In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute.

—Thurgood Marshall

Abstract 

Families of children with disabilities need an indestructible bridge to their support network. I use Nassim Taleb’s concept of antifragility to describe ways to resolve conflict that simultaneously strengthen the relationship of the parties. Last year, the Supreme Court decided Perez v Sturgis Public Schools, in which a public school assigned an unqualified interpreter to Miguel Perez, who is deaf; inflated his grades to inclusion on the honor roll; and refused him graduation. His parents sought relief under two federal disability laws, and the Court unanimously held that the family could recover under both laws, granting guardians of children in the special education system access to a wider range of remedies, including damages. While this seems like a resounding victory for children with disabilities, it is a loss to Miguel Perez's parents: of almost 20 years. For 11 years, Miguel languished in a school system without the ability to communicate, and for the next nine, his parents litigated to attain what he was denied. At nearly 28 years old, he started over.

In this article, I explain (1) why what matters most to parents of a disabled child is continued access to the team of specialists on the other side of the bridge; (2) that the only way to maintain that bridge is through careful conflict management; and (3) why dispute resolution using this method will make that bridge stronger than before. For these families, the situation is urgent—they do not want to lose 20 years of their child's life, even if they wish they could just walk away and burn the bridge behind them.

There are more affected families than ever before. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of children with disabilities rose from 3.9% in 2008 to 4.3% in 2019. Thus, we are currently looking at a large and growing minority that this scholarship could benefit—over 3 million children and 6 million parents.