NARRATOR: RIT is considered to be one of the most accessible college campuses in the world. Today on Intersections: The RIT Podcast, NTID President Gerry Buckley and RIT Director of Disability Services Catherine Lewis chat about how that accessibility came to be, including the signing of the landmark 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act. Gerry and Catherine provide their perspectives on the history of accessibility in higher education – how far we’ve come, and how far we have yet to go. CATHERINE: As we get started, Gerry, the ADA recently had its 30th anniversary at the end of July. And from our conversations, I know you were around and involved when that act was initially passed. Can you talk about what that was like, being there for that and what it meant to you? GERRY: It really was an exciting time. I had the honor of being a guest of Sen. Robert Dole, who was one of the co-sponsors of the bill, and just several thousand individuals with disabilities, their parents, their advocates, and the business community all coming together to celebrate the passage of the civil rights act for individuals with disabilities. It was a really historic moment and a very proud moment. And it was a result of several years of strong lobbying and advocating for the importance of that civil rights legislation. When we were at the White House that day, it was a sense of “We did it. Now the hard work of implementing the law begins.” And now, 30 years later we look back and we can see the successes. But we can also see, as you and I have discussed Catherine, the work that needs to be done, and that’s part of the discussion today. CATHERINE: Absolutely. So, as we think big picture about this, both in terms of your own personal life and in terms of systems, what do you think has changed since that time 30 years ago when the ADA was first passed? GERRY: I think fundamentally now, there’s a commitment in both the public and the private sector to access for individuals with disabilities. It’s legally mandated now, so discrimination on the basis of disability in the private sector is outlawed, and that’s opened doors in employment and in transportation and in all areas of life that allows individuals with disabilities to participate in the mainstream of society. So, I sense that what we had 30 plus years ago was kind of a voluntary spirit by the private sector if they wanted to provide accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Now, for the last 30 years it’s been mandated by law. So, we’re beginning to see an increasing number of individuals with disabilities who have taken advantage of that law and are rising up in American life and in the American community and participating in the mainstream of life in a very positive and constructive way. CATHERINE: Yeah, it’s a powerful thing. And as I heard you talking about how when the law was passed we thought about how much work was yet to be done, one of the things I try to keep at the front of my mind is that the law is the floor, not the ceiling. And so, I think even though I was just in preschool or so when the law was first passed, it’s been interesting for me to reflect on how things have changed from when I was in public school and when I first started college to now working in higher education. I don’t know if you feel the same way, Gerry, but it seems to me like we’ve got to strike this balance between celebrating how far we’ve come and thinking pretty hard about where we have yet to go. I’m curious what you think, just in terms of where we do have yet to go. What did you already expect might be happening 30 years later that’s not yet? GERRY: Thirty years later, especially in the area of employment, I expected to see more gains. I expected to see the unemployment rate of individuals with disabilities significantly lower. I expected to see disabled individuals who had access to higher education, now with accommodations, I expected them to be progressing, and that’s happening. We see more individuals with disabilities graduating with their MDs, their PhDs, their law degrees, and their engineering degrees. And we slowly see business and industry really trying to create opportunities to take advantage of these individuals’ skills. But if you look at the overall data, you see that in the area of employment we still have – for example, in the deaf and hard-of-hearing community – 50 percent of our citizens with hearing loss who are deaf and hard of hearing not working and capable of working and contributing to the American economy. And so that’s where I see work needs to be done. CATHERINE: Yeah, I agree with you. Those numbers are pretty solemn when we think about what could be versus what is in terms of the employment rates of folks. And as somebody who both lives disability herself and supports students along their path to reaching employment and living fulfilled whole lives, it's tough to meet students and see all their potential and work with them to put the supports in place so that they can equitably engage and then see that that support does not always carry forward into the workforce. So, what do you think is missing there? What’s the disconnect, especially when folks enter into employment? GERRY: I think the disconnect – and it’s changing with the national movement toward the disability equity index and the private sector now beginning to establish expectations for itself. But I think that last sector of convincing the business community that individuals with disabilities have much to offer from an economic perspective and not seen as just a cost but as part of the diversity picture that the company wants to embrace and the inclusive environment that the company wants to promote. And we have to continue to stay very, very focused on that and helping companies to see that accommodations are part of the cost of doing business. They’re not extra special, they’re not a burden, and they really are a part of the enhancing of the diversity and the inclusive approach. I do see some progress, it’s just slower than I would like. And I think also we need to be knowledgeable that individuals of color who are disabled have also brought it to our attention that they haven’t enjoyed the same gains and privileges that white individuals with disabilities have experienced. So, therefore, we have work to do in the area of racial justice and social justice to make sure that individuals who are disabled who are people of color, who are BIPOC, have the same opportunities as individuals who are not. And I think we have work to do in that area – that racial discrimination, in addition to disability discrimination, really is still a fact of life in many situations, and we need to address it through the enforcement mechanisms that are in place or, if those things have been ignored or neglected, we need to advocate for the more strict enforcement of the regulations and the laws and hold companies accountable for fulfilling their commitment to diversity and inclusion. CATHERINE: I couldn’t agree more with you, Gerry. I think one of the most important things we can do is take an intersectional look at who folks are. None of us live single- issue lives. None of us are single-issue people. And somebody who identifies within the disability community, that’s one facet of who they are, and all of our facets intersect. So, thinking about layers of inequity, people of color, LGBTQ people, first-generation folks navigating new systems, there are so many ways we need to pay attention to different needs, different contexts. That’s powerful stuff. GERRY: And I think RIT and NTID as an employer can play a role in being a model to the Rochester community, to the regional community, to the nation, and the world in our own employment practices and goals. So, RIT has a commitment to the inclusion of individuals with disabilities and we have goals and targets that we honor and we work toward. I also think NTID, through its national outreach role and through our Center on Employment, has a special responsibility to help employers in the American workplace make the adjustments that are necessary. It’s really fascinating when you really ask why businesses don’t serve or employ individuals with disabilities. It’s often based on a myth or a misunderstanding about costs. But it’s not as expensive as they perceive it to be, and the benefits far outweigh the cost. But I think we have more of a job to do to be informing employers and, in particular, the realities of what the costs are and how they can meet those responsibilities as employers. CATHERINE: I think you're so right that attitudes are a really key ingredient here, and it makes me think about how we define disability and what I perceive to be some misconceptions in terms of what disability really means. And for me, as somebody who identifies personally as a disabled woman and who spent her whole life so far digging into disability and what it means for folks, I think we really need to disassociate this identity with deficit.