. If the coach instinctively reacts, such as I can''t do that or I don''t know how to do that or I don''t want to know how to do that. That''s going to immediately undermine the individualized inquiry, and it''s going to certainly run afoul of this guidance requiring that a qualified student should be integrated to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that student. So again, we''ve seen a number of deaf swimmers who have been permitted to have a flashing light. We''ve had a deaf tennis player who has been able to use an interpreter to aid in understanding her doubles partner and the activity on the court. But it''s interesting to note, while I say we''ve seen these things, almost none of these modifications were made, I will say, voluntarily. They were mostly made after litigation or an OCR complaint was filed. So I''m hoping that what today can do is help individuals recognize that that''s not a path they want to go down. So I think Linda''s going to take over on the next slide and talk about aids and services.
Thanks Anita, and thanks for having me here, Jessica. Thanks to Great Lakes ADA Center for hosting today, so moving on to our next key principle, Aids and Services. This is basically a requirement to provide needed aids and services. The law and the Regs clearly provide that colleges and universities must provide a qualified student with a disability with needed aids and services if the failure to do so would deny that student an equal opportunity to participate in either intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics in an integrated manner to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that student. And the only exception to this really, is if providing the aids and services -- as Anita mentioned earlier -- would result in a fundamental alteration or an undue burden. And as Anita at that pointed out, this notion of what constitutes a fundamental alteration was explored in the context of the Casey Martin v. PGA case several years back. And while this didn''t deal with the collegiate environment, it''s proven relatively instructive in figuring out what is a fundamental alteration and, more importantly, how to engage in this dialogue and this individualized inquiry to determine whether something is or is not a fundamental alteration. And in the Casey Martin case, of course, as we know, when the court performed the individualized analysis, they determined that Casey using a golf cart in the game of golf was not a fundamental alteration to the game of golf. And so I think some of the guidelines that came out of the Martin case are really instructive when we look at the collegiate environment. So fundamental alterations really exist only where the requested accommodation alters an essential aspect of the game, or in the case of the Casey Martin case, they said if it creates a competitive advantage. And there''s some question as to whether or not this competitive advantage idea really exists in the context of schools because it''s really more about equal opportunity rather than this professional competitive advantage idea. And the second key thing to remember here is that the individualized assessments have to be made to determine if specific accommodations or modifications for a particular athlete''s disability create a fundamental alteration. And another interesting thing to know is that the courts will find that some administrative burdens are acceptable in making this determination. So it''s not sufficient for a school to simply argue undue burden, undue burden, undue burden. And we''ve seen this time and again where without even understanding sort of what an undue burden is, the school will raise that and say it will be an undue burden for us to do this. But they don''t really have the backing for it. They don''t have the facts to support it. So really, underpinning all of this is this idea that Anita talked about. It''s this creation of an equal opportunity. And you know, through provision of aids and services and all of these key principles that Anita started us down the road of discussing. And an example of both sort of equal opportunity and provision of necessary aids and services can be found in a case that came out of Illinois which ultimately was settled, dealt with a young athlete in high school, young woman who was a Special Olympic athlete who was playing basketball and used a service animal who carried her oxygen tank and had had no issue with playing basketball with this animal until she got to high school, and the Special Olympics for the state was involved, as well as the local level, and it was the state organization which said she could not use the service animal and the oxygen tank on the basketball course. And so this case proceeded, and ultimately, it did settle, and she ended up using the oxygen tank in a backpack versus having the service animal on the court with her, though the service animal was off to the side. But the questions were was the service animal a necessary aid and service? Was the oxygen tank necessary? And really, you know, what was needed to provide this student with an equal opportunity? And so the settlement, ultimately, was satisfactory -- mostly satisfactory, I will say -- to the family, but it wasn''t, perhaps, the best result because ideally she wanted that service animal out there as well. So this is just one example of that sort of inaction. Again, that''s a high school case, so it''s a little different than in the college atmosphere. But let''s move on to this notion of talking about equal opportunity. And in order to have equal opportunity, I think what we really need to talk about is expanding the opportunities that currently exist because we can''t get equal if we don''t have enough opportunity to begin with. So students with disabilities who can''t participate in the college and university''s existing intercollegiate programs, whether club, intra mural, whatever, even with reasonable modifications, aids, or services should still have the opportunity to receive the benefit of those activities, according to the guidance. And when the interests and abilities of some students with disabilities cannot be fully and effectively met by the college or university''s existing programs, that college or university should create additional opportunities for these students with disabilities. The problem here lies in that word "should," which is permissive. It doesn''t say "must." There is no mandate to create programs. So it''s really been sort of a mish-mash and a haphazard implementation of programs around the country. We know that there are many colleges around the country that have wheelchair basketball and wheelchair track programs, and we are going to hear a little bit more about that from Stephanie Wheeler when she presents a little bit later on this afternoon. But again, there is no mandate, so unless you have the good fortune of going to a school where one of these programs already exist, it might be rather difficult to take advantage of these opportunities because if there''s only one of you arguing for it, your school is going to be hard pressed to say yes, we are going to create a program just for you. So the guidance does call for the development of district or regional-wide teams when there aren''t sufficient numbers to field a sports team for students with disabilities. Again, that guidance is aimed at that elementary and secondary level, but it does have some application at the collegiate level. For example, I think that in the realm of the smaller colleges and universities that are relatively close geographically you might see or argue for the creation of a region wide or district wide team like you''re seeing at the secondary level to allow for the creation of some of these programs for athletes with disabilities. Next slide, please. So in addition to these arguments we hear from time to time about fundamental alteration, undue burden, safety, what is the main argument that we hear again and again against providing an opportunity for student athletes with disabilities? Yeah, yeah, yeah, it''s a great idea, sure, but who is going to pay for it? I can''t tell you how many times I''ve heard this. It''s an unfunded mandate. You know, we don''t have the money. We''re not discriminating, but we believe in it, but we just don''t have the money. Who is going to pay for this? Is it really an unfunded mandate? I would argue no. The Rehabilitation Act has been in effect since 1973; The Americans with Disabilities Act since 1990. Colleges and universities have certainly been informed and aware of their obligations under these laws, and we could argue they''ve had more than sufficient time to budget for their responsibilities under these laws. But let''s talk real world for a moment. As advocates, we want to ensure the best outcome for our clients, for people with disabilities across the country. So it behooves us, really, to come up with some creative ideas to answer that objection as to cost. First, main streaming an athlete costs, really, the same as serving any other athlete without a disability; doesn''t it? Second, creating a conference or a district or region wide program could create some cost sharing between schools, which could really be an appropriate way to answer this concern. Third, sharing facilities in addition to programs could be economical, as well as sharing some equipment, if that made sense and it was appropriate. And finally, I think student fees could be used as a way to increase the cash available for the next costs that you might find in implementing these programs. So that''s a very sort of high-level of the key principles we are looking at when we talk about integrating student athletes into the fabric of collegiate and university programs. Next slide please, now, ultimately, we need to remember that the guidance doesn''t create a new law or any new obligation. It simply restates and reinforces the obligations that have already been there. And while the guidance was really focused on the elementary and secondary student, it clearly states that athletes at the postsecondary level must also be provided with an equal opportunity to participate in athletics, including intercollegiate, club, and intramural. This really confirms that the primary legal responsibility here rests with the college and university to ensure that equal opportunity and that access. And by necessity, this supersedes any athletic association rules or policies that might run counter to this obligation. Title III of the ADA is also implicated here in coverage of athletics associations, either directly or indirectly. And the key takeaway here, I think, is the legal framework that''s been established. Number 1, an equal opportunity must be provided; Number 2, an individualized inquiry is required to determine what modifications or accommodations might be necessary to afford a qualified student with disabilities that equal opportunity. So in other words, what reasonable accommodation or modification could be made to facilitate equal opportunity? Unless doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the program. So that''s really the key things that we need to be thinking about. We are going to dive a little deeper into this as well as hear from a school who is very successfully implemented some of these programs, as we move on through the program. Our next slide has the -- oh. I think we have the contact information at the very end, so my next slide in my notes was our contact information, but at the moment, I''d love to turn it over now to Ted Fay and look forward to getting your questions at the end. Thank you.
Thank you, Linda. Thank you all for joining. And particularly thank you, Jessica, for arranging the technology in the framework of providing this information out as well as the Great Lakes ADA Center. Before I move on, I am going to reach back into and sort of dovetail a little bit on Anita and Linda''s presentation. Some of you may know and some of you might not know that Casey Martin, yes, he won a case with the help of a number of people in terms of using a cart and professional golf association tour; however, before that, he was an all-American golf player at Stanford University, and he used the cart when he played. Secondly, I just like to sort of give a little overlap to the fact is the 40th year of Section 504 of the Rehab Act. Last year was the 40th year anniversary of Title IX. And as we move through the next series of slides, you are probably going to begin to feel a little bit of similarity as I intentionally use an analogous context with Title IX. For example, before we proceed through here, Linda mentioned -- and so did Anita -- about the disclaimer, well, we don''t have the funds. Is this an unfunded mandate? Well that was heard loud and clear for the last 40 years with regard to gender discrimination and the calls for equity. So as we move forward, next slide, please. So just briefly, this is kind of, again, reinforcement that we are really trying to look at the impacts on institutions of higher education and also the governing structures. There''s been some mention of leagues and conferences and governing structures, but also the member institutions, particularly as we look at trying to strive to create opportunities in what we are describing as a sort of universe or sport opportunity spectrum at the varsity, club sport, intramural, or perhaps even the fitness level of involvement on the college or university campus. In essence, we are trying to set a context and create frameworks for really how to look at moving this guidance into real practical applications through education, advocacy, and other strategies, including legal. Some of it you heard already is we are really trying to give you our best sense sort of an initial background regarding this sort of universe of sport, particularly intercollegiate sport. You heard about some of the impacts on students with disabilities, but also we want to now discuss what are a little bit more further detail, the impacts on the institutions themselves, and then, then take your questions a bit later discussing concrete next steps. So what are we talking about? We are actually talking about when we define students with disabilities in a Higher Ed setting there is really a spectrum here as defined in legal terms, both under Section 504, as well as the ADA. I am not going to get into those particulars, but the range really goes from education impacting disabilities to mobility-impacting disabilities. And interesting enough, education-impacting disabilities would have affected a number of our current and previous Olympians. And although they might not qualify for other games eligibility, such as Paralympic Games, they do, in fact, come into dialogue and conversation when we are looking at providing increased opportunities for these students. Ultimately, we are really trying to look at how to assess and ultimately change cultures and systems that are very traditional in their viewpoint in terms of whether it''s the rules, who gets to compete, and certainly 41 years ago, this discussion was red hot with regard to advancing the very radical concept that women -- you know, women should have equal opportunity with men. Previous to that, there was a whole dialogue on whether racial segregation in sport was really acceptable. So moving along -- next slide, please -- I think we are on slide 22 -- this is merely a universe described by a colleague, George Sage, back in the 90s, trying to really come to grips with how the social dynamics of inequality are both reinforced and reproduced and ultimately institutionalized. I leave that there because a number of things we talked about already. We talked about ideology. We talked about prejudice and discrimination with Linda and Anita briefly. But we are also talking about social institutions which include educational institutions. Obviously political institutions, given that we are talking about the OCR guidelines and I really want to have you just simply make a note that reflect back to slide 11 in which Anita sort of presented to us the idea of what is essentially stereotyping and discrimination, and if you then insert other labels, you''ll see that we''re having very much of a Deja Vu here, would you go to the next slide, please. So when we are talking about inequality, what do we mean? Are we talking about inequality relative to an individual? Inequality relative to an organization, individual to individual, organization to individual, or within a whole system itself in terms of breeding a sense of inequality and lack of opportunity in this case for students with disabilities? If you look at organizational continuum on the top, makes reference to racism, sexism, ableism, and heterosexism as common themes of where this social inequality has occurred, both systemically, organizationally, and also individually. This is a model which I adopted, actually, about 15 years ago from a model originally developed by Esty, Griffin, and Hirsch in 1995, which was a workplace diversity model but the problem with that model, it was unidirectional. And in fact what we know about this work is it''s both progressive and regressive. It''s very dynamic. So as one institution is making great effort to be inclusive, another institution or institutions may, in fact, be highly resistant and also very powerful in terms of their messaging to peer institutions. So this is a way of tracking the movements from a system standpoint of organizations, such as any college or university, a league or conference which sport is participated in, or an overarching system, which I''ll get to a little bit later, in terms of how we can determine -- and there''s various ways which we are using as a template to determine whether there''s movement from the so-called exclusive club, which is would be stage 1, but you can list it 1 through 6, through state 6 which is, in essence, an environment where people who were previously discriminated against, were stereotyped, and marginalized feel a sense of power. Not just integrity, respect, and access, but also a sense of power. Next slide, please. So I am not going to delve into the weeds on this, but I do want to make a note that inclusion, as we define it, also recently a few years ago, the UN also, through the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 30.5, addressed the fact that sport and leisure activities were, in fact, a human right, and we just simply adopted that to this description of inclusion as a stage 6 of an organizational continuum, which I just showed you. So what does stage 6 inclusion mean from the standpoint of assessment and analysis of an organization, be it the governance system or an institution? It''s not just about the built environments. It''s not just about providing the legal minimum physical access. It is also must deal with really five basic principles of universal design in terms of assessing the information environment, communication environment, policy environment, and also the attitude attitudinal environment. It was mentioned earlier, I believe -- Anita, you mentioned the critical piece of this is the coach. So within this frame, you have the institutional stakeholder, but you also have the individual and professional stakeholders ranging from different units within the university, such as disability services, to athletic department, to other sectors, such as recreational sports, that all have a major stakeholder in this. That has to be applied both at the local level as well as -- or micro level as well as a more macro level. So within that context, moving to slide 27, we are really trying to create a critical context, so moving from a so-called status quo concept of marginalization to legitimization. We talk about the disclaimer is typically is we should, we want to, but we can''t. We don''t have the money. Is it an unfunded mandate, as Linda mentioned? Well, that''s almost irrelevant. What we are trying to go do is create a different framework and ask a different question. And that is it''s not okay to discriminate anymore, either because of a variety of reasons that perhaps an institution or individual changed their viewpoint in terms of perhaps holding racist or sexist perspectives in terms of discrimination, but it may be okay in their mind to still hold such a mind-set with regard to a student with a disability. I think we heard very effectively what equal opportunity means, and I am not going to repeat that, but I think that is the context that needs to be constantly described, reinforced, provided analogies, so people sort of get it. Otherwise, it''s sort of out of sight, out of mind to them. So therefore, what is the mandate? Slide 28 please, for higher education institutions? Well, we have a Dear Colleague Letter that gives us three areas, which have also been described, I think, a little more in depth in our first segment, but not acting on generalizations or stereotypes; ensuring equal opportunity, again; and offering separate or different athletic opportunities if needed. And these were described very well in the previous segment. Next slide, please. So let''s get to the University of Sport. You know, we talked about varsity. We talked about club sports. We talked about intramural and perhaps even more of a non-organized rec or play environment. But particularly focusing for a moment where groups get together and they compete, whether locally or, you know, school to school, so we have basically three levels of the top tier intercollegiate, varsity, club sport -- which still is a varsity-like experience -- and finally intramural. What the sport opportunity spectrums are really meant to show here is the progression towards, let''s say, for lack of better term, this is a very traditional model, actually, athlete development based on skill to progressing to his or her highest level of possibility. The problem is, is we have a gaping doughnut hole, if you will, in the intercollegiate scholastic middle of this pyramid. So basically, someone such as Linda or Stephanie -- correct me if I''m wrong -- but you had to skip a few steps here in order to compete on the Paralympic level because the levels in between were really not available to you. We''ll get into perhaps the reason for that more specifically in a moment. But the fact is that this model is very random and inconsistent and, for the most part, nonexistent for athletes with disabilities, particularly at the scholastic and intercollegiate level. What''s interesting is we have, actually, examples of individuals with disabilities who have been highly successful at every one of these levels. And so it''s again, not because of lack of interest or skill that one could make an argument. So let''s move now to the next slide. And this has been briefly mentioned, but theirs basically three operating principles again, drawing from the guidelines, that in essence mainstream, meaning no modification needed. We have great examples of athletes who have really been exceptional in demonstrate, but often these folks are even more able than their so-called able-bodied peers, that have been successful at a collegiate level. I mean, people such as Amy Mullins, Jeff Float, Jim Abbot, Trisha Zorn, Anthony Robles, Casey Martin, Marla Runyan and others. Now, that was quick. I''ll leave it to the audience to go Google them and find out what their sports were and why they were all All-Americans, but the fact of the matter is it''s a range of disabilities represented in those individuals. It''s a range of sports represented in those individuals. However, there is one very obvious preclusion and that is none of those individuals I named was an athlete who used a sitting technology to perform their sport, such as a wheelchair or a sit ski or an ice sledge. And therefore, we move them down the next progression. Anita and Linda both talk about various rules, common sense rules to be modified, but these are rules of the game, and therefore, is it simply -- is it a fundamental alteration, or is it the reasonable accommodation? But in that modified area there''s a couple things that can happen. One is that you adjust the rules to provide greater inclusion. The other is looking at different models of who participates and this is particularly important in terms of team sports. Once you -- you know, the argument can be made -- and it''s really, again, part of the overlay of concern and oftentimes resistance is what rules do we have to change? Beyond the funding point of view, what rules do we have to change? What traditions do we have to change? Well, this doesn''t look like the way we do business. But this is an area that, with a lot of great creativity, for example, if you do not have enough athletes at one particular institution, for example, to make up a varsity wheelchair basketball team, would it -- why wouldn''t it be possible to, in fact, look at, again, a regionally-based team, modified concept? So there''s a lot of ways to modify the existing status quo. The last area, the third area described, is -- let''s go back to the slide before -- is adapted. And in this case, I''m going to defer to Stephanie to talk about the Illinois experience, but particularly looking at athletes who are playing on wheelchair basketball teams as an example of an adapted team because everyone on the court is using a wheelchair, sport wheelchair, for that activity. So that would be an example of adapted, which many of you are familiar with. Next slide, please. We already talked about this again, the four levels. Now, at this point, I''m going to make a segway into, again, systems. So every one of these levels have governing systems, national governing systems which claim to be simply the overarching, you know, umbrella for member institutions, and I''ll get into the four primary governing systems in just a moment. But understand that in each one of these areas, the rules of control, the rules of governance and oversight ranging from safety to eligibility will be different. So in terms of varsity competition, we''ll talk about three governing structures in terms of club sport and intramural sport competition -- we''ll talk about primarily one. With that, let''s move on to the next slide. So the most probably noteworthy in terms of at least public understanding of who is in this game based on the OCR guidelines would be the National Collegiate Athletic Association. I just give you very brief demographics of what this organization entails. But what it also does is it gives you a very brief sort of storefront of what are we taking on here in terms of advocacy, education, and hopefully change of practice. Over 4,000 student athletes, well, we are all on this call, I think, because we are interested in expanding the number of those student athletes under the NCAA. Roughly, it''s 1300 member institutions, which include very large research one public institutions, prestigious private institutions, ranging from large to small. The NCAA is actually an organization made up of these institutions within the three divisions. They sponsor 23 sports, 89 championships. So in terms of the equal opportunity we are talking about, expanding opportunities we are talking about that Linda mentioned, we are trying to address this. The only numbers that are probably likely to change here, really trying to advocate an change, is the number of student athletes and championships. The member institutions remain the same. The number of sports probably remains the same, divisions remain the same, and the association remains the same. Next slide, please. A smaller sport governing system of intercollegiate sport, National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, NAIA, represents a much smaller number of student athletes, definitely a smaller number of student institutions however it has the same theme and requires the same interaction and engagement to engage the stakeholders of not just the governing system, but also the stakeholders within the member institutions of these governing institutions, ranging from presidents to athletic associations to support staff that support those sports. Next slide, please. This is an area I think many of us unwillingly might miss, and that is the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA), again, a large amount of athletes. This tends to be also a feeder level to the NCAA and NAIA of student athlete, 525 members. Many of these schools are public institutions. There are still junior colleges that are private institutions, but most of these institutions within NJCAA are public institutions. And again, this is an area we should not be neglectful in terms of having an impact as far as major discussions, advocacy, and education to try to facilitate the changes we''ve discussed earlier. Finally, next slide, we have the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, and this is where club sports and intramurals fall under. In each one of these cases, as Linda pointed out, student fees are often attached to the support of teams and the support of facilities and other infrastructure requirements in terms of fielding varsity teams, but also, what''s interesting here is that club sports are often funded by a combination of student fees, which is like a tax assessed to all students within an institution, and then pay to play requirement of the individual athletes who have a particular interest in a collegiate club or type of intramural activity. This is more loose, the regulations, compliance, eligibility structures based on club sports, as well as intramural sports, is much broad, more broad, and also this is an area which is quite fertile for experimentation with the so-called three levels of mainstream modified and adapted opportunities. So next slide, please. So finally we get to the point of we have the law, we think we have the so-called universal field of play in terms of who are we trying to engage with to make this change, and that is member institutions, Higher-Ed institutions, both at a two-year level as well as a four-year level, and also within the range of different sport opportunities. Also, to try to convey information, critical information, so people become aware, much more aware, of this mandate, the guidance as a mandate, and therefore can begin to anticipate and at least be more forthright in their concerns, but also in the possibilities and not look at this as a burden, but looking at this as an opportunity. We''ve heard about funding and resources. This interestingly enough was used in terms of the desegregation of intercollegiate sports in the ''60s. It was also used again for the inclusion of women through Title IX in the ''70s and until now. Compliance and eligibility, this is an area that even as recently as this morning''s paper an athlete in Middle Tennessee State University was granted his eligibility to play football after serving six years in the marines, so -- by the NCAA. So compliance and eligibility is not necessarily a fixed point but is constantly being reviewed and modified and expanded and updated. Likewise, we need to deal with athlete classification systems in terms of how we identify and create, and I am going to leave that to Steph to talk a bit more about in terms of how, for example, a collegiate wheelchair basketball team is, you know, created under certain types of rules. You need to look at various solutions. And I really believe -- although some people are very uncomfortable about this -- that the impact and relevance of Title IX to the OCR guidance -- and on this point, I just want to mention for the last two years the National Collegiate Athletic Association through its equity and inclusion division, has taken on much more affirmatively the issue involving athletes with -- student athletes or students who aspire to be athletes under that label, intercollegiate, as part of its requirements and mission. I think that''s a very good step, but it''s certainly not going to change the old pervasive structure of -- and culture of intercollegiate activities simply by an edict from Indianapolis. So there''s a lot of work to be done and I do want to mention, too, there''s an upcoming meeting in Indianapolis where a number of folks who have been invited to progress the further thinking strategically how the NCAA can assist its own member institutions in being more proactive with this. So with that, I think it''s my task to hand this over it Stephanie Wheeler, and move this journey to Champaign-Urbana.
Thanks, Ted. Thanks to Jessica and Great Lakes ADA for having me and giving me the opportunity to share our successes here at the University of Illinois and our areas for growth and improvement. That''s why I''ve sort of titled my part of the presentation the Illinois journey, just because while we''ve experienced a lot of success with our program here at U of I from both an athletic standpoint and an operational standpoint. I do see it as a journey, and we have a long way to go ourselves to make sure that we''re providing equal opportunities for our student athletes as we continue to move forward with our work with the NCAA and our inclusion within that structure. So you can move to the next slide, please. Just to give you guys a bit of an overview of where I am going to go with you, first we''ll talk about the collegiate division he is four-wheer basketball, what it looks like, its structure, teams, just to give you a little bit of insight of where we are coming from and where we compete. Next I am going to touch on some of the places where people tend have a lot of questions or concerns about the inclusion of student athletes with disabilities on their campuses. So we''ll talk about how much our student athletes have in common with their able-bodied peers. The ease of implementation of a disability sport program at a university and then talk about how our student athletes with disabilities offer unique educational benefits different than what their able-bodied peers can offer. We can go to the next slide. Just to give you a quick overview of what our college division looks like, we have seven universities right now that field teams, five of which also field women''s teams, so there''s seven that have men''s teams that compete, five that have women''s teams that compete. Two of the universities are housed in their athletic departments, and then the others are housed in various departments or are hybrids of a club and varsity model. And this is a little bit different than some of the slides that you guys may have, but all but two are full-time employed head coaches. The two programs that don''t have full-time Head Coaches are graduate assistants. Next slide, please. So what I''m going to do now is go into a description of what our program at U of I looks like, and we are going to start with that piece of how our student athletes are the same as the student athletes that you guys might see on any other collegiate campus. So our program has been around for about 64 years. It was the first wheelchair sports program in the nation. It started with wheelchair basketball. Now, as you can see, we have four teams. We have both men''s and Women''s Wheelchair Basketball. And we have men''s and women''s track and road racing. And if you looked at one of our student athletes and talked to one of our student athletes, they would tell you the exact same things you would hear from an able-bodied student athlete on our campus. So what they do. Their game schedule, we play about 30 games a year with both our men''s and women''s teams. Our training schedule, we are on court five days week for two to three hours each day, dependent on the day. They are involved in a rigorous strength and conditioning program which is led by our strength and conditioning coach, who is also our track and field coach or track and road racing coach. That''s three days a week. We put them through mental training with some psychological skills training, sports psychology, to make sure that they can be at their peak for their performances. We have a nutritionist that works with our team, and that varies from year to year. It can be a student on campus in dietetics, or it can be someone involved with the athletic department here on campus. And then lastly and most importantly, we have very stringent academic monitoring that we use with our student athletes, but we make sure that their journey here isn''t only a year long, that their journey here is four years, and that they have the skill set that when they graduate from the University of Illinois, they can go out and be productive members of society. So if you look at this description -- and likes I said, if you listen to our student athletes -- you know, I think back to what Ted said about some people saying that disability sport doesn''t look like a traditional sport. Actually, it does. I''d beg to differ with those people because we look exactly like what everything that''s good about collegiate athletics is. Next slide, please. Just to give you a brief history of where our program came from, it started in 1948 following World War II, and it was started with young men returning from that war with injuries. And what happened was Dr. Timothy Nugent, who started our program, he saw past the disability -- the physical disability -- that these young men were coming back with from war, and he saw their physical potential. But not only did he see their physical potential, he saw how these returning vets could still contribute and be valuable members of society when no one else did at that particular time. He saw all of the qualities that we''ve touched on that are important for our student athletes to have and that they will have once they leave. And he saw this at a time when no one else did, 65 years ago. That was a point in time where in our society individuals with disabilities weren''t seen as being able to contribute to society. Next slide, please. So continuing with our history, we started and competed in the National Wheelchair Basketball Association, which is the NWBA. That''s one of our governing bodies that we -- that both Anita, Linda, and Ted all spoke of, that each organization has their national governing bodies. We served as founders of the women''s division within the NWBA. We were the founders of the college division within the NWBA. And our alumni have participated in the founding of the junior division of the NWBA. So our student athletes here at U of I have not only achieved success in their sport, but they''ve also gone on and given back to the program and to the society that has given so much to them through their ability to participate in sport. Next slide, please. And I think one thing that we''ve done a really great job of and I think what has contributed to our sustained success is that our founding philosophies continue to be the priorities for our program today. This is something that we can firmly stand on, and I''ll talk about why that''s important in a little bit, but it''s something we can stand on that guides us, whether our funding is cut a little bit or societal attitudes are changing or are different about individuals with disabilities. We have these guiding principles and philosophies that move us through our program. The first is the importance of education leading to employment. We have over a 94% graduation rate with our program and an employment rate of over 90%, and that''s over a 65-year history. That''s not a little flash in the bucket; that''s not numbers taken from a ten-year point in time; that''s over 64- 65-year history; that''s not a snapshot. I think that speaks to the skill-sets that our athletes have the opportunities to develop when they''re here being part of both an educational program and being part of our athletics program. We also have a philosophy of community service. We do demonstration events around our community to create awareness. Therefore, it teaches our student athletes the skills that they are going to need to serve in their community. You know, just from when I play -- I was fortunate enough to play here at U of I, and some of my team mates are off doing incredibly wonderful things right now, whether it''s -- we have one working as a U.S. attorney and also on the NWBA board, so she is giving back in that way. And we''ve had many of our graduates that have gone on to coach youth programs within our division. So it gives them the skills that they need to be able to go out and give back in whatever way that they can. We teach leadership, and that kind of goes back to what I was just talking about with community service. And it''s not only teaching the skills that are needed for leading, but it''s teaching the importance of leading and why it''s important for those that have been given so much to now go out and lead and take those fields that they''ve learned and -- those skills that they''ve learned and give them to others. Lastly is respecting difference while valuing all for what they can do. And I think that this is a fundamental reason why there''s an office of diversity and inclusion at the NCAA is that there is this fundamental value to respecting everyone, valuing all student athletes, which helps to maximize the potential of society as a whole. And I''ll touch on that again here in a minute, but our student athletes can provide a completely different experience on this campus than their able-bodied peers can, because going back to what Ted spoke about with the societal belief and the traditional patriarchal belief about what sport should be, what athletes should look like. Our student athletes tear those down when you meet them. So I think that they are the best example of what you can see with why having a student athlete with disability is important on campuses. Next slide, please. So the present opportunities, we are all on this call because these guidelines have been put in place through OCR, and so this is the opportunity that is presented before us. Along with that, we have a large population of veterans returning from war, not unlike back in World War II, we have individuals coming back from Afghanistan and from Iraq now who have similar injuries, who have the same potential that the young men did in 1948, when Dr. Nugent founded our program. And so now we have this whole population of young men and young women that want access to college -- a college education and want access to continue to be physical and to be competitive. We have medical advances that are reframing disability. We have increase an understanding of the importance of including all people in society, and this goes back a bit to what Ted was speaking about with the societal framework of sport. And how notions about what individuals with disabilities can do now are leading the way as opposed to what they can''t do. Now that we''re moving more towards legitimization, like he was speaking about, from marginalization to legitimization. Lastly, I think the reason we are all on this call is because of the GAO recommendations. As with the call that happened a few months ago speaking about opportunities for kids in elementary school, middle school, and high school it''s going to significantly increase our population, and it''s going to demand the opportunity to play sport at their college and university. They are going to know their rights. They are going to know that this is an opportunity that should be provided to them. Therefore, they are going to come with these expectations now, and they will have the expectation of, well, you know, there''s not a sport here for me. They are going to come with the expectation of no I played this sport in high school. This is something that should be provided for me now. Next slide, please. So this is really easy to talk about. I can say the words. It sounds great. Like someone mentioned before, you know, people are on board, people are supportive of disability sport. But it comes back to the cost or it comes back to something that brings up a road block to how is this going to be done? We think that it''s easily said and easily done. And we just have some key points here that go back to talking about this kind of a model and the model that we''ve used here at U of I to establish our program and sustain it for as long as we''ve been able to sustain it. So first is choosing a guiding philosophy. This goes back to what I spoke about a few slides ago. We''ve had the same philosophy in our program for 65 years, and it''s grounded us and given us the roadmap as to how we''re going to lead our student athletes, and it''s given us a roadmap to the individuals that we''re looking to have in our program. You know, another little insight into our philosophy is that we want to provide an opportunity to develop holistically. So we want to develop the person, the student and the athlete, equally. That when our student athletes graduate, they have this complete skill set that they need to go be productive members of society. Another important piece is developing key partners. I have up here as example disabled student services, Voc. Rehab, and VAs. Each university should have a disabled student services on their campus. This is a great place to start because this is where you can get access to the individuals on your campus that have registered with this organization or registered with this department -- excuse me -- as having a disability. Vocational rehabilitation, most of you guys probably already know this, but what vocational rehabilitation does is it wants to increase opportunities for employment, and fundamental to this is access to education. What they do is they try to create opportunities that individuals with disabilities have that access to education. We work at U of I very closely with our vocational rehabilitation in the State of Illinois to make it as feasible as possible monetarily for our student athletes to be able to attend our university. And then lastly, Vas, they can also provide access to funding, and that goes back to this unique population we have now that are injured veterans that are coming back and want to have a collegiate experience and also play sport while they''re there. Next, a survey of assets and gaps, this goes back to what Linda was talking about initially with expanded opportunity and access to opportunity. And this is something that we don''t know and we can''t assume and we can''t have generalizations about what individuals with disabilities and students with disabilities want to do or have an interest in doing. And so there has to be a way of assessing that interest and assessing where the gaps are at a university. Establishing initial budget, we have a budget that we run on here. It''s pretty set in stone each year. Excuse me. Determining facility needs. Each school, each university that you''ll go to, we all have gyms, we all have locker rooms, and we all have recreation centers on campus. Here at U of I, we practice at our student recreation center, play a lot of games there, and we also share a court with the volleyball team, the able-bodied varsity volleyball team here on campus that play games at times. And we all have these facilities that are accessible because of ADA, because of what that has mandated that universities have to make them accessible for students with disabilities, and now it''s just adding athletes with disabilities into this. So it''s determining the facility needs for the program that you want to include, and then doing an assessment of your campus to see what is there. And then lastly is recruiting. And I think this is one of the big questions that we get is where do you get your athletes from? And where do you find the individuals to populate your program? And all I have to say is they''re out there. For the athletes that I am allowed to begin to recruit right now, and that''s 7th grade they become recruitable which is when you can begin watching them and assessing them. I have over a hundred student athletes that I am following and that I''m tracking. So the student athletes are out there, and I know that there''s athletes out there that are untapped. You know, on our campus, I actually have a meeting with our head women''s basketball coach on Friday because I have a young lady who had a career-ending knee injury, and we are going to try to fold her into wheelchair basketball this season. So it''s finding those places, either on your university or within currently established programs and youth programs that have individual access. Next slide, please. I have a few more slides to get through, three more slides to get through before we can open it up to questions and answers. I will get through these a little quickly. But what are the benefits to having student athletes with disabilities on campus? I firmly believe that there should be a reciprocal relationship on campus with our student department athletes with disabilities. So one is improved education, graduation, and employment for students with disabilities; you know, one of the mandates and one of the things that we hear all the time is we want to increase these opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Providing them with this opportunity through sport could help improve that. Expanded research opportunities, we work closely with the kinesiology department on campus, and they use our athletes with shoulder injuries, research with wheelchair mechanics, pushing mechanics. So we''ve provided a population for them to be able to use for their research. Educational and social benefits for all students, I touched on this a little earlier, how our student athletes, by virtue of being on the campus and interacting with the general population, debunk the stereotypes and myths that come along with individuals with disabilities. Then lastly, an expanded donor base I know that our university has received extra donations and extra funding because we have a wheelchair basketball program and because we provide such great programming for individuals and students with disabilities. It has increased our donor base because of those things. Next slide, please. Lastly, how do we connect our past, our present, and our future? So you know, where we were in our past we''ve been in a really good place for a long time, I think, with our program. We were the first in the nation to start. Obviously, Dr. Nugent fought really, really hard on our campus to make it accessible for student athletes with disabilities and fought a lot of discrimination on -- just on our campus to make sure that his student athletes at that point in time were treated as such and were treated as student athletes and were seen in that light. You know, I think right now in our program, where we are, we are in a pretty good place. I think we''re more educated at the University of Illinois. We want to be the model. This is why I wanted to participate in this because I think we can be the model, and we are going to do what we can do to improve our program, which is only going to make it easier for student athletes to have access at any other university. We have put our place where the door is cracked at the NCAA. The conversation has started. Now we have to stick our foot in, stay there, and be educated enough to make sure that we are able to stay there. Then where are we going to go? We are going to learn from what we''ve done here the past 65 years. So it doesn''t take 40 years, like it''s taken for Title IX to make a huge impact. We don''t want it to have to take that long for it to make an impact with our student athletes. Then the last slide, please. This is just a photo of Dr. Nugent and one of my favorite quotes from him that says, "Go as far as you can see and when you get there, you''ll be surprised how much you''ve learned along the way and how much further you can see." So I will turn it back over to Jessica, I think, and I know we''re short on time for questions.
Thanks to all of you so much. This is a great presentation, and we do have a few minutes for questions, so in one second, I am going to pass it over to Olivia to give instructions on how to submit questions via phone. For those of you who are in the webinar room, we are aware that we''re running low on time, and but we are able to respond to your questions after the session, so any questions that you may have, feel free to submit those into the chat box, and then we will, as a team, follow up with you by just answering those questions and sending a document on to everyone that was registered for this session once we''re able to complete that task. So Olivia, can we going to the phones and see if we have any questions?
Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question at this time, please press the star then the 1 key on your touchtone telephone. You may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the pound key. Again, to ask a question, please press the star then the 1 key on your touchtone telephone.
Are we showing any phone questions?
I''m showing no questions at this time.
Okay. Then I''ll go to a question from the chat room. Someone would like to know how your program, Stephanie, how do you handle equipment? Are your athletes responsible for purchasing a sport chair? Does the university provide the chairs similar to how they might budget for uniforms? If you could talk a little bit about that, that would be great.
Sure. Thank you for your question. We are very fortunate at our university we have a sponsorship contract with one of the wheelchair manufacturers. So they provide us with a number of chairs each season for our student athletes, and then we select the student athletes that are in the most need of a piece of equipment, and we''re able to provide them with a chair that way. Some come into our program with chairs that they''ve already had through their junior programs, so, basically, through our sponsorship, it depends on the need of the student athlete with that particular chair. But like I said, we are fortunate that we''re able to have a sponsorship with a chair manufacturer, and we do a lot -- a small bit of our funding towards providing other equipment, like tires, tubes, that kind of thing, to keep up with the maintenance of chairs.
Great. Thank you very much. Olivia, do we have any questions on the phone yet?
Again, if you have a question on the phone line, please press the star and the 1 key on your touchtone telephone.
While we wait for those could tomorrow in, I''ll go to another question. This is for the whole group. Anita mentioned the request for modifications or request for auxiliary aids and services, and we do have some people asking where would that request go to? Would it be the disability services center? Would it be the athletic department? And then who would be responsible for paying for something like an interpreter or anything that would actually have a cost associated with it?
This is Anita Moorman, and I think where the request goes to is going to vary from one campus to the next. For example, on our campus, at the University of Louisville, if it was something related to campus rec, it would probably go directly to the Director of our intramurals, and if he was unable to process the request or was uncertain what he was supposed to do or how to do it, he would then consult with our disability resource center. I think in athletics, that request is probably going to be made either to a coach or to possibly athletic director, senior women''s administrator. It could be the associate athletic director for academic services, or even compliance. So I think every athletic department would be wise to actually designate someone and make sure that that person knows who they are, that that is one of the responsibilities that they have, and then any information they can put on their website would be helpful too. What will also be helpful -- and it''s something different for athletics -- is that many of those requests may occur quite early, well before that student is on campus. If they are recruiting a student or if a student is attempting to seek recruitment who may have a disability and who may request a modification, they''ll encounter that. I think the coaches would be the ones who would encounter that initially. In terms of the cost, I think that''s a gray area right now in terms of what is going to -- what cost is going to be born? I think interpreters generally are provided at the cost of the university, and most disability resource centers would have those services available. But you would have to demonstrate that it was necessary. So always remember that analysis, it has to be necessary and reasonable, and there are a few cases on interpreters, not in the sports setting, but in classroom settings, to rely on there.
Great. Thank you. And I just want to check in on the phones. Do we have any questions on the phone?
I am showing no questions.
Okay. So sorry that we ran out of time for questions, everyone. You do have the contact info for our speakers in your handout. Your handout, if you haven''t already downloaded it, it is available on the website that we host, ada-audio.org, and you have the contact information for each of today''s speakers, as well as for the ADA national network in there. I would love to thank our speakers today, very generous with providing all of this great information for us. Thank you for participating and for sharing your wealth of knowledge. I want to remind everyone that our next session is going to be September 17. It''s titled "Building Blocks for Accessible Healthcare." So if you have any questions or need assistance with registration, you can contact us, 877-232-1990. And we are archiving today''s session, so that should be up in about 24 to 48 hours on our website. And I am getting your questions in the chat area, so we will respond to those and follow up with everyone to make sure that we get those answered. So thank you, everyone. This concludes our session. You can exit by clicking on the red X in the top right corner, and we thank you for joining us today. Thank you again to our speakers.