It means that the action we should take in response to this article is "building more dorms with singles" rather than "we need to rethink the way that we are making accommodations for disabilities in educational contexts".

That seems like an important distinction, and makes the rest of the article (which focuses on educational accommodations) look mistaken.

I suppose so, but nonetheless it still likely harms the rest of the students who are honest by raising the price of housing for all students.

In the context of academics I’d call it manipulating, exploiting or scamming the housing system, rather than cheating. Just because academic cheating is the center-of-gravity for this type of conversation, and, IMO, a much much bigger deal.

If someone says they cheated in school, the first thing that pops into your head probably isn’t that they might have gotten a single dorm room, right?

Cheating to get limited housing benefits starves those limited resources from truly disabled students who actually need them.

Also, there are academic components to disability cheating. As the article notes, registering for a disability at some of these universities grants you additional time to take tests.

I mean, they watch our president, who got a JET for god knows what, and after seeing that, why shouldn't they grab for the bag?

I suppose stanford does optimize for cheating, but this still seems excessive

The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did.

There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. Avoiding increasingly-overcrowded housing situations is I think one of them.

If Stanford's standards for these housing waivers are sufficiently broad that 38% of their students quality, isn't that a problem with Stanford's definitions, not with "cheating"?