This entry draws from Kim Block’s Part 2(A): Duty to Accommodate – Discrimination Test, which affirms that impact—not intent—is what matters most in determining discrimination. In many advocacy conversations, parents of disabled children are told to show more understanding, more tolerance, more empathy—particularly when their children’s access needs conflict with the behaviours or challenges of another student. But empathy does not erase obligation. And emotional regulation is not built by enduring distress without support.
Key takeaways
- Tolerance is not a substitute for accommodation
When a child with a disability experiences harm due to sensory overload, emotional dysregulation, or perceived threat in the classroom, the solution is not greater patience—it is access. Suggesting that a student should “build empathy” or “be more tolerant” of another’s disruptive or aggressive behaviour denies the reality of their disability-related needs. - Empathy cannot be demanded under duress
Compassion for others is a beautiful thing, but it cannot be ethically or legally required in lieu of protection. Disabled students deserve safety and dignity without having to sacrifice their own well-being to demonstrate understanding for others. - Accommodation must respond to individual thresholds
A child who reacts strongly to yelling, swearing, or unpredictability may be signalling that their environment is inaccessible. The threshold for support is not based on whether other children can cope—it is based on whether the individual student’s disability is creating a barrier to participation.
Learn more
Part 2(A): Duty to Accommodate – Discrimination Test
by Kim Block, Speaking Up BC
