OCR Letter: New College of California
Dr. Peter Gabel
President
New College of California
50 Fell Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Complaint No. 09-93-2063-I
On February 19, 1993, the U.S. Department of Education (Department), San Francisco Regional
Office for Civil Rights (OCR) notified you that a complaint had been filed against New College of
California (College). The complainant [ ], alleged that the College discriminated against a named
student at the College (hereinafter student), on the basis of disability. Specifically, the
complainant alleged that the College violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by
failing to provide the hearing impaired student with a sign language interpreter for the majority
of her classes at the College. The provision of interpreter services, the complainant asserted,
was necessary to allow the student to participate in the educational program to the same
extent as non-hearing impaired students.
As stated in the letter of February 19, 1993, OCR has the responsibility and the authority to
investigate complaints of discrimination in programs receiving Department financial assistance.
The College receives such assistance and is therefore subject to the provisions of Section 504
and its implementing Regulation, 34 C.F.R., Part 104. Because the College is a private
institution, the provisions of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 are not
appropriate legal standards by which OCR may assert its jurisdiction.
The investigation of this complaint included a review of information OCR obtained from the
College, interviews with College staff, and information received from the complainant. After
reviewing all the evidence, OCR has concluded that the College violated Section 504 and the
Department regulations with regard to the allegations of this complaint. However, concurrent
to the investigation, the College voluntarily took steps to remedy the areas of noncompliance.
Therefore, OCR considers the College to now be in compliance with the above-stated
regulations applicable to this complaint.
Legal Standards
Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a), no qualified handicapped person shall, an the basis of handicap, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity which receives or benefits from Federal financial
assistance.
Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d), a recipient shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that no
disabled student is denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise
subjected to discrimination under the education program or activity operated by a recipient
because of the absence of educational auxiliary aids for students with impaired sensory,
manual, or speaking skills.
Findings and Analysis
Through its investigation, OCR learned that the student matriculated at the College in the Social
Clinical Program of the Graduate Psychology Department during the winter trimester of 1992.
In most cases, the College only admits students to the program in the fall. However, in light of
the student's eagerness and special circumstances, College officials believed the winter
trimester an appropriate time to allow the student to experiment with the program and
gradually acclimate herself, while the College attempted to garner the resources to secure sign
language interpreters.
By agreement with the Chair of the Social Clinical Program (chair), the student limited her
course-load during the winter trimester to one course--"Family Therapy." The two also agreed
that the student would lip-read orally presented material in the class. To better facilitate the
student's lip-reading, arrangements were made with the instructor, insuring that he would
stand close to the student while he was speaking. The student planned to meet with the chair
and the Dean of the Graduate Psychology Department (dean) in January 1993, to assess her
performance in the class, giving special consideration to her ability to function without the aid
of sign language interpreters. These meetings were also scheduled to allow the College to
report on its efforts to secure resources for interpreter services.
During the meetings with the dean and the chair, the student expressed her frustration
regarding her status in the class without interpreters. She was informed that at that point the
College was still unable to afford interpreters for more than three of the twelve "Family
Therapy" class meetings. The dean and the chair offered the student the chance to choose the
classes for which the interpreters would be provided. They further assured the student that
they were actively pursuing resources to finance interpreters for her spring semester classes.
The dean was eventually able to secure funding for interpreters during the student's spring
semester. In addition, to help defray the expense incurred by the College to supply the student
with interpreters, the dean offered tuition credits to sign language interpreters in exchange for
their services. Presently, the student maintains a full course-load (three classes) and receives
interpreter services for all class meetings.
Evidence gathered during the investigation of the complaint indicates that other than an
interpreter, there is no alternative means by which the student can fully participate in the
Social Clinical Program and enjoy its benefits. All College personnel interviewed, i.e. the dean,
the chair, and the student's instructors, testified that the student requires interpreters to
receive orally presented classroom material. The College concedes its failure to adequately
provide the appropriate auxiliary aid to accommodate the student's disability for nine of her
first twelve class meetings.
Conclusion
Through its investigation, OCR learned of, and duly notes, the good faith efforts made by the
College to secure interpreters for the student. Also, it appears that a cooperative understanding
existed between the College and the student regarding the delay in provision of interpreter
services. Nevertheless, Section 504 and its implementing Regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4,
expressly prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities, regardless of the intent of
a recipient. The Regulation stipulates that in providing any aid, benefit or service, a recipient is
specifically prohibited from: denying qualified disabled persons an opportunity to participate in
or benefit from such aid, benefit or service; providing such aid, benefit or service in a manner
that is not as effective as that provided to others; or, otherwise limiting qualified disabled
persons in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage or opportunity enjoyed by others.
In violation of the above-cited Federal Regulation, the College failed to adequately provide the
student with interpreters for most class meetings of her first course. Financial considerations
do not relieve a recipient of Federal funds from its obligations under Section 504 to students
whose disabilities require use of a sign language interpreter in order to have comparable access
to educational programs. OCR has determined, however, that the College, by its current
provision of interpreters for all of the student's class meetings, is presently in compliance with
the Regulation.
Prior to the investigation of this complaint, the College did not have a written policy regarding
the provision of services for disabled students. During the course of the investigation, however,
the College provided OCR with a draft copy of its new Access Policy Statement. The statement
establishes a procedure by which students with disabilities may address their concerns
regarding the provision of special services and academic accommodations. Specifically, College
staff within each academic department have been designated to assist students with
disabilities. These designees serve on a school-wide Access Committee which seeks to identify
students' needs, provide guidance, and offer appropriate services.
In addition "The College will ensure that a student whose disability requires use of sign
language interpreters will receive the necessary services and will not be denied such services on
the basis of financial considerations."
The College has agreed to submit to OCR a final copy of the policy when published in its 199394 Student Handbook. The College is required to provide OCR a copy of the handbook by
September 30, 1993.
OCR is informing the complainant of these findings by concurrent letter and is thereby closing
this complaint as of the date of this letter.
This Letter of Findings is not intended, nor should it be construed, to cover compliance by the
College with Section 504 and its implementing Regulation as to any issue or individual not
specifically discussed herein.
OCR accords a complainant, against whom an adverse finding has been made, the right to
request reconsideration by OCR. Reconsideration may affect the findings made by OCR. Should
the complainant in this case file a timely request, there is a possibility that OCR, in the process
of responding to the request, may need to contact you for further information.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and
related records on request. If OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent
provided by law, personal information which, if released, could reasonably be expected to
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
OCR would like to thank you for your cooperation during the course of this investigation. If you
have any questions regarding these findings, please contact Mr. Charles R. Love, Director,
Compliance Division I, at (415) 556-7025.
John E. Palomino
Regional Civil Rights Director