California’s disability community doesn’t need more tech. We need less discrimination
I’m frequently asked about the latest disability technology being covered in the media. People expect me, as a blind person, to share their excitement about such innovations.
Most find my frustration and lack of enthusiasm perplexing. They don’t understand that in the excitement that accompanies supposed technological solutions for the disability community, the true problem — ableism — is often overlooked.
Researchers at Stanford, where I’m a student, recently developed a $400 self-navigating “smart cane” intended to help the blind community, for example. But this product is not necessary for blind people to live and work successfully.
Moreover, many disabled Americans live at home or with caretakers, and many work for low wages or in sheltered workshops. They don’t have $400 to spare, and I don’t find $400 easy to part with, either. Assistive technology isn’t affordable, and developers concentrate on high-tech solutions rather than making what already exists more affordable.
The assumptions inherent in such innovations are troubling and offensive, because people are projecting their notions of “quality of life” onto the disabled. Worse, people with disabilities have been denied lifesaving health care by doctors who projected their bigoted opinions about quality of life onto disabled patients.
No one should assume that others have less quality of life just because they live differently. This is a clear example of ableism.
Ableism and inaccessibility have always been huge societal issues for people with disabilities. Developers think they can solve these issues by creating something new. Technology isn’t always the solution, though.
People often ask me whether the sound of my cane’s metal tip dragging on the ground is grating to my ears, and while I do find it mildly annoying, there’s more to it than that. It’s nice knowing whether I’m walking on tile, bricks or carpet. A lot of other blind people would agree. Awareness is good; people shouldn’t take that away from us.
The disabled lack equal access to quality of life due to inaccessibility. That’s much more damaging than an inability to walk quickly or the existence of disabilities. Despite the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, some buildings don’t have wheelchair-accessible rooms or correct Braille signage — even at Stanford.
This inaccessibility extends to the internet: There’s no legislation specifically mandating web accessibility; there’s only a collection of unenforced guidelines.
Making websites accessible could vastly improve quality of life for the disabled. That’s one reason we should concentrate less on innovating and more on effective legislation — and then on the bigger problem of ableism.
Able-bodied people physically manipulate the disabled without asking for consent, dragging us across streets or grabbing us to show us how to find things. There’s a high rate of sexual assault against the disabled because we’re viewed as inferior.
Workplaces sometimes pay the disabled less than our non-disabled counterparts. A lot of public transportation in America is not accessible, and ride-sharing services like Lyft and Uber are still refusing passengers with disabilities.
These are just some of the problems that urgently need solving. Let’s get off the high horse of high tech and spend our energy fixing issues that really affect the disabled community.