The scenario is straight out of a civil rights lawyer's dream: a hearing-impaired child wants nothing more than to see Hannah Montana for a Fourth of July celebration. Her mother works tirelessly to get tickets and make arrangements for a hearing aid device at the stadium, but the facility is unwilling to work with her, telling her there are not any hearing devices on site. It's the big institution versus the trampled-on minority.

Lareen Strong, Utah resident and mother of a hearing-impaired child, recently filed a formal complaint against BYU to the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to comply with the American Disabilities Act, which requires all assembly areas to have a number of hearing aid devices equal to at least four percent of the area's total capacity. For LaVell Edwards Stadium, this would add up to approximately 2,600.

Admittedly, BYU appears to be violating the law (even if it was ignorantly) and should make steps to be more readily able to welcome those with hearing disabilities, even if it means just having a small number of hearing aid devices on hand at the stadium. As of right now, the nearest hearing aid device for Strong's daughter, or any other hearing-impaired person, is in Salt Lake City.

BYU is not alone in this regard. As The Daily Universe reported Friday, only one stadium in the Mountain West Conference has hearing aid devices at their stadiums. Even this one stadium still failed to meet the required ADA number. Many were not even aware of the ADA requirements.

The fact this law is not being observed by other universities does not absolve BYU of all responsibility. The real problem, however, is the ADA is the perfect example of the government trying to regulate what private entities could more efficiently handle on their own.

It is hard to argue that the four percent figure required by the ADA is anything more than an arbitrary quota imposed upon institutions, regardless of the demand for the devices. In the 26 years since the stadium was built, Strong's is the first request for such a device. Not only does this previous need for devices fail to come anywhere near the four percent required by the ADA, it doesn't even equal one percent or a tenth, hundredth, thousandth or even a millionth of a percentage point of the total capacity of events held in the stadium.

This doesn't mean Strong and other people with special needs should be turned away as a mere function of supply and demand. Instead it means that private entities should be left to handle such matters with as little government intervention as possible. If the government needs to legislate to prevent discrimination, such laws should be flexible enough to not impose wasteful burdens on institutions.

As far as Strong's specific case is concerned, BYU was willing to provide Strong's daughter with the needed hearing device, but this was not enough. Instead, she now wants to keep BYU from discriminating against her daughter and other hearing-impaired citizens by trying to bring them into complete compliance with the ADA.

It is natural for Strong to be concerned about her daughter, and she should do what is necessary to see that her daughter is not discriminated against. The problem, however, is Strong's unwillingness to work with BYU to make accommodations for her daughter and her running to the federal government to ensure justice when the matter could be completely resolved without outside intervention. The government should allow people with disabilities to be treated fairly, but when it comes to the specifics of making hearing devices available, that is a matter better left to individuals and private entities.

This editorial represents the opinion of The Daily Universe editorial board. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of BYU, its administration or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Copyright Brigham Young University 13 Apr 2008