The ADA’s Spirit Versus the ADA in Practice

On July 26, 1990, with 3,000 disability rights advocates looking on, then President George Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into law. Bush described the ADA that day as

the world’s first comprehensive declaration of the equality of people with disabilities, and evidence of America’s leadership internationally in the cause of human rights. With today’s signing, every man, woman and child with a disability can now pass through the closed doors, into a bright new era of equality, independence and freedom.

Equality, independence and freedom: these were the purported goals of the ADA more than 20 years ago. The definition of disability contained within the ADA, however, creates enormous hurdles for individuals with disabilities, as they must first prove themselves disabled under its definition before they can begin to seek its protections.

This creates a discrepancy between the original spirit of the ADA and its effect on those trying to use the law. While the legal identity of “disabled” contained within the ADA could be used to challenge barriers, it created new ones.

The ADA itself—as well as court interpretation—has created obstacles to equality, independence and freedom. It’s also created two groups of individuals with disabilities: those who were considered disabled under the ADA and were able to seek protection under the ADA, and those who were disabled, but were not able demonstrate the legal standards set out in the ADA and were therefore excluded.   

            The ADA’s definition of disability creates a categorization of disability that places an additional burden on individuals with disabilities, instead of addressing institutional barriers and attitudes that construct individuals as disabled. As Professor Katherine Dudich of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover has stated, the ADA is reactive, not proactive. It is this characteristic of the ADA, and its requirements for qualifying as disabled under the ADA, that are antithetical to the original spirit of the law.