The year is 1955. The phrase “separate but equal” is used to justify social injustices to black Americans. No one bats an eye.
The practice of separating people on the basis of their skin color is inherently unequal. Drinking fountains were located in different areas. Rosa Parks famously refused to sit in the back of the bus which was designated for black transportation users. Public schools were segregated. Black students did not receive an equitable education compared to their white counterparts. I mention this because we were meant to understand that “separate but equal” was an iteration of systemic racism. Racism was less overt, yet it was still there. Black Americans suffered and protested for years to get congress to enact legislation to guarantee their civil rights. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law in 1964.
People with disabilities also became enraged by the inequities they faced on a daily basis. They, too, protested in public spaces, just as black citizens had done before them. Many of the demonstrations held by people with disabilities in the 1970s and 1980s were supported by political organizations to support the rights of black Americans, such as the Black Panthers. These groups aided the demonstrators. They would provide food or medication to demonstrators during lengthy sit-ins. The ADA was passed in 1990, and the US Congress used the Civil Rights Act as a template for the ADA. The intent was to assure an equitable opportunity to participate in public life for people with disabilities.
The ADA itself is organized into multiple sections, or Titles. Each Title outlines access responsibilities for different types of entities. The ADA covers Employment, Access to State and Local Governments, Access to Places of Public Accommodation, and Telecommunications. It’s important to understand that many of the requirements of the ADA are already structured as compromises. Employers should make workplace accommodations based on what is reasonable for the employer. Only larger State/Local Government entities are required to designate an ADA Coordinator to resolve grievances under the ADA for their operations. Even existing facilities are not strictly required to become fully accessible. Readily Achievable Barrier Removal requires that changes to a facility be made when it’s easily accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense. There are times when the nature of an access barrier prevents full compliance with the ADA Standards. It is in these cases that the ADA would require a facility owner to do something else to provide an opportunity to participate for people with disabilities. This is so pervasive, though, that some people don’t realize this cannot be the basis for new designs.
The reason I’m writing this is because it's obvious to me that many people don't understand why access matters.
Recently, I had someone ask me “Does the ADA allow ‘separate but equal’ in terms of a new design?” I couldn’t believe what I was hearing! Apparently, not everyone understands the reason behind learning about US history. That same week, another caller had proposed a very similar notion. These people did not have an overtly discriminatory attitude toward disability, but they did exude a clear annoyance in considering access needs for people with disabilities in their designs.
New designs rarely have the inherent limitations that existing facilities may have. The expectation is to design new facilities to be fully accessible. That’s a simple and reasonable concept, I would think. The ADA is different from the Civil Rights Act in that all forms of discrimination, intentional or not, are prohibited. Obviously, my answers to their questions were “No, you can’t design with separate but equal as a guiding principle.” Title II and III of the ADA require that people with disabilities be provided with the most integration appropriate, meaning designing integrated environments should be the default mindset. Why should a person be denied the opportunity to participate based on their physical capabilities alone? Does it make any more sense than denying some access because of their skin color? Omitting disability access in a new design is like installing a sign that says, “whites only.” I sincerely hope that would not be accepted in society today.
Many people still do not understand that the ADA is a civil rights law, not a building code. There are impactful implications to a person’s daily life that stem from simple planning decisions. A designer, city planner, or business can make seemingly small decisions that allow people with disabilities to either feel like equals or like second-class citizens.
This is the primary concept that I would like more people to understand about access.
If you have the power of choice in design, please consider how long these designs will last and how many people will be affected throughout its existence.