The architecture of accommodations

In the 1930s, long before accessibility became encoded in federal statutes, a group of Michigan State students gathered in rooms across campus. They were members of Tower Guard, an honor society founded by May Shaw, the wife of then-president Robert Shaw. Their purpose was straightforward: to read textbooks and classroom materials aloud to students who were blind, transforming printed pages into accessible assignments.

It was a solution to an unjust problem, and it was entirely voluntary. No regulation required it. It happened because someone recognized an inequity and decided to address it.

“MSU has been a champion of disability rights for many years,” says Tracy Leahy, the university’s Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, and Section 504 coordinator, who will retire at the end of 2025 after a decade working at MSU. “There’s a long history of great work at MSU in disability and inclusion. I’ve had the honor of being a small part of it.”

Leahy’s reflection points to a deeper story. The university she joined in 2015 had spent eight decades building the accessibility infrastructure that she would help refine and expand.

Before the mandates

In the late 1960s, MSU took a bold step forward in addressing accessibility by installing curb cuts across campus, smoothing the hard angles where sidewalks met streets, creating gentle slopes where wheelchair users once faced impassable ledges. This was years before such modifications became expected, let alone required.

And later, in 1971, MSU established the Office of Programs for Handicapped Students, which was among the first university-based offices in the nation dedicated specifically to supporting students with disabilities. The office would eventually evolve into what is known today as the Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities, or RCPD.

“MSU is widely recognized as a pioneer in disability services within the Big Ten,” Leahy notes.

In 1974, the university adopted its first affirmative action plan for persons with disabilities. Three years later, MSU started developing a transition plan to systematically remove physical barriers from buildings and spaces. In 1983, the university conducted a “Transition Planning Study” of campus elevators. The resulting report carried a telling title, “The Spartan Challenge: Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities.”

The phrasing is instructive. Not “compliance” or “requirements,” but a challenge to be met, a spectrum to be accommodated. The report evidenced that removing barriers for one group benefited all.

The long game

Leahy arrived at Michigan State in August 2015, though in a sense, she was returning. She had graduated from MSU in 1983, then built a career in private practice before deciding to leave a large firm for what she anticipated would be a quieter chapter before retirement.

“What I expected to be a slower pace quickly became a mission-driven role in the Office of Institutional Equity during a challenging time for the university,” she recalls.

The office has since been renamed the Office for Civil Rights and Title IX Education and Compliance, or OCR.

She began as a senior investigator and deputy ADA coordinator for grievances. In 2020, she was hired as the ADA and Section 504 coordinator.

But Leahy’s commitment to this work predated any job title.

“What initially drew me to work in accessibility and disability services was a deep commitment to equity and inclusion for individuals with disabilities,” Leahy explains. “This commitment is also personal. Having a family member with a disability gave me firsthand insight into the challenges people face and instilled in me both empathy and a strong drive to make a difference.”

Her legal background informed her perspective.

“As a lawyer, I was drawn to the responsibility of ensuring that institutions not only comply with the letter of the law but also embrace the spirit of the law. For me, accessibility is about more than compliance. It is about advancing civil rights, fostering inclusion and creating environments where everyone can thrive.”

Building systems

When Leahy became ADA coordinator, she began building a strong partnership with the Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities, establishing trust as a reliable advisor and ally. “This relationship served as a foundation for broader collaboration,” she explains.

Over the following years, several key initiatives took shape under her leadership, including the development of the annual Disability Summit, a revised Disability and Reasonable Accommodation Policy, revitalization of the President’s Advisory Committee on Disability Issues and, most recently, the launch of the Disability and Accessibility Policies Training for all faculty and staff.

Perhaps most significantly, the Office of the ADA Coordinator expanded from a staff of one to a team of six, with particular focus on digital accessibility. Remarkably, MSU established its Digital Accessibility Policy 15 years before federal regulations required it. When new guidelines were finally issued in 2024, MSU’s digital accessibility team had already been working to exceed them.

Recently, the office acquired a website scanner that provides detailed accessibility data across MSU’s digital infrastructure. “We’re driving improved accessibility through a dashboard, which basically informs units where improvements need to be made,” Leahy says.

Invisible disabilities

One of the most significant shifts during Leahy’s tenure has been the evolving conversation around invisible disabilities.

“Initially, the focus was largely on visible disabilities, leaving conditions like chronic illness, mental health and neurodivergence underrecognized,” she observes. “Today, there is greater awareness that disability is not always apparent, leading to more inclusive policies, improved training and expanded accommodations.”

Technology has both complicated and clarified these efforts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, remote testing became necessary. “We had to balance the need for academic integrity with the limitations of not being able to conduct assessments in person,” Leahy recalls. “Even today, remote testing continues to present challenges.”

Yet, technology has also expanded possibilities. Virtual meeting platforms now offer live captioning. Screen readers, voice recognition software and adaptive technologies have made digital content increasingly accessible.

“Overall, technology has shifted accessibility from a reactive approach to a proactive, integrated part of MSU’s operations, fostering a more inclusive campus experience,” Leahy says.

Navigating accommodations

For all the policy frameworks and technological advances, Leahy is candid about the emotional dimension of the work, particularly when accommodation requests must be denied.

“One of the most emotionally difficult aspects of this work has been handling appeals of accommodation determinations,” she says. “These cases are challenging because they often involve individuals who are seeking support to overcome barriers and fully participate in their environment.”

The difficulty lies in balancing empathy with consistency. “I strive to approach them with professionalism, empathy and transparency, ensuring that the individual understands the reasoning behind the decision and is aware of any alternative resources or supports that may be available.”

One misconception surfaces repeatedly: The notion that accommodations confer unfair advantage. “In reality, accessibility work is about leveling the playing field,” she emphasizes. “Our goal is equity, not preference.”

A collaborative model

MSU’s accessibility program has earned recognition, particularly within the Big Ten. “RCPD and OCR’s digital accessibility teams are recognized as leaders for their innovative compliance strategies, robust processes and use of dashboards to track progress,” Leahy says.

This proactive approach, combined with strong collaboration across units, distinguishes MSU’s program. Student advocacy has been instrumental in shaping these efforts, influencing initiatives like the Disability Summit and improvements in classroom accessibility.

Universal design

If Leahy could shift one aspect of how accessibility is approached, it would be a greater emphasis on universal design across learning, working and physical environments.

Universal design creates spaces and systems that are inherently accessible to the widest range of people from the outset. “By embedding accessibility into the foundation of our environments, there would be less reliance on individual accommodations, which often require additional processes and can unintentionally highlight differences.”

According to Leahy, this approach doesn’t just reduce barriers, it transforms culture. “Universal design moves accessibility from being reactive to proactive, ensuring that inclusion is built into the fabric of our organization.”

Measuring impact

Reflecting on her tenure, Leahy returns to the deeper purpose underlying all the policies and procedures.

“The most personally meaningful aspect of my work has been contributing to the advancement of disability rights as civil rights,” she says. “Ensuring that individuals with disabilities are not only accommodated but also valued as integral members of our communities reflects the broader principle that civil rights must extend to all.”

To her successor, Leahy offers this counsel: “Lead with empathy while maintaining consistency and fairness. See accessibility not just as compliance, but as a commitment to equity and inclusion.”

She is quick to emphasize that this work has never belonged to any single person. “There’s a lot of people who do this work. MSU has and continues to do great work when it comes to disability rights.”

The through line

From students reading aloud to classmates in the 1930s to sophisticated digital dashboards tracking website accessibility in 2025, Michigan State’s commitment to disability rights spans nearly a century.

Tracy Leahy joined that continuum in 2015. When she retires this month, she will leave it stronger, more systematized and more expansive than she found it. But as she would insist, the work continues. Barriers still require dismantling. Conversations still need to be had. The questions of equity and access still demand attention.

At Michigan State University, that work has been underway for 90 years. The architecture of inclusion is never finished. It only becomes more refined, more comprehensive and more essential.

The question has never been whether to build it. Only how well.