by Charles H. Crawford
How often have you heard or used the phrase, " All we need to do is to be reasonable?" Probably many times since the concept of "reasonableness" is a basic standard used in western civilization that derives from roots in the rules of law developed as far back as ancient Greece. Yet often we find ourselves perplexed when we try to apply the standard of what is reasonable to situations like taxi cab drivers' claiming allergies as legitimate reasons for refusing to transport guide dog users and our dogs. Here are some thoughts that may serve to facilitate thinking on matters such as these.
Most often, reasonability is used as a support in the context of fairness. If everyone gets what they need in a situation, we are prone to say it is a reasonable solution to whatever the presenting problem was. So if a cab driver claims allergy and another taxi instantly appears in place of the one we have hailed, then it would be reasonable for the guide dog team to take the second cab. This of course is seldom the case and so we must attempt to try and determine what is fair.
Reason dictates that we seek answers to at least three questions here. First there is the need to determine if the claim of allergy is true. Experience has shown us that too often cab drivers claim an allergy to dogs where no allergy, in fact, exists. Next there is the question of whether any real allergy can actually be treated to render it irrelevant. Finally, there is the idea of a taxi cab driver's essential job function which is to transport passengers as a public conveyance, and an essential element of this concept is the one that guide dogs hold the same status as human passengers under color of law. Is it reasonable therefore that a person with an allergy should become a cab driver when there is the clear possibility that he or she may, as a part of the job responsibility, have to transport a person using a guide dog? The question is answered by removing any emotional context and drawing an analogy to other professions. For example, we would not think of hiring a person to be a firefighter if he or she could not function in a smoky environment, we would not hire a person to work as a forest ranger if he or she could not function during pollen season. In short, reason supports the fundamental premise that if a job requires that performance of certain functions are essential, then those hired to do the job must in fact be able to perform those functions.
Another example of the idea of reasonability in the context of our movement is the entire issue of accessible pedestrian signals. Some believe that it is unreasonable to ask the government to go to the expense of installing an accessible pedestrian signal, when in the view of these folks, the intersection can be crossed without the need for an audible signal. Here the issue is akin to the allergy problem when viewed from the perspective of the essential function of the pedestrian signal. At those intersections where traffic engineers have determined a sufficient level of danger exists to warrant the installation of a pedestrian signal, then it is reasonable to assume that if the sighted public needs the information a signal provides, then blind pedestrians also need that information. Since blind pedestrians must act in accord with the instructions provided by the signaling devices, then it is only reasonable that the information be accessible to us as well.
By now you may have determined that this article is only stating the obvious, and you are correct. Yet the debates seem to continue despite the plain application of reason. Why is this and can it be changed?
Here we must come to terms with a political reality which causes some to advance the concept of "reasonableness" only as it applies to what they believe is in their own best self interest. If I need a job and cab driving is available and I don't like or view dogs as acceptable to me, then I can claim an allergy to avoid having to transport guide dogs. If I would rather not spend tax dollars on something that does not meet a need that I have, then I would be well satisfied to allow those who say blind pedestrians have gotten along for years without accessible signals to influence my decisions, and so not to install the accessible signals. The self-interest in these examples only extends to the immediate circumstances of the perceivers and does not contemplate at least three critical realities.
First, there is the possibility that the cab driver or the city official who denies the need for accessible pedestrian signals may become blind themselves. Blindness, as most of us know all too well, is no respecter of profession or position. Second, there is the intervention of law that either defines a right or enforces an equity for all who come under its jurisdiction. Finally, there is the undeniable logic that when we ignore the basic human rights of others, then we are one step closer to having our own rights violated.
Reasonability will always be a standard for resolving conflicts. As a political movement, we must employ it and make sure that we make every possible consideration for the rights of others while upholding our own rights. For all our rights come not only from law, but also from our very dignity as human beings and members of a larger society that needs us as much as we need it.