Universal access does not eliminate the need for reasonable accommodation

As awareness of accessibility and inclusion grows, an increasingly common claim is that if universal access is implemented correctly, there will no longer be a need for reasonable accommodation. While this may sound appealing, it reflects a misunderstanding of both disability and the purpose of universal design.

Universal access is an important goal. It seeks to ensure that environments, services, information, products, and systems are accessible to as many people as possible from the outset. Ramps, lifts, accessible toilets, clear signage, captioned videos, accessible websites, and inclusive communication practices all contribute to a more accessible society. These measures reduce barriers for many people. They improve participation, independence, and dignity. However, they do not remove the diversity of human needs.

Persons with disabilities are not a single, uniform group. People experience different impairments, different combinations of impairments, different support needs, and different personal preferences. No matter how well a building, service, workplace, school, communication system, or public policy is designed, it cannot anticipate every individual’s requirements.  A person who is deaf may require captions, a sign language interpreter, or other communication supports in a specific situation. A person who is blind may require information in Braille, tactile formats, or accessible electronic formats. A person with a psychosocial disability may need flexibility in communication or workplace arrangements. A person with a mobility impairment may require adjustments that extend beyond standard accessibility features.

These are not failures of universal design. They are reflections of human diversity. The need for reasonable accommodation does not arise because universal design has failed; it arises because people are different. That distinction is often missing from discussions about universal access, and it is exactly what this article addresses. The purpose of universal design is not to eliminate reasonable accommodation. Rather, it is to reduce barriers as far as possible and create environments that are accessible to the widest range of people. Reasonable accommodation then ensures that individuals are not excluded when their specific needs have not been fully addressed.

Universal design and reasonable accommodation are therefore complementary, not competing, concepts.

Universal design creates environments and systems that work for the widest possible range of people. Reasonable accommodation recognises that equal participation sometimes requires individualised measures. One cannot replace the other. The belief that universal access can completely replace reasonable accommodation risks undermining disability rights. It may create unrealistic expectations and lead organisations to believe that once accessibility features are in place, their obligations have ended.

True inclusion requires a more balanced understanding.

We should strive for the highest possible level of universal access because it benefits everyone. At the same time, we must recognise that disability is diverse and that some individuals will continue to require specific accommodations to participate equally in society.

The objective is not to choose between universal access and reasonable accommodation.
The objective is to maximise accessibility and inclusion while preserving the right to reasonable accommodation.

Universal design reduces barriers.
Reasonable accommodation removes the barriers that remain.
A truly inclusive society needs both.

Written by:

Fanie du Toit
Mentor : Hearing Loss Matters