The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation

9. Disability and Technology

Chapter Nine Disability and Technology THE DISABILITY RIGHTS MOVEMENT "is a by-product of the technological revolution ," in the words of one commentator .I "Breakthroughs in medicine, the development of computers that allow the hearing and speech impaired to use telephones , and advancements in motorized wheelchairs have meant that more people with severe handicaps can live longer, can do more for themselves and have the potential for enjoying fuller lives." Without political activism, however, technological advances do not automatically translate into gains for people with disabilities. Universal Design "Growing up in a world full of barriers," the design pioneer Ronald L. Mace, a polio survivor and a wheelchair user, had a clear incentive for creating his visionary concept ofuniversal design.2 Not only did he have to be carried up and down stairs so he couldattend classes at North Carolina State-from which he graduated in 1966-but also he could not fit his wheelchair into the men's room. Universal design is "the holistic approach " to accessible environments "that goes beyond minimum codes and standards to create designs that serve the broadest public [including people with disabilities] throughout their life spans."3 Wheelchair designer RalfHotchkiss describes the evolving "revolution in human interaction," a consequence ofinventors, artists, and architects who are redesigning the infrastructure and creating a new aesthetic for the changing environment: "Without changes in how things are laid out physically, the changes of mind [allowing for inclusion ofpeople with disabilities] will be slower to come."4 Often involving subtle design changes and adaptations to already existing products and environments, universal design is more practicable and cost-effective than many people realize.s For example, it is neither difficult nor expensive to provide counters at a level that accommodates children and people in wheelchairs or to include labels with large type, readable by partially sighted and olderpeople.6 Yet too frequently lack oftechnical feasibility is one ofthe first arguments offered against universal design, observes disability rights advocate Professor Frank Bowe.7 When universal design is disparaged despite the compelling arguments for the con- 150 CHAPTER NINE cept, the real problem may be a lack of will to be inclusive, or more insidiously, the profit motive masquerading as an effort to protect the public. One glaring example involved the 1992 decision to set up an experiment putting pay toilets, inaccessible to wheelchair users, on the streets ofNewYork City. The manufacturer, JCDecaux, wanted to impose the same unit on the United States that he had sold in Paris and other cities in Europe, where there is no ADA. The fallacious explanation given by JCDecaux for not providing a single model for a street toilet in compliance with ADA and "universal design" was accepted in a New York Times editorial: "Units large enough for wheelchair users will inevitably accommodate unsavory activity like prostitution and drug abuse.... The company therefore insists that their [the accessible toilets'] use be restricted to disabled patrons who gain access with key cards."8 Six months later, in an article "Toilet Wars," subtitled "How a battle over handicapped rights is keeping those spotless wonders off the street," New York magazine appeared to have been persuaded by JCDecaux's public relations campaign.9 The same can be said for the American Broadcasting Company's television magazine "20/20" in its segment aired three months earlier, "There Goes Another Good Idea."l0 Like the New York Times) New York magazine and "20/20" erroneously assumed that it was the disability community who was selfishly thwarting technological improvement . Philip K. Howard, in The Death of Common Sense (1994), continued to assert the misleading notion that "in New York, the unintended consequence of giving the disabled the 'right' to do everything in the same way was the imposition of a de facto prohibition of sidewalk toilets."ll The spurious case JCDecaux made was that technology did not exist to deal with the social problems that would be created by the size of the accessible unit. JCDecaux's way of dealing with this supposed dilemma was to create two separate and unequal units, an "elegant kiosk" for the general public and an accessible toilet for wheelchair users. The accessible unit necessitated inconvenient special cards, as well as a full-time attendant, for-unlike the kiosk-it was not self-flushing and selfcleaning . Howard misunderstood the implication of the facts he offered: "The regular units averaged over three thousand flushes per month, or 50 percent more than the average in Paris. The larger units...