News Release

NCD #01-314
October 11, 2000
Contact: Mark S. Quigley
202-272-2004
202-272-2074 TTY
mquigley@ncd.gov

Statement by National Council on Disability Chairperson Marca Bristo on the U.S. Supreme Court Case--University of Alabama v. Garrett

WASHINGTON--Ten years ago, Congress passed and President George Bush signed one of the most significant civil rights law since the Civil Rights Act of 1964--the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In so doing, the nation opened its door to a new age for people with disabilities. A promise was made and that "shameful wall of exclusion," in President Bush's words, has begun to come tumbling down.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in University of Alabama v. Garrett (No. 99-1240) will try to determine whether the nation will keep that promise. The issues before the Court are simple. Will our nation continue on a path toward inclusion, independence and empowerment, or will we return to a modern day form of "Jim Crow" public policy?

Nearly 54 million people with disabilities throughout our country understand that states rights equality would work no better for us than it did for African Americans before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. NCD recognized this when it first proposed and then drafted the original ADA. Congressmen and women from both political parties understood this when they passed ADA in 1990 invoking "the sweep of Congressional authority, including the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day to day by people with disabilities."

President Bush understood this when he signed the law with thousands of people with disabilities in attendance, the same community that had written hundreds of "discrimination diaries"--scar tissue of the movement. The American people understand this as they have begun to implement the law transforming society so that they and their family members can enjoy everyday freedoms of this great country.

The record of discrimination is clear, the need for civil rights protection is clear and ADA is a proportionate response to that record and need. So why are we here? Why, before we realize the full promise of the law, are we debating its constitutionality?

The lawyers here today can give you the legal answers to this question. People with disabilities, myself included, must give you the moral answer.

At issue is how deeply, we as a nation, really embrace our credo--that "all men are created equal" and entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The forces of "backlash" that would hold us back just as we begin to move forward are counting on the power of the old paradigm of disability.

The esteemed Supreme Court justices, a part of this same culture that has had a legacy of prejudice, pity, paternalism and fear, will decide whether we keep the promise or continue to subject people with disabilities, in Congress' words, "...to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society."

Will they cling to the past or embrace and move us into the future. The questions are simple.... What will be their answers?

If the Supreme Court justices examine the states' record of treatment of people with disabilities, they will see ample documentation of government sanctioned discrimination that we experience every day in all aspects of our lives.

• Fred in Chicago was denied the ability to vote because the polling place was not accessible;
  
• Mary was sent to a separate school on a separate bus because her local public school was not accessible;
  
• Ed was forced to live in a nursing home because the state failed to provide home and community based services; and
  
• Patricia, a cancer survivor, was demoted from her job because they thought she could no longer do her job despite evidence to the contrary, the exact type of irrational and stereotypic beliefs that ADA was designed to protect her from.

If the justices pay attention to this record, they will see that ADA was the culmination of 25 years of methodological congressional study, a careful step by step consideration unrivaled in civil rights law. I believe that they will not turn back the clock on our progress!

But if they do, I believe even more in the justness of our cause, the fairness of our purpose, the depth of our conviction and the power of our people to persevere through the dark time and be the light that shows us the way back.

"Together we have overcome. Together we shall overcome"

For more information or to receive a copy of NCD's amicus brief (www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/amicus_99-1240.html), contact: Jeffrey T. Rosen or Mark S. Quigley, 1331 F St., NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20004-1107; voice: 202-272-2004; fax: 202-272-2022; TTY: 202- 272-2074; mquigley@ncd.gov (e-mail).