This book does not start from the premise that separate is inherently unequal. Writing from an “anti-subordination perspective,” Professor Colker provides a framework for the courts and society to consider what programs or policies are most likely to lead to substantive equality for individuals with disabilities. In some contexts, she argues for more tolerance of disability-specific programs and, in other contexts, she argues for more disability-integrated programs. Her highly practical investigation includes the topics of K-12 education, higher education, employment, voting, and provision of health care. At the end of the book, she applies this perspective to the racial arena, arguing that school districts should be given latitude to implement more use of racial criteria to attain integrated schools because such environments are most likely to help attain substantive equality from an anti-subordination perspective. The book measures the attainment of equality not on the basis of worn-out mantras but instead on the basis of substantive gains.
1. Introduction; 2. Anti-subordination above all: a disability perspective; 3. The mythic 43 million Americans with disabilities at the workplace; 4. K-12 education; 5. Higher education and testing accommodations; 6. Voting; 7. Reflections on race: the limits of formal equality.
"...When Is Separate Unequal? A Disability Perspective provides a
framework for the courts and society to consider what programs or policies are
most likely to lead to substantive equality for people with disabilities....The book measures the attainment of equality on the basis of substantive gains..."
"In this important contribution to disability law and equality theory, Professor Ruth Colker challenges the current emphasis on formal equality and integration in the field of disability discrimination... Analytically rigorous and refreshingly pragmatic,
When Is Separate Unequal? provides not only a thoughtful response to current disability discrimination theory, but also concrete guidance for policymakers, courts, and disability advocates who wish to put Professor Colker’s anti-subordination framework into practice."
--Harvard Law Review