This summer, the Spirit of the ADA torch relay is touring the United States to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This Olympic-style torch relay kicks off a three-month celebration of a law that has significantly shaped the consciousness and raised the expectations of some 54 million Americans with disabilities.

According to the event's sponsor, the American Association of People with Disabilities, one of the goals of the relay is "reinforcing support for the goals of the ADA by renewing Americans' commitment to equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency for all people with disabilities." (You can go to www.spiritofada.org on the Internet for more information on the celebration.)

Aside from the opportunity to emphasize these laudable values, this celebration can also serve as a reference point against which Americans with disabilities can assess the impact of the ADA and measure the progress of the disability community. It can represent a chance to learn from our history and chart our movement's fu-ture. During its brief, yet much storied existence, the ADA has experienced a rather tumultuous history marked by exhilarating highs and demoralizing lows for the American disability community.

Since it was signed by President Bush on July 26, 1990, the ADA has been touted by political scholars as one of the most influential civil rights laws ever enacted; has been vilified as a symbol of oppressive and irrational governmental bureaucracy; has been credited with assisting close to 1 million Americans with severe disabilities in finding jobs; and most recently, has been deemed unconstitutional by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

These ambiguous and contradictory characterizations of the ADA leave people with disabilities wondering whether the act has begun to fulfill its promise and speculating about its ability to serve as a vehicle for equal access and opportunity for all into the new millennium.

Not All It's Cracked Up to Be?

The history of the ADA is riddled with criticisms by leaders in government and business, and even people with disabilities themselves.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich used the ADA as an example of the burdens to states and American businesses imposed by overregulation by the federal government. His "Contract with America" promised to liberate the nation from stifling "unfunded mandates" like the ADA.

Similarly, in his best-selling book, The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America, Philip Howard cites the ADA as a prime example of how the legal system and government regulations have run amok, replacing common sense with a myriad of often conflicting rules and mandates.

Recent court challenges to the ADA have called into question both the way in which we define disability and the constitutionality of the act.

In Sutton v. United Airlines and Murphy v. United Parcel Service, the Supreme Court ruled that "mitigated measures," such as eyeglasses and heart medication, must be considered when determining whether individuals' disabilities substantially limit major life activities, a criterion for protection under the ADA. These decisions have left people with disabilities caused by neuromuscular diseases to speculate as to whether mitigating measures like independence-fostering power wheelchairs and assistive technology might ironically render them unprotected by the ADA.

Last summer, in the most serious threat to the ADA to date, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit declared the law an unconstitutional violation of states' rights under the 14th Amendment.

For all practical purposes, the Alsbrook decision means that people in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, and Nebraska have lost their right to sue state entities for their failure to cut curbs, equip buses with lifts, provide sign language interpreters and supply other accommodations required by the ADA. While Florida and Arkansas cases that challenged Title II of the ADA have been settled, it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court agrees to hear another such case.

Finally, the most sobering critique of the ADA charges that the law has been largely ineffective in enhancing em-ployment opportunities for Americans with disabilities. Critics point to a persistent 70 percent jobless rate for Americans with disabilities, despite 10 years of ADA equal employment opportunity guarantees.

Dispelling Myths?

Supporters of the ADA offer a decidedly more optimistic view of the law's impact on American life.

President's Committee on Employ-ment of People with Disabilities Chairman Tony Coelho often counters claims that the ADA is a burdensome unfunded mandate with the reminder that no business has ever experienced serious financial problems or bankruptcy as a result of the act. He reminds critics that the ADA specifically states that no public entity or business can be forced to do anything that will result in an undue financial burden.

In response to claims that the ADA has resulted in a crush of litigation and frivolous claims, disability rights leader Justin Dart points out that less than 0.02 percent (one-fiftieth of 1 percent) of ADA-covered entities have actually been sued under the law.

Similarly, Dart counters claims that the ADA imposes rigid, irrational regulations on businesses and communities by maintaining that the ADA is "a model common sense, free enterprise, civil rights law," which gives business owners and community officials protection against unduly burdensome costs and the latitude to devise cost-effective access solutions.

Proponents of the ADA counter the notion that the act has had little impact on employment by pointing to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau revealing improving work force participation trends for people with disabilities during the initial years of the ADA. Specifically, these data indicate a 27 percent increase from 1991 to 1994 in the number of people with severe disabilities who were working - 800,000 more people.

ADA advocates also point to the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., which asserted that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities in institutions may constitute disability-based discrimination, as a major accomplishment of the ADA. The court's ruling that the ADA requires states to provide community-based services, rather than institutional placements, for individuals with disabilities represents a critical victory in the effort to liberate thousands of Americans with disabilities from nursing homes.

An Agent for Cultural Change

However, the most important gains made through the ADA may be ones that are less quantifiable - changes in the consciousness of people with disabilities and in the popular consciousness of American society. Aside from being a landmark civil rights document and a bipartisan, conflict-laden political document, the act is also a quintessentially cultural document.

From its uncompromising statements about equal access and opportunity to its underlying assumptions about the intrinsic validity of Americans with disabilities, the ADA embodies a distinctive, empowered vision of what it means to be a person with a disability.

In this sense, the ADA represents an emerging moral consensus on how we ought to treat and regard people with disabilities, who are increasingly our co-workers, neighbors, lovers, friends and family members.

In its first 10 years, the ADA has raised expectations for Americans with disabilities. It has galvanized the disability rights movement and emboldened us to develop our own disability culture. It has given us the tools to begin to remake American society in our own image and a new language with which to articulate this new vision. 

Chris Rosa of Flushing, N.Y., is a member of MDA's Board of Directors and the Association's National Task Force on Public Awareness. He's director of the Office of Special Services for Students with Disabilities at Queens College of the City University of New York, and serves as chairperson of the Subcommittee on Employee Disability Concerns of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities.