Framework – How Disability has been Excluded from Engineering
In a society where disabilities are often viewed as medical “problems” that need to be fixed, disabled people are widely misunderstood and overlooked as a community (Hendren, 2020, p. 14). The biological aspects of disabilities are seen as medical issues that can be ‘healed’ eventually through technology. This idea that people with lack of limbs can be enhanced by a prosthetic, better glasses can help the blind, and advanced hearing devices can guide the deaf, is harmful to the disabled community – rather than seeing disabilities as both personal and medical problems, disabled people should be accepted as a part of society that has different needs and accommodations (Hendren, 2020, p. 23). Disability studies has the potential to show people that the world has been designed to exclude many people with a wide range of disabilities and disability studies can lead to a more accepting and accessible world. Disability studies signifies how we as individuals can bring about the necessary changes in our society, to avoid discrimination (whether intentional or not) toward people with disabilities.
For as long as engineers have existed, the built world has been created for nondisabled people . People with disabilities, whether physical or mental, have often had to bring their bodies to meet the built world, rather than the built world meeting their bodies. As much as technology may help make disabled people’s lives easier, they are left out from the remainder of the design for society. It is important for engineers, and society in general, to understand that each disability is very unique – rather than beginning our design processes with having the mindset that we can create something to help thousands of people, we have to focus on the social aspect. By collaborating with/learning more about the disabled community, we can begin to understand their experience, leading to better design and connectedness.
While the initial purpose of technology is innovation and improvement of society, these technological advancements have the possibility of putting the disabled community at a disadvantage. A prominent example of a counterproductive technology is plastic straw reform. As we have seen in recent years, movements have begun globally to ban plastic straw use in an effort to reduce plastic waste in our waterways, specifically the ocean. Large campaigns have gained momentum such as the Save the Turtles organizations whose mission is to reduce plastic waste, beginning with plastic straws. These organizations use catchphrases such as “skip the straw – save a turtle” to discourage people from using straws in their drinks, both in public settings and at home (Albritton, 2020). While the environmental benefits behind these efforts are understandable, banning plastic straws puts many members of the disabled community at risk because these people rely on straws to be able to eat and drink – “for many people with disabilities, going without plastic straws isn’t a question of how much they care about dolphins or sea turtles; it can be a matter of life or death” (Danovich & Godoy, 2018).
An article featured on the website of the National Public Radio, a public nonprofit organization, shows the perspective of a father, Jordan Carlson, whose a child has motor-planning delays and requires a straw to drink. He sheds light on the struggles disabled people face when they are not given the option to use a plastic straw at a public restaurant. In an effort to phase out plastic straws and still provide options to drink from straws, engineers have created alternatives such as paper, silicon and metal straws. However, these alternatives all pose risks to the disabled community and are not as effective as plastic straws are (Danovich & Godoy, 2018). Carlson discusses these alternatives and their negative attributes – “There are many alternatives to plastic straws — paper, biodegradable plastics and even reusable straws made from metal or silicone. But paper straws and similar biodegradable options often fall apart too quickly or are easy for people with limited jaw control to bite through. Silicone straws are often not flexible — one of the most important features for people with mobility challenges. Reusable straws need to be washed, which not all people with disabilities can do easily. And metal straws, which conduct heat and cold in addition to being hard and inflexible, can pose a safety risk” (Danovich & Godoy, 2018). These “failed alternatives” are representative of the fact that engineers did not have these issues in mind when designing straw alternatives. If the perspective and struggles of the disabled community had been taught in engineering academia, engineers would not only have been creating a straw alternative, but would have also considered how effective it would be for people with disabilities who rely on straws.
While the accommodation process can do a lot of good for disabled communities, it can also do a lot of harm. In the process of creating accommodations while working with the disabled community, engineers should not fully rely on these people in the design process. The disabled community can begin to feel like a burden for needing to contribute to such a long “process” of design, just so that the built world accommodates them better. In addition to this, a disabled person being surrounded by/interacting with groups of designers with “abled-savior” complex can lead to increased risk of depression and anxiety in disabled persons. Thus, any nondisabled person who is designing for disabled people needs to find a balanced way to incorporate the input of disabled people without overwhelming them. Although society cannot leave it up to disabled people to fix the world for themselves, it also cannot leave them out of the process completely. Often, engineers approach these problems thinking that they know what is best, simply because they know how to properly fulfill the technological aspect of design – this leads to poor accessibility and voices of disabled persons not being heard. Instead of this, there needs to be a good balance of collaboration between engineers and disabled people. They should listen to their viewpoints, draw from them, ensure that their goals are aligned, and go from there – they should not be putting the pressure on disabled people to revise accessibility and disability awareness. Essentially, abled people should constantly be looking to disabled perspectives.
Many people may easily assume that society is already designed for people with disabilities – seeing handicapped parking spaces, ramps going into buildings, and the occasional wheelchair-accessible public restroom; however, this can lead to naïve understandings. Truthfully, our society is doing the bare minimum – and this is reflected even more heavily in lower-income communities. For example, some cities have been doing a better job of incorporating curb cuts into sidewalks to allow for wheelchairs to easily enter and exit a sidewalk. However, this is not really included in lower income communities that do not have the funding to maintain their roads and sidewalks. Though not a lower income community, many of the sidewalks on College Hill are a perfect example of this. Not only are they often quite rugged and cracked, but curb cuts are few and far between, leading to difficulties in wheelchair access. Another accessibility issue in towns, especially at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, is outdoor dining. As it can be seen in downtown Easton, as well as many other cities (large and small), sidewalks are being blocked off to allow for outdoor dining spaces. This is dangerous for anyone, but especially for physically disabled people who may walk slowly or use wheelchairs, as their only option is to walk into a busy street around blocked-off portions of sidewalks. In an already inaccessible city, this creates an environment impossible for disabled people to navigate. Examples such as these represent the lack of understanding from the perspective of engineers and other designers. If disability awareness can begin at the academic level, engineers will “design for disability” by default and have a holistic understanding of the common struggles faced by the disabled community.
An editorial by the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center from 2015 references the inaccessible curbs throughout Seattle, 25 years after the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. At the time this had been written, a class action lawsuit had just been filed against the City of Seattle for failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law. Disabled citizens of the city were not provided with full and equal access to Seattle’s pedestrian right of way system due to missing, broken, and poorly maintained curb ramps, leaving crosswalks and sidewalks inaccessible to wheelchair users (CREEC, 2015). Though many states’ laws required installation of curb ramps at intersections and crosswalks as early as 1973, Seattle had failed to properly implement this (CREEC, 2015).
Persons with mobility disabilities had felt that every effort was being made to make Seattle a walkable city, but no efforts were being made for it to be “rollable.” These are not matters of aesthetic or convenience, but rather a necessity for these citizens to be able to safely and equally access their own communities. Lack of a curb ramp (or curb cut) at a crosswalk or intersection causes a person in a wheelchair to have to swing into lanes of oncoming traffic – in a city flooded with busses and cars, this is a death sentence. This issue in Seattle gained such strong momentum that a social media campaign was created by Disability Rights Washington – in order to raise awareness of the systemic problem of accessible curbs, members of the disabled community were encouraged to share their experiences on social media using the hashtag #CrappyCurb (CREEC 2015). Campaigns such as these reflect how the disabled community is affected by poor aspects of the built environment which inhibit them from carrying out necessary daily activities.
Shifting to Lafayette, we are about thirty years behind when it comes to accessibility standards. President George H. W. Bush passed ADA in 1990, and Lafayette has made minimal efforts since then to align with the standards. In Lafayette’s Office of Admissions, student tour guides have been taught a confusing alternate route that they are to use when giving tours to persons with physical disabilities. This route is very different from our typical tour route, and it is a perfect representation of how many hoops a person with a disability must jump through in order to tour some buildings on campus. They are limited to seeing less buildings than the typical prospective student or family member, because not all of our buildings are easily accessible.
While it may seem that it would be too expensive and involved to make such drastic changes to these buildings, it would not have been difficult had they begun thirty years ago. Since ADA was enacted, we have constructed at least five new buildings on campus, not to mention the many buildings that have undergone renovations since then, as well – never with disability at the forefront of planning. Lafayette is inaccessible to other disabilities, as well. We do not currently offer an American Sign Language (ASL) tour for those who are deaf/hard of hearing, nor do we use microphones to be able to project our voices further. Zoom currently offers a package where there is an option of using Closed Captioning, which would be very beneficial to those with hearing disabilities. Unfortunately, this package has an additional cost and the College does not seem to currently operate using this version of Zoom.
The aforementioned examples are representative of the fact that disabilities are often overlooked in our everyday lives and settings. To people without disabilities, the goal of designing the built world is proper aesthetic and ease of access. However, the disabled community relies on aspects of the built environment to be functional for them so that they have equal rights to school, work, and recreational activities. In order for the mindset of nondisabled people to shift – and for the built environment to be designed for disability – academia must be structured so that the perspective of the disabled community is consistently viewed. More specifically and for our purposes, engineering students should be trained to design for disability and incorporate accessibility into the engineering design process.
Please click here to access Phase 1: Model Institutions.