The most unfair thing we could possibly do is to treat everyone exactly the same.

Do you agree?

I want to follow up on yesterday’s story about fairness. I recapped a conversation with a guy who definitely disagreed with the opening quote. John believed that allocating a disproportionate share of resources to those with special needs wasn’t “fair.”

Part of John’s objection dealt with a legitimate public policy question—what’s the proper role of government in this sort of issue? It’s a reasonable topic of debate on which people with the best intentions can disagree. So while I differ with his conclusion, I certainly acknowledge the validity of his question.

I also recognize my personal bias. As a guy in a wheelchair, I clearly have a horse in this particular race. I benefit from the ADA and its public accessibility requirements. I’m certain that affects my perspective.

So, with those disclaimers, I believe John is wrong when he equates fairness with treating everyone the same.

Rules.

“Treat everyone exactly alike” is a rule. It’s easy, no thinking or wisdom or discernment required. As long as I follow the rule, I’m off the hook.

Rules and laws always sound good. Most of them begin with good intentions. We see a problem, so we make a rule or pass a law including an appropriate penalty. Problem solved.

Except that the problem’s rarely solved. Most rules spawn cottage industries devoted to stretching boundaries, discovering loopholes, or avoiding detection. NASCAR auto racing drivers have a saying: “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.”

So we create more rules, ramp up enforcement, and impose stiffer fines and tougher sentences. We build more jails and open more courts. And we get more loopholes, more sophisticated evasion tactics.

I’m not a fan of Pollyanna. Society needs laws and law enforcement. I get that. But I know this for certain:

No significant moral problem will ever be solved with rules.

We can scream at each other, demonize each other, and try to force compliance with penalties and sanctions. We can reduce important issues to political slogans and compromise principles to elect those who endorse our particular slogan. We can attack and marginalize those with whom we disagree. And then we can watch as the rhetoric becomes increasingly divisive and hostile.

None of these will ever solve the important issues we face. Substance abuse, sexuality, human trafficking, violence—none of these can be addressed with more rules, because they’re heart issues.

Elections and laws cannot change hearts.

WDJD? (What Did Jesus Do?)

Jesus ignored a brutal, repressive occupation force. Rome imposed oppressive taxes and indiscriminately tortured, imprisoned, and murdered. It seems that Jesus was oblivious to the suffering of His own people. Did He simply not care?

I believe He cared more deeply than we can possibly imagine. I also believe He understood that issues of spirit and heart can only be truly addressed at the spirit and heart level. He knew that the answers to our real problems rest in simple, profound, eternal principles that cannot be reduced to a list of rules.

Jesus tells me to love everyone, unconditionally. Simple to say, awfully difficult to do—I’d prefer something more concrete. Exactly what do I have to do? What are the minimum standards? Tell me the requirements.

And that’s precisely what He refuses to do. I want a list; He offers a relationship. I want the rules; He gives me Himself.

Jesus expressed compassion and forgiveness toward law breakers. He reserved His anger for the law makers. He served and sacrificed Himself for those who had no answers, and condemned the “brood of vipers” who burdened others with layers of regulations.

John and I talked later about his concept of fairness. I told him I appreciated being able to access his facility, but I was sorry that he was compelled to accommodate me. I said it would feel a lot better if the accommodations were a gift freely given.

We had a nice conversation. He was gracious and kind, but I don’t think he changed his views much. I understand.

Laws and rules and threats of punishment may force minimal, grudging conformity, but they also foster resentment and harden hearts.

I don’t think coerced compliance is what Jesus had in mind.

• Did you enjoy this article? Please leave a comment .
• Please use the icons below to share this article.
• Want to receive free updates? You can follow by RSS, or email updates.

You might also like:

Resident Aliens

Here, There, And Stuff That Matters

How Do You Help An Injured Porcupine?

Do you believe in fairness? Do you try to treat everyone equally?

I had a curious conversation recently. Seated over lunch at an event with some men I’d just met, one guy (correctly) observed that the entrance to the building was a challenge for someone in a wheelchair. Another man (I’ll call him John) noted that the owners had done a lot to make their facilities accessible. Then he added an interesting comment.

“I’m not sure they should feel bad about not catering to every possible need. Devoting so many resources to such a small minority isn’t really fair.”

A couple of his friends at the table were clearly embarrassed by his brutal honesty, but I assured them I wasn’t offended. I asked John to explain.

Turns out he operates a small business. He’d recently done some remodeling of his facility, and compliance to ADA standards increased the cost of the project. None of his employees required accommodations and most of his customer contact happened in other locations. He didn’t feel that it was fair to force a private business to accommodate every potential special need.

John may have been a bit blunt, but he had a valid point: why shouldn’t he be allowed to decide whether the potential loss of business justified the additional expense?

At this point his buddies were rolling their eyes and squirming uncomfortably. One apologized. “Don’t mind John—he runs his mouth without engaging his brain.”

I just smiled, more at their discomfort than anything else. They tried to defend me by arguing the merits of the ADA. What if you or one of your employees became disabled? Do you understand how much business and good will you’re potentially losing?

When logic failed, they resorted to emotion: Are you insane for raising this issue with a guy you just met who’s in a wheelchair?

John’s mind clearly wasn’t going to be swayed, and after a few minutes they threw up their hands, apologized again, and left with John in tow.

I’ve thought a lot about John’s position. I don’t wish to defend the ADA or argue for universal accommodations. I’m grateful for them, but I am interested in one particular aspect of John’s argument.

Is it “fair” to allocate a disproportionate share of resources to those with special needs?

What do you think?

For the sake of discussion, set aside legalities and politics and whether or not it’s government’s place to dictate such things. Try to step outside your personal biases and beliefs about whether society as a whole benefits from accommodation and inclusion. Ignore the statistics that might suggest that inclusion benefits more than a “small” minority.

Whether or not it’s right, is it fair to treat people differently?

Why shouldn’t everyone be treated equally? Why should I receive special treatment just because I happen to use a wheelchair?

And, to be clear, John wasn’t advocating any “-ism’s.” Racism, sexism, favoritism. He wasn’t talking about intentionally excluding anyone. He simply raised a valid question about the nature of fairness.

Tomorrow I want to dig into my own response, but first I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Does fairness demand equal treatment, equal standards, equal allocation of resources?

What’s your take?

• Did you enjoy this article? Please leave a comment .
• Please use the icons below to share this article.
• Want to receive free updates? You can follow by RSS, or email updates.

You might also like:

Inclusion And Excuses

Disabled…Really?

Sins Of Righteousness

Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. Benjamin Franklin

It’s a lot easier to assert my rights than to act responsibly.

Earlier this week I described a minor but distasteful incident. I expressed regret for my inappropriate attitude of entitlement regarding a handicapped parking space. I received some interesting feedback.

One reader essentially told me I had no reason to apologize because people shouldn’t use those spaces if they don’t need them. Another said I really did nothing wrong because I kept my anger to myself. I appreciate the support, but I disagree.

Philosopher Immanuel Kant said. “In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.”

Jesus proclaimed the same principle. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” [Matthew 5:27-28]

Attitudes and motives are more significant than legalities. No law requires me to regard others respectfully. In fact, I have the right to think poorly of others and to treat them rudely.

Athletes and coaches scream at officials. Politicians, even the President, are considered legitimate targets for derogatory outbursts. Drivers curse and offer profane gestures for perceived incompetence. Political pundits utter outrageous and inflammatory statements. These and many other verbal assaults are excused because we have the “right” to express ourselves. It’s an attitude of entitlement that begins when rights are asserted without considering corresponding responsibilities.

Perhaps our Bill Of Rights should be accompanied by a Bill Of Responsibilities.

Every individual deserves to be regarded and treated with dignity and respect. When I ignore that principle, which unfortunately happens far too frequently, I hope I’ll acknowledge my personal failure.

I hope I won’t hide behind my right to do what clearly isn’t right.

What would you list in a “Bill Of Responsibilities”?

Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. William Penn

I hope you’ll take a look at my new e-book titled STICKS AND STONES: Finding Freedom In The Face Of Criticism. It’s a free PDF download. You can click the link in the sidebar or go to my resources page to download.

Did you enjoy this article? Please leave a comment, visit my website, and/or send me an email at rich@richdixon.net.

Subscribe to receive updates by Email

Related articles:

An Imitator Of Jesus

Rose Colored Glasses

The Strength To Be Gentle

Criticism vs Feedback

Congress acknowledged that society’s accumulated myths and fears about disability and disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual impairment. William J. Brennan, Jr.

I have a confession: I tend to get possessive and judgmental about disabled parking spaces.

Becky and I visited HOTEL COLORADO for a few days of R&R. This elegant old hotel opened in 1893 and has been modernized without losing its original charm. It’s fun to wander the porches and parlors and imagine the presence of wealthy, turn-of-the-century high society, adventurous dignitaries, and western legends.

Designers did a remarkable job of inconspicuously incorporating modern accessibility elements as they refurbished and updated. It’s a great example of how accessibility doesn’t need to compromise the character and function of a historic building. One challenge with any project like this is parking, especially accessible parking, and this is where I found some of my own attitudes challenged.

We all know that people misuse the reserved parking spaces in a variety of ways. Enforcement mitigates inappropriate use, but these and other accommodations really depend on the goodwill and respect of the vast majority. There will always be a small minority of abusers.

I mostly believe folks don’t understand the issues, and all disabilities are not created equal. Some people simply have difficulty walking more than a few feet, so they need to park as close as possible. In my case, I’d gladly push the extra distance from a normal space if there was room to load and unload my chair.

This weekend I found myself becoming angry as a large group emerged from an SUV that had just taken the last empty space. Everyone walked, no one seemed to be limping or struggling in any way. They filed happily through the hotel door while I seethed and muttered some rather un-Christian remarks. I waited for nearly fifteen minutes until someone, also walking with no visible impairment, vacated a space. Both vehicles displayed permits which I was certain had been acquired through an elaborate criminal conspiracy.

When I finally reached my room, I opened my email and read a description of Invisible Illness Week. As I looked through the information, I realized that my uncharitable grumbling revealed a terribly short-sighted bias. I was reminded that many people suffer from invisible illnesses and have needs that aren’t readily apparent.

I’m ashamed of my ungracious attitude. Of all people, I ought to know better, and I guess this just reaffirms that we all have our unique blind spots. Most visitors wouldn’t have even noticed those parked vehicles, but I’ve apparently developed a feeling of entitlement toward those spaces marked by the little blue guy in the chair. I’m not proud of that.

I try to focus on my ability rather than my disability. I’m grateful that I’m able to negotiate most situations pretty well, unlike those with less obvious but more disabling conditions. It’s a good reminder to avoid hasty judgments based on outward appearance.

What’s your reaction?

Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all—the apathy of human beings. Helen Keller

I hope you’ll take a look at my new e-book titled STICKS AND STONES: Finding Freedom In The Face Of Criticism. It’s a free PDF download. You can click the link in the sidebar or go to my resources page to download.

Did you enjoy this article? Please leave a comment, visit my website, and/or send me an email at rich@richdixon.net.

Subscribe to receive updates by Email

Related articles:

An Imitator Of Jesus

Rose Colored Glasses

The Strength To Be Gentle

Criticism vs Feedback

 An ethical person ought to do more than he’s required to do and less than he’s allowed to do.

You can’t mandate morality.

Call it what you want—morality, ethics, or character can’t be codified. Laws, rules, and regulations are always lowest common denominators. Attempts to legislate moral behavior simply create a cottage industry aimed at finding loopholes or avoiding detection.

I think that’s one of our biggest dilemmas as a society. We seem to believe that “legal” equals “ethical” and debate endlessly the government’s proper role in determining “right” behavior. But it’s simply a fact that the best laws can do is determine minimum standards, and those can never be the same as proper ethics.

As a wheelchair user, I see this principle constantly in the public access requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). People use reserved parking spaces “legally” because they have someone else’s permit. Ramps or doors meet ADA requirements but are difficult to access because or location. Accessible seats at a ballpark are more desirable because they have a bit more legroom.

This isn’t intended as a complaint. I appreciate the ADA both for access requirements and for the awareness it’s created. The ADA is really a legal acknowledgment of society’s collective belief that everyone should be able to contribute to, and participate in, public activities.

But the ADA, like any law, can’t change the hearts of those who seek ways to circumvent its spirit. Morality isn’t concerned much with what I’m allowed to do, because it’s about doing what I know I ought to do. Ethics isn’t about my rights; it’s about what’s right.

Ethical questions are difficult, because they arise in the grey areas that can’t be legislated. Some would argue that right and wrong are relative, but I disagree. Just because a concept can’t be neatly wrapped in words with no ambiguities or gaps doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent or irrelevant.

I believe that absolute truth and right exist. I also believe that the best I can do is a closer approximation of behaviors that align with what’s right. My goals are to proclaim truth and do right as I understand them and to always seek deeper, better understanding.

Tomorrow I’ll talk about my filter for ethical choices.

What’s your take on ethics, morals, and laws?

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Martin Luther King, Jr. 

I hope you’ll take a look at my new e-book titled STICKS AND STONES: Finding Freedom In The Face Of Criticism. It’s a free PDF download. You can click the link in the sidebar or go to my resources page to download.

Did you enjoy this article? Please leave a comment, visit my website, and/or send me an email at rich@richdixon.net.

Subscribe to receive updates by Email

Related articles:

Where Aren’t You Trying To Go?

The Strength To Be Gentle

Criticism vs Feedback