[PASSED] Enabling The Disabled in Academia

[Covenstone]

OOC: After taking a closer look at the definition used here, it looks like many mental disorders that are not disabilities, would also be included, such as anxiety or depression, not to mention the various phobias and even allergies that make people unable or unwilling to partake all sorts of activities. A friend of mine gets a terrible rash from chlorinated water, so she couldn't partake school swimming lessons (which are normally mandatory). I'm fairly sure she would be very affronted if she was called "disabled" because of a simple chemical allergy.

<ooc>While I am not an expert on this, I am pretty sure that getting stoned would also qualify. Which given this is aimed at institutions of learning, especially higher learning, might be somewhat of a nightmare when it comes to enforcing it.</ooc>

[Starcoast]

[quote="THE UNITED FEDERATION OF ALGORENIA";p="32179063"]
"DEFINES disabled, for the purposes of this resolution, as having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities,
DEFINES a disabled student, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who suffers from the above series of limitations and attends any academic setting where the disbursement of knowledge takes place in a class setting."

I voted for this because I believe in branching out all civil rights, but I believe that these definitions are too narrow. I do hope that if this doesn't pass, then someone will revise it and submit a broader definition. However, if it passes I hope for someone to create another incorporating a broader definition of the term, "disabled".

[Inner Mations Aststan]

The leader of Inner Mations Aststan has a disability under the definition contained in the proposed resolution:

DEFINES disabled, for the purposes of this resolution, as having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities,

The leader of Inner Mations Aststan is female, and as such, has a physical condition that limits her activities in that she cannot impregnate another human. As such, under the broad definition of "disabled" in this resolution, she is disabled.

Similarly, all males are considered "disabled" as they have a physical condition that limits their ability to give birth.

Every human is therefore considered "disabled" under this resolution.

Because of this broad definition of "disabled", and the lack of any debate on this resolution prior to its vote that would have highlighted these inadequacies, Inner Mations Aststan is voting AGAINST this resolution.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: Our delegation has come to its senses and switched its vote to nay. On second glance, we wish to note that if one were to fall asleep, one would have "a physical condition that limits movements, senses, or activities," and thus would be considered disabled.

[Bananaistan]

ARI: Our delegation has come to its senses and switched its vote to nay. On second glance, we wish to note that if one were to fall asleep, one would have "a physical condition that limits movements, senses, or activities," and thus would be considered disabled.

"Would that this been law when I attended school."

[Ambipom]

Sweeps: "I get why they made this, but honestly forcing Education Standards onto everyone seems like a really bad idea, hey! Maybe we could spin this into a general Disability Proposal!"

[Imperium Anglorum]

ARI: Our delegation has come to its senses and switched its vote to nay. On second glance, we wish to note that if one were to fall asleep, one would have "a physical condition that limits movements, senses, or activities," and thus would be considered disabled.

"Would that this been law when I attended school."

An intern at the United Commonwealth's delegation dozes off on his desk. A quick 'WHAP' of a ruler hits his desk and grazes his head. He looks around sheepishly, and returns to mind numbing clerical work.

[Bear Connors Paradiso]

As someone who works in this field, to qualify as someone with disabilities in school you have to be diagnosed for certain specific disabilities set by the state. ADHD/ADD is not on this list in the US. Kids with ADHD/ADD have to fail their classes or be diagnosed with a qualifying disability before they can get any help from the state. Then the kid has to go through a whole rigamarole with the school administration, the schools nurse, the school psychologist, the teachers, a social worker, and the parents that can take months before anything gets put into place.

The sad thing is that the IDEA law from the 70's states that the US government must set aside a certain amount of money (some millions) for children with disabilities, and every year to this day the government has never even come close to giving this amount. Kids with disabilities cost the state a LOT of money (in specialists, teachers, teacher aids, equipment, ext ext ext), so schools are extremely weary of allowing students to get any of that disability money (because then the school has to foot the bill). There have been legal battles where the school did have to foot the bill for a student and legal battles where the family had to foot the bill. Where is this money supposed to come from?

[Nova-Columbia]

While the Republic of Nova-Columbia recognizes the importance of equal opportunity for all, we must respectfully decline, on behalf of both ourselves, and all the other fledgling nations in the world. While a massive nation may be able to support the strain of footing the bill to create "innovative" PE programs for blind deaf paraplegics, we certainly cannot. We must conserve our money to spend on our militaries and environments, not ramps and elevators. In conclusion, unless significant changes are made to the bill, if it passes the Republic of Nova-Columbia shall seriously consider withdrawing our membership from the World Assembly.

(Was this okay? This is my first time trying to write something like this.)

[Ambipom]

While the Republic of Nova-Columbia recognizes the importance of equal opportunity for all, we must respectfully decline, on behalf of both ourselves, and all the other fledgling nations in the world. While a massive nation may be able to support the strain of footing the bill to create "innovative" PE programs for blind deaf paraplegics, we certainly cannot. We must conserve our money to spend on our militaries and environments, not ramps and elevators. In conclusion, unless significant changes are made to the bill, if it passes the Republic of Nova-Columbia shall seriously consider withdrawing our membership from the World Assembly.

(Was this okay? This is my first time trying to write something like this.)

Sweeps: I mean I'm still gonna do this, but I don't feel like it's the WA's Place to enforce how education is.

[Excidium Planetis]

(Was this okay? This is my first time trying to write something like this.)

Out of Character:
It looks good, great for a first time. However, you should consider giving a name to your World Assembly ambassador, so that others can know who to address when speaking to you, or else make it clear that you are giving a statement from your nation's government.

[Covenstone]

Simply because it doesn't seem like this has had ANY debate whatsoever, and is passing because people want to feel good about themselves, I have a question.

If there is a child, of student age, who is blind and deaf, has no legs and only one arm, and in no way would be able to function properly in any kind of educational environment, what prevents them from being covered by this resolution and forcing the government to meet all of their needs at an almost ludicrous, some might say infinite, cost when clearly nothing good will come of it?

It just seems like people are approving this, and probably going to vote for this, without giving it any serious thought, and it could open up every single nation to bankruptcy and chaos within the year.

Fairburn: I'm hoping that this passes just to see your Delegation clamour for an insta-repeal.

It looks like I won't have to. Someone has already drafted a repeal, and we haven't even passed day one of voting.

[Azurius]

Okay, here is I am for the resolution:

Critics who argue against the resolution, fail to see the resolution as a whole in context, and exert fears that are unfounded and often even ridicilous:

The leader of Inner Mations Aststan has a disability under the definition contained in the proposed resolution:

DEFINES disabled, for the purposes of this resolution, as having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities,

The leader of Inner Mations Aststan is female, and as such, has a physical condition that limits her activities in that she cannot impregnate another human. As such, under the broad definition of "disabled" in this resolution, she is disabled.

Similarly, all males are considered "disabled" as they have a physical condition that limits their ability to give birth.

Every human is therefore considered "disabled" under this resolution.

Because of this broad definition of "disabled", and the lack of any debate on this resolution prior to its vote that would have highlighted these inadequacies, Inner Mations Aststan is voting AGAINST this resolution.

This is at best exagerated and out of context. As the resolution itself clearly defines its purpose limited to:

"DEFINES a disabled student, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who suffers from the above series of limitations and attends any academic setting where the disbursement of knowledge takes place in a class setting,"

So, unless there is a real disability, an grave illness of some sort that really effectively inhibits a students ability to learn in academic settings themselves, it will have no effect. Since that is clearly not the case here, this concern is null and void as the entire definition of the resolution as a whole covers such triviliaties already.

ARI: Our delegation has come to its senses and switched its vote to nay. On second glance, we wish to note that if one were to fall asleep, one would have "a physical condition that limits movements, senses, or activities," and thus would be considered disabled.

We would also like to notice that the resolution vice versa never forced teachers to ignore sleepy students, and use whatever meanings at hand to revitalize a sleepy student in class, be it rhetoricaly or via measures of corporal punishment. Once again unless there is some disability such as sleep apnoe that really effects a students ability to actively partake and learn in class, the entire idea is struck null and void once again. As the resolution in no way enforces these kind of measures either.

Rather more it is up to the nation in question if they want to go as far as to consider such trivialities a disability in their own classrooms...

What the resolution demands in funding especially access for disabled people, as well as some extra training for teachers into unterstanding and being able to manage disabled students in classrooms better. Lastly the resolution puts emphasis on awareness, aiming to increase public acceptance and inclusiveness of disabled people specificaly in terms education only.

However, the resolution could have been better defined that is true. For instance a definition that "disabled" means a certified disability by acknowledged experts of said nation. The base is solid however. I would rather propose to votee for and pass this resolution and let another resolution regulate details such as these. Based on that I will be voting for this resolution and sticking to this decision.

[Nova-Columbia]

(Was this okay? This is my first time trying to write something like this.)

Out of Character:
It looks good, great for a first time. However, you should consider giving a name to your World Assembly ambassador, so that others can know who to address when speaking to you, or else make it clear that you are giving a statement from your nation's government.

Thank you very much

[Covenstone]

Okay, here is I am for the resolution:

Critics who argue against the resolution, fail to see the resolution as a whole in context, and exert fears that are unfounded and often even ridicilous:

The leader of Inner Mations Aststan has a disability under the definition contained in the proposed resolution:



The leader of Inner Mations Aststan is female, and as such, has a physical condition that limits her activities in that she cannot impregnate another human. As such, under the broad definition of "disabled" in this resolution, she is disabled.

Similarly, all males are considered "disabled" as they have a physical condition that limits their ability to give birth.

Every human is therefore considered "disabled" under this resolution.

Because of this broad definition of "disabled", and the lack of any debate on this resolution prior to its vote that would have highlighted these inadequacies, Inner Mations Aststan is voting AGAINST this resolution.

This is at best exagerated and out of context. As the resolution itself clearly defines its purpose limited to:

"DEFINES a disabled student, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who suffers from the above series of limitations and attends any academic setting where the disbursement of knowledge takes place in a class setting,"

So, unless there is a real disability, an grave illness of some sort that really effectively inhibits a students ability to learn in academic settings themselves, it will have no effect. Since that is clearly not the case here, this concern is null and void as the entire definition of the resolution as a whole covers such triviliaties already.

ARI: Our delegation has come to its senses and switched its vote to nay. On second glance, we wish to note that if one were to fall asleep, one would have "a physical condition that limits movements, senses, or activities," and thus would be considered disabled.

We would also like to notice that the resolution vice versa never forced teachers to ignore sleepy students, and use whatever meanings at hand to revitalize a sleepy student in class, be it rhetoricaly or via measures of corporal punishment. Once again unless there is some disability such as sleep apnoe that really effects a students ability to actively partake and learn in class, the entire idea is struck null and void once again. As the resolution in no way enforces these kind of measures either.

Rather more it is up to the nation in question if they want to go as far as to consider such trivialities a disability in their own classrooms...

What the resolution demands in funding especially access for disabled people, as well as some extra training for teachers into unterstanding and being able to manage disabled students in classrooms better. Lastly the resolution puts emphasis on awareness, aiming to increase public acceptance and inclusiveness of disabled people specificaly in terms education only.

However, the resolution could have been better defined that is true. For instance a definition that "disabled" means a certified disability by acknowledged experts of said nation. The base is solid however. I would rather propose to votee for and pass this resolution and let another resolution regulate details such as these. Based on that I will be voting for this resolution and sticking to this decision.

I still have questions that have not been addressed.

(from my previous post)

The definition of "disabled" has no real limits on it, so (as has been pointed out by other nations) anyone could, should they be hurt, injured or otherwise temporarily rendered not fully functional (so to speak) claim under this proposal. If I were to injure my leg, and be unable to walk for six weeks, I could (in theory) be classed as disabled for those six weeks. Even though for the rest of my time on this planet, I am able to run, jump and skip like an athlete, for those six weeks, I would be classified by this proposal as disabled.

And while, being the leader and Crown Princess of Covenstone, I am not likely to be going to school, I do occasionally attend training seminars for the new laws that my government just insists on passing (I know! The temerity!) which, one could argue, is an academic setting where the disbursement of knowledge takes place in a class setting.

So I would say that if I broke my leg before one of those training courses then, despite the fact I am the leader of my nation, the Crown Princess of Covenstone and quite capable of taking care of myself (because I have an army of minions to run around after me, and actually I LITERALLY have an actual army to run around after me if I should so desire), I would be able to charge the government, and the tax-payers of my country for my training.

This seems somehow wrong and a tad disingenuous at best, and a total rip-off at worst.

But, even setting THAT improbable scenario aside, there is another bigger issue.

We don't have a university, or school, in every town and city. Sure, we have more schools than universities (like most countries, I would imagine), but generally most students have to travel some distance to school, and every student either has to live on campus or travel more distance to university. It is just the way things are, because we can't build world class universities in every city. We don't have the money, we don't have the staff and we don't have the space.

So if we are now required to provide transport for the disabled students (and we have NO CLUE at this point what that transport would entail, by the way) then this could mean transporting students from several miles. When I was of educatable age, I travelled about an hour on the train each day (and each direction) to attend university, because my parents couldn't afford to pay for me to live nearer. That was about twenty miles each way (by road). So would this require us to send out a bus to pick up the students each day? What if they all live in different directions? Would we need multiple busses? Or would we have to start off at 6am to get them all to class on time?

Or if that is completely unacceptable (and not cost-effective) would we have to let them stay on campus, kicking out other students and making THEM travel to and from university each day? What if they live at the other end of the country? Or do we kick them out and make them live in off campus housing that might be more expensive just so we can meet our obligations under the non-discrimination clauses?

I really have no problem with installing ramps, lifts and other such things into buildings, and providing materials in braille, allowing Dictaphones and so forth in the classrooms. They are all penny-ante stuff that would be a one time cost and wouldn't require much change.

But the transportation, the lack of definition on the classification of "disabled" (both on a lower and upper limit) and the general requirements makes this a proposal that, as I said, could end up costing our universities and our government and our tax-payers millions, if not billions. And while the people of Covenstone are not ones to (for want of a better phrase) crap on the disabled and not ones to think they should all stay in their homes, their beds and just keep quiet until they died, we believe this proposal was ill conceived, ill defined and ill thought through.

If someone who is voting in support, or the author who appears to think that an attack on this proposal is an attack on the disabled themselves, could answer any or all of these questions, I would be grateful. Because I do not believe I am taking the proposal out of context, exaggerating to prove a point or overstating my case. These are legitimate concerns based on my experience as a student (not a disabled student, just an ordinary student).

So, can you answer them?

[Imperium Anglorum]

or the author who appears to think that an attack on this proposal is an attack on the disabled themselves

As an aside, this could only really be the case if both A Promotion of Basic Education and The Charter of Civil Rights were repealed.

[Cylonarus]

"Why should I waste my money funding education for disabled persons when in the long-run they will barely ever be able to constructively contribute to society? Well, I guess it completely depends on the disability."

[Free Tristania]

"There has been no draft, no debate and no support. Consequently the Commonwealth will vote against it. Furthermore the rights of the disabled are already well covered by the WA, so why make for double work ? "

[Radicaster]

Do. Not. Vote. To. Pass. This. Resolution.
If this was passed, it would cost all WA nations extra, and also it would force nations to spend way more of their budget on their economies than they can.
So I urge all WA nations to vote AGAINST.

[Dunkarin]

The Marquis Alexander of Dunk:

It would appear that this resolution makes no clear distinction between state-funded education systems and privately run education, and therefore, would seem to impose these limits on private schools and universities as well as public ones. (A definition of what constitutes a nation's education system would help to solve this issue, but until then, the legal language is at best dubious on this point.) Though Dunkarin is a socialist nation, we recognize that this would place undue burdens on private schools and universities in WA states not as enlightened as our own, and therefore will be voting against this particular piece of legislation.

Moreover, we deplore the general practice of pushing technically legal but flawed legislation to a vote without a drafting thread, in the hope that casual WA voters will vote for anything that increases general civil rights without giving the repercussions a second thought.

OOC: first time posting in GA forum, in character. Anyone that cares to tell me how bad I screwed it up, I'd appreciate it mightily.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: first time posting in GA forum, in character. Anyone that cares to tell me how bad I screwed it up, I'd appreciate it mightily.

OOC:
You did pretty good, however, (and this is up for debate) generally in character "thread" is not referred to, since it usually isn't accepted that World Assembly debates happen over internet forum, but in various rooms at the World Assembly Headquarters.

Other than that, good job.

[Harmony Ascendant]

Further more, in regards to voice- This legislation has proven that there is a robust contingent of leaders who value the empowerment of their disabled citizenry and would like to properly enfranchise and integrate them with the opportunity they deserve. Rather than build robust walls of opposition and polarize this issue more than need be, we need to take the current steps in driving towards a more inclusive and bountiful future.

The only one polarizing this issue is you. You are arguing with people who are on your side but are concerned about flaws in your bill that we want fixed and casting us as heartless enemies concerned only with our wallets at the expense of those who need our help. Harmony Ascendant is in the top 12% of the world for Inclusivity, not to mention top 11% in the world for Compassion. Conversely, we are in the "top" 76% for Economic Output. The fact of the matter is, we are exactly the kind of country you believe yourself to be appealing to. We are, in fact, ahead of this bill when it comes to providing for those with disabilities within our country.

But the fact remains that this bill is flawed and requires fixing. By proposing it without putting it up for discussion, you have forced us into a simple yes or no question. Rather than bringing it to the stage in a form where concerns could be addressed and fixed we have to accept if flaws and all or shoot it down.

With that in mind we are forced to ask ourselves, what happens when a third world country who has joined our assembly to have their voice heard now must provide for all those with disabilities who wish to educate themselves? As noble a goal as it is, it would either force said country to become insolvent, massively negatively impacting the lives of every one of it's citizens including those people who need the assistance you want to provide, or they must exit the world stage entirely so they can keep afloat, resulting in those people again not getting the help you want to give.

With that in mind we are forced to ask ourselves, what about those who have disabilities that do not limit their movement, senses, or activities? They are simply left out in the cold because their disabilities aren't of a physical bent.

With that in mind we are forced to ask ourselves, who gets to define what an "academic setting where the disbursement of knowledge takes place in a class setting" is? It isn't defined in your proposal, so is it the member nation themselves? Those who might be truly opposed to spending money to help those who need it most have a clear loophole to work with and can simply declare most settings to not be academic in nature, even if it takes place in a classroom.

With that in mind, who gets to decide what " adequate disabled student training" is? It's once again not defined in the proposal leaving it open to the interpretation of the member nation. Is a half-hour course on how to speak in sign-language so on e can better communicate with deaf students adequate? Obviously not, but anyone who is opposed can say it is and there's no way for anyone to enforce a higher standard upon them.

In summary, this proposal puts a heavy burden on those who sincerely want to help, but is completely unenforceable if someone decides they simply don't want to follow it. These are flaws that could have been fixed had you put a draft out for others to comment on, but since we have to take it as it is or vote it down, the only clear choice is to vote it down.

That does not mean this is the end. We would love to see this bill forged into something that actually guarantees the intended protections without leaving an out that puts those it's intends to protect out in the cold. And by we, we are not just speaking Harmonians. Plenty of opposition voices have said they support the idea, just not the execution. You turning it into a matter of protocol and formality is you not hearing what we're saying.

Algorenia, we urge you to hear what's being said and take it to heart. We want to see these students' lives improved same as you. But we want it done right, not make a mess we'll be made to clean up later.

[Covenstone]

The Marquis Alexander of Dunk:

It would appear that this resolution makes no clear distinction between state-funded education systems and privately run education, and therefore, would seem to impose these limits on private schools and universities as well as public ones. (A definition of what constitutes a nation's education system would help to solve this issue, but until then, the legal language is at best dubious on this point.) Though Dunkarin is a socialist nation, we recognize that this would place undue burdens on private schools and universities in WA states not as enlightened as our own, and therefore will be voting against this particular piece of legislation.

Moreover, we deplore the general practice of pushing technically legal but flawed legislation to a vote without a drafting thread, in the hope that casual WA voters will vote for anything that increases general civil rights without giving the repercussions a second thought.

OOC: first time posting in GA forum, in character. Anyone that cares to tell me how bad I screwed it up, I'd appreciate it mightily.

Although I have serious problems with this proposal, the fact it would force private institutions to act (as well as public ones) is not one of them. For me, that is one of the few good points of this piece of legislation.

[Iraines]

DEFINES disabled, for the purposes of this resolution, as having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities,

The definition of disabled, as provided in this resolution, lacks the necessary nuances to make it comprehensive, insofar as mere physical or mental limitations to movements, senses or activities are not or should not be sufficient to be grounds for disability, just as disabilities are not or should not be restricted only within the scope as provided by such definition.

3. Requires WA member nations to earnestly enforce measures designed to stop the overt and covert discrimination and non accommodation of disabled students within their domains;

Furthermore, the requirement stated in this resolution "to stop the overt and covert discrimination and non accommodation [sic] of disabled students," while otherwise ideal, is a cause for concern, as covert discrimination, by definition of the phrase, or lack thereof operationally vis-a-vis this resolution, is impractically difficult to discern, let alone police.

Although Iraines is aptly sympathetic to the cause of assisting and empowering both the physically and mentally challenged, especially to fulfill their scholastic interests, the aforementioned reasons are simply too disconcerting to ignore, and the resolution in its current form is simply too insubstantial to advocate.

Thus, Iraines hereby votes against this resolution, until appropriate revisions are effected.

[Mundiferrum]

The World Assembly,

Applauding its members' continued efforts on the promotion of human rights and social justice throughout the globe, Do we even have legislation on letting other marginalized communities receive appropriate accommodation in institutions of higher education, outside of the purview of previous civil rights or education resolutions? But reading the rest of the resolution, and the title is found to stand on shaky ground -- academia, by common parlance, does not include all students, especially those yet learning to read and write.

Concerned students with disabilities continue to encounter physical barriers to educational services, such as a lack of ramps and/or elevators in multi-level school buildings, inaccessible facilities, and/or inaccessible transportation to and from school

Troubled that accommodations for students with disabilities are often made based on budgetary considerations rather than on an assessment of the actual needs of students with disabilities.These lines make me think that although the Disability Welfare Act is a far more useful resolution than this, at its shallowest it only discusses budget, excluding employee training or infrastructure. Since it also covers, at least in part, education, wouldn't it be better to do a repeal-and-replace, with the replacement covering all bases?

DEFINES disabled, for the purposes of this resolution, as having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities,"Condition" is dangerously vague; infancy is a condition that limits movements and activities, as well as tardiness, senility, and being in jail. Limitations to activities, too, could be understood as direct, physical limitations as well, easily excluding those with comprehension problems, a good portion, I would imagine, of what most people would consider as "disabled".

DEFINES a disabled student, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who suffers from the above series of limitations and attends any academic setting where the disbursement of knowledge takes place in a class setting,What about institutions of education that do not take place in a class setting? Granted, other than certain physical education courses, apprenticeships, and schools based around debates and dialectic, I can't think of any non-class-setting methods of knowledge disbursement, but I believe the WA accommodates for those in its other education-related resolutions, and I'm sure there are plenty of examples in our more advanced members.

Noting the disenfranchisement of disabled students has the potential to cause extreme social and economic harm to member nations populations through the deterioration or degradation of social equity, for example: inhibiting the rights and socioeconomic mobility of citizens, hindering social stability by destroying or causing a decline in the image of a common national bond, and nullifying the possible economic progression by under utilizing the cultural, industrial, and scientific capital these citizens could contribute,All of this should have already been tackled before your definitions. A stylistic note, but still.

Hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in effect, including the fact that the discrimination involving certain groups of students and other protected populations may already be covered separately by such legislation:

1. Instructs the Educational systems of all WA member nations to incorporate adequate disabled student training into their administrator and teacher training process;What does "disabled student training" mean? That all administrators and teachers be trained to handle both disabled and non-disabled students, which, although somewhat idyllic, would take, for the most part, an obscene amount of time and effort, even with more advanced methods? That all curricula be mandated to teach, not only official languages, but also sign language and braille? Or that all education systems should have institutions in place that teach the disabled (however small and underdeveloped), in which case producing no fruits at all for the majority of our member states?

2. Requires WA member nations to create necessary transportation, ramp and/ or elevator accessibility, and instructional requirements for disabled students attending academic settings and seek the proper assistance if necessary in making these accommodations;"Transportation" is vague, as noted by an earlier post. "Ramp" is itself a mode of accessibility, such that all the inclusion of the term "transportation" does is, at its most illuminating example, create a taxi service for the disabled, one that isn't even mandated for most individuals seeking education; or one that isn't mandated for all other aspects of the life of disabled individuals.

3. Requires WA member nations to earnestly enforce measures designed to stop the overt and covert discrimination and non accommodation of disabled students within their domains;Which is already covered by the fact that all nations, if this proposal is voted in, are required to enforce the earlier clauses, along with previous resolutions on education, civil rights, and the disabled.

4. Urges member nations to pass legislation promoting greater accountability in the transportation, education, and sustainment of disabled students within their own borders.Sustainment?

Against. Most of our points here have probably already been noted -- we'll read through the transcripts of the rest of the statements so far presented later. We hope this passes, though, because our diplomats can't seem to draft resolutions other than repeals.