Here's a thought from Ron Buliung, Professor at the University of Toronto, that Despite Legislative Progress, Accessible Cities Remain Elusive:
Disability as an afterthought makes platform and vehicle retrofit an inconvenient, costly necessity. The technical part of this problem can likely be solved with existing technology, like platform gap fillers and bridge plates. Waiting around for disabled passengers to engage in class-action litigation is not an effective strategy.
There's a lot here that I would like to unpack, as they say.
Some people attend meetings on how to implement access for all people with the attitude that access belongs to the able-bodied, and that people who are not able-bodied have to accommodate themselves to the way things are. The first thing I draw from the quote above, is that the law has already been written and it says the opposite.
One such law among many is the Americans With Disabilities Act. What the ADA says is that reasonable accommodations have to be made for disabled persons by the people and businesses covered by the Act. People who are not able-bodied do not have to accommodate themselves to the world built by able-bodied people for themselves; rather, the world we live in, our country, the United States of America, must reasonably accommodate the disabled, not the other way around, by including disabled people in making the decisions that rule our lives including but not limited to decisions involving accessibility.
And the emphasis of the ADA, it must always be remembered, is on reasonable accommodations, not just accommodations for accommodations' sake. This is not what you would call a zero-sum game in which some win and many lose. When reasonable accommodations are made, everybody wins – and that's the first point.
Without being unkind to people who still demand that everyone else must accommodate themselves to things as they are, it is often the right thing to say that the law has already been written, and they lost. A neutral way to mention this when you are in a meeting where some people express these views is to say that the reason we are in these meetings is to help implement what the law requires. The law requires reasonable accommodations. The law certainly does not require anything like preferential treatment (let alone the preferential treatment they are advocating for themselves, still). (You may not want to add that last part if you want to be completely neutral about it.)
Now to return to this quote I have input, above. The second thing it brings to my mind is it reminds me that there are consequences to blocking input and the consequences include cost. There is usually if not always a greater cost to fix something after it was implemented without input, than by encouraging, even inviting input from the beginning.
Third, those same consequences can also act up front, so to speak. When the costs of fixing things are really high, we tend not to fix them because the costs are so high. It is a pretty well-known feature of group dynamics that if the costs will be too great to fix an activity or a decision later, then doing the activity or taking the decision now will effectively kill all opposition now or in the future.
To be aware of this tactic is to be able to recognize it if and when it occurs. Here is a suggestion on how to counter this tactic.
- Do not engage.
- Raise your own issues. For example, where the discussion is focused on the general issue of the costs of accessibility to public places, you can raise the more specific issue of accessibility to restaurants, hotels, and other businesses that depend on the public for their existence.
- People with disabilities also have money. They can either spend their money in public places that make it possible for them to be there and spend their money, or they can withhold their money and go somewhere else that is actually accessible.
In the end, issues of accessibility are often decided by issues of money. The purveyors of inaccessibility are not the only ones with money, and likely they do not even have most of the money involved in a given situation, something which we would all do well to remind them.
I began this article with a quote from an article by Ron Buliung which was published in an online magazine called The Conversation on January 22, 2024. Buliung is a Professor at the University of Toronto and The Conversation describes itself as a nonprofit, independent news organization that draws on academics, researchers and other experts to write on topics of interest to the general public, in language that the general public can understand and not in academic jargon: "We publish trustworthy and informative articles written by academic experts for the general public and edited by our team of journalists." I am really pleased to have found this site, and by going to the link to the Buliung article above, I hope that you are pleased to find it, too.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2024 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES
Here's a sample of leaving Comments on proposed rules. These are Comments I left on one of the Civil Rights Division's proposed rules on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in the use of Medical Diagnostic Equipment. Once I realized perfection is not required, I realized how easy it is to leave Comments on proposed rules. I hope you have the same experience including the realization that perfection is not required!
COMMENTS ON "NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY: ACCESSIBILITY OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES":
Re: RIN 1190-AA78.
To the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice:
This Comment will address your proposed addition in a new Subpart I of a new § 35.213, Qualified staff.
As written this proposed rule is more aspirational than mandatory. It would be a good starting point perhaps when combined with more specific rules on staffing.
These do not have to be precise or expressed in ratios (such as 1:1, God forbid) that would overwhelm the presumed expertise of the State and local entities using Medical Diagnostic Equipment. It is probably wiser, at least at first and for now, to leave precise staffing ratios to them. However, it is equally possible and wiser to provide more than aspirational goals.
Are not Nursing Homes subject to specific staffing ratios? My understanding is that they are. Propose a rule or rules that refer to such rules/regulations adopted in similar settings regulated by other agencies and Departments, without expressly incorporating by reference the separate standards that have been adopted for other entities and attempting to apply them directly to the State and local entities you address.
Further, if you need assistance in formulating such rules about staffing, by all means get it. Consult with private organizations that deal with all sorts of populations that encounter MDE both from the receiving end and from the user end of things, and ask how they have resolved staffing issues such that the people who use this equipment "successfully operate accessible MDE, assist with transfers and positioning of individuals with disabilities, and carry out the program access obligation regarding existing MDE." KFF is a more-or-less private organization that comes to mind; I am certain that you will think of others and that your proposed rules will benefit from the experience of the receivers and users of MDE as relayed to you through private organizations.
In addition to staffing requirements, your proposed rules ought to be more specific about your expectations concerning training of the people, i.e., the employees, who actually use this equipment "in, or in conjunction with, medical settings by health care providers for diagnostic purposes."
Once again, the big drawback here is that the rule you propose in Section 35.213 is more aspirational than mandatory. Perhaps that approach was your intent. If so, that approach is unsatisfactory to the disabled people who encounter MDE wielded by poorly trained individuals or perhaps even used by people who are not up to the task of using MDE the way the manufacturers intended it to be used. Provide the State and local entities you regulate with the means to measure the performance of these people, their employees – and let them know in the process, expressly or better yet, implicitly – that you too are measuring their performance with MDE.
Drawing from the lived experience of people that has already been reported to private organizations, follow the same approach concerning training as you take to obtain information on proposed further rules regarding staffing, above.
To summarize, combine your aspirational message with at least some mandatory language, and write some proposed rules that are more specific for the State and local entities in implementing your aspirational message.
Please read the disclaimer.
Posted by Dennis J. Wall on February 06, 2024 at 12:33 PM in Comments on Proposed Rules, Disabled and Disabilities, Rules and regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tags: #CivilRightsDivision, #DisabilityDiscrimination, #ProposedRules, #QualifiedStaff, #RIN 1190-AA78