This is lame. Service dogs are used throughout society (see K9 Cop), so the kids at that high school will be getting an early introduction. If I were a parent in the district, I'd see this as a positive experience for everyone involved.

Kumiki Gibson was newly appointed to the Division of Human Rights, and a lot of people, including those who have worked in the Division, think she doesn't have a clue about what she's doing.

The issue of service dogs in school should not be controversial, and the school should probably be prepared to accomodate those for blind students.

But it's less clear that a deaf person needs a dog to assist in school. The parent's $150 million dollar lawsuit certainly isn't a "postive experience for all involved," just another example of how people try to use these stupid lawsuits as a way to get rich.

I'd like to nominate the Principle of W. Tresper Clarke High School for the heartless asshole of the year award.

No one can deny Simba's rightful place as the future King.

God Bless You Principal Voels,
we need more people like you in our school system.
don't back down, stand your ground.
This is a Deaf student with a cochlear implant,
this tells me he and his family has an entitled attitude.
let me speak to him in a language he understands:
wrruuuu, wruuuu, ahhhhh, ahhhh, ahhhh, eepp, oppp uh oh.

I don't really see why a deaf student would need the dog in school... but if Human Rights law says he is entitled does this principle really think that he can get away with denying him?

People with allergies will never live in an allergen free world and eventually they might just sneeze. There's no avoiding that so deal with it. I think service dogs are great and provide an amazing service to the disabled. Here's where I'll turn into an old person: when I was a kid, we had a couple deaf students in school, they wore hearing aids and had their special needs met. That meant speech class, tutoring, sign language interpreters etc. If he has a cochlear implant, what is the profundity of his deafness? Is a service dog really called for in this situation when all it does is alert him to noises? Granted, cars and fires are to be avoided, but a student aid/para could do the same job. As for being a distraction or danger, kids adjust and will learn to not go all googie woogie over the dog all day long. Working dogs like this know they are working and won't really respond to attempts to play or distract it.

I graduated from here in 2002. Little did I know then that I was barely escaping the violation of my human rights.

I am allergic. I can deal with it. Some people are deaf. They can not.

"Cave, a sophomore, has hearing implants but doesn't always wear them because he says they are uncomfortable."

Wow, why can't have them refitted to make them more comfortable? That would seem the easiest solution.

Emergency lockdown drills?

How many of these do they have to go through? And, isn't the kid better off with a trained dog during a drills that than a sign interpreter?

Cochlear implants aren't exactly like bionic ears that you slip into your ear canal. I believe they involve interfaces that you have to attach to your skull. Plus it's not just physical comfort; a cochlear implant can require regular calibration so its user isn't subjected to unpleasant auditory input.

my friend died from asthma from a allergic reaction to a dog. If only his family knew he could sue for that.

@TKaisen wtf?? kids can't bring PB sammies to school?? the terrorists really have won.

@tien: I'm not making that up: From the NY Times.

Good god. And I thought all the insensitive assholes were confined to the comment sections of Houston newspapers.

There's obviously a reason why he has a service dog. They don't hand those things out with every Happy Meal. The dogs are very well trained and are unlikely to go berserk and attack someone. You're not going to find a, say, seeing eye dog in a Peruvian dog fight ring.

Someone has severe allergies? Fine. Make sure they're not in the same class as the kid. Geez. Let's attack the disabled kid! How dare he be deaf! How dare his parents try to make life easier (and safer) for him by providing him with a service dog! The nerve! I mean, little Sally might see the dog and spend the day ogling it rather than her algebra equations. Then she'll fail out of school and be forced to spend the rest of her life cleaning toilets at Wendy's. Look what you've done, John!

End of exasperation.

I can imagine an argument that the school should be prepared to handle guide dogs; if a blind student needed a guide dog, I doubt this would be controversial.

However -- and I'm just speaking from general life experience here-- I've never heard [sorry] of a DEAF person needing a dog. It isn't like the dog is going to translate into sign language, or help him manuever in the halls. In the occassional event of a fire drill, I don't get how a dog is going to make a difference. If the kid has his eyes open, he shouldn't have any trouble knowing what's going on.

For clarification, a determination by the Division of Human Rights is not "the law", it's their opinion on the law. Granted, it carries more weight than a lay person's opinion, but they can and do make determinations that are stupid or wrong. It does seem odd to me that a school would argue that it can't handle a service dog based on allergies, since there are certainly cases (blind people) where a service dog might reasonably be needed. In this case, the question is whether there's a need for this deaf student to have a dog. It seems a real stretch to me. I admit it's not my area of expertise, but and also note that Roe claims to have a deaf parent and says this claim is nonsense.

to EdEx: Having an opinion that doesn't blindly [ahem] support every handicapped person's entitlement to anything they want is not the same as being against handicapped people.

Handicapped people are no different than the population at large, which means a percentage of them are lawsuit happy aholes just like non-handicapped people. This might be one of those times. If this deaf student was requesting an accomodation that logically was linked to the handicap, I doubt there would be an issue.

I am going to have the last word on this. There is no refuting it. This individual has 100% right to bring his helper dog in to the school. It's the school's responsibility to accomodate him and not precious snowflakes with allergies.

Just like installing wheelchair access, handicapped bathroom stalls and fucking braille on the room numbers.

This school is not in compliance with the american's with disability act and as a public school it's outrageous and ludicrous. They should be made an example of, sued for every fucking penny and the town should vote out and fire the assholes that led to such a lawsuit.

This is 2008 and with principals acting this way and government officials decreeing homosexuality you, America have gotten way off course. This is the future, you can't stop it.You can move out of the way or just fucking die because your old world thinking is becoming extinct.

There is no such thing as an allergy to dogs that rivals cats, pollen, hay, or dust mites. That's a fact. anybody who says they are dangerously allergic is misinformed and has shitty doctors and parents. Dog dander isnt the same as other factors. And that's besides the point. Allergy sufferers are not accomodated rights like the disabled. Legally an Asthmatic or someone who goes in to shock from bee stings can't even carry their inhalers or epi-pens on their person while in school. The fucking nurse is supposed to handle it.

As far as the safety issue goes I want that principal to bar any child or adult in a wheelchair, on crutches, amputee or kid hauling a 50lb bag of books from coming in the doors.

Tresper Clarke Highschool has made a HUGE mistake and has insulted the disabled, it's students and the citizens of America. Wake the fuck up you assholes. it's 2008.

As a parent of a child with profound allergies and asthma, I'd still want that person to have the ability to attend school. First of all--who is to say they would be in the same classes anyway. Second--the amount of dander that is shed--it builds up over time and if you pet the dog. I have allergies myself and can be in a room with a dog, but in someone's home that has a dog 24/7, then it might provoke a response. But I also know not to pet the dog there and most people who really clean up their home I can tolerate being in them.
Third, perhaps he needs the dog to also get to/from school--as in living an independent live without restrictions which is the goal of disability acts that are necessary. Many "educators" seem never to want to think outside the box and make up silly obstacles like this.

Service animals are for uncontrolled environments, streets, shopping malls, public transit, places people visit. And they're great for that. They do not belong in schools and offices where the potential to be "alerted to danger" is low and the impact on others is high.

Gee, but what do you propose for the person that needs the service animal to get to/from work/school/etc? Are they supposed to fold up their service animal and put it away? Or are blind, deaf, etc people not supposed to hold jobs, go to school or go to the doctor's office?

For the child to get to school, it's already been suggested that an aide could accompany him. Or the school could provide bus service, as is normally done with special needs students.

Some of the issues here:
1. There are other alternatives to the dog. The school has already offered to accommodate the student with a sign language interpreter.
2. The dog is not integral to the student's learning experience in school. It is not a necessary appliance, such as a wheelchair or cane. A vision impaired student might not be able to attend classes without braille books or a cane. However, this student can attend classes and fully participate without his dog.
3. The dog presents a direct threat to other students. While some might consider students with allergies and asthma to be "precious flowers," these conditions are in fact valid medical issues, and account for a significant number of deaths each year. I'd never say that, say, a school should ban field sports because a student is allergic to pollen. However, asking a student to sit in a classroom and be exposed to an allergen, simply to accommodate ONE student who DOES have other options, on a daily basis, is unreasonable.

As for the comments about how this dog could be a threat, or cause reactions to allergic students... seems a bit of a stretch. That same argument could be made to keep blind people from having a dog, and I think that a blind kid bringing a dog to school would not be controversial (and that the reaction to a school barring that would be justified).

What gets me is that there is really no reason a deaf kid needs a dog. This is just a kid with a pet who wants to bring his pet to school and is using his disability as an excuse. It's the difference between accomodation and special treatment. If you are deaf, you should be given whatever tools are required to level the playing field, when it is reasonable to do so. Not license to do whatever you want.

eyekantspel: yes, I have heard of deaf people using dogs to assist them. Just because you haven't and are unable to Google it for some reason doesn't mean that the deaf don't use service animals. I would read a few articles before you start spouting off uninformed.

Service animals are not as commonly used with deaf people as with blind people or mobility-impaired people, but they use them to alert them about sounds such as phone ringing, someone at the door, car horns, class bells, people trying to get their attention, etc. It's not some made up thing for this kid to bring his pet to school, "hearing" dogs are recognized and legally protected by the federal and state governments.

Yes, the dogs are highly trained and selected for intelligence and temperament, that's why they are often certain breeds. They are not going to attack anyone as some have suggested or wreak havoc in a school. And yes, eyekantspel, believe it or not dogs have other ways of getting your attention than barking.

Finally, a person walking with a frickin iPod is not the same as a deaf person. I won't even bother explaining this one.

my quick look at the Gallaudet University website pictures, Not one single dog.
why would this smug john daly lookalike need one?

wordier is right on re. service dogs and the right to have one. i also want to point out that a cochlear implant in no effing way works like a regular hearing aid or any amplifier. the key thing to keep in mind is that acclimating oneself to an implant can take quite some time and can happen over and over when operating systems/platforms/programs change - yes, they are computers (the external part), and there are a number options out there to use (just read Rebuilt by Michael Chorost). as a result, a service dog can be a tremendous help to deaf/hard of hearing individuals, such as john, because, yes, technically they are still deaf/hard of hearing and may not be able to deal with many everyday situations as easily as regular hearing folks can.

on another note, it seems that there is a lot of misinformaton out there or just a lack of it regarding the principal's stand and any possible arrangements that may have been made by john and his family to enable use of the service dog. i find it highly unlikely that, when this all started, john simply showed up one day with the dog without anyone being notified, but what do i know. i admit i have not read anything beyond the recent articles on this case.

it really should not be so damn hard to make things work, but, yeah, that is the kind of shit disabled folks still have to deal with on a smaller scale daily - even now in the 21st century! $%^$&^$%#@!%^@&$%!!!!!!!!!! what is so damn hard about it? just get used to it, people! now is the part where i'd like to paraphrase the we're here, we're queer slogan of the LGBT community, but I'll leave you with... "say it loud, REAL loud,, i'm deaf, and i'm proud!"

full disclosure, i am hard of hearing......... though not deaf per the definition of many in the deaf community (defining deafness is a whole 'nother can o'worms).

Service animals are not as commonly used with deaf people as with blind people or mobility-impaired people exactly. they aren't as commonly used because they aren't reasonably necessary.

Just because this deaf kid chooses to use a service dog doesn't make it reasonably necessary, and the fact that most deaf people do not need or use dogs for this kind of thing, but instead use their eyes, does a pretty good job of proving it is not reasonably necessary. It's just using the disability as an excuse to bully others into doing things in his preferred way, not a necessary way.

Just because this deaf kid chooses to use a service dog doesn't make it reasonably necessary, and the fact that most deaf people do not need or use dogs for this kind of thing, but instead use their eyes, does a pretty good job of proving it is not reasonably necessary. It's just using the disability as an excuse to bully others into doing things in his preferred way, not a necessary way.

Exactly. My