Don't Straightjacket the Law

             Don't Straightjacket the Law
 
               LA Times, July 21, 1995
 
               Edward B. Bennett, III
 
The Americans with Disabilities Act is under attack. Despite 
its successes. the ADA confronts a small but determined group 
bent on its repeal or weakening. Critics argue that it costs 
too much, promotes frivolous litigation, enjoys no business 
support, and mandates federal intrusion while discouraging 
negotiation and ignoring market forces. They are wrong on 
all counts.
 
The ADA is a market sensitive civil rights act. It explicitly 
permits businesses to spend only what they can afford. It 
requires "reasonable" expenditures as it balances legitimate 
cost concerns with the ideal of integration. The balance works. 
The ADA$s ideal can often be realized simply and inexpensively. 
A ramp, a sign or a telephone will do. According to the Job 
Accommodation Network, fully one third of workplace accommodations 
costs nothing; another third averages less than $500.
 
All buildings "accommodate" someone. Architects design structures 
to accommodate those who typically use them. The ADA simply 
insists that we accommodate everyone, not just those who walk 
or see.  Discrimination and segregation in the pre-ADA world 
taxed everyone heavily.
 
Americans with disabilities suffer an unemployment rate of 69% 
(as against 17% in the former West Germany, where employment 
policies aggressively promote jobs), and we spend billions on 
welfare programs for people who would rather work and pay taxes 
than collect government checks.
 
People with disabilities - I am one of them - want to create 
the wealth that makes access possible. We want a bigger pie for 
everybody, not a larger slice of a shrinking pie. We believe 
that a rising tide lifts all boats, but we need to be able to 
board the ship.
 
Believe-it-or-not lawsuits do not define the ADA. Not every 
case makes sense, but atypical fringe cases obscure the truth: 
Discrimination exists and this law successfully fights it. A 
typical suits make good sound bites, but the less glamorous 
truth is that we predominately use the ADA to build an 
accessible world ramp by ramp, building by building, town by 
town.
 
I'm sympathetic to complaints about arbitrary law enforcement. 
As a bank Personnel Director, I faced an audit by the Office 
of Federal Contract Compliance. I worked in a recently renovated 
two story building, and we had, in compliance with the law, 
made the first floor bathroom accessible and installed an 
elevator connecting the two floors. The auditor insisted that 
the law required us to make the second floor bathroom 
accessible. The kicker: I use a wheelchair and I knew the law 
better than he did. We had complied fully, and when I proved 
it, he backed down. This instance to the contrary, I discovered
that capricious oversight is rare. Today, the ADA$s legitimate 
ends are usually enforced fairly and flexibly.
 
Businesses complain about bureaucratic inflexibility and 
regulatory rigidity. The law responds by providing a general 
framework rather than imposing rigid standards. It imposes 
some precise architectural standards, but generally the Act 
gives businesses room to maneuver.
 
People with disabilities negotiate more than they sue. Most 
accommodations flow from private, inexpensive negotiations, 
not from courtrooms.  Critics argue that the business community 
opposes the ADA. A July Harris poll forcefully says otherwise. 
82% of executives agree that the law is worth its costs, and 
70% said it should not be changed.
 
We need the ADA because of the enduring power of these myths. 
Critics suffer from the problem the law tries to cure. They 
hold a distorted view of the capacities of people with 
disabilities, the discrimination they suffer and the cost 
of curbing that discrimination. Fortunately, the ADA educates 
as much as it prescribes.
 
This law, passed in 1990, works. It$s moderate blend of idealism 
and pragmatism, and its respect for markets, public responsibility, 
and private action are slowly but profoundly changing our physical 
environment and our expectations of people with disabilities.
 
Few laws enjoy such universal support. Both Houses of Congress 
passed the ADA with near unanimity and a Republican President 
(George Bush) signed it into law.  Its bipartisan character 
derives in part from the understanding that anyone, Republican 
or Democrat, can become disabled.
 
The ADA's promise is within our grasp. We are building a society 
in which everyone can participate. Now we can begin expecting 
people with disabilities to meet the demands of citizenship.
 
Ed Bennett is co-chair of the ACLU's National Disability Rights 
Task Force. He has quadriplegia.