While the principles of universal design resonate with many, it still has its detractors. The authors of this article quote art critic Brian Sewell as saying “Had the disabled of the past been as noisy as the disabled of the present, none of the temples of ancient Greece and Rome would have been built… I am convinced no worthy building of the past should be altered to ease the passage of the rare disabled visitor, nor any of the present be designed specifically to accommodate the wheelchair.” (Sewell, 1997). This view is shared by many who would give precedence to heritage or other design values over inclusion.
Such antagonism for inclusion might stem from high profile examples which are ugly either because of poor design or because they were tacked on as an afterthought. However the authors, Jim Harrison, Kevin Busby, and Linda Horgan, argue there are some design tutors who perpetuate such attitudes and hence influence their students.
This paper provides an interesting and comprehensive discussion on ways in which architecture and design schools can include universal design into their curricula, and how they can work with other professionals such as occupational therapists who can explain the functionality of designs.