[nabs-l] Orientation on Campus and its Relation to Universal Design

[mworkman at ualberta.ca]

Hi everyone,

I've been participating in two conversations on this list recently, and now
I want to try to bring them together.  As you can guess from the subject
line, one was on orientation on campus and the other on universal design.
What I plan to say may not make complete sense if you haven't followed the
two conversations, but that's why we have archives.

Part of the difficulty in the discussion of universal design was that it
took place mainly in the abstract.  It was difficult to discuss any concrete
example that didn't have some bagage attached to it.  I want to try to offer
a concrete example that is particularly important to students and may help
bring focus to the universal design discussion.

In the orientation discussion, I argued that the school has a
responsibility, morally if not legally, to provide students with basic
orientation around campus should the student request it.  I'm not talking
about cane lessons, just some route planning to classrooms and other
destinations on campus.  I also want to make it clear that this is a second
best solution for me, and ideally a temporary one.  The primary solution to
the issue of orientation would be for the school to take steps to make it
possible for a student to learn these routes entirely independently, or at
least as independently as possible.  Some of these steps might include
offering tactile maps, or particularly detailed written descriptions of the
campus, placing braille on classroom doors,  putting the names of buildings
in braille in easy to locate areas just inside or outside of each building,
and perhaps some alterations to the landscaping of the campus , though I
don't know what exact sorts of landscaping changes would be appropriate.
These are just a few ideas.  If smarter people than me thought about this,
they could come up with other much better ways to make it easier for a blind
person to independently find locations on campus.

If it's not yet obvious, here's how what I'm saying links up with universal
design.  If someone said, why does the school have this responsibility? My
answer would be that if a school is going to provide  various guides to
finding locations on campus for sighted people (e.g., maps around campus,
printed names on buildings, room numbers on doors, etc), then it is only
fair that they offer some alternative way of accessing this information for
people who don't use sight as their primary means of accessing information.
So I'm saying that the design of the campus did not take blindness into
consideration, and to make up for this bad design, the school should, first,
take steps to make sure that the information they provide through maps,
signs, and printed markings is accessible in other ways, in accordance with
the principle of universal design, or failing that, provide basic
orientation services to students who request it.  Keep in mind here that
this argument is employed only to make this a matter of justice.  It's a way
of arguing that the school has an obligation/responsibility; it's not the
only reason I favour universal design.

Now, I've seen at least two NABS leaders take positions that differ from
mine on the orientation question.  It's not so much that they oppose making
information accessible or the school providing some assistance if the school
is able to, but neither person seemed to think that any effort should be
spent on holding the school accountable for failing to offer equal access to
information on campus.  In both cases, necessity and personal responsibility
was emphasized.  For many years, students have figured out effective ways of
getting around campus despite the lack of equal access to information.  So
why spend energy fighting for more equal access to location information when
we already possess these strategies.  Moreover, these are skills we need to
learn when we enter the work force, so the inconvenience we put up with now
will benefit us in the long run.  I don't dispute either point.  My argument
in favour of the school's having a responsibility is based solely on the
idea of equal access to information.

But I actually don't want to debate the issue of whose responsibility it is
so much as use this as an example of where I think the NFB generally gets it
wrong.  Here, we have two potential presidents of NABS who seem to me to
hold the position that promoting universal design on campus, which would
make it easier to independently find locations, is not a big priority.  It
might be nice if schools did this, but we're not going to push them on it.

I've never meant to suggest that the NFB always opposes universal design of
the environment.  I've offered the example of quiet cars where the NFB has
actively fought to bring in mandatory requirements, but, in my admittedly
limited experience, the debate always seems to hinge on whether the
environmental modifications are necessary.  If the modifications aren't
totally necessary, if we can use an alternative technique that makes the
modifications less necessary, then we shouldn't fight for the modifications.
For me, this really looks like a failure to see the big picture and the
long-term goal.

As mentioned above, I generally make the argument for universal design in
terms of fairness because I think it's the most persuasive way to make it,
but I think there are tremendous long-term and unforeseen positives as well.
Back to the case of orientation, I realize that we already possess
techniques for learning locations on campus, that the skills we acquire will
help us in the future, and that it would require a significant effort to get
schools to provide equal access to information, but think of how much time,
money, and energy is saved in the long run if we successfully fight for this
stuff now.  I can put out an ad and hire someone to give me a couple hours
of orientation, and this might even be a good skill for me to learn, but I'm
really the only one who benefits from this.  If, on the other hand, I am
successful in encouraging my school to begin implementing modifications in
accordance with the principle of universal design, every blind student who
comes to the campus after me will benefit.  Not only that, every blind
person who happens to visit the campus will benefit.  As a Ph.D student, I'm
expected to travel to different universities in Canada and internationally
to present at, or attend, various conferences.  The thought of having to go
to campuses that are completely foreign, with absolutely no ability to
arrange for any kind of orientation while on campus (I'm only going for two
days after all), and with no way of independently orienting myself either
before or after arriving on campus, is not very appealing to me.  If you
fight to make your campus more accessible, and I happen to visit it, it
benefits me.  Moreover, as Alena has pointed out, universal design tends to
have unforeseen benefits.  For example, any time you could get information
that is currently being expressed only visually to be expressed audibly or
tactily as well, you could potentially benefit someone with a print
disability who isn't blind.

So I can go ahead and hire someone for two hours, or I can ask a friend, but
these things have little lasting benefit for anyone other than me.
Promoting universal design on campus, however, will benefit future students,
visitors to campus, and a variety of people who aren't themselves blind.

It just seems to me that the NFB too often ignores these long-term and
unforeseen benefits.  I can understand the desire to want to examine each
case individually, but often, as I see it, the question of necessity
receives too much weight, and too much emphasis is put on personal
responsibility.  Personal responsibility is fine, but we also need to think
about how our efforts can have the most significant and wide-reaching
impact.  The idea that modifications are unnecessary, or will reflect badly
on us, or will become a cruch, these beliefs can cause the NFB to miss the
big picture and the long-term benefit that can come from these
modifications.

What I've said is not meant to chastize NABS leadership, or make simplistic
generalizations about the NFB.  My goal was to clarify my understanding of
the NFB's position with respect to universal design by introducing a
concrete example that doesn't have a lot of bagage and is particularly
important to students.  Given the remarks I saw from NABS leaders on the
topic of orientation on campus, I can't help but maintain my view that the
NFB doesn't tend to think of universal design as a very high priority.  In a
few cases, the NFB fights for it, in a few cases, the NFB actively fights
against it, and in most cases, the attitude is that it would be nice but
isn't worth expending any energy over.  Given my views about fairness and
equal access, and given the long-term and wide-reaching benefits that I
believe come from promoting universal design, I can't help thinking that the
NFB's is the wrong attitude to have about universal design.

Regards,

Marc