Legislative Acrobatics

by Mihir Trivedi

In his NYT Opinion piece The Blind Man’s French Dog Problem, author Adam Linn tells the story of an issue he encountered with disability regulation when traveling abroad in France. The issue Adam faced is telling of larger political and legislative issues regarding disability and the interaction between individuals with disability and the society we all live in. 

Adam begins his piece with an overview of the issues he runs into in New York City – repeatedly harassed at establishments across the board, even though NYC regulation allows seeing eye dogs in all situations. Hoping Paris would be better because of their strict service animal laws, Adam is disappointed upon his arrival, finding the apartment rental company charging him hundreds of extra dollars for his seeing-eye dog. The issue turned out to be one of politics more than disability – Adam soon found that the strict service animal laws only apply to French dogs, whereas Adam and Nadia (his dog) were American. To get around this rule, Adam is given a fake identification for himself and Nadia that identify them as French, finally allowing Adam access to the places he would have been otherwise denied because he is American. 

Adam’s experience is representative of a broader perspective on the interaction between individuals with disability and legislative power. From our readings in the Cook and Hussey Textbook, we learned that disability exists in many contexts – one of which is the Institutional Context. This covers “economic, legal, and political components, such as government-funded services, legislation, and political regulations and policies” (Cook and Hussey 43). In the case of Adam’s visit to Paris, the legislation and political regulation failed him as his accommodations for disability were impacted by nationality. As he explains in the piece, “I was angry because being blind is rarely my problem; my biggest frustrations stem from the fact that there is always some person in a position of power telling me that I’m not quite right.” In his case, the French government offloaded their legislative differences to Adam, who had no involvement in the French (or American, for that matter) legislation on the requirement that seeing eye dogs must be French to receive benefits. 

This experience brings up the question for all students studying assistive technology and disability regulation – whose responsibility is it to ensure people with disabilities don’t have to jump over lines drawn in the sand? In societies where accommodation seems to be haphazardly allocated, can we do a better job of ensuring our legislators understand how poorly written regulation has adverse effects on people with disabilities?