For months I heard the incoming Obama administration describe the forthcoming inaugural as the most accessible in US presidential history. In the last week I heard a very different story about the inaugural emerge. Millions of people are expected to attend, the weather is projected to be cold, and security overwhelming. Bridges will be shut down, cars banned in a two mile radius of the Capital, elevators will be shut off, and mass transportation at crush capacity. The Presidential Inaugural Committee has not minced words: people with disabilities, the elderly, and small children will encounter numerous and overwhelming obstacles. According to Carole Florman, who I have sarcastically dubbed Ms. Sensitivity, the inaugural committee is "trying to paint a realistic picture". My fellow blogger Steve Kuusisto at Planet of the Blind has translated this statement into plane english:if you are disabled or elderly do not come to the inaugural. Yes, we get the message.
None of the above differs from what I have already written. Two things have changed: first, a few media outlets are picking up on this story. The Associated Press published a story today that contained a statement from the Presidential Inaugural Committee that is not just wrong but grossly misleading. No, Ms. Sensitivity did not put her foot in her mouth again. This time it was Kevin Griffis, a fellow committee member who stated "At every event that the Obama campaign did during the election, we wanted to be sure to be welcoming to Americans with disabilities, so this is not something new for us. I think just the scale is larger". This statement brings me to my second point. Mr. Griffis statement about access is as absurd as it is false. Multiple campaign events were not accessible. I know because I tried to attend several in the metropolitan area and they were not accessible. Other disabled people had the same problem. When I contact the the Obama campaign I was told access was not their responsibility and now the very same people are trying to tell me that insuring events are accessible is nothing new?
The lack of access at the inauguration is disheartening. Obama was swept into office promising change and his message was embraced by people with disabilities. Having a president that understands disability has energized many, myself included. Perhaps this is why I am so upset, campaign events were not accessible and now the inauguration presents identical access issues. This sort of disconnect is not uncommon. Large corporations often boast about access and use disabled people as part of their advertising campaigns. Yet, when a person with a disability appears nothing is easy and barriers are common place. For instance, Avis rent-a-car had an ad campaign that featured a disabled business man renting a vehicle who was all smiles. This was great advertising but the problem was it was divorced from my experience. When I made reservations with Avis the car with hand controls was rarely ready when I arrived. As I waited for my car I watched dozens of people leave and I assure you I was not smiling. I was just pissed off.
There is still time for the inauguration to be made accessible and inclusive. However, time is growing short. I am sure many people with disabilities will try to attend and I wish them luck. Organizers have included accessible bleachers and raised platforms at the National Mall. I just hope people with disabilities can get to these locations. If not I am reminded of my days at Columbia University where I earned my PhD. When I was a graduate student the Office for Students with Disabilities was in a building that was completely inaccessible. When I expressed my dismay to the administration they thought the lack of access was a technical problem, one that highlighted the barriers on campus. I hope the Obama administration does not use the same thought process.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Jerry Lewis Protest Links
Jerry Lewis continues to draw the ire of disability rights activists.
Below are three links of interest Andrea Shettle have directed my attention to.
First, there is an online petition I urge readers to sign. Here is the link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/jlno2009/petition.html
Second, there is a a Facebook Group dedicated to the Jerry Lewis campaign. Here is the link:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4053839
Third, Andrea writes that she has "blogged about the petition, along with a discussion on the difference between "pity" and "empathy,"; why Jerry's brand of pity destroys; and why real empathy is more likely to lead to human rights:
http://reunifygally.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/protest-pity/
Below are three links of interest Andrea Shettle have directed my attention to.
First, there is an online petition I urge readers to sign. Here is the link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/jlno2009/petition.html
Second, there is a a Facebook Group dedicated to the Jerry Lewis campaign. Here is the link:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4053839
Third, Andrea writes that she has "blogged about the petition, along with a discussion on the difference between "pity" and "empathy,"; why Jerry's brand of pity destroys; and why real empathy is more likely to lead to human rights:
http://reunifygally.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/protest-pity/
Monday, January 12, 2009
Carole Florman: Ms. Sensitivity?
I forgot to add one quote to my post today. Carole Florman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies has stated she is "very concerned" about access for people with disabilities. According to Florman she hopes people with "special needs" such as the disabled, elderly and children take seriously the potential for enormous crowds and dreadful weather. She also thinks that:
"Some people may be better off trying to watch it [the inauguration] on TV".
Gee, thanks Ms. Florman. Now I know that not only were there circumstances beyond your control that prevent people with disabilities from attending the inauguration but you were also worried about our well being and safety. We disabled people are ever so fragile and dependent upon the kindness of others. This sort of antiquated thinking was used to prevent disabled children from attending public school (they were a fire hazard) or flying on commercial jets (they were a flight safety risk). The year is 2009 not 1959.
The fact is Obama is rapidly developing a reputation for holding events that are not accessible. He did this during the campaign and now in an event that is supposedly the most accessible inauguration in history his staff is telling people with disabilities they should watch the inauguration at home on TV.
"Some people may be better off trying to watch it [the inauguration] on TV".
Gee, thanks Ms. Florman. Now I know that not only were there circumstances beyond your control that prevent people with disabilities from attending the inauguration but you were also worried about our well being and safety. We disabled people are ever so fragile and dependent upon the kindness of others. This sort of antiquated thinking was used to prevent disabled children from attending public school (they were a fire hazard) or flying on commercial jets (they were a flight safety risk). The year is 2009 not 1959.
The fact is Obama is rapidly developing a reputation for holding events that are not accessible. He did this during the campaign and now in an event that is supposedly the most accessible inauguration in history his staff is telling people with disabilities they should watch the inauguration at home on TV.
Obama: A Party Pooper
At the end of the year major news outlets reported that the presidential inauguration would present significant and most likely impossible barriers for people with disabilities. According to the Joint Congressional Committee on the Inaugural Ceremonies that is responsible for the logistical details, the drop off points for people with disabilities who want to attend the inaugural will be located many blocks away (parking near the Capital is restricted). The Joint Congressional Committee on the Inaugural Ceremonies website notes that "traffic conditions and restrictions may make reaching these drop-off locations extremely difficult". For those intrepid and fearless people with disabilities that make it near the Capital designated areas for them will be "limited in size and available on a first come first served basis". As for mass transportation, the WMTA has warned people with disabilities that they expect to be operating at "crush capacity". In other words, there is no mass transportation for people with disabilities.
When I read about the lack of access at the upcoming inauguration I yawned, shrugged my shoulders, and thought what else is new. Last year I tried to attend Obama campaign events and quickly learned wheelchair access was not a priority. When I contacted the local Obama campaign office I was told wheelchair access was beyond their control--it was not their job. The campaign directed me to contact the facility where the event was held to determine if it were indeed accessible. After much research and a great deal of time spent on hold I never was able to find out about wheelchair access for any event. The few people I spoke to stated that they would get back to me about access. No one ever contacted me and subsequent emails went unanswered. By the time the campaign ended I was convinced that Obama and his staff wrote great position and policy papers about disability. In theory, Obama understood disability. In contrast, providing physical access for people with disabilities was not a priority or concern. In this regard, the Obama campaign failed miserably.
My indifference to the news that the inauguration will not be accessible is embarrassing. What kind of bad cripple and disability rights activist am I? This thought came to me after reading the following:
Wheelie Catholic:
I've learned that people with disabilities are still struggling to be included in public events, to be a part of, to have access and achieve the simple act of being able to show up. I hope many people have the chance to be a part of the upcoming inaugural events. And I pray that future generations of people with disabilities will have a better chance to attend the inauguration. Because what I'll remember from this inauguration is how exclusion because of lack of access and inadequate transportation results in so many people with disabilities not being able to stand by and witness events.
Planet of the Blind:
How and when will disability accommodations go from being a clumsy "add on" to a "built from the ground up" concern? Will, as some now say, the aging of the baby boomers bring this about? Will a new generation of war veterans help the disability rights community and their veteran elders to keep the pressure on? Surely these things are true. But the "truer" thing is that our nation's universities must be teaching courses in disability studies and thereby introducing our next generation of planners and movers and shakers to the issues of universal design and best practices for making people friendly public spaces.
How can the organizers of the inauguration justify the exclusion of people with disabilities? According to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the the organizing committee "We can't do anything about traffic, we can't bring people closer for drop-off than the security perimeter will allow, we can't do anything about the fact that the city is closing bridges". Wow, that is a long list of things that can't be done.
I am not dismissing security concerns nor the fact it is difficult to predict how many people will decide to appear. What I do question is the degree to which the presence of people with disabilities is desired and valued. In a city full of people with power I have no doubt their wishes will be met. VIPS rule, cripples do not. And this is part of the problem--people with disabilities are not in positions of power, they are not among the Washington elite. Thus people like Carole Florman think they have done their best to include access for people with disabilities. This is patently false. Richard Simms, executive director of the D.C. Center for independent living has pointed out that the exclusion of people with disabilities is "like a big bold sign that says that if you're a person with a disability, this is not your event". So much for Obama's platform of change--what I see is a decades old pattern of exclusion.
Barriers, physical and social, can be overcome if there is the will desire, and most importantly, demand for inclusion. There is no demand for the inclusion of people with disabilities. Access is never a top priority. It is as Steve Kuusito at the Planet of the Blind notes an add on that is considered after an event has been planned or a building constructed. In his estimation the lack of access is already "built in" the system. The social justification for excluding people with disabilities is ingrained in the structure of America society. Like many other people with disabilities I am sick and tired of excuses and apologies. Solutions to access exist and have existed for a long time. The ADA is almost 20 years old for goodness sake! Obama has the power to make the inauguration accessible to all but has chosen not to yield that power. This is a very bad sign for a man that swept into office with a vision of change, one that obviously does not include people with disabilities.
When I read about the lack of access at the upcoming inauguration I yawned, shrugged my shoulders, and thought what else is new. Last year I tried to attend Obama campaign events and quickly learned wheelchair access was not a priority. When I contacted the local Obama campaign office I was told wheelchair access was beyond their control--it was not their job. The campaign directed me to contact the facility where the event was held to determine if it were indeed accessible. After much research and a great deal of time spent on hold I never was able to find out about wheelchair access for any event. The few people I spoke to stated that they would get back to me about access. No one ever contacted me and subsequent emails went unanswered. By the time the campaign ended I was convinced that Obama and his staff wrote great position and policy papers about disability. In theory, Obama understood disability. In contrast, providing physical access for people with disabilities was not a priority or concern. In this regard, the Obama campaign failed miserably.
My indifference to the news that the inauguration will not be accessible is embarrassing. What kind of bad cripple and disability rights activist am I? This thought came to me after reading the following:
Wheelie Catholic:
I've learned that people with disabilities are still struggling to be included in public events, to be a part of, to have access and achieve the simple act of being able to show up. I hope many people have the chance to be a part of the upcoming inaugural events. And I pray that future generations of people with disabilities will have a better chance to attend the inauguration. Because what I'll remember from this inauguration is how exclusion because of lack of access and inadequate transportation results in so many people with disabilities not being able to stand by and witness events.
Planet of the Blind:
How and when will disability accommodations go from being a clumsy "add on" to a "built from the ground up" concern? Will, as some now say, the aging of the baby boomers bring this about? Will a new generation of war veterans help the disability rights community and their veteran elders to keep the pressure on? Surely these things are true. But the "truer" thing is that our nation's universities must be teaching courses in disability studies and thereby introducing our next generation of planners and movers and shakers to the issues of universal design and best practices for making people friendly public spaces.
How can the organizers of the inauguration justify the exclusion of people with disabilities? According to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the the organizing committee "We can't do anything about traffic, we can't bring people closer for drop-off than the security perimeter will allow, we can't do anything about the fact that the city is closing bridges". Wow, that is a long list of things that can't be done.
I am not dismissing security concerns nor the fact it is difficult to predict how many people will decide to appear. What I do question is the degree to which the presence of people with disabilities is desired and valued. In a city full of people with power I have no doubt their wishes will be met. VIPS rule, cripples do not. And this is part of the problem--people with disabilities are not in positions of power, they are not among the Washington elite. Thus people like Carole Florman think they have done their best to include access for people with disabilities. This is patently false. Richard Simms, executive director of the D.C. Center for independent living has pointed out that the exclusion of people with disabilities is "like a big bold sign that says that if you're a person with a disability, this is not your event". So much for Obama's platform of change--what I see is a decades old pattern of exclusion.
Barriers, physical and social, can be overcome if there is the will desire, and most importantly, demand for inclusion. There is no demand for the inclusion of people with disabilities. Access is never a top priority. It is as Steve Kuusito at the Planet of the Blind notes an add on that is considered after an event has been planned or a building constructed. In his estimation the lack of access is already "built in" the system. The social justification for excluding people with disabilities is ingrained in the structure of America society. Like many other people with disabilities I am sick and tired of excuses and apologies. Solutions to access exist and have existed for a long time. The ADA is almost 20 years old for goodness sake! Obama has the power to make the inauguration accessible to all but has chosen not to yield that power. This is a very bad sign for a man that swept into office with a vision of change, one that obviously does not include people with disabilities.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Dignitas Under Investigation
Not Dead Yet noted that British and Swiss newspaper are reporting that Dignitas, the assisted suicide clinic where Daniel James and almost 1,000 other people ended their life, is under investigation. According to the Swiss newspaper Blick the man in charge of Dignitas, Ludwig Minelli, financial affairs are under investigation. Mr. Minelli has apparently failed or refused to provide investigators with financial documents requested. Newspapers report that Swiss authorities are concerned Mr. Minelli may be profiting from those that have sought assisted suicide at the clinic Dignitas. Some sensational reports claim that one British woman supposedly paid ten times the normal fee to end her life.
This is not the first time Dignitas and Mr. Minelli have generated scandalous headlines. In 2008 Dignitas was evicted from a Zurich flat it owned. Residents complained about bodies being taken out in the elevator and hearses parked outside the building. Another avenue of investigation involved membership in Dignitas. Apparently any person that seeks assisted suicide must become a member of Dignitas. Exactly what membership entails and what it costs is unknown. According to Juerg Vollenweider, state prosecutor in Zurich, authorities do not know what Dignitas does with the money it is paid. Regardless of one's views on assisted suicide, profiting from the death of another human being is morally repugnant and illegal. If Mr. Minelli is profiteering from assisted suicides arranged by Dignitas he should be prosecuted under Swiss law.
This is not the first time Dignitas and Mr. Minelli have generated scandalous headlines. In 2008 Dignitas was evicted from a Zurich flat it owned. Residents complained about bodies being taken out in the elevator and hearses parked outside the building. Another avenue of investigation involved membership in Dignitas. Apparently any person that seeks assisted suicide must become a member of Dignitas. Exactly what membership entails and what it costs is unknown. According to Juerg Vollenweider, state prosecutor in Zurich, authorities do not know what Dignitas does with the money it is paid. Regardless of one's views on assisted suicide, profiting from the death of another human being is morally repugnant and illegal. If Mr. Minelli is profiteering from assisted suicides arranged by Dignitas he should be prosecuted under Swiss law.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Another One Bites the Dust
I never cease to be surprised by curb cuts that line the side walks of American cities and towns. Two things in this regard mystify me. First, why do curb cuts exist at one end of the street but not the other. This creates a side walk to no where, a conclusion that is easy to reach. Second, in parking lots across the country curb cuts are routinely placed in distant if not bizarre locations. Handicap parking is located in one part of a parking lot and the curb cut in another area. People that use a wheelchair know all too well that the problem I am describing is not only aggravating but dangerous. Parking lots and roadways, the gutter in particular, are not places I want to traverse in my wheelchair. Yet I often must push my wheelchair along the gutter and across parking lots to get to where I want to be.
Readers unfamiliar with wheelchair access might think my comments are an exaggeration. I assure you they are not. In the last month two people that use a wheelchair have been killed. Their stories and death were not widely discussed or deemed all that news worthy. The two deaths I am referring to appeared in Newsday, a New York tabloid, shortly before Christmas and in a local Fayetteville paper this week. The people killed were Amelia Shean and Ranford Beckford. Both people used an electric wheelchair and died in the street gutter. What were they doing in the gutter? In Mr. Beckford's case that has not been disclosed, perhaps because he was allegedly killed by Laura Dean who was apparently drunk. Ms. Shean was killed because she was not eligible for paratransit and the bus stop nearest her home was relocated. Ms. Shean's daughter thinks her mother was killed on her way to the grocery store.
The above two deaths are far from unusual. They are as common as my use of road side gutters. Another all too common variable are dehumanizing headlines: "Wheelchair Crash", "Wheelchair Man Killed in Hit and Run", and "Wheelchair Struck and Killed". This is perfect filler and often relegated to newspaper page B 19. On a slow news day a photograph of a battered wheelchair will be published. What is rarely if ever reported is why the person, the human using a wheelchair, was using a roadside gutter. These deaths are unnecessary and bring to mind far too many close calls I have had navigating streets, parking lots, airports, and service stations. The danger is very real, the consequences deadly. Those unfamiliar with using a wheelchair simply do not care or do not appreciate the dangers involved. For example, to enter my son's elementary school a single curb cut exists. When my son was in elementary school this curb cut was regularly blocked by parked cars and buses even though it was well marked "No Parking". When a vehicle was in front of this curb cut it was impossible for a person using a wheelchair to get to the entrance. I was often stuck waiting in the parking lot and asked more than one stranger to enter the building for me and ask the principal to make an announcement that a car with the following license plate number was blocking the entrance. In the five years my son attended elementary school I would guess this happened twice a month. When I suggested to the principal that this was not acceptable and that a second curb be created I was stunned by her reply. She told me that "I do not mind making the announcement to have someone move their car". She went on to state that in her estimation the curb was well marked and that a secondary curb cut would be an "eyesore". The most disturbing aspect the principal's reply was that it was exactly what I expected her to say. The point I am trying to stress is twofold: first, people that use a wheelchair are grossly underrepresented when issues of access are discussed and decided. What may appear to be a "reasonable accommodation" to people that do not use a wheelchair is in fact quite unreasonable. People like the principal of my son's school, an educator no less, simply don't get it. Second, the lack of wheelchair access in particular and disability rights in general indicate the presence of people with disabilities remains out of the ordinary. This is a big problem because too few think about why people with disabilities are not present and active in the workplace, school system or use the mass transportation system on a regular basis. Disabled people are not present because they remain the most disenfranchised minority group in the country in spite of the fact they were granted equality when the Americans with Disability Act was passed almost twenty years ago. In short, those pesky curb cuts described by the principal of my son's school as an "eye sore" are the symbolic representation of a much larger civil rights issue--the equality denied people with a disability.
Readers unfamiliar with wheelchair access might think my comments are an exaggeration. I assure you they are not. In the last month two people that use a wheelchair have been killed. Their stories and death were not widely discussed or deemed all that news worthy. The two deaths I am referring to appeared in Newsday, a New York tabloid, shortly before Christmas and in a local Fayetteville paper this week. The people killed were Amelia Shean and Ranford Beckford. Both people used an electric wheelchair and died in the street gutter. What were they doing in the gutter? In Mr. Beckford's case that has not been disclosed, perhaps because he was allegedly killed by Laura Dean who was apparently drunk. Ms. Shean was killed because she was not eligible for paratransit and the bus stop nearest her home was relocated. Ms. Shean's daughter thinks her mother was killed on her way to the grocery store.
The above two deaths are far from unusual. They are as common as my use of road side gutters. Another all too common variable are dehumanizing headlines: "Wheelchair Crash", "Wheelchair Man Killed in Hit and Run", and "Wheelchair Struck and Killed". This is perfect filler and often relegated to newspaper page B 19. On a slow news day a photograph of a battered wheelchair will be published. What is rarely if ever reported is why the person, the human using a wheelchair, was using a roadside gutter. These deaths are unnecessary and bring to mind far too many close calls I have had navigating streets, parking lots, airports, and service stations. The danger is very real, the consequences deadly. Those unfamiliar with using a wheelchair simply do not care or do not appreciate the dangers involved. For example, to enter my son's elementary school a single curb cut exists. When my son was in elementary school this curb cut was regularly blocked by parked cars and buses even though it was well marked "No Parking". When a vehicle was in front of this curb cut it was impossible for a person using a wheelchair to get to the entrance. I was often stuck waiting in the parking lot and asked more than one stranger to enter the building for me and ask the principal to make an announcement that a car with the following license plate number was blocking the entrance. In the five years my son attended elementary school I would guess this happened twice a month. When I suggested to the principal that this was not acceptable and that a second curb be created I was stunned by her reply. She told me that "I do not mind making the announcement to have someone move their car". She went on to state that in her estimation the curb was well marked and that a secondary curb cut would be an "eyesore". The most disturbing aspect the principal's reply was that it was exactly what I expected her to say. The point I am trying to stress is twofold: first, people that use a wheelchair are grossly underrepresented when issues of access are discussed and decided. What may appear to be a "reasonable accommodation" to people that do not use a wheelchair is in fact quite unreasonable. People like the principal of my son's school, an educator no less, simply don't get it. Second, the lack of wheelchair access in particular and disability rights in general indicate the presence of people with disabilities remains out of the ordinary. This is a big problem because too few think about why people with disabilities are not present and active in the workplace, school system or use the mass transportation system on a regular basis. Disabled people are not present because they remain the most disenfranchised minority group in the country in spite of the fact they were granted equality when the Americans with Disability Act was passed almost twenty years ago. In short, those pesky curb cuts described by the principal of my son's school as an "eye sore" are the symbolic representation of a much larger civil rights issue--the equality denied people with a disability.
Disability, Writing Style and the New York Times
The New York Times is the one newspaper I read regularly. I absolutely love and hate the NYT at the same time. The NYT is a paper of extremes in terms of disability. As many familiar with disability rights know, the Sunday Magazine section thrust Harriet McBryde Johnson's debate with Peter Singer into the national spot light. In contrast, readers of this blog know I have severely critiqued NYT articles for publishing sloppy and simply terrible articles about disability. In fact I would characterize most articles that the NYT publishes that touch upon disability related subjects as uniformly bad (the sports, dining, and health sections are consistently terrible).
Given the above I am not sure how to react to Philip B. Corbett contribution on January 6 "Language and Disabilities". Corbett is the deputy news editor who overseas the New York Times style manual and the short essay in question is part of Times Topics, After Deadline. In Mr. Corbett's opinion "we should take extra care in references to people with disabilities". He writes that the "difference between 'the disabled' and 'disabled people' (or 'people with disabilities') is subtle but significant". In addition, "some advocates, in fact, object to any phrase that refers to the disability before the person". Corbett opines that using the word disability in this manner is not always "feasible" for writers in the NYT because it is too wordy or simply awkward. He concludes that "a person with a disability is a person, first of all, with many characteristics beyond the disability".
Golly, I feel so much better. Thanks Mr. Corbett for acknowledging my humanity and the fact I have many character traits beyond my disability. My mother be will thrilled to know that I am more than my disability. Of course, as an "advocate" for people with disabilities one must "take extra care" when near me. We people with disabilities are ever so sensitive.
Sarcasm aside, I appreciate Mr. Corbett's effort and wish him well. I hope all reporters that write for the NYT take his comments to heart--it can only help. But what I want to know is why it took so long for the NYT to acknowledge the humanity of people with disabilities? The ADA was passed almost two decades ago and people with disabilities have fought long and hard to become part of the fabric of life in American society. Do not misunderstand the point I am trying to make: the stylistic change Mr. Corbett suggests is important yet it is one that should have been made long ago. Thus the fact Mr. Corbett and the NYT have just realized the importance of the language associated with the word disability is troubling. Unfortunately Mr. Corbett and the NYT have a lot of company. Few Americans know that the ADA is civil rights legislation, disability rights groups like ADAPT are active, and that the unemployment rate among people with disabilities is almost 70% Hopefully Mr. Corbett's contribution will herald a real change in the way the NYT handles disability related matters. I doubt this will happen but at least one person at the NYT is on the ball.
Given the above I am not sure how to react to Philip B. Corbett contribution on January 6 "Language and Disabilities". Corbett is the deputy news editor who overseas the New York Times style manual and the short essay in question is part of Times Topics, After Deadline. In Mr. Corbett's opinion "we should take extra care in references to people with disabilities". He writes that the "difference between 'the disabled' and 'disabled people' (or 'people with disabilities') is subtle but significant". In addition, "some advocates, in fact, object to any phrase that refers to the disability before the person". Corbett opines that using the word disability in this manner is not always "feasible" for writers in the NYT because it is too wordy or simply awkward. He concludes that "a person with a disability is a person, first of all, with many characteristics beyond the disability".
Golly, I feel so much better. Thanks Mr. Corbett for acknowledging my humanity and the fact I have many character traits beyond my disability. My mother be will thrilled to know that I am more than my disability. Of course, as an "advocate" for people with disabilities one must "take extra care" when near me. We people with disabilities are ever so sensitive.
Sarcasm aside, I appreciate Mr. Corbett's effort and wish him well. I hope all reporters that write for the NYT take his comments to heart--it can only help. But what I want to know is why it took so long for the NYT to acknowledge the humanity of people with disabilities? The ADA was passed almost two decades ago and people with disabilities have fought long and hard to become part of the fabric of life in American society. Do not misunderstand the point I am trying to make: the stylistic change Mr. Corbett suggests is important yet it is one that should have been made long ago. Thus the fact Mr. Corbett and the NYT have just realized the importance of the language associated with the word disability is troubling. Unfortunately Mr. Corbett and the NYT have a lot of company. Few Americans know that the ADA is civil rights legislation, disability rights groups like ADAPT are active, and that the unemployment rate among people with disabilities is almost 70% Hopefully Mr. Corbett's contribution will herald a real change in the way the NYT handles disability related matters. I doubt this will happen but at least one person at the NYT is on the ball.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)