for us.

or modes of transportation, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons." This standard is clear, and it works well It is now the law of the land almost everywhere in the United States. The Model White Cane Law was placed on the statute books in California five years before Congress enacted section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to prohibit discrimination against handicapped individuals in federally assisted programs. Mr. Chairman, you are going to receive a great deal of information about the need for a comprehensive nondiscrimination law. I plan in this statement to do more than simply add the weight of another major group. We are affected, as I have said, and we do believe that there is a need for a comprehensive

nondiscrimination law. However, we do have some specific concerns that we would like you to consider. We believe that, at least in the case of people who are blind, the Americans with Disabilities Act could result in practices that are discriminatory even though intended to comply with the law. Our greatest fear is that the Americans with Disabilities Act will become the basis for more discrimination against us than now exists.

This may be a surprising statement. How could a

nondiscrimination law have the unintended effect of causing more discrimination? Our experience indicates that this does happen. Let me explain. I am going to discuss this problem in terms of

the condition of blindness since I am blind, and I represent the

3

prevent the use of unintended restrictions based on disability in the name of compliance with the Act. This is a lesson that we should have learned from the experience we are having with the Air Carrier Access Act. This experience tells us that unintended restrictions based on disability can easily evolve from a law that is forthrightly aimed at prohibiting discrimination.

The advent of federal civil rights laws for handicapped individuals brought pressure on commercial airlines to serve persons with disabilities. Physical barriers of aircraft and equipment had prevented service in some instances. This was

never a problem for the blind. In our case, air transportation was almost always provided on essentially nondiscriminatory terms. Certainly (in contrast to the situation for some disabled persons) there were no policies to deny or restrict service to the blind. Blindness was not regarded as a disability for purposes of air transportation.

The pressure brought on commercial airlines by persons with disabilities was necessary, but the effect it has had on blind persons has been a civil rights disaster. When the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration began to plan ways of accommodating the handicapped in order to serve them, they included the blind in the general category. All of a sudden it became unacceptable to think of the blind as not disabled in air travel. So the blind have been regarded as disabled, and restrictions thought to be appropriate for the disabled have been wrongfully imposed on the blind ever since. This policy has now been pursued aggressively by the airlines over the objection of the blind. Ironically, the net effect of the civil rights

6

needs. The folks who establish these programs are often so overwhelmed or uncertain of what to do that they even want to "take care of" needs that we do not have. In the bus example, section 504 clearly prohibits denying service to the blind. It does not clearly prohibit the bus driver from insisting that a blind person sit in one of the front seats designated for the elderly and handicapped. quibbling, but the entire civil rights movement was brought to a national focus by exactly this type of issue. Section 504 requires that disabled persons be accommodated on the bus. If blind persons (who are capable of sitting anywhere) are forced to accept seating accommodations and use the seats designated for the elderly and handicapped, they are being subjected to arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.

Some may regard seating disputes as

It is exactly this type of situation, resulting from intended compliance with section 504, that the blind find objectionable. We are expected to be disabled in ways that we are not. Participation without restriction (other than the conditions applicable alike to everyone) is the proper policy of nondiscrimination. Conversely, it is discriminatory to assume that participation for the blind is made possible only by means of accommodation. I cannot emphasize this point too much-required, unwanted accommodations are acts of discrimination, even if they are kindly meant. Discrimination against the

disabled is hardly ever intentional.

It is more often the result

of human kindness, but the effect is the same as if the motives were ill-intended.

Language is needed in the Americans with Disabilities Act to

5

prevent the use of unintended restrictions based on disability in the name of compliance with the Act. This is a lesson that we should have learned from the experience we are having with the Air Carrier Access Act. This experience tells us that unintended restrictions based on disability can easily evolve from a law that is forthrightly aimed at prohibiting discrimination.

The advent of federal civil rights laws for handicapped individuals brought pressure on commercial airlines to serve persons with disabilities. Physical barriers of aircraft and equipment had prevented service in some instances. This was

never a problem for the blind. In our case, air transportation was almost always provided on essentially nondiscriminatory terms. Certainly (in contrast to the situation for some disabled persons) there were no policies to deny or restrict service to the blind. Blindness was not regarded as a disability for purposes of air transportation.

The pressure brought on commercial airlines by persons with disabilities was necessary, but the effect it has had on blind persons has been a civil rights disaster. When the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration began to plan ways of accommodating the handicapped in order to serve them, they included the blind in the general category. All of a sudden it became unacceptable to think of the blind as not disabled in air travel. So the blind have been regarded as disabled, and restrictions thought to be appropriate for the disabled have been wrongfully imposed on the blind ever since. This policy has now been pursued aggressively by the airlines over the objection of the blind. Ironically, the net effect of the civil rights

6

laws for the disabled has been to place new and unwarranted restrictions on the blind in air travel.

Backed by federal law, the airlines are attempting to make us disabled in ways that we are not. Could the same sort of thing happen in surface transportation? The answer is unmistakably "yes." The Americans with Disabilities Act (as introduced in the House and as passed by the Senate) presumes that disability implies the need for an accommodated form of participation. Covered entities will want to comply with the Act by making accommodations, especially those of minimal cost. As with the airline example, the blind will be expected to accept policies which apply to the generic "disability” class, including accommodated participation and the restrictions that necessarily accompany it.

The accommodated participation standard is no doubt very appropriate for many persons with disabilities. This standard should help to make their participation possible. For blind persons, however, the accommodation standard incorrectly assumes a degree of inability and directs unwanted and even harmful changes. The individual's true abilities are overshadowed by accommodated participation, and the changes made become the focus of everyone's attention. It is assumed that the individual could not participate were it not for the accommodation.

To use another example, some people now assume that blind people cannot cross street intersections without special signaling devices. The devices are audible traffic signals which emit a sound cue to indicate the changing of the traffic lights. The cue is a beeping or electronic chirping noise intended to

7