Step Towards Universal Design: Let's Celebrate the ADA

On July 26th, 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) into law. This year will mark the 28th anniversary of this Civil Rights document. The ADA was passed with the intent of creating an equal opportunity for people with disabilities by protecting their rights and preventing discrimination in all areas of public life.

Five titles that make up the ADA pertain to different areas of public life. Title I calls for an equal employment opportunity for people with disabilities. Title II calls on both state and local governments to be nondiscriminatory on the basis of disability in all areas of service. Title III calls on private entities providing public services to not discriminate against people with disabilities. Title IV focuses on communication and prohibits telephone and internet companies from discriminating against people with hearing and speech disabilities. Title V is a section full of miscellaneous provisions including a list of conditions that are not considered disabilities and therefore, not protected under the ADA.

The ADA was written with good intent, but even a law cannot change mindsets. When mindsets are not changed, laws are looked at as something that has to be done rather than something that should be followed; this causes the law to be looked at with contempt which is reflected back upon the person/group/entity in which the law protects. In this case, the ignorance of not understanding why accessibility is necessary perpetuates the stereotype that people with disabilities are a burden on society.

When a law is looked at as something that has to be done, typically people have an innate sense to not want to follow it. This tends to perpetuate ignorance towards the ADA as one is not willing to take the time to become educated about the importance of this law and the law itself.

Loopholes will often be sought to not have to comply with the law. Whatever reason it may be, there are many ways to get around complying with the ADA. The way the ADA was written leaves wiggle-room as accessibility is not “one size fits all” and not every building and terrain allows for Universal Design. However, this wiggle-room also leaves gaps that allow the loopholes that so many jump through even when it is not necessary for them to do so. People are able to settle for the letter of the law — rather than the essence of the law — as that is either all they know or all they care to follow. Unfortunately, the reality of it is, for the ADA to be all-inclusive and express the standard of Universal Design that is flexible enough for all existing buildings and terrains, it would have to be tens of thousands of pages long. Therefore, the minimum standard with large loopholes is what we have.

The ADA is not only full of loopholes, but it is also poorly enforced. This leaves gaps that prevent people with disabilities from the access that the ADA was originally intended to give. Multiple states, as well as the federal government, have even tried to make the ADA irrelevant. The lack of regulation has driven a multitude of lawsuits to respond to the breaching of ADA compliance. When this is combined with ignorance, these lawsuits are looked at as trivial. If the government would have reinforced the ADA from the very beginning, the legitimacy of these lawsuits would not even be in question.

Year after year, people continue to be ignorant about the ADA; many do not know of its existence and even worse many ignore it and try to skirt around it, jumping through loopholes to cut costs. Access for people with disabilities is trumped by expenses; we create a burdensome extra expense and our business is not worth the time or money spent to create access.

What should have been a solid foundation for accessibility turned into a bandage that masked the root of a larger problem. Though we as a nation have come so far in the improvement of accessibility for the disability community, ableism still runs deep. The mentality that the ADA was passed, and ramps were installed, therefore people with physical disabilities are now all-included is an ignorant and discriminatory statement. The ADA did not provide complete access to people with disabilities; 28 years later complete compliance of this law is nowhere near to being met and we still have a long way to go!

Let’s celebrate the ADA. Let’s celebrate what it did so far, but what it can still do. Celebrate by educating yourself about the ADA and the issues that surround it. Celebrate the ADA so that society understands the essence of what the law should be. Celebrate the ADA so that another 28 years does not pass by before we achieve equal access for all.

Eco-friendly v. Ability-friendly: Plastic Straws and Finding a Mutual Solution

It has become trendy to refuse the use of plastic straws. This trend to be more eco-friendly has been driven to the extent that places like Seattle, Miami Beach, and Vancouver have banned plastic straws from being handed out at any place that serves food and drink. Businesses have also jumped on the bandwagon and have begun the process of eliminating plastic straws from their stores across the world. This sounds all nice and dandy -- "a step in the right direction" even -- but what if it was the cup?

Banning plastic straws is not an inconvenience to the general population. It is easy to go throughout the day without a straw for anyone who can physically handle a drink without one. People can still go order whatever drink they wish just without a straw. They can even get it in a plastic cup with a plastic lid because those can be recycled. However, what if everyone had to bring their own cup or they could not have the drink? This would make a bigger positive impact on the environment but places are not going to do this as this is bad business sense. Taking away these items to reduce plastic would be a huge inconvenience to many. So just plastic straws have been targeted. Never the less, this is exactly what places have done to the disability community as it is easy to take away a necessary technology for people with disabilities. Marginalizing a minority in order to promote being eco-friendly is good business sense; follow the trend, forget about the disabled.

Many people with disabilities cannot drink without a plastic straw but when this is said, instead of listening, there are three main solutions that keep being offered. People who need a plastic straw to drink are being told to just bring their own or to use a type of straw that does not work for them. Despite what people may think and say, many people with disabilities do need a plastic straw to drink. There are so many reasons to why this is the case and for anyone who cannot understand the reasoning behind this claim please take the time to become educated on this subject.

The issue of places not providing plastic straws is more than a convenience issue for people with disabilities; it is an access issue. If an entity is going to provide a service to one customer, the law states they should provide that service to all customers. For anyone who needs a plastic straw to drink and is required to bring there own to receive the same services provided to everyone else (i.e. consume the drink they purchased), this is a disability tax. If a business is going to provide a service to one customer, they need to provide that same service to all customers and if that includes providing plastic straws, city councils and businesses need to take that into consideration.

As a person who uses a wheelchair for mobility, should I just carry around my own ramp? Maybe I should carry around multiple length ramps so they fit on all staircases? Therefore, businesses no longer need to install ramps. What if I cannot carry my own ramp; should I just not be provided with access to a public service? What if I am human and forget my straw; do I just not drink that day? I guess I could just take the time and find a store to buy more. If the store is still selling them.

Another concern with purchasing plastic straws is if businesses are no longer purchasing straws in large quantities, the demand will decrease, causing the number manufactured to decrease as well; economic patterns suggest that prices of plastic straws will then rise, causing a burdensome impact on people who need them.

This leads to the next suggestion that is continuously given to people who say they need plastic straws: why not just invest in a more sustainable straw? There are many different types of straws that are way cheaper than plastic straws in the long run; there are hard reusable plastic straws, bamboo straws, glass straws, metal straws, silicone straws, and metal straws with a silicon tip. Straws made from hard plastic, bamboo, glass, and metal are all not pliable, difficult to position, and hold in one's mouth. Glass can also break when dropped or bitten; many people with disabilities who need a straw to drink do so because they have dexterity issues and/or do not have control of their bite which can lead to things often being dropped or involuntarily bitten when in the mouth. Metal straws can also become extremely hot in a hot drink and burn one's mouth. Both glass and metal straws can be a safety hazard to many. A silicone straw is softer, but it is not flexible enough for someone with limited motor control and when bent it does not keep its shape (it bounces back to its original stance). A metal straw with a silicon tip seems like a better option as metal will hold its bent shape and silicon is not sharp nor will it burn the user as hot liquid passes through it. However, even if a person with a disability can physically use a reusable straw, it is very unlikely that they will be able to clean that straw on their own (possibly for the same reason they are using the straw in the first place). 

Having people with disabilities use reusable straws will require someone else to wash that reusable straw; this reduces the independence of the disabled person. Many people with disabilities rely on an extremely limited number of caregiving hours; washing out reusable objects that do not come completely clean in a dishwasher is not something many can compromise due to the limited number of hours provided to be driven to work, go to the bathroom, hygiene care, and eating. I myself am unable to washout my reusable straws; as a legally blind person who has limited dexterity, I find it hilarious to imagine myself sticking a tiny scrubber in a just-as-tiny hole; get the camera ready!  

The third suggestion that arises as a solution to not being required to bring your own straw or having to wash out a reusable straw is that places should continue distributing straws but only ones that are compostable. These could either be made from paper or bioplastic. Paper straws are too soft; they do not stay open or bounce back when bitten. They also fall apart quickly and make water taste disgusting. Bioplastic straws work well in cold drinks, but they instantly become unusable in hot drinks and they do not come in a bendy-straw version. 

Plastic straws were first invented for people with disabilities and illnesses and before their invention, many people with disabilities died from dehydration. Plastic straws are soft, but they keep their shape. They can be used in both hot and cold drinks. They also come in a bendy-straw version. And since they are dispensable, a person who cannot physically wash the straw does not lose their independence because of them. For many people with disabilities, plastic straws are the only way they can drink.

We live with our disabilities; we are experts on our needs. Not everyone is the same and what works for one person may not work for another. The needs of people with disabilities have been overlooked and put aside in the name of saving vulnerable turtles. People with disabilities know their needs and others need to start listening. There is a lack of understanding that those of us with disabilities are people and deserve equal access just as much as the next person.

Discrimination against a person due to one's ethnicity or gender would never be acceptable, but people with disabilities are discriminated against and this discrimination is overlooked. When the disability community asked the Seattle City Council to help create an acceptable alternative before banning plastic straw, the disability community was ignored. The disability community was not saying ignore the environment--as a person with a disability, I believe in zero waste movement and that we need to protect the environment. However, I also believe a respectful Seattle City Council would have opted to find an alternative to the plastic straw to show respect to those of us with disabilities.

Letter from the Disability Community to the Seattle City Council explaining why current alternatives do not work for all people--that the ordinance created did not take disability into account--that plastic straws are necessary for people with disabilities.

Use of one-use plastics do need to be drastically reduced. However, straws have been targeted as the item to do this. The irony of this is that plastic straws only make up about 3% of plastic waste and less than 1% of the plastic that ends up in the oceans. To contrast this number, 46% of garbage floating in the ocean is made up of fishing nets. Other surveys have been conducted that shows cigarettes, plastic bottles, and plastic bags are the top pieces of trash to lay strewn across beaches; plastic straws rank seventh. One argument for eliminating plastic straws is that they are not recyclable, but the second most found piece of trash on beaches is the recyclable plastic water bottle. If you want to make a positive impact on the environment, the plastic water bottle should be the item banned. Why are we not getting rid of plastic water bottles? Is it because it would be an inconvenience to the entire population, not just the disability community? If people truly desired to make a positive impact on the planet, they should eliminate all one-time use plastics altogether; not just the ones that do not create a huge inconvenience to the majority once they are gone.

Don't pretend to be green just to be trendy. Educate yourself on both disability and how to truly be eco-friendly. There can be a solution that works for all. I understand that the use of plastic straws needs to be eliminated but before banning this product to all there needs to be an alternative that works for all.

The issue boils down to people not being educated and not being willing to take others’ needs into consideration. People continue to fall back to the argument about the turtle video that went viral where the straw was stuck in its nose; we need to protect the turtle as it is vulnerable. But, is it okay to utilize an isolated incident to persuade the passing of a policy that impacts everyone?