“Despite the progress our Nation has made in recent decades, people with disabilities are still too often marginalized and denied access to the American dream.” -Joseph Biden 2021 In its promise to eliminate disability-based discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has dramatically improved opportunities for countless individuals with disabilities who, according to congress, have historically tended to be isolated and segregated by society. (Text of the ADA, 42 USC 12101(a)(2)). Unfortunately, as suggested in the president’s quote above, barriers to participation still exist. The ADA says that a person with a disability should be afforded equal opportunities to access the goods and services being offered. I would argue that these opportunities apply to the pursuit of the American dream. The American dream is the belief that anyone, regardless of where they were born or what class they were born into, can attain their own version of success in a society in which upward mobility is possible for everyone. It is argued that a shift in perspective of how disability is conceived, how people with disabilities are viewed by society, creates barriers that are at least as challenging as the physical and architectural barriers found in the built environment. From this perspective society bears some responsibility for the barriers it creates. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lists the 7 most common barriers as As suggested in the list above some barriers are physical in nature but others emerge from limiting beliefs, feelings, and opinions. In relation to the applicable building standard, physical barriers are objective. Barriers based on attitudes, feelings, and opinions are subjective. As with meeting any goal its necessary to have the opportunity to pursue the goal in the first place. The ADA guarantees equal opportunities, but it does not guarantee a specific outcome. (Is there such a civil rights law?) People are like fingerprints, no two are the same. By extension no two disabilities are the same. Experiences with disability are personal. Ultimately the person with the disability shoulders the responsibility to meet the challenges of a given opportunity. Reasonable modifications and accommodations to practices, policies, and procedures may be necessary to afford the opportunity but in relation to goal attainment, as the song goes no one is going to walk the lonesome valley for you; you must walk it by yourself - Woodie Guthrie ~1925. Barriers established through subjectivity can easily result in limitations for some but not others. A barrier for one person may be a source of motivation for another. In an ideal world there would be no subjective barriers. The concept of disability can be seen from two general perspectives: the medical model and the social model of disability. The medical model links a disability diagnosis to an individual's physical or mental impairment and the result of an impairment leads to a reduced quality of life. Improvement would be the result of rehabilitation. In contrast the social model of disability tends to identify systemic barriers, derogatory attitudes, and social exclusion (intentional or inadvertent) as being major sources of discrimination. Under the medical model view of disability, it is argued that society fails to take account of and include people regardless of their individual differences. It tends to describe disability as something that must be fixed or overcome to achieve success in life. It implies that being disabled is a negative thing. Things that are broken tend to get brushed off to the side. As I see it viewing a person as being broken or somehow less than “normal” impairs not only the individual but also society. But who must shoulder the burden to be considered normal? The person with a disability or society? Is it the person with a disability that must change to fit in or does society bare any responsibility in adjusting the subjective opinions it places on people with disabilities? I think California’s Certified Access Specialist program (CASp) has directed a spotlight on the importance of physical access and is contributing to the normalizing of disability. An essential skill for access specialist is to be able to identify barriers in the built environment. In addition to the access requirements in the CBC, California civil rights laws say a violation of the ADA (in addition to physical access) is also a violation of state law. In that context a deeper understanding of disability discrimination can be beneficial. Possessing an understanding of the common barriers preventing participation requires a better understanding of the attitudinal and systematic barriers, in addition to physical ones. Although code interpretations can be challenging in themselves the code is only part of the accessibility puzzle. Accessibility Specialists are in a good position to be stewards for ensuring people with disabilities are afforded the opportunity that the law requires. The purpose of the CASp program is to educate and advocate for compliance with the applicable construction related accessibility standards. I would argue that possessing a broader understanding of the codes, laws, and standards from a user’s perspective would add a new dimension and depth to CASp assessments. This goes beyond an understanding of the building code. The definition of disability in the ADA is largely based on the medical model of disability. In 2003 the United Nations organized the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRDP). The CRDP was an international human rights treaty of the United Nations intended to protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. The CRDP approaches the idea that limitations to participation for people with disabilities is a social construct. Although the United States signed the treaty in 2009 but has yet to ratify or fully commit to the convention. Although an access specialist is retained to identify physical barriers preventing access, understanding user perspectives adds value to society at large. |
