As two top liberal arts colleges, Vassar and Hamilton share the experience of a large application pool. However, as both schools make claims of inclusivity, equity, and accessibility, the campuses both boast historical buildings which were grandfathered into ADA accessibility compliance guidelines. Throughout this project, we will explore the past, present, and future of compliance at our respective campuses. To stay consistent with social justice, we will navigate the environmental implications of additional buildings on campus and the accessibility of each campus.
This topic was largely inspired by a recent event from a previous Hamilton student, Basil Brown’s negative experiences with accessibility at both a social and infrastructural level. While many students advocate for accessibility on campus, it is uncommon for firsthand reflection to be shared, as the vast majority of students are able bodies and generally equipped with enough resources in their home life to supplement what the campus does not. The same sentiment lies within Vassar, with buildings constructed decades, even a century or two before the signing of the ADA. Yet Vassar’s student body shares similar traits with Hamilton’s, in that the majority has no use for accessible campus buildings, up until the point that they are injured, that is. With these similar campus student bodies, there exists a commonality of inaccessibility between these campuses, one which must be studied for their similarities, but also their differences.
Using our knowledge as members of the campus communities, we acknowledge both that Hamilton College and Vassar College are largely inaccessible. In Hamilton’s case, this goes to the extent in which prospective students with mobility limitations repeatedly require golf carts to complete tours, whilst injured students require campus security to attend classes. Inaccessibility is emphasized when the only ADA compliant residence hall is down a hill that most able-bodied students struggle to climb. Being in community with individuals requiring accommodations, numerous students at Hamilton have requested to be removed from the meal plan or given specialized housing to provide food for themselves and much of the needs that supporting students with learning disabilities entails is supplemented by work-study labor, risking low-quality or unhelpful results. Similarly, Vassar students in this group have shared observations of inaccessibility as a result of grandfathering. While buildings are known to be more accessible comparatively, there is still much work to be done in providing easier access for buildings with those that are less able bodied. Thus brings our goal to clarify the reasons for the two colleges’ inaccessibility.
We will be comparing Hamilton and Vassar using resources from the respective schools such as maps and written documents. We will also be utilizing experts to assist us in finding more data with our project, such as through research librarians of the two college libraries. Regarding software, we plan to use Voyant for textual analysis in order to visualize trends within the literature we’ve cobbled together. As part of our final presentation efforts, we hope to use ArcGIS to create a visual representation of accessibility on each campus. However, if this can be expressed just as well with another medium, we’ll avoid using this software. Within this group, while all four members will assist with writing the final project, each of us are specialized in different facets of this project. Julia is primarily responsible for organization and textual analysis of our literature. Adina will be able to contact outside sources in order to gather more data. Finley will be able to tackle the data collection and eventual cleaning. And finally, Alex can handle the coding and technical aspects of this project, along with editing the final presentation.
