Section 504: Both Sides Got It Wrong
There’s been much talk about the lawsuit introduced by 17 states challenging Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The lawsuit was filed in September 2024, but because Trump now occupies the White House, the issue has taken on an ominous tone, one more item to make the case that Republicans are going to decimate civil rights protections for people with disabilities.
If you think I’m going to give Republicans a pass for attempting to eliminate Section 504, you would be wrong. Friends should be able to point out when friends do dumb things and stay friends, but before we go back to the woodshed for a special brand of coming to Jesus with conservatives, let’s talk about the misguided liberal thought process that made this an issue in the first place.
What is Section 504?
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It applies to programs and activities, public and private, that receive federal financial assistance.
Here are some protections under Section 504:
- Education: Students with disabilities are entitled to a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE), which may include accommodations like extra time on tests, assistive technology, or specialized instruction.
- Employment: Employers receiving federal funds cannot discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing, promotion, training, or other employment actions. They may also need to provide reasonable accommodations to enable employees to perform their job duties. This should not be confused with Section 501, which only applies to federal employers.
- Healthcare: Hospitals and healthcare providers that receive federal funding must provide effective communication with patients with disabilities, which may include providing interpreters or assistive devices. They also cannot deny services or provide lesser care based on a person’s disability.
- Accessibility: Programs and activities receiving federal funding must be accessible to people with disabilities. This can include physical accessibility (e.g., ramps, accessible restrooms), as well as communication accessibility (e.g., providing information in alternative formats).
A Note on Bipartisan History
My critics get all hot and irritated when I point out landmark disability rights legislation was passed under Republican presidencies.
Here’s a recap:
- Rehabilitation Act of 1973: President Richard Nixon
- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975: President Gerald Ford
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: President George H.W. Bush
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008: President George W. Bush
This is not to suggest Democratic administrations never made contributions to disability rights. In 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson introduced Medicaid and Medicare as part of amendments to the Social Security Act. In 1968 he laid the groundwork for the ADA through his Architectural Barriers Act. Since we’re talking about Section 504, even though the Rehabilitation Act was signed under Nixon, Section 504 regulations were finalized under Jimmy Carter’s administration. Bill Clinton signed into law the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.
Why the history lesson?
My liberal critics are often lazy and couldn’t even list half the legislative contributions they could claim under their own party. Now at least they’ll have a couple new examples to add to the tired argument that the Republican party today is different from the Republican party of back then. True, but then, so is the Democratic party.
The Democratic party of today is supposedly more diverse and inclusive, but like we explored in my controversial post last week, their definition of “diversity” never quite reached disabilities. It’s like getting all dressed up and having nowhere to go. The party, as it were, literally left without you.
I find it interesting that no disability rights legislation was signed by our country’s only minority president. If that’s inaccurate, sound off in the comments, but for now it’s enough to acknowledge disability rights have benefited from bipartisan contributions. Republicans are not the evil scourge sent here to deprive us of all civil rights, no matter what the slew of social media blips would have you believe.
Except, there’s the matter of this lawsuit…
Texas v. Becerra
There are at least two items at play here.
First, Texas v. Becerra is a lawsuit brought by 17 states against the federal government. The states are challenging a recent rule issued by the Department of Education that includes gender dysphoria in the definition of disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
To keep everyone on the same page, gender dysphoria is defined as the distress a person experiences due to a mismatch between their gender identity-their personal sense of their own gender-and their sex assigned at birth.
The Biden administration should have never wrapped gender dysphoria into Section 504. If the individual is already distressed about who they are, it hardly seems empowering for Democratic leadership to compound their distress in the negative connotations associated with disabilities, but by taking the Section 504 approach, the Biden administration could threaten to withhold federal funding to any educational institutions unwilling to accommodate these individuals.
I confess I have little to no sympathy on this point. The debate over which bathrooms should be accessible to which genders seems highly insulting when people in wheelchairs still have to worry about whether they can get into the bathroom at all. I’m not going to lose sleep over equal sports in schools when families still have to sue school districts to get them to provide basic skills for their blind children like learning how to read. It’s far too common for schools and employers to claim they just don’t have enough money to accommodate disabilities, but they somehow find the means through diversity initiatives to soothe someone’s discomfort with how they were born?
In a system perpetually plagued by limited resources, one would think we would prioritize the people for whom no degree of distress will yield change. In many cases the woman in the wheelchair and the little deaf boy can’t just undergo treatment to walk and hear again.
In the aftermath of the George Floyd tragedy it was common to hear people say that it was not that other people’s struggles didn’t matter. It’s just that in that moment in time, it was black people whose homes were on fire. So when is someone finally going to get around to attending to the smoldering homes of people with disabilities? Those social fire trucks keep driving past us to tend to the needs of every other neighborhood.
I condemn violence or persecution against trans people. Discrimination of any stripe is deplorable, but find your transportation to equality on a different vehicle. The short bus you never spared a second glance is already full. Our trans people with disabilities won’t be able to advocate for their rights if we can’t properly show them how to write.
My Fellow Republicans, What the Hell?
No, seriously! What the hell are states like Louisiana, Alabama, and West Virginia doing joining this lawsuit when they literally can’t afford to turn away money from any source? I was dreading looking at the list for fear of finding Mississippi joining the fray, but apparently Mississippi had enough God-given common sense to realize it is not intelligent to cut off their nose to spite their face. I mean, you need all the help you can get to raise test scores, and if a little federal funding helps your children with disabilities get ahead in life, so much the better. This truly is a case of it not paying to be a part of the “cool kids.”
The second item of concern from the lawsuit is the constitutional challenge of Section 504. According to the plaintiffs, Section 504 is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.
Think of it this way: If your schools get federal funding, you can’t discriminate against children with disabilities. However, if the government redefines “disability” to include gender dysphoria and threatens to take money way because the schools aren’t letting students use bathrooms that coincide with the student’s gender identity, then the federal government has gone well beyond the funding’s original intent. It’s like saying the federal government will give schools money for textbooks but only if the schools agree to follow a specific dress code.
And you know, I can’t say I disagree. The government should not weaponize federal funds to regulate local policies on gender identity. It creates too much of a slippery slope, but outright eliminating Section 504 creates equally daunting consequences.
The Trump administration can’t bemoan our country’s embarrassing education rankings and allow a section of our party to sue for the elimination of a means to give students with disabilities what could be their only shot at equal education. Equal access to education is not a handout. It’s an investment in the team to help every player pull their weight on the field. What the student chooses to do with that education after they graduate is their prerogative. Sure, some students will squander their privilege, but last I checked, stupidity is not unique to people with disabilities. It will cost significantly less to properly prepare students with disabilities for a future with potential than it is to fail them early and create a dependency on government assistance.
If employers receive federal funding, they had damn well better be hiring applicants with disabilities. No one’s arguing employers should take unqualified workers, but doing business with the government means opening themselves to accepting government standards. If that doesn’t suit the employer, don’t take the federal aid, but we both know the contracts are too lucrative for the bottom line to pass on an opportunity that could give employers a competitive edge. The amount spent on a few accommodations will be outweighed by the profit those accommodations facilitate.
Accessibility is a perplexing area. We’re back to that whole business of common sense. Curb cuts do not just benefit people in wheelchairs. They also benefit people with strollers, cyclists, and even those damn grocery carts people have gotten into the habit of hauling around and leaving in random places. You know who gets just as excited about audio description as blind people? Sighted ones! Text-to-speech helps people with dyslexia, and universal design principles like lever door handles, larger fonts, and adjustable desks have been known to help the public at large. Please spare me the false narrative that accommodations are an undue burden when many of these accommodations have proven equally helpful to everyone.
This whole business reminds me of the abortion debate. On a personal level, pro life, all the way, but until hard core evangelical conservatives stop shaming pregnant women and do more to create a feasible support system to raise or adopt children, we do not get to claim the moral high ground to preach condemnation against anyone’s choice.
Similarly, until educators, employers, and medical providers largely stop viewing disabilities as a condition to be pitied, we need mechanisms in place like Section 504 to help students grow up to become fully literate and informed citizens. We can’t create an equal playing field when there are teachers who refuse to introduce Braille until the student loses all functional sight. We can’t build self-sufficiency when a school district’s default answer to reading print content is to hire paraprofessionals. As long as persons with disabilities continue to be treated as an afterthought, we will never persuade employers to give candidates with disabilities as much consideration as our peers.
Section 504, before gender dysmorphia, did not create government overreach. Institutions could tailor solutions to the specific need, provided the approach was not discriminatory. Section 504 as it exists now admittedly expects specific outcomes, but the millions of people with disabilities should not be punished for the ideological agenda of a previous administration.
Final Thoughts
It’s exhausting, pissing people off on both sides of the aisle. Sometimes we have to see the nonsense for what it is though, and this is one of those issues where neither side has put their best foot forward.
Were I in a position of power, my priority would be helping trans people with disabilities get the resources they need to excel in life in whatever field inspires their drive. It’s not that I don’t care about someone’s identity crisis, but American society has not advanced so far that we can look past the lack of equality in education, employment, and healthcare for people for whom a disability cannot be cured with a surgical procedure.
Cut out the rule that made gender dysmorphia a thing in Section 504. It might feel like a step backward for the LGBTQ community, but the fact Section 504 was modified in this manner goes to show that the community has come along way in being heard. If my disability community could get half that positive reception, we might actually have a shot at leveling the playing field. Besides, once a step has been taken, it can’t be fully taken back.
I don’t believe in handing out trophies to every participant. Healthy competition is a good thing. I don’t believe that we need a diversity of voices to yield the best ideas. There are morons out there whose voices I would rather hear in smaller doses, but if Republicans genuinely want people to assume greater personal responsibility, throw down the big brush. Expand the opportunities to get more people with disabilities out of our homes and into the general public. You might just be surprised at the way you start to reduce the number of tax burdens and increase the number of tax payers. The Riviera of the Middle East is not going to pay for itself.
