Are the resources available to faculty, staff, students, and visitors on your campus meeting the ADA requirements for accessibility? As digital tools become increasingly common (sometimes with less oversight), the risks of failing to consider digital accessibility in higher education come with costly consequences.
When higher education institutions fail to meet digital accessibility requirements, they put themselves at financial, reputational, and ethical risk. But by placing digital accessibility at the center of decision-making for digital materials and tools, schools can avoid these pitfalls. At the same time, you can create an environment where users with diverse needs can thrive.
Building proactive solutions to digital accessibility into your institution’s digital practices is an investment in high-quality instruction. It’s also a safeguard against steep penalties. In this post, we’ll explore the legal ramifications of digital accessibility in higher education. We’ll also look at ways to protect your institution’s future.
The Legal Landscape of Digital Accessibility in Higher Education
Understanding your institution’s legal responsibilities for digital accessibility begins with understanding the legislation and regulations underpinning them. A complex web of federal legislation governs the requirements for any public institution and many institutions receiving public funding.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law with broad implications for businesses and government entities. As a whole, the legislation aims to provide protections for individuals with a range of disabilities and impairments in many areas of day-to-day life. The ADA breaks down into five sections. The section most relevant to public higher education institutions is Title II, Subtitle A. This section mandates that public institutions “must provide people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities.”
As of June 24, 2024, Title II of the ADA received an update on specific web and mobile applications. The expanded ruling cites Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the need for consistency given “Congress’s intent for parity between Section 504 and Title II of the ADA.” This update expands and clarifies with a new subpart that “sets forth technical requirements for ensuring that web content that State and local government entities provide or make available, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.”
Furthermore, the update lists the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 as the “technical standard for web content and mobile app accessibility under Title II of the ADA.”
Legally, digital accessibility in higher education should be a primary concern for both revising existing digital platforms and materials and making choices about them in the future.
The Financial Cost of Non-Compliance
Non-compliance in digital accessibility can come with tremendous financial costs.
In May 2023, two students brought a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Community College District for failure to comply with digital accessibility standards. These two students were blind. Some of the course material (including the popular online learning platform MyMathLab) did not have accessible materials. A jury awarded the students more than $240,000. The co-leader of the legal team explained that other schools should consider it a warning:
“We are grateful that the jury held LACCD accountable for failing to provide an equal educational opportunity to blind students. We hope other institutions of higher learning will take heed: failing to ensure accessibility—including by maintaining inaccessible websites and educational resources—is unlawful discrimination.”
Another case from 2023—this one centered on the City University of New York—came to an out-of-court settlement. It resulted in $10,000 in compensated damages for the students and a commitment from CUNY to make systemwide updates to their non-compliant digital learning software, as well as a heavy investment in training for faculty and staff and an update to their compliance complaint procedures.
Even when an institution can come to an out-of-court agreement, these kinds of lawsuits come with considerable costs. Schools must pay the legal fees associated with their defense against the lawsuit. Also, they will likely find themselves agreeing to compensation to individual students and heavy financial investment—whether it was budgeted or not—in fixes to their digital accessibility issues.
In addition, higher education institutions that fail to comply with federal regulations surrounding digital accessibility put themselves at risk of being defunded.
The Reputational Damage to Higher Education Institutions
Lawsuits and funding cuts over accessibility issues come with clear, easily measured costs. But they also come with more ephemeral damages that might be even more costly in the long run. When higher education institutions make headlines for having lawsuits brought by students, there is an erosion of trust. This impacts prospective students (especially those with disabilities). It also hurts alumni and donors who value inclusivity and effective educational practices.
Lawsuits have a way of making a media splash. So, coverage of non-compliance with accessibility can quickly get passed around via social media, giving an institution a reputation it does not want!
Blind students who cannot access class materials because of platforms that do not have effective screen reading accessibility are left out of class discussions. They also lose chances to connect with their classmates. They miss instructional opportunities for a class that they’re investing in with tuition dollars and their time. Prospective students who learn about these negative experiences will also likely feel alienated and unsupported by the institution. People tend to remember the negatives much longer than they remember the positives. So a single high-profile incident or complaint can outweigh multiple positive marketing efforts.
It’s also important to remember that lack of digital accessibility can be a huge red flag for many prospective students looking out for their own future academic success. Over 70 million (more than 1 in 4) American adults report some kind of disability. There is a huge segment of potential and current students who have a personal, direct stake in digital accessibility in higher education.
Consider a Wider Range of Accessibility Concerns
It’s not just classroom materials that need to be accessible, either. Many schools are expanding digital options for everything from cafeteria menus to campus maps. Each component must be considered for its digital accessibility. For example, Idaho State University faced challenges when its outdated GIS-based campus map lacked alt-text options and other features that would increase functionality for users with disabilities.
After facing an official complaint and a potential lawsuit, ISU sought immediate solutions. It partnered with Concept3D to revamp its map system and ensure it had the accessibility features that students, faculty, and staff needed and deserved. As David Van Etten, an accessibility consultant, explained:
“You have to be proactive because you never know when you’re going to have a student or faculty member that has an accessibility concern. Having a plan in place makes that process easier.”
Proactive Accessibility: The Smarter Investment
Most higher education institutions want digital accessibility compliance. But many feel that the challenge is daunting from a logistical and budget perspective. However, looking at the full picture of digital accessibility and the potential for costly lawsuits makes it clear that a proactive approach is the wiser investment.
Don’t wait until a digital accessibility problem causes an official complaint and potentially a high-profile lawsuit. Your institution may end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, compensatory damages, and marketing damage control. After all that, the institution will still have to invest in compliance updates to the software, anyway!
Partner with a company that takes an accessibility-first approach like Concept3D. Your institution can proactively invest in digital accessibility while simultaneously improving the user experience for everyone.
Concept3D uses a multi-faceted approach to designing solutions with accessibility in mind. This includes a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) assessment. The assessment is a way to check for compliance against the standards laid out in the Rehabilitation Act. Concept3D also uses a Level Access evaluation, which is a platform designed to test accessibility at multiple stages in the design process. Finally, Concept3D has baked the WCAG 2.1 standards into products like interactive maps, event calendars, and 360° tours to ensure AA compliance at every level.
Rather than chasing compliance needs as regulations and technology advancements happen, you can partner with Concept3D. Rest assured that these concerns are proactively being addressed throughout your digital solutions.
Protecting Your Institution’s Future
There are many vendors who make claims about their accessibility features. But not all of them offer a deep understanding of the actual needs of digital accessibility in higher education. Before selecting any digital solutions platforms, make sure that their compliance is built on the actual frameworks used to govern digital compliance in educational institutions.
Get peace of mind and long-term savings by choosing Concept3D. We have a documented and long-standing history of putting accessibility first. Proactive accessibility is a smart investment in your institution’s future. It’s also a protective step that helps shield your school from negative outcomes.
Schedule an accessibility consultation today to learn more about Concept3D’s solutions and commitment to accessibility.