Intersecting Issues and Social Analysis

The issue of discrimination and accessibility for the disabled intersects with the issue of poverty. Disability is both a cause and consequence of poverty, and poverty and disability strengthen one another, which contributes to increased vulnerability and exclusion. Needless to say, having a disability creates extra costs. However, the financial situation of the disabled is exacerbated by their limited economic opportunities: though disability and poverty are correlated, the U.S. social service system treats them separately. According to the report Financial Inequality: Disability, Race and Poverty in America, “For example, disability benefits (including health coverage) are often hinged on proving one is incapable of work, but anti-poverty programs often have a work requirement. Thus, people with disabilities attempting to avoid poverty often face difficult choices.” Ultimately, poverty causes disability, people in poverty are less able to treat disabling conditions, and disability causes poverty.

Ableism also intersects with othering: viewing or treating (a person or group of people) as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself. In a 2016 experiment examining treatment of an employee with cerebral palsy in 13 different work organizations, interviews with 19 managers and 43 colleagues were conducted. The main finding of the experiment was that co-workers spontaneously refer to other ‘different’ people when talking about a colleague with visible disabilities. This suggests that employees with impairments are a unique category of employees in the perception of their co-workers. According to author Nanna Mik-Meyer, “othering of employees with disabilities thus demonstrates contradictory discourses of ableism (which automatically produce difference) and tolerance and inclusiveness (which automatically render it problematic to talk about difference).”

Discrimination is present in several scopes of disabled life, notably in the medical field. A study on implicit attitudes toward the disabled reported moderate to strong negative implicit attitudes toward people with both physical and intellectual disabilities, including the implicit attitudes of health-care professionals. Such biases are likely due to the limited training regarding disabilities medical residents receive. 

Overall, the passage of the ADA was a success: the disabled agree that life has improved since the passage of the ADA. A 1996 survey demonstrated that the disabled were experiencing better access to buildings and transportation, in addition to fuller inclusion in the community. However, in this survey, employment was an area where people with disabilities experienced less change. “According to the 1998 Harris Poll, only 29% of individuals with disabilities of working age (18-64 years old) worked full or part time compared with 79% of working-age people without disabilities. This survey also reported that 72% of the unemployed individuals with disabilities of working age stated they would prefer to work.” Efforts failed in this sphere because business owners continue to have internal bias against the disabled. Further, businesses that are still not ADA compliant are unable to hire the disabled, overall continuing the problem of limited job opportunities.

Social Analysis

The main root causes of this issue: 

The ADA is vague in certain sections, making it unclear what is a violation and what is not. Title III of the ADA states that brand new buildings must be completely accessible, that the altered areas and features of older buildings being renovated must be completely accessible, and buildings constructed before 1992 that are not being renovated must remove access barriers that are “readily achievable.” The ADA describes “readily achievable” as barriers that can be fixed with little difficulty or expense, like leveling out a two-inch step or moving a display to allow space for wheelchairs. But what is considered “readily achievable” is ultimately determined on a case by case basis, giving companies and building owners the flexibility to skirt these guidelines. 

Newer, wealthier companies often have more accessibility, while older, less wealthy businesses have more accessibility problems. This pattern is especially prominent in “downtown” areas where buildings are, by nature, less accessible and more difficult to fix. Well-known, bigger stores people drive to get to are typically more accessible than many of the smaller, locally-owned businesses that are within walking distance of many potential disabled customers. This is a problem because it limits the resources available to the disabled community, especially in poorer areas.

A store located in Massachusetts. The steps make it virtually inaccessible for the handicapped. 

The ADA has inconsistent reinforcement; it is reliant on disabled people and disability organizations for enforcement. There are essentially no “accessibility police” inspecting for missing ramps and too-narrow doorways. The Department of Justice oversees the aforementioned Title III of the ADA. While the DOJ has pursued and clarified many ADA cases that helped establish important precedents, it has never had the resources to extensively identify all barriers and demand uniform compliance. The ADA, which provides structure and legal justification for accessibility, instead relies on the disabled and disability organizations, who attempt to advocate using the law and its regulations. If there is a business that is inaccessible in a way that violates the ADA, one can issue a complaint to the business and work in conjunction with it to fix it. One can also file an official complaint with the Justice Department, and ultimately can file a lawsuit. But if citizens do not take action, the business and the government will not.

It certainly does not help that businesses with barriers ignore the problem. The ADA’s “readily achievable” model was intended to allow for gradual improvement in places where accessibility is the trickiest to achieve. However, this was in the context of 1992 when the law was first going into effect; “gradual” was not supposed to mean decades-long. Today, businesses with barriers appear to ignore the problem, typically out of either indifference or helplessness. Business owners may also point the finger at architects and consultants. While some architects and consultants do try to improve accessibility, others apply their knowledge and skills to more savvy forms of avoidance. Newly-opened businesses receiving accessibility complaints often say, “... our building code inspector signed off on this and didn’t say anything about accessibility.” Whether this is the fault of the inspector, the architects, or the business owner, there is too much opportunity for eluding guidelines.

Similar to businesses, public accommodations do not attempt to become accessible because they believe that they can get away with it: real enforcement rarely happens, leading most owners and managers to believe they will not be held accountable or punished for leaving barriers in place.