From Lowering the Bar comes this story of a law student suing Southern Illinois Law School for denying her readmittance because of a low GPA. “Lisa Dawn Rittenhouse ended up with a 1.948 GPA, and law school rules apparently provide that only those with a 1.95 or better will be invited back for another year.”
A low GPA, on its surface, sounds like a good reason to cut the student free, but the story doesn’t end there. It seems that she suffers from certain disabilities, and that her low GPA is a product of this. But it doesn’t end there either, as shown here:
But Rittenhouse says that her low scores are due to disability, not a lack of ability. She claims she suffers from bipolar disorder, hyperactivity, ADHD, and dyslexia. One or more of these disorders may or may not explain why Rittenhouse’s complaint describes ADHD as “Attention Span Deficit Disorder” and says it contributed to her “low grape point average.” She alleges that she has one or more impairments that substantially limits here [sic] ability to perform” and that the school’s failure to accommodate her was a violation of the “Americans for [sic] Disabilities Act.”
So she made every gaff in the book. I suppose there’s a certain irony, if not exactly humor, to be found here.
But there’s another issue hidden inside this story that makes it impossible to laugh at the irony.
Students with learning disabilities are entitled to receive an education, including the accommodations and modifications that allow them to overcome their disability and achieve the educational success. But where does this end?
Clearly, we want LD students to reach their fullest potential, both as a matter of propriety and for the societal benefit of having them as contributing members. But their fullest potential does not mean that they will be able to accomplish whatever they want when their skills, as limited by their disabilities, fall short. This is a sad truth, but truth nonetheless. Would anyone want a blind brain surgeon operating on them? Clearly, being blind does not limit intelligence or drive, but it is a very real disability that impacts on one’s ability to perform certain tasks. There’s just no way around it.
Lisa Dawn Rittenhouse says that she suffers from bipolar disorder, ADHD and dyslexia. None of these, standing alone, precludes the possibility that she can be a successful lawyer. The dyslexia, while it may present some barriers in effective writing, should not present an insurmountable hurdle that her ideas and arguments cannot shine through. After all, misspellings happen to all of us, and we survive (with the help of spellcheck, or better yet, a good editor).
But given the content of her work shown above, she isn’t going to cut it as a lawyer. While we must have a societal policy to support the learning disabled to fulfill their potential, there must also be a point where accommodations end.
I have a problem finding humor in Lisa Dawn Rittenhouse’s “low grape point average.” It just isn’t funny to me that there are people who struggle to achieve their dreams, but are hampered by disabilities. In fact, I admire their struggle to overcome their disabilities, their refusal to be defined by what they can’t do and their efforts to push through their limitations to succeed. But I cannot see her being a lawyer, and putting the fate of another person into her hands.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That is the funniest story I have read in…well at least a day. How is that not funny? That clearly has nothing to do with learning disabilities. I don’t think any of those “impairments” would prevent someone from editing their work.
It sounds like maybe she just can’t hack it in law school, so she looked for excuses, real or imaginary. On second thought, maybe she would be a great attorney.
Hey look. I’m not going to say what anybody should or shouldn’t find funny.
The issues of kids (in general) and kids with learning disabilities (in particular) concern me deeply. Probably more so than most folks. One of the deeper problems is that people without learning disabilities have a very difficult time understanding and appreciating what a learning disability is, and what it involves for a person who has it.
Imagine having a wire disconnected in your brain that makes the gaffs in the complaint appear, to Rittenhouse, totally, 100% correct. What is obvious to us is equally obvious to her, but it just happens to be wrong and she can’t see it. We look at her work and think, “if she had just taken 5 minutes to review and edit her work, she wouldn’t have these gaffs,” and would probably have a better GPA. But what if, in her head, it looked perfect. What if she spent hours reviewing and editing, and still she was incapable of seeing the errors?
I use blindness as an analogy, because it’s easier for non-LD people to understand. If she was blind, would you tell her to look at her complaint again and maybe then she could see the errors? Of course not, because she would still be blind and she would still be unable to see it.
Most people don’t realize that there are all different types of learning disabilities, and within each type is a full spectrum of capabilities and inabilities. It’s not like pantyhose: One size does not fit all. Yet, that’s the way we see people with disabilities, because we can’t possibly understand what it’s like to be unable to process in the typical way no matter how hard we try.
Anyway, YS, there is humor to be found in what Rittenhouse has written, much as we laugh at Yogi Berra’s malapropisms. For me, however, it’s like laughing at a blind person because they tripped on crack in the sidewalk. I can’t do it. But that’s just me.
On the one hand, it sounds like Southern Illinois would almost be committing fraud by allowing her to continue working on a Law Degree if her disabilities will prevent her from becoming a lawyer. On the other hand, disabled people have always had to fight when other people try to make those decisions for them.
Tough situation.
Hi, Scott — just noticed this post on my post at Lowering the Bar. I understand your point, and you’re right. I try to be careful not to be unfair to people I’m writing about, which is difficult because it’s often not clear from a news report whether someone’s claim (of disability or whatever) is legit or bogus. I think this is an example of one where I wasn’t careful enough.
Primarily because, while I still am not sure that Rittenhouse’s claim of dyslexia is legitimate (e.g., I don’t think that would lead someone to call ADHD “Attention Span Deficit Disorder,” but could be wrong), this story would have been more accurate — and much funnier — had I done the legwork originally to find out that Rittenhouse was not representing herself.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1197885885993
I suppose it still is unfortunate that (assuming her claim is legit) someone with dyslexia somehow ended up represented by a non-disabled attorney who just can’t write. Either way, this post of mine clearly should have been focused on the attorney, not the possibly disabled law student. I’m glad I saw this and will be updating that post. Thanks.
Well, Kevin, we need to talk. Now my post is almost 2 months old, and this is the first you learn of it? I check out Lowering the Bar at least 2 to 3 times a day, just to be sure that I don’t miss anything important. And it takes you 2 months to see a post that came from you? I’m hurt. Deeply hurt.
But I do thank you for pointing out that the quotes from the Lisa Dan Rittenhouse story come not from her but from her attorney, presumably someone who is admitted to practice law and can write fluently in the English language. Talk about a scary correction. While the gravamen of my post dealt less with the particulars of Mr. Rittenhouse’s disability than the limits of inclusion, she certainly doesn’t need to be tainted by her lawyer’s incompetence when contesting the challenge to her own.
And thanks for stopping by. Don’t be a stranger.
How To Explain A Low Grape Point Average
I was interviewed the other day for a publication, Inside Higher Ed, about the Lisa Dan Rittenhouse case that I had blawged about
here.
How To Explain A Low Grape Point Average
I was interviewed the other day for a publication, Inside Higher Ed, about the Lisa Dan Rittenhouse case that I had blawged about
here.
what lawyer doesn’t correct a typo like “grape point average”?
I realize that this blog entry is rather old by now but I wanted to clear a few things up. If you Google Attention Span Deficit Disorder you will find it brings up results for ADD because that was originally what doctors called it when I was diagnosed at the age of 5. (Which was 30 years ago.) You were right about a mistake being made as ADHD is actually Attention Span Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder as it is now more commonly called. The complaint in question was typed by my attorney, typos are easy to make, it was then edited by his paralegal who then save the edited version under another file name. Unfortunately the unedited version was filed with the court, a mistake which can happen to even the best attorney from time to time. Once the error was discovered a corrected version was filed, however the damage was done the unedited version was out there for people such as yourself to ridicule. If you had been truly interested in my case (beyond ridiculing me) you might have done your homework and sought me out for my side of the story, I have had at least one person contact me through Facebook to ask about it.
As for my ability to become an attorney, well I managed to return to law school and graduate utilizing the appropriate accommodations which had not been available to me the first time around. I also managed to pass and be admitted to the bar in my state of choice, only time will tell just how good of an attorney I will be.