Retrospective: The Section 504 Sit-in

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation act of 1973 in the US was a landmark victory for the rights of people with disabilities, which was meant to prevent discrimination against the disabled, at least by institutions receiving Federal funding, and would become the precursor to the modern American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The text of Section 504 began as follows:

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705 (20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.

Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973

It was a modest step forward, which should nevertheless have rejoiced disabled people across the country. Instead, it proved to be a hollow victory, since by 1977 Section 504 had yet to be implemented, due to what could only be construed as obstructionism; the ultimate slap in the face was when Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) Joseph Califano set up a task force to “study” the implementation of Section 504, which did not feature anyone with a disability. It’s like a committee on women’s rights without women, or on aboriginal rights without aboriginals.

So disabled people decided to organise mass protests across the country. Of particular significance was the sit-in that took place in a federal building in San Francisco starting April 5th until Califano stopped procrastinating and signed the regulations on April 27th. This is how it unfolded:

Of course you could just use your imagination: try to picture in your mind cramming about 150 literal cripples and other disabled protesters occupying a building not meant to be accessible by them to begin with, and having them stay 22 days with scarce access to sanitation and arguably even supplies, besieged by law enforcement pondering its next move with utmost circumspection while itself beset by supporters and journalists, and that’s roughly how it unfolded. And yet the protesters were dead set on staying until Section 504 was signed and implemented. Of course that worked both ways: HEW Secretary Joseph Califano was himself besieged during the whole time, and his stalling tactics quickly wore off.

A news announcer would immortalise the standoff as follows:

They’re tired. They’re grubby. They’re uncomfortable. But their spirits are soaring.

The brilliant aspect of this strategy was precisely that the protesters were cripples, which made the prospect of removing them by force particularly complicated and perilous (the building’s inaccessibility worked both ways, after all), while buying them considerable sympathy capital. Another aspect that was crucial in the sit-in’s success was all the outside support, including logistics implemented by political and charitable organisations, and of course the considerable media coverage which would put intolerable pressure on the federal government. These factors are not to be underestimated: History shows hardly any protest can succeed without logistical support and visibility.

The morale of the story is that even cripples can stand up to the government and win, if they have a cause, a plan, support, and some backbone. Civil rights aren’t given to people by the government, but wrestled away from it.

Join Regime Change in BC on Facebook. And please read about civil disobedience before you do.