Jumping to Conclusions in "Jumping the Queue"

In this review, Andrew Weis critically examines Mark Kelman and Gillian Lester's Jumping the Queue: An Inquiry into the Legal Treatment of Students with Learning Disabilities. Writing from the perspective of an individual who has a learning disability, Weis disputes Kelman and Lester's contention that people with learning disabilities should not qualify as a rights protected group. Weis begins by identifying four main arguments underlying Kelman and Lester's conclusion: Individuals who have learning disabilities (1) are not a cohesive, easily-defined group; (2) do not suffer from irrational stereotyping; (3) do not endure animus or other negative treatment; and (4) do not need or benefit from rights protection. Weis then challenges these arguments using a combination of personal narrative and empirical data. Weis concludes by locating both Kelman and Lester's arguments and his own rebuttal of them within the spectrum of legal theory. He notes that although Kelman and Lester seem to argue from a centrist or liberal rights approach, they incorporate certain aspects of a critical legal studies approach as well.