The articles described in the previous paragraph relate experiences that were positive and successful for both students and faculty. It is clear that with an appropriate frame of mind and proper planning, teachers can provide an environment where students with major disabilities can learn chemistry and participate effectively in laboratory work. This is an important message, and I think there are other implications as well.

In their article about Clifford Haymaker, Eisch and Haworth speculate that Haymaker was attracted to organic chemistry by “the clear rationality of three-dimensional atom connectivity within organic molecules” and the fact that “most organic compounds have characteristic odors that gave him access to an additional avenue of sense data”. It is quite reasonable that deficiency of one sense can be partly compensated by using others. Perhaps more important is the power of a mind that could imagine “three-dimensional atom connectivity”. This is a capacity that many students of organic chemistry lack. It can be augmented by visual or tactile models, but still requires mental capabilities that are not fully developed in most students. Whether or not a student has a recognized disability, our courses should help the student to use and augment this and many similar mental capabilities.

At the end of their article, Pence, Workman, and Riecke list general strategies that can adapt laboratory experiences to students with disabilities. It is interesting to consider these strategies outside the context of the article, because most of them apply to all students, not just those with disabilities. For example, there should be advance preparation for laboratories by both faculty and students, different approaches should accommodate the diversity of students’ abilities, choice of a laboratory assistant is crucially important and requires someone who is “patient, flexible, and adaptable”, safety issues need to be made clear at the start of a class, and a student should never be depersonalized. It is not my intent to say that applying these ideas to a student with a specific disability is trivial. It is not, and it is worthy of our best problem-solving efforts and greatest creativity. Rather, I propose that we think more often about these issues as we work with all students, regardless of their abilities or disabilities.

Another important aspect of each case is that the student with a disability took responsibility for his or her learning and the faculty involved did not abdicate responsibility for providing an appropriate environment within which the student could strive to develop individual capabilities. Instead of waiving laboratory or assuming that a student’s disability would prevent doing any of the work, an accommodation was made that enabled the student to do as much laboratory work as possible. An assistant was provided, but the assistant only carried out procedures as the student requested. The assistant did not comment on the student’s choice of procedure except when it was deemed unsafe. Thus the student was challenged and encouraged to develop as many abilities as possible, yet provided with help as needed to make that happen.

On reading these articles I found myself thinking that the philosophy and practice of dealing with students with disabilities is far more like dealing with all other students than it is different. No two students are alike, and the more we can encourage, augment, and challenge each student’s abilities the better. These articles challenged me to reexamine my thinking about organizing courses and laboratories, and I challenge you to reexamine yours. Too often we give up too easily and allow students to get by with less than their best efforts. Or we fail to provide the support students need to make their best efforts pay off. Applying the lessons learned from work with students who are far from the norm in one or more aspects of physical capability may help us to think more clearly about how we ought to structure learning environments for all students.