Penn State accused of discrimination |

Penn State accused of discrimination

The nation’s largest group for blind people filed a federal complaint against Penn State University claiming it discriminates against blind students and teachers.

“The number and scope of the accessibility problems at Penn State demonstrate the institution’s blatant — and unlawful — lack of regard for the equal education of its blind students and failure to accommodate its blind faculty members and employees,” said Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, in a statement released Friday.

The federation is a Baltimore-based group with 50,000 members.

“Issues of equity and accessibility are really important, and we take them seriously,” Penn State spokesman Geoffrey Rushton responded. “Since we haven’t received the details of the claim yet, we don’t have anything to offer on it.”

In its complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, the federation cited accessibility problems with Penn State’s library catalog, departmental websites, course management system and classroom technology.

The federation further complained that PNC Bank has a website that is nearly inaccessible to the blind. Penn State has a contract with the bank that allows students to use their identification cards as debit cards.

“There is simply no excuse for blind students and faculty to be denied the same access to information and technology as sighted students,” Maurer said. “Sadly, this cavalier attitude toward accessibility is found not only at Penn State, but at many of our nation’s colleges and universities.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.