By Dr. Eric S. Fishon, Former Student and Disability Advocate

Author’s Disclosure

As a former student of Virginia University of Lynchburg (VUL), I write this analysis not as a personal grievance but as an academic and ethical review of the university’s public disability accommodations page. My purpose is to separate personal experience from factual assessment, allowing the content of the university’s own published statements to speak for themselves. The views expressed here rest solely on the language, policies, and implications contained on the VUL Disability Services webpage and the standards set forth by federal disability law.

A Pattern of Compliance Without Compassion

The VUL Disability Services page claims compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. At first glance, it appears to mirror legal expectations: the university acknowledges the duty to provide reasonable accommodations, lists examples of common supports, and references federal statutes.

However, beneath the surface lies a troubling pattern of conditional access. Students are told that accommodations must be re-requested each semester, that documentation must be renewed every 12–24 months, and that certain supports may only be available for “acute medical or psychological episodes.” This phrasing does not simply fail to capture the spirit of disability inclusion—it misrepresents it.

The Dangerous Mislabeling of Mental and Invisible Disabilities

Perhaps the most concerning line on VUL’s site appears under “Accommodations that may be more difficult to get”:

“Extended time on papers and projects (typically not given on an ongoing basis but rather as situations arise — such as for students with acute medical or psychological episodes).”

This language exposes a profound misunderstanding of how disabilities function. Mental and invisible disabilities—such as generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, or narcolepsy—are not acute conditions. They are chronic, lifelong realities that impact concentration, stamina, sleep, memory, and emotional regulation.

By implying that accommodations for mental or psychological conditions are only justified during an “episode,” VUL effectively invalidates the chronic nature of these disabilities. Such a framework tells students that unless they are in crisis, they do not qualify for empathy, flexibility, or understanding. This interpretation stands in direct conflict with the ADA Amendments Act (2008), which explicitly recognizes chronic and episodic conditions as legitimate, ongoing disabilities deserving of consistent accommodation.

The Burden of Proof: When Disclosure Becomes a Barrier

Students are instructed to self-disclose their disabilities and provide medical documentation “performed within 12–24 months of the accommodation request.” On its face, this sounds administratively reasonable. In practice, however, it places an undue burden on students—particularly those managing long-term conditions for which retesting is unnecessary, expensive, or medically discouraged.

The requirement to reapply for accommodations each semester further compounds the problem. Disability does not expire with the end of a term, yet VUL’s system forces students to continually re-negotiate their right to access. This structure transforms the accommodation process into a bureaucratic gatekeeping exercise, rather than a supportive collaboration designed to promote equal opportunity.

Compliance Is Not the Same as Inclusion

While VUL correctly cites the ADA, Section 504, and the ADA Amendments Act, its implementation of these laws falls short of their intent. Compliance should never be treated as a ceiling—it is the floor. True inclusion demands active partnership, transparency, and good faith engagement between institutions and students.

The university’s webpage fails to mention any interactive process—a legally required step in which staff and students collaboratively determine reasonable accommodations. Nor does it outline appeal procedures, timelines, or standards of review. Instead, the site presents accommodations as institutional favors, doled out based on administrative feasibility rather than educational necessity.

The Human Cost of Institutional Language

When an institution’s public statements treat mental illness as “acute,” or describe accommodations as “difficult to obtain,” the impact ripples beyond policy. Students with unseen disabilities—those battling fatigue, anxiety, cognitive fog, or pain—internalize the message that their needs are exceptional, temporary, or unworthy of consistent support. Many simply stop disclosing altogether.

This silence has consequences: reduced academic success, diminished sense of belonging, and erosion of trust in the institution’s stated commitment to diversity and inclusion. The ADA was never meant to be interpreted through a lens of convenience—it is a moral and legal mandate to ensure equitable access for all.

Recommendations for Reform

If Virginia University of Lynchburg wishes to embody its own declared values, it must take immediate steps to modernize its disability policy framework:

1. Remove Stigmatizing Terminology: Eliminate references to “acute psychological episodes” and other language that implies temporariness in mental health or cognitive disabilities.
2. Acknowledge Chronic and Invisible Disabilities: Recognize that many impairments—physical, neurological, or psychological—are ongoing and require predictable supports.
3. Streamline the Renewal Process: Allow ongoing accommodations for chronic conditions without semester-by-semester re-application, unless circumstances change.
4. Establish an Interactive Process: Implement a transparent, student-centered dialogue mechanism for determining and reviewing accommodations.
5. Educate Faculty and Staff: Require ADA and Section 504 training to promote empathy, compliance, and appropriate classroom implementation.
6. Include Students in Policy Review: Engage individuals with disabilities directly in revising university accessibility statements and procedures.

Final Reflection

This analysis is not a condemnation—it is a call for progress. Institutions evolve through accountability, not avoidance. The words published on a university website may seem administrative, but for students with disabilities, those words define access, belonging, and dignity.

Virginia University of Lynchburg now has an opportunity to lead by example—by transforming compliance into compassion, and policy into practice.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008). Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973). U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2020). Protecting students with disabilities: Frequently asked questions about Section 504 and the education of children with disabilities.

Virginia University of Lynchburg. (n.d.). Disability Services. https://wp.vul.edu/disability-services/