On the advocacy side of things--
I'm probably hesitant to use the full-Monty approach for two reasons:
1) I've gone this route before, and the guns blazing approach always seems to burn bridges. The bottom line is that I do still want DD to have this chance, because it's one of the few things she has ever wanted enough to truly reach for it. We went the "guns blazing" route once before with something like that (where food SHOULDN'T have been an issue), and sadly, food allergy IS still a second-class disability in legal terms. We got shut down by a national organization's legal team who instructed everyone in the organization to never communicate with us in writing again... after they passed around my child's private medical information. (really not kidding-- that experience was so unbelievably evil that I can hardly think of it without shaking) Even with awesome documentation of discriminatory conduct, one cannot win. Well, you can. It's just that most people don't, OSEP/DOJ advisory letters aside. DOJ was highly sympathetic to us, but their hands were (mostly) tied. We opted NOT to go public, which was our only real other option.
2) My experience has led me to believe that academics in particular tend to require Kaa (Jungle Book) handling. By that I mean, let them think whatever they like, and suggest that THEY check the legalities of it once they paint themselves into a corner. They won't be budged if YOU do it, but if THEY take the initiative, and their own legal team tells them to stand down, they do. Plus, it doesn't burn bridges. It makes them take you more seriously in the future, too, without turning you into an "adversary."
If I thought for one instant that there was actual ill-intent involved, I would definitely be in there making trouble. Actively. I have done that. This doesn't feel like that kind of situation to me. I can't really explain it more than that. These are basically dedicated and decent people running a program that helps kids, and doing it short-staffed and on a shoestring budget in a state that has pretty much NOTHING to offer those kids within public schools.
But-- they need a lot of guidance before they can see outside of the box. And being engineers, it matters where the guidance comes from. Proper channels and all. This is how we eventually got such great results with the (twin organization director) before. When {director} tried to throw us under the bus, (seeing only liability and trouble), I fired back with "Really? How interesting. You should really go CHECK ON THAT." After a quick check with the disability office on campus, {director} came back with everything we'd been begging for and several things we hadn't. And an apology.
Similarly here. I know what their institutional legal counsel in the disability office will tell them. They don't know (obviously!), but it's probably who they need to hear it from. If THEY ask, they'll be perfectly willing to work with us in the future... but if we do (and they get TOLD before asking) then they'll hate us for "tattling" on them. KWIM?
Sadly, we do need goodwill. Nature of this particular beast.
I'm reminded of the line in "Recount" re: Even when you win, you still lose. I've been there, done that with advocacy before. I hate this kind of situation-- it's what makes a disability truly limiting. You can get used to the lifestyle modifications just fine. It's the perception biases of others that wind up being the problem.
