Accommodating
If there’s one word that describes the overall attitude of Americans, I think it might be: accommodating. Throughout our history, citizens of the U.S. have earned a reputation for being willing to help other people or, at the very least, allowing others to do what they want… not getting in the way. We generally oblige others, adapting to the wishes of others and “getting along”. Live and let live.
Giving others extra latitude or just being considerate is usually a two-way street… we treat each other equally… making allowances and enjoying the same from our neighbors. This mutual respect makes for strong communities.
But sometimes, a person or group will come to take such accommodations for granted. A courtesy extended becomes a privilege expected. And one party begins to feel imposed upon… and, while they may continue to bear it, teeth become gritted and it’s only a matter of time before emotions will burst forth.
There’s some truth to the saying: no good deed goes unpunished.
So, over time, as individuals and as a nation, WE have been accommodating. Our sense of fairness and equality leads us to bend over backwards to accommodate others. At times, though, the head of the camel under the tent evolves into an unwelcome camel IN the tent.
While we are often quick to indulge others, we are slow to reverse ourselves later when we realize the pendulum has swung too far.
There are MANY examples to point at, but here is a minor recent one reported in USA Today… we’ll have to see how it plays out:
“Arthur Firstenberg wants the city of Santa Fe, N.M., to ban wireless Internet signals in public buildings on the grounds that he and his associates are allergic to the radio waves.”
“Firstenberg and dozens of “other electro-sensitive people” are arguing that the city’s proposal to establish WiFi hotspots in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
Let me first state that I have no idea if this person or others are indeed affected by wi-fi… that could well be the case. But, if it IS true, people who suffer such a condition have to be in a very small, tiny, miniscule minority. While I “feel” for such people and certainly wouldn’t want to impose further harm on them, it begs the question:
At what point should the majority stop accommodating the minority?
Rationality dictates that society cannot accommodate EVERY need since there will inevitably be CONFLICTING NEEDS. Reality indicates it would be impossible to insulate our public places from things harmful to ANYONE.
Yet, here we have an established law, the ADA, being used as a platform for expanding its scope. To be sure, the original intent of the law was laudable… if public bathrooms could almost as easily be built to accommodate people in wheelchairs, for example, it certainly makes sense to do so… and was the right thing to do. Fine.
But that put a law on the books… and laws, like taxes, seem to naturally want to grow bigger. Someone (anyone!) with a complaint can point to the legal precedent and attempt to gain further concessions. Sometimes, not wanting to fight the battle or being truly sympathetic, administrators will decide on their own to be accommodating (establishing another precedent in practice, though not in law). Other times, judges will rule on the law and, even if the activity was not explicitly included in the original law, interpret the law to include it, resulting in an even broader legal precedent.
Not that I’m comparing the two activities… I’m focusing on the attitude… but there comes a point where, like the drug advertisements recommend, we should “just say no”.
