Good Stuff About the ADA & Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

[Guest guest]

I'm on another list where some skilled and not so skilled policy

wonks are writing about these two laws. There's often confusion

about which law covers what. My historian friend Ken Stein (who

contributed to " The Power of 504 " video), is now working for the City

of San Francisco's ADA Compliance Office. He is always the voice of

reason. I thought some of you would appreciate what he wrote:

When I retrieved Berkeley Disability E'list messages today, I saw that

someone had written . . .

" ADA is a civil rights law. 504 is essentially a funding law, 'if we

fund you comply.' "

Yikes!!!!!

504 is so very much a civil rights law. The ADA extended its

provisions. Whereas 504 covers just entities that get any Federal

money, the ADA went further, in that it covered private employers,

public accommodations (private entities that serve the public, such

as stores, restaurants, private schools, hotels, etc), all public and

private transportation systems, and public entities such as cities,

states, counties, public school systems etc.) For a very good quick

and dirty summary of the various disability rights laws, see

http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm

As noted below, the core provisions and essential concepts inherent

in the ADA were taken directly from and modeled upon the 504

regulations.

The fact that both 504 and the ADA are civil rights laws is SO VERY

IMPORTANT, particularly as regards public policy budget advocacy

implications.

Following is the main body of an email that I had sent to a number of

colleagues last year during the City of San Francisco's budget

negotiations. In this year's huge economic crisis, these concepts are

more important than ever before.

- Ken

==========

Subject: Regarding " It's not just a good idea, it's the law "

and " It's not just the law, it's a right. "

This note is a follow-up to my suggesting at yesterday's meeting that

in budget negotiations and advocacy, we should always be stressing

the civil rights mandate of seeking funds for ADA / Olmstead -

related budget requests. It was happily coincidental that I had the

opportunity to say out loud what I had so recently seen so clearly

articulated in Scotch's wonderful book about the history of

Section 504, namely that rights are things that *must* to be

provided, and are way less discretionary than many other sorts of

political choices.

As you know, Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act was the first

disability civil rights law. It covered all Federally funded entities

such as the City and County of SF. Its strong regulations were passed

as the result of a 28 day sit-in here in SF in 1977, and is the law

upon which the Americans with Disabilities Act and all subsequent

Federal and state disability rights laws would later be modeled.

Scotch speaks of how the decision was made to entrust the regulations

to the HEW (Health Education and Welfare)'s Office for Civil Rights,

rather than what to some was at the time the perhaps more logical

choice for a disability law - the Rehabilitation Services

Administration.

He notes: " This question of assignment was not a trivial question of

bureaucratic politics. The shape of 504 would be the result of

whoever interpreted it. The issue of civil rights for disabled people

was to be approached in very different terms by the lawyers in the

Office of Civil Rights and the rehabilitation professionals of the

Rehabilitative Services Administration. Although both groups are

committed to greater participation in society by disabled people, OCR

staff members tend to stress legally established rights and

procedures, whereas RSA staff members place greater emphasis on

community education and voluntary compliance. " [From From Good Will

to Civil Rights - Transforming Federal Disability Policy - A case

study for the enactment and implementation of 504, by K.

Scotch. 2001, p.62]

He goes on to so clearly articulate the importance of that decision

for future disability rights laws and public policy development:

" Characterizing access as a civil right had distinct political

advantages. To portray access as another government benefit for

disabled people, perhaps encouraged through the existing vocational

rehabilitation network, would have defined improved access as

desirable but not as a social imperative. Allowing disabled people

greater participation thus would become an essentially charitable

act. In periods of limited resources, which is to say virtually

always, it is politically acceptable to limit benevolent acts of

charity because of budgetary constraints, traditional practice, or

administrative difficulty. Reducing benefits may be legitimate, while

violating rights is not. Accordingly, many benefits have been claimed

in recent years on the basis of rights ‹a right to health care a

right to education, a right to a job, a right to public assistance.

" Rights are not established easily; the successful legitimization and

institutionalization of rights typically results from political

struggle. Bureaucratic decision-makers are unlikely to voluntarily

acknowledge as rights what can become major claims on institutional

resources. However, support for those claiming rights may be found

from political officials concerned with coalition building or

obtaining mass support. Elected officials, because of their need for

the support of various constituencies, may be more willing to employ,

or at least condone, rhetoric of rights. Such rhetoric can be an

effective symbolic way of communicating support for constituents¹

concerns. The short-term costs of supporting rights may be minimal,

the political payoff may be substantial, and long-term effects are

frequently discounted by officials looking to the next election. "

[pps 41-42]

So that where I am usually the one to state the importance of letting

people know that " it's not just a good idea, it's the law, " reading

this takes it even a step further, " It's not just the law, it's a

right. "

I was so glad that on the heels of my saying all of this theoretical

stuff [at our meeting], that [the City's ADA Coordinator for

Paratransit], in her budget report reported that unlike so many other

departments and divisions, that her budget would not be cut for that

very reason, that Paratransit is an ADA-mandated program and could

not be touched. A word to the wise.

All the best,

- Ken