Moving Beyond the Basics of the ADA and Section 504: Opportunities for Equitable and Inclusive Access to Law Libraries, Collections, and Services

Abstract

AbstractThe law library plays a role in the lives of people with disabilities by facilitating their full participation in society. Providing equitable access for persons with disabilities to library facilities and services is required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), applicable state and local statutes, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA was created to eliminate discrimination in many areas, and most libraries are covered by the ADA’s Title I (Employment), Title II (Government Programs and Services), and Title III (Public Accommodations). Section 504 is another federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education. Recipients of this federal financial assistance include institutions of higher education. This article provides a brief overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and why law libraries must comply with these laws to provide equitable access for persons with disabilities. Although the traditional view of access is defined as physical access to the library or the building it resides in, this article asserts that equitable and inclusive access to the law library should be aligned with the expectations of the ADA and Section 504. Law libraries should employ a more holistic approach and reexamine how they define and apply accessibility to their collections, programs, and services.Keywords: ADASection 504accessaccessibilitydisabilitylibrarylaw librarylibrary collectionslibrary programslibrary services AcknowledgmentsThe author would like to thank Maryanne Daly-Doran and Sarina Bhargava for their research assistance.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes2 There is debate in the disability community about identity-first language or person-first language in relation to disability. Person-first language is language that puts a person before their diagnosis, such as “a person with a disability.” Identity-first language is language that leads with a person’s diagnosis, such as “a disabled person.” + I will be using both identity-first and person-first language throughout this article. For additional information on the debate between identity-first vs. person-first language, see Jevon Okundaye, Ask a Self-Advocate: The Pros and Cons of Person-First and Identity-First Language, Mass. Advocs. Child. (Apr. 23, 2021), https://www.massadvocates.org/news/ask-a-self-advocate-the-pros-and-cons-of-person-first-and-identity-first-language.3 See infra Part I.4 I recognize that the law school at-large can play a significant role in how autonomous a library can be in responding to requests for accommodations and accessibility concerns, depending on how the organization is structured and which entity provides the law library itsr overall budget. Additionally, top-down approaches to accommodations and accessibility generally focus on compliance versus inclusion. See infra Part II. For this reason, this article specifically focuses on what law libraries—and law library staff—can do with the finite resources that they have available to them, how they are able to stretch these resources (if possible), and how they can work within their own organizational structures and budgetary constraints.5 The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and country of origin, did not include disability. For a discussion on how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 spurred advocacy for additional disability rights protections, see Lindsey Patterson, The Disability Rights Movement in the United States, in The Oxford Handbook of Disability History 439 (2018).6 See S. 7, 119 Cong. Rec. 156 (1973); S. 3987, 118 Cong. Rec. 30,680 (1972).7 For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is the primary legislation for students needing special education services. It is also widely accepted that the Americans with Disabilities Act is historical landmark legislation that comprehensively addresses nondiscrimination of individuals with disabilities.8 Paul T. Jaeger & Cynthia Ann Bowman, Disability Matters 99 (2002).9 Previous versions of the Rehabilitation Act were vetoed on October 26, 1972 and March 27, 1973.10 Jaeger & Bowman, supra note 8, at 100.11 Joseph P. Shapiro, No Pity: People With Disabilities Forging a New Civil Right Movement 65 (1993) ("Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was no more than a legislative afterthought.")12 Equality of Opportunity: The Making of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Nat’l Council on Disability (2d ed. 2010) (“Not a single member of Congress mentioned the section during floor debate, and President Nixon made no reference to it as grounds for his veto. The section apparently developed out of a fear that persons receiving vocational rehabilitation would later be blocked from employment, thus negating the rehabilitative benefits. It was a way to add an element of civil rights language without the danger of amending the Civil Rights Act.”)13 An individual with a disability means “any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.” + 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j).14 Although §504 ultimately was passed as part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the nondiscrimination principle later codified in §504 was initially proposed as an amendment to Title VI. The enacting legislation, PL 93-112, provides no mention of §504—it was kind of a "back door" addition to the legislation modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As such, it has been afforded broad interpretation, with the majority of clarification coming from regulations and some judicial decisions.15 Subsection (b) of §504 defines the term program or activity. This subsection was added by PL 100-259 in 1988 in response to the Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of the phrase "program or activity" in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The amendment clarified that discrimination is prohibited throughout the entire institution if any part of the institution receives federal financial assistance. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(b); Cynthia Brougher, Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL34041, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Prohibiting Discrimination Against Individuals with Disabilities in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Assistance (2010).16 Recipient means any state or its political subdivision, any instrumentality of a state or its political subdivision, any public or private agency, institution, organization, or other entity, or any person to which federal financial assistance is extended directly or through another recipient, including any successor, assignee, or transferee of a recipient, but excluding the ultimate beneficiary of the assistance. + 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(f).17 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States … shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”). The language of §504 was patterned after §601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (1976 & Supp. III 1979), which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 (1976), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex under any program or activity receiving federal financing assistance. + See also 34 C.F.R. §104.4.18 S. Rep. No. 1297, at 120 (1974), as reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6390. See also 29 U.S.C. § 794(b).19 28 C.F.R. § 41.3.20 S. Rep. No. 100-64, at 4 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6. See also Nina Golden, Access This: Why Institutions of Higher Education Must Provide Access to the Internet to Students with Disabilities, 10 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 363 (2008).21 Cherry v. Matthews, 419 F. Supp. 922, 924 (1976) (“The statute's discrimination prohibitions were certainly not intended to be self-executing.”)22 Jaeger & Bowman, supra note 8, at 101 (“Ultimately, amendments to Section 504 as part of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Development Disabilities Act of 1978 finally began to make it clear that civil remedies and procedures were being extended to individuals with disabilities.”); Id. (citing B. Schoenfeld, Civil Rights for the Handicapped Under the Constitution and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 49 U. Cincinnati L. Rev. 580 [1980]). Currently, the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education enforces regulations implementing Section 504 with respect to programs and activities that receive funding from the Department. Failure by higher education institutions to provide auxiliary aids to students with disabilities that result in a denial of a program benefit is discriminatory and prohibited by Section 504.23 Golden, supra note 23, at 366.24 Laura Rothstein, The Americans with Disabilities Act and Higher Education 25 Years Later: An Update on the History and Current Disability Discrimination Issues for Higher Education, 41 J.C. & U.L. 531 (2015).25 Patterson, supra note 5, at 452.26 The Education of the Handicapped Act, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Pub. L. 101-476), provided students with disabilities with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.27 Presidential Statement on Signing the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2 Pub. Papers 1070–71 (July 26, 1990). It should also be noted that the ADA had “seemingly countless opponents tripping over each other to encourage Bush not to sign the bill into law … includ[ing] the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federal of Independent Businesses, the Restaurant Association, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Greyhound Bus and most public transportation companies, Pat Buchanan, and a number of conservative members of Congress.” + See Jaeger & Bowman, supra note 8, at 100.28 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).29 42 U.S.C. § 12102.30 28 C.F.R. § 35.108(b). It should be noted that neither the original ADA nor the ADAAA provides a definition for the term physical or mental impairment. However, the legislative history of the Amendments Act notes that Congress “expect[s] that the current regulatory definition of these terms, as promulgated by agencies such as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (DOE OCR) will not change.” S. 3406 Senate Statement of Managers, 154 Cong. Rec. S8840, at 6 (2008). The definition of “physical or mental impairment” in the EEOC’s regulations remains based on the definition of the term “physical or mental impairment” found in the regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act at 34 C.F.R. Part 104.31 28 C.F.R. § 35.108I(1).32 28 C.F.R. § 35.108(c)(2) (This includes “the functions of the immune system, special sense organs and skin, normal cell growth, and digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive systems. The operation of a major bodily function includes the operation of an individual organ within a body system.”)33 The ADA extended the reach of antidiscrimination legislation to private facilities, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability by private entities employing more than fifteen people. See Patterson, supra note 5, at 452.34 Laura Rothstein, Higher Education and Disability Discrimination: A Fifty Year Retrospective, 36 J.C. & U.L. 843, 854 (2010).35 42 U.S.C. § 12112. See State and Local Governments, https://www.ada.gov/topics/title-ii/ (last visited May 8, 2023).36 Jessica de Perio Wittman, A Trend You Can’t Ignore: Social Media as Government Records and its Impact on the Interpretation of the Law, 31 Alb. L. J. Sci. & Tech. 53, 62 (2021) (“Raising awareness about the ins and outs of the decision-making cycle increases the likelihood that citizens know what their government is doing.”)37 Patterson, supra note 5, at 439.38 42 U.S.C. §12182(a).39 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).40 28 C.F.R § 36.104.41 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).42 It should be noted that several federal agencies are called upon to help obtain full compliance of the ADA. The federal government frequently uses favorable provisions in other statutes and regulations as devices to obtain compliance with civil rights laws. For example, the Internal Revenue Service is called upon to enforce tax laws that provide that tax-exempt institutions are required to fully comply with all civil rights laws to be eligible to be granted or have continued tax-exempt status. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service regularly audits tax-exempt institutions to ensure that their practices fully comply with various civil rights laws. Tax Benefits for Businesses Who Have Employees with Disabilities, IRS, https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tax-benefits-for-businesses-who-have-employees-with-disabilities (last visited May 9, 2023).43 Jessica Schomberg & Wendy Highby, Beyond Accommodation: Creating an Inclusive Workplace for Disabled Library Workers 37 (2020).44 Presidential Statement, supra note 27.45 Robert C. Cloud, Ed.D., Higher Education Accommodations for Disabled Students, 147 Ed. Law Rep. 391 (“Section 504 requires colleges and universities to examine all practices and procedures related to facility accessibility, course requirements, course evaluations, and examinations to guarantee that they accommodate disabled students. The kinds of accommodations vary from institution to institution and within given institutions from semester to semester. Depending on resources and student applicants, accommodations may include tutoring, interpreters, note-takers, reductions in course load, and additional time for examinations. To ensure Section 504 compliance, many institutions have created Offices of Access and Learning … staffed by professional personnel who are qualified to tailor specialized plans for disabled students.”)46 Presidential Statement, supra note 27.47 Id.48 34 CFR § 104.44(a).49 Id.50 Id.51 Id.52 Id.53 42 U.S.C. § 12131.2.54 42 U.S.C. § 12201(a).55 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).56 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1).57 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8)(d)).58 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(c)(1)).59 28 CFR § 36.309(b).60 On S. 2345 to Establish a Clear and Comprehensible Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of Handicap, Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Select Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 100th Cong. 11 (1988) (statement of Hon. Tony Coelho, Rep. of California).61 For example, see Kitty Cone, Short History of the 504 Sit-In, Disability Rts. Educ. & Defense Fund, https://dredf.org/504-sit-in-20th-anniversary/short-history-of-the-504-sit-in/ (last visited May 8, 2023) for her account of the 504 Sit-In. (“We had shown ourselves and the country through network TV that we, the most hidden, impoverished, pitied group of people in the nation were capable of waging a deadly serious struggle that brought about profound social change. The sit in was a truly transforming experience the likes of which most of us had never seen before or ever saw again. Those of us with disabilities were imbued with a new sense of pride, strength, community and confidence. For the first time, many of us felt proud of who we were. And we understood that our isolation and segregation stemmed from societal policy, not from some personal defects on our part and our experiences with segregation and discrimination were not just our own personal problems.”). See also Julia Carmel, Before the ADA, There Was Section 504, New York Times (July 22, 2020), + https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/504-sit-in-disability-rights.html#:∼:text=In%201977%2C%20people%20with%20disabilities,the%20Americans%20With%20Disabilities%20Act. (“[P]rotesters in New York City showed up to protest outside of the H. E. W. offices in Manhattan, while disabled people in Washington occupied areas outside of Mr. Califano’s office. Sit-ins began across the country; federal buildings in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Seattle, among others, were occupied for hours or days.”).62 Jaeger & Bowman, supra note 8, at 100 (citing Michael A. Rebell, Structural Discrimination and the Rights of the Disabled, 74 Geo. L. J., 74, 1438 [1986]).63 Cone, supra note 61 (“If I thought about why I couldn’t attend a university that was inaccessible, I would have said it was because I couldn’t walk, my own personal problem.”).64 See Golden, supra note 23, at 368.65 Marcia H. Rioux & Fraser Valentine, Does Theory Matter? Exploring the Nexus between Disability, Human Rights, and Public Policy, in Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Phil., Politics, Pol. L. 54 (Dianne Pothier & Richard Devlin, eds. [2006]).66 Zachary E. Shapiro et al., Designing an Americans with Abilities Act: Consciousness, Capabilities, and Civil Rights, 63 B.C. L. REV. 1729, 1770 (2022).67 Id. at 1793.68 Professor and Director of the School of Library & Information Science at the University of South Carolina, the Follett Chair at Dominican’s Graduate School of Library & Information Science, and recipient of the American Library Association’s 2016 Ken Haycock Award for Promoting Librarianship.69 Patricia Montiel Overall, Cultural Competence: A Conceptual Framework for Library and Information Science Professionals, 79 Libr. Q. 175 (2009).70 Id.71 For further discussion on this topic, see Andrew Jakubowicz & Helen Meekosha, Can Multiculturalism Encompass Disability? Disability, Culture, and Identity (2003); cf. Human Resource Management, U. Minnesota Librs., https://open.lib.umn.edu/humanresourcemanagement/.72 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 601 (Am. Bar Ass'n + 2023).73 See, e.g., Jessica Schomberg & C. Corley, Asking the Right Questions: Accessibility and Library Study Rooms, 62 J. Libr. Admin. 572, 575 (2022).74 Jessica de Perio Wittman & Kathleen (Katie) Brown, Taking on the Ethical Obligation of Technology Competency in the Academy: An Empirical Analysis of Practice-Based Technology Training Today, 36 Geo. J. Leg. Ethics 1 (2023).75 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 205 (Am. Bar Ass'n + 2023).76 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 206 (Am. Bar Ass'n + 2023).77 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 207 (Am. Bar Ass’ 2023).78 Stephanie Francis Ward, Bar Examinees Have Little Success with Accommodation Requests and Say the Process is Stressful, ABA J. (June 30, 2022, 9:52 AM), https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/bar-examinees-have-little-success-with-accommodation-requests-and-say-the-process-is-stressful (“Most bar examinees who are being denied accommodation requests have nonapparent disabilities, including ADHD, PTSD, depression and dyslexia. The requests often are denied due what the NCBE and boards of law examiners see as insufficient documentation and a history of strong or average achievement in testing and higher education, according to the coordinators who base their assessments on denial letters.”)79 Disclosure at the employment level versus disclosure in educational settings may have implications on how the phrase “otherwise qualified” is applied. An individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job in question. 80 American Bar Association, Profile of the Legal Profession 30 (2022), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/news/2022/07/profile-report-2022.pdf.81 Id.82 Id.83 Id.84 Shapiro et al., supra note 66, at 1729.85 Jaeger & Bowman, supra note 8, at 116; cf. Casey Alexander Roberson, Trisha Barefield & Eric Griffith, Students with Disabilities and Library Services: Blending Accommodation and Universal Design, J. Academ. Librarianship 48 (2022) (“While around 20% of undergraduate students reported having a disability, a much smaller subset seek accommodations. Students with disabilities may wait until they know it is safe to ask for accommodations or special services before asking. Though there are disagreements on what constitutes “reasonable” when it comes to accommodations, it is the responsibility of educators to signal their compassion and willingness to understand and accommodate when students engage in self-advocacy.”)86 Jaeger & Bowman, supra note 8, at 116.87 Id.88 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 606 (Am. Bar Ass'n + 2023).89 Id.90 Julius J. Marke, Library Planning, in 1 L. Librarianship: A Handbook 129 (Heinz Peter Mueller & Patrick E. Kehoe, eds., Fred B. Rothman & Co. 1983).91 Patterson, supra note 5, at 440.92 The Association of American Law Schools, Executive Committee Regulations § 6-8.5(a), https://www.aals.org/about/handbook/executive-committee-regulations/ (last updated May 2018).93 Ruth A. Velleman, Meeting the Needs of People with Disabilities 203 (Oryx Press 1990) (“Schools of architecture are offering information about barrier-free design in their course work, and librarians serving such schools should have references in their files to assist professors and students.”)94 Id. (“The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) published its original general specifications for the elimination of architectural barriers in 1961. It offers general standards and measurements in all areas of accessibility.”)95 Id. (“[P]ublished jointly by the four regulatory agencies: General Services Administration, Department of Defense, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the US Postal Service[,] [i]t offers officially accepted government standards in all areas and contains a one-page suggestion about libraries.”)96 Id.97 Id. (“While the guide suggests how to establish an ‘ideal’ library, the size of the building will obviously be determined by the population to be served, the size of the staff, and the funds available.)98 U.S. Dep’t of Just., 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, (2010), https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/design-standards/2010-stds.99 Eric Gentile, Architectural Affirmative Action: A University with a New Concept, 2 Amicus 33–34 (June 1977).100 Id.101 Id.102 Id.103 Id.104 Id.105 Lee Peoples, Placemaking and Assessing Physical Space in the Academic Law Library, 17 Legal Info. Mgmt. 5, (2017) (citing Lee Peoples, Designing a Law Library to Encourage Learning, 63 J. Legal Educ. 612 (2014) and Jordan A. Jefferson, We’re Going to Make You Popular: Popular Collections in the Modern Academic Law Library, 32 Leg. Ref. Serv. Q. 78 [2013]).106 Velleman, supra note 93, at 203.107 Marke, supra note 90, at 129 (“The width of aisles between bookstacks can be highly significant in estimating the number of books that can be shelved in a library. Obviously, the greater the space set aside for aisles, the less space will be available for book stacks. Aisle space in libraries varies from twenty-four inches wide to thirty-six inches wide. The thirty-six-inch aisle should not be used if space is at a premium. … Some libraries use twenty-four inch aisles for storage areas. If such narrow aisles are used between stacks, sufficient space must be allowed at the ends of ranges to allow turning three-foot-long book trucks from one aisle to another.”)108 See Marjorie Cortez, Why Did this Colorado Political Candidate Have to Hoist Himself onto a Debate Stage?, Deseret News (Feb. 17, + 2023), https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/2/17/23604323/denver-city-councilman-pulls-himself-on-stage-no-wheelchair-ramp (detailing where an incumbent city councilman had to crawl onto a debate stage because there was no wheelchair ramp despite knowledge of his physical disability. The venue issued a statement asking candidates to arrive two and a half hours before the debate, which would have allowed for accommodations to be made.).109 For a full discussion on the application of universal design principles in the legal academy, see Matthew L. Timko, Universal Design in Law Schools (May 23, 2018), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3183987. Universal design is defined as “the design of products, environments, programs and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.” Raizel Liebler & Gregory Cunningham, Can Accessibility Liberate the Lost Ark of Scholarly Work: University Library Institutional Repositories Are Places of Public Accommodation, 52 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 327 (2019) (citing Jonathan Lazar, Daniel Goldstein, & Anne Taylor, Ensuring Digital Accessibility Through Process and Policy 6 [2015]).110 See Kate Marijolovic, Trauma and Social Anxiety Are Growing Mental Health Concerns for College Students, Chronicle of Higher Educ. (2023) (citing the increase of mental health concerns in higher education and the connection between mental health and academic success: “Students’ self-reported levels of anxiety and depression rose slightly over 2021 and 2022, while self-reported levels of academic distress declined slightly. Academic distress remained higher than it was before the pandemic. + Over the past 12 years, students’ anxiety and depression have gradually risen. The prevalence of students who reported a history of trauma when they first sought counseling services has increased more over the past 10 years than any other aspect of their mental-health treatment history, including prior counseling, medication use, hospitalization, and treatment for alcohol use. Trauma, as assessed by clinicians in a student’s initial visit to a counseling center, also increased over the past decade. The number of students experiencing social anxiety increased significantly from 2021 to 2022, and it was the psychological symptom with the greatest change over the past 12 years. Cases of depression and generalized anxiety have also risen steadily for the past decade.”).111 See Jess deCourcy Hinds, How Can Literary Spaces Support Neurodivergent Readers and Writers?, Literary Hub (Feb. 2, 2023), https://lithub.com/how-can-literary-spaces-support-neurodivergent-readers-and-writers/.112 Amanda Boyer & Amir El-Chidiac, Come Chill Out at the Library: Creating Soothing Spaces for Neurodiverse Students, 8 J. New Libr. 41 (2023) (“How crowded the library is also ebbs and flows. The students did not know how many other students would be in the library at any given time, so many chose not to go because they wanted to avoid crowds. After brainstorming with them about things we could do to make the library more accessible, one of the students suggested we implement an occupancy counter, like the ones many businesses have on their websites or Google. To make the counter more accessible, Brianne placed it on the library’s homepage, and it is now one of the first things you see when you land there. The counter shows an estimated occupancy, for instance, sixty to one hundred people.). See also id. at 43 (discussing the use of “average occupancy” links to inform patrons how busy the library is during the week at certain times and promote library engagement).113 Id. at 44.114 The ADA is not the only piece of legislation that has failed to anticipate changes in technology. For example, the use of social media by government officials has prompted the question as to whether the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act are in need of reform to account for the evolution of digitally born records. See generally de Perio Wittman, supra note 36, at 31.115 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 606(d) (Am. Bar Ass'n + 2023).116 Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 601(4) (Am. Bar Ass'n + 2023).117 Carol Watson & Larry Reeves, Technology Management Trends in Law Schools, 103 L. Libr. J., 441, 445 (2011) (“Librarians … have historically been early adopters of technology, and so it makes sense that some of the first instances of technology in law schools occurred in the law library.”)118 Id. at 446.119 Id.120 See generally de Perio Wittman & Brown, supra note 74.121 Paul Harpur & Michael Ashley Stein, Universities as Disability Rights Change Agents, 10 Ne. U. L. Rev. 542, 562 (2018) (“Mass digitization facilitates the conversion of books to audio and tactile formats, increasing access for individuals with disabilities.”).122 Schomberg & Corley, supra note 73, at 575.123 Schomberg & Corley, supra note 73, at 578.124 Several scholars within law librarianship and legal education discuss website accessibility and websites as a public accommodation. See Liebler & Cunningham, supra note 109, at 327; Constancio Carvajal Paranal III, The Internet as a Public Accommodation and Its Impact on Higher Education, 22 Asian-Pac. L. and Policy J. 143 (2021); cf. Jonathan Lazar & David Ferleger, A Reconceptualization of Website Accessibility Under the ADA: Resolving the Inter-Circuit Conflict Post-Pandemic, 39 Santa Clara High Tech L.J. 63, 68 (2022) (asserting that websites are not public accommodations, but the ADA accommodation itself. + “Websites are an accommodation which permit individuals to enjoy and participate, and to receive the benefits of places of public accommodation. Thus, websites need not be considered as the public accommodation itself. Websites—considered as an ADA accommodation—must be accessible to people with d