When building codes trump equitable access
Removing a ramp from a school means one student will be less independent
Building codes and barrier-free access requirements, particularly those regarding ramps, are critical in ensuring the full participation and integration of people with disabilities in our society. But what happens when the application of a code, policy, or regulation creates additional barriers for those that they are supposed to be helping? Do we blindly enforce the code or do we allow for exceptions to better meet individual needs, provided it does not cause undue hardship or pose additional health and safety risks?
Consider Max’s situation: he is a six-year-old boy who uses a walker due to a neuromuscular condition and has relied on a ramp to provide access to his school for the past three years. The ramp was installed with a grade higher than stipulated by code but was considered to be an acceptable solution by his family and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB). The ramp spans four steps and is in a central pathway of the school that leads to many classrooms. On a typical school day, Max travels on the ramp no less than 12 times as he enters and exits the school, visits the gym and office, and uses the accessible washroom.
HWDSB recently installed an elevator in the school that runs from the basement to the top floors. It also makes a stop at the half-floor hallway, up the four steps, where Max’s classroom is located. The elevator is now being credited for providing barrier-free access and the non-code compliant ramp was removed over the summer. What may seem like an insignificant decision for the school board will have a significant impact on this young boy. The removal of this ramp will prove to be one more barrier for a child who struggles every day to live a barrier-free life.
Max has been able to walk this pathway unimpeded for the past three years with independence and dignity. His family and teachers have worked tirelessly to instil in him, and his peers, the belief that he is strong, capable, and worthy of walking side-by-side with his classmates. Without the ramp, he is fully dependent on staff members to lift him or transport him up and down the equivalent of those four steps in an elevator. When there are fire drills, emergency situations, or when the elevator is out of service, Max will need to be strapped into an evacuation chair and carted down the stairs.
How can HWDSB, or any institution, apply a regulation knowing that it will further segregate an already marginalized child? How can they choose to make exceptions in the past and then willingly lower the standard of care that’s already been established? The Ontario Human Rights Code says organizations have a duty to accommodate individuals in a way that respects their dignity, meets individualized needs, and promotes full participation and integration. Why should building codes take precedence over human rights?
HWDSB’s definition of a barrier is “an obstacle to equity that may be overt or subtle, intended or unintended and systemic or specific to an individual or group and that prevents or limits access to opportunities, benefits, or advantages that are available to other members of society.” In their equity and inclusion policy, they state that they are committed to identifying and addressing biases, barriers, and obstacles. The situation at Max’s school provided HWDSB with the opportunity to put their policy into practice and demonstrate their commitment to removing barriers. Instead, they have done the opposite and created a new barrier that did not previously exist.
While the removal of a single ramp that seemingly only affects a single child might seem like a small issue, it highlights a much bigger societal problem. Our leaders, in education and elsewhere, need to include and listen to people with disabilities in conversations regarding accessibility issues and solutions. Allowing discriminatory actions because “it does (or does not) meet code” demonstrates and reinforces ableism — the idea that people with disabilities are less able to contribute and participate in society. In Max’s case, and in any situation when the application of a code or policy leads to the further segregation and marginalization of people with disabilities, exceptions must not just be considered but actively pursued.