to the concerns voiced by colleges and universities about the costs associated with providing auxiliary aids, HEW noted that the regulation anticipated that recipients would use state vocational rehabilitation services and private charities as a means of meeting this obligation.  HEW nevertheless made clear that if these sources were unavailable, the university was responsible for providing the auxiliary aid.  In all explanations of the regulation, the government contends that HEW consistently spoke of the obligation of ensuring that an auxiliary aid was available to any handicapped student who needed one as being an obligation of the university.  Nothing in these statements indicated that HEW intended for the handicapped student to be responsible for providing an auxiliary aid.


37
Under the UAB policy, instead of being the primarysource for the provision of auxiliary aids, the university merely disseminates information as to possible sources of free services or loans to pay for the services, and becomes a source of last resort for students who have been otherwise unable to procure auxiliary aid services.  Thus, the university's policy shifts the burden of providing auxiliary services onto the shoulders of the student.  Most handicapped students are forced to either procure the services through state or private agencies, or pay for them themselves from personal resources or by incurring increased financial aid debt.3   The Department of Education's position in this litigation on the meaning of the auxiliary aids regulation is consistent with the language of the regulation itself and with the original explanation of the