This is an informal presentation aimed at four audiences:
(1) Students at the high school and college levels who have
Tourette Syndrome;
(2) Those who advocate for the aforementioned students in (1);
(3) The staff of the California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona;
(4) The general public.
Some students living with TS require varying amounts of educational assistance and accommodations, such as extended testing time in a distraction-free environment, note cards or crib sheets for mathematics exams, or seating in the classroom so that the student may get up and leave to "vent" energy.
Tourette Syndrome is indeed a genuine disability, and thus all individuals who suffer from TS are unquestionably and fully entitled to the protections governed under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1991 Civil Rights Act, and Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. By law, no person who is disabled, physically or mentally, shall be discriminated against or excluded from participation in all programs described in the ADA and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Failure to observe this is in direct violation of the law.
In particular, educational institutions are obligated, by law, to provide accommodations as needed by students with TS, and are strictly forbidden, under any circumstances whatsoever, to exclude a student with TS from participation in classroom activities for an unnecessary period of time because of its manifestations. This policy is enforced by the provisions stated in the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts and the ADA. A student may, however, be asked politely and in a manner so as to not embarrass or offend the student, to leave the room for a short time in order to "vent" the student's tics. It is only fair and just to allow the student to return to class when the student feels it is appropriate.
In October of that same term, my professor initially requested that I take our daily quiz in the hallway immediately outside of the classroom. I did not object, and I told him that I would be more than happy to do so. On the Friday of that same week, the professor discussed with me the fact that my vocal tics (he had used the term "ejaculations") were becoming much more forceful than at the start of the term. Furthermore, he stated that he did not want me to appear in class starting on the following Monday. I was, however, not dropped from the course, but rather, I was to be excluded from participation in classroom discussions. The professor described a plan of action which included soliciting two volunteer note-takers from among the other students in the class and weekly sessions of follow-ups during his office hours. This action, supplemented with testing accommodations provided by Cal Poly's Disabled Student Services (DSS) office, was presented with no alternatives whatsoever, despite my attempts to affirm that I would try my personal best to keep my outbursts in class to a minimum. At that point in the Fall term, dropping the course and enrolling in another did not seem a wise action, especially since this professor was not planning to drop me from his class, anyway. No compromises were made, and I did not appear on the following Monday.
I hired an attorney on the advice of a support group affiliated with the San Gabriel Valley Chapter of the Tourette Syndrome Association. After our initial consultation, he wrote a letter to Cal Poly stating that the actions taken by the professor and DSS were in violation of the law, as I stated in the Introduction. The goals of the letter were to make the University aware that all actions resembling those of my professor--namely, exclusion of students from class discussions secondary to conditions which they cannot totally control--were not to be accorded to me as long as I was enrolled at the University, were direct violations of the Civil Rights Act and the ADA, and that my professor should be disciplined. A copy of his letter was furnished to me.
My attorney received a letter, dated August 12, 1998, from the University Counsel in response to my attorney. My attorney forwarded a copy of the Counsel's letter to me. In this letter, she stated that the actions taken by my professor were "good faith efforts to insure that [I] was able to pursue [my] educational objectives," also mentioning that I had completed the course earning a grade of B. Although my grade was somewhat "above average," her retelling of the plan instituted by my professor was factually inaccurate. In one occurrence, her letter incorrectly stated that I "took [my] quizzes in the hallway outside [my professor's] office and [my] tests at DSS." The part about the quizzes was not true, as I took them in the hallway outside the classroom, not his office. Let me add that, on most occasions, I took my quizzes in the hallway immediately beside our classroom. Citing one more occurrence, the University Counsel's letter stated that the "agreement was reached by all parties, including [myself]." That statement was unfair, because I was offered no alternatives to my professor's plan. Lastly, the University took no steps to discipline the professor, stating again that his actions were "good faith efforts to insure that [I] was able to pursue [my] educational objectives." In contest of the University Counsel's decision, I wrote a letter directly to the California State University. In it, I attempted to prove three things. First, I brought to attention those aforementioned inaccuracies present in the Counsel's letter of decision. Second, I provided evidence that I was worthy of participating in the lectures, and that the said participation was guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Third, I attempted to prove that my tics, as obvious as they seemed, imposed no undue hardship on the class, and that my professor's concerns or reasons were unsubstantiated. Finally, I explicitly stated that I only wanted a decision supporting my inclusion in all classes in the future. It should be noted, however, that I made no further mention of pursuing any disciplinary actions against that calculus professor, whatsoever. The University Counsel replied, and her letter, dated cf. October 15, 1998, was awkward disappointing, to say the least. Her letter expressed precisely two ideas. First, the California State University found no grounds for warranting disciplinary actions toward my calculus professor, who, again, "acted" in my "best academic interests." Second, they "[considered] the matter closed...wishing [me] good luck with my academic endeavors." No further statements were made by them. I considered that somewhat awkward and outright immature, especially for a licensed attorney-at-law. Consider that, firstly, I did not express any intentions for disciplinary actions against my calculus professor, in my own letter to the University; secondly, they cited nothing from my own letter--especially nothing about the references to the laws regarding disabilities and equal access.
Lastly, my only objective with respect to this personal statement is to inform the public and the Cal Poly staff of this experience. Maltreatments and exclusions from classroom discussions because of any aspect of Tourette Syndrome--especially at the college level, for maturity reasons--are inappropriate, unjust, and illegal. By subjecting a student to this discriminatory injustice, the student's attitude or outlook on education could be negatively impacted. The student has the option of filing a lawsuit against the faculty member for punitive damages, as directed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The safest and surest remedy to the global problem is to educate the public, especially educators, others involved in the field of education, parents, advocates, and students, as much as possible.