This blog post heading omitted one fact that is not relevant. As all New Yorkers must know David Paterson is not just a democrat, black, and the new governor of the state. Drum roll please... yes he is blind. Oh my, the headlines have been oh so cute and comments oh so stupid. My favorite stupid comment was made by a radio commentator who I refuse to name that wondered "how can a blind man lead the state when he cannot even see where he is walking". This was not a joke and I cringe when I pick up a newspaper these days. The catchy headlines and bad puns about blindness do not bother me. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, tabloids like the NY Daily News and NY Post have all been guilty of being too cute for my taste. But hey, the headlines sure do sell papers.
What angers me about the news reports are that David Paterson is always identified as blind. At first I thought this was great and hoped disability matters might be discussed with a level of seriousness. Wrong and I have quickly grown weary and depressed. The mainstream media thinks David Paterson is amazing. Wow, a blind man is the governor! Wow, the blind governor made a great speech! The blind governor got a standing ovation! The blind man who is governor ran in a marathon! The blind governor is a lawyer! The blind governor is married! The blind governor had an affair! Oops, maybe I should have left out the affair the blind governor had or the prostitutes his predecessor Customer #9 visited.
My overwhelming sarcasm above has served as a reminder for two facts: first, that mainstream media outlets always cater to the lowest common denominator. Second, society always sees a disability first and the human being with a disability second. This conveniently lets society off the hook for placing needless obstacles in the way of people who are blind or have another type of disability. Does anyone with vision (pun intended) care to understand why 70% of blind people are unemployed? Do bipedal citizens care that 66% of all people with a disability are unemployed in our country? These are grim facts that are quickly and silently swept under the carpet. Thinking about the astronomical unemployment rates and rampant poverty experienced by disabled people makes others uncomfortable. So, instead the media and average citizen laud over disabled people who overcome their disability. I can assure you I for one never think this way because if I have overcome anything it is bigotry and ignorance of my peers. I have not overcome my disability because there is nothing to overcome in this regard. What I have overcome is the assumption that I cannot do anything with my life--that the ordinary, marriage, family, a career are not possible for people like me or David Paterson. Why do people think this way? I wish I knew because I have spent most of my adult life trying to figure this out.
I do not want to be paralyzed and I assume David Paterson does not want to be blind. But who is ever really completely happy with their body and position in life. I wish my teeth were straighter; I wish my son got better grades in school; I wish I could afford to do many things that are beyond my economic reach. What is not on this wish list is the desire to walk. What I wish for is something I have been working toward my entire life: to be treated equally and not be defined by my wheelchair. I suspect David Paterson feels the same about being blind and is just as annoyed with the media as I am. He has, afterall, stated that his blindness created more problems for him than did the color of his skin. Now this is an astute observation that no one has thought worth following up on.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Disability in Advertising and Adaptive Sports
Regular readers of this blog will know I am enamored with adaptive sports--specifically skiing and kayaking. The reason I became interested in adaptive sports was basic: after thirty years of of pushing a wheelchair my shoulders began to hurt on a regular basis. A trip to the medical library to browse rehabilitation journals revealed what I already knew: the vast majority of people who are paralyzed for decades experience chronic shoulder pain. Based on my reading, I conclude the only known way to relieve chronic pain was to strengthen the entire shoulder or stop pushing a wheelchair. This knowledge combined with my niece who is a program director at Vermont Adaptive led me to learn how to kayak and ski. I love both activities. Since I began kayaking and skiing I have not experienced any pain in my shoulders because my overall strength has improved. I have also met some wonderful people, specifically the volunteers at Vermont Adaptive and many kayakers who paddle the Hudson River.
My skiing and kayaking have made me pay careful attention to the social ramifications of adaptive sports. I am extremely wary of being stereotyped--that is being perceived as possessing super human traits such as intense fortitude and perseverance often associated with athletically active disabled people. I assure you I do not possess any such traits. I am your average and boring middle aged man--a fact my teenage son often reminds me of. This concern was recently echoed by Simi Linton in her blog Disability Culture Watch. Linton is a New York City based disability rights activist, gifted scholar, and one of my favorite authors (her recent memoir, My Body Politic, is a wonderful book). In a recent blog entry Linton noted that advertisers have begun to use disabled athletes to sell products. She specifically refers to Sara Reinersten, a disabled triathlete and the star of Murderball, Mark Zupan who are used to sell a variety of products.
Advertisers are doing exactly what they are paid to do: using anything and anyone they can to influence people to buy a product. I know this all too well as this is exactly what my father did his entire business career. I have no problem with this. But Linton makes an astute observation, do the images used by advertisers "set up a false divide between those deemed robust and those the general public has been schooled to read as un-robust disabled people. The images buy into notions of fitness that privilege certain bodies. I think the advertisers think they are doing something progressive and liberal, but, instead, may be reiterating stereotypes of physical prowess, albeit with a slightly wider pool of acceptability".
Linton's words are sobering to me. Does society think less of non athletic or physically inactive disabled people? I do not think society has such a nuanced understanding of disability. Based on using a wheelchair for the last thirty years, it is my belief that society, that is the average able bodied person, thinks of one thing when they see a disabled person: limits. What a person cannot do rather than what can be done. Adaptive sports turns this thinking upside down. How do I know this? This point was made by son. He is perplexed and annoyed that his friends think I am cool. I told him this was based on my appearance being so different--I have a tattoo and long hair tied into a pony tail. When I told him this he shook his head in a way that only a teenager can do that signals how amazingly stupid his father is. He replied: "Dad, everyone assumes disabled people can't do anything. It has nothing to do with the way you look because the only thing people see is a wheelchair".
My son's observation made me realize Linton was onto something but not the dichotomy she identified between active and inactive disabled people. Society not only associates inability with a wheelchair but thinks the person "in a wheelchair" never gets out of a wheelchair. I have often been asked "were you born in a chair?" or "how long have you been in a chair?". The focus here is squarely on the chair and the assumption that there are millions of things that cannot be done. These assumptions are not made when a person who uses a wheelchair is in a sit ski or kayak. When one is not "in a chair" people think of what one can do rather than what cannot be done. Getting out of a wheelchair and into a sit ski is a radical social transformation--one that is normalizing. I simply become another skier. Few ask me about the sit ski though I will acknowledge some may perceive me as cool. But the majority people I have met skiing think I am just another person on the slopes. I know this because we talk about ordinary things--the weather, the view when we get off the chair lift, the conditions of the terrain etc. Rarely, if ever, do people ask me anything related to my disability when I am in a sit ski. At issue is one thing: skiing. But when I return to the ski lodge and my wheelchair the social perception changes--I return to my socially inferior status, the man "in a wheelchair". Getting out of my wheelchair then is the key to social equality. This is odd to me, a thought that would not have come to me without my son because I perceive my wheelchair as a liberating tool.
My skiing and kayaking have made me pay careful attention to the social ramifications of adaptive sports. I am extremely wary of being stereotyped--that is being perceived as possessing super human traits such as intense fortitude and perseverance often associated with athletically active disabled people. I assure you I do not possess any such traits. I am your average and boring middle aged man--a fact my teenage son often reminds me of. This concern was recently echoed by Simi Linton in her blog Disability Culture Watch. Linton is a New York City based disability rights activist, gifted scholar, and one of my favorite authors (her recent memoir, My Body Politic, is a wonderful book). In a recent blog entry Linton noted that advertisers have begun to use disabled athletes to sell products. She specifically refers to Sara Reinersten, a disabled triathlete and the star of Murderball, Mark Zupan who are used to sell a variety of products.
Advertisers are doing exactly what they are paid to do: using anything and anyone they can to influence people to buy a product. I know this all too well as this is exactly what my father did his entire business career. I have no problem with this. But Linton makes an astute observation, do the images used by advertisers "set up a false divide between those deemed robust and those the general public has been schooled to read as un-robust disabled people. The images buy into notions of fitness that privilege certain bodies. I think the advertisers think they are doing something progressive and liberal, but, instead, may be reiterating stereotypes of physical prowess, albeit with a slightly wider pool of acceptability".
Linton's words are sobering to me. Does society think less of non athletic or physically inactive disabled people? I do not think society has such a nuanced understanding of disability. Based on using a wheelchair for the last thirty years, it is my belief that society, that is the average able bodied person, thinks of one thing when they see a disabled person: limits. What a person cannot do rather than what can be done. Adaptive sports turns this thinking upside down. How do I know this? This point was made by son. He is perplexed and annoyed that his friends think I am cool. I told him this was based on my appearance being so different--I have a tattoo and long hair tied into a pony tail. When I told him this he shook his head in a way that only a teenager can do that signals how amazingly stupid his father is. He replied: "Dad, everyone assumes disabled people can't do anything. It has nothing to do with the way you look because the only thing people see is a wheelchair".
My son's observation made me realize Linton was onto something but not the dichotomy she identified between active and inactive disabled people. Society not only associates inability with a wheelchair but thinks the person "in a wheelchair" never gets out of a wheelchair. I have often been asked "were you born in a chair?" or "how long have you been in a chair?". The focus here is squarely on the chair and the assumption that there are millions of things that cannot be done. These assumptions are not made when a person who uses a wheelchair is in a sit ski or kayak. When one is not "in a chair" people think of what one can do rather than what cannot be done. Getting out of a wheelchair and into a sit ski is a radical social transformation--one that is normalizing. I simply become another skier. Few ask me about the sit ski though I will acknowledge some may perceive me as cool. But the majority people I have met skiing think I am just another person on the slopes. I know this because we talk about ordinary things--the weather, the view when we get off the chair lift, the conditions of the terrain etc. Rarely, if ever, do people ask me anything related to my disability when I am in a sit ski. At issue is one thing: skiing. But when I return to the ski lodge and my wheelchair the social perception changes--I return to my socially inferior status, the man "in a wheelchair". Getting out of my wheelchair then is the key to social equality. This is odd to me, a thought that would not have come to me without my son because I perceive my wheelchair as a liberating tool.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Ashley Treatment: First Year Anniversary
Not much has changed in the last year. CNN.com has a follow up story by Amy Burkholder about the Ashley Treatment. The comments posted to the story and appended interview with the "Pillow Angel" parents are overwhelmingly supportive of the so called Ashley Treatment. Those opposed to the parents decision are characterized as radicals and the parents refuse to reveal their identity because they want to protect themselves and their children from the media frenzy.
After reading the CNN story and the interview with Ashley X parents I am truly depressed. Disability rights is simply not making any progress. Sadly I think the social acceptance of the civil rights of disabled people has regressed substantially in the last year. The Ashley Treatment is an extreme but one that highlights the divide between those with and those without a disability has widened. The mainstream media repeats and accepts as fact what Ashley X parents write. Millions of people, if Ashley X parents are to be believed, have visited their website and all except for a tiny minority of disability rights activists support them.
I find the position of the parents self serving. They bemoan the media frenzy that surrounds them yet keep their blog active and grant interviews to CNN. They chastise disability rights activists and scholars for their extreme views yet maintain parents seeking the Ashley Treatment must be diligent and tenacious. The parents estimate under 1 % of children with a disability are like Ashley X. No foundation in fact exists for such a figure.
Those that oppose their decision are characterized as a "loud minority", infuriated that their decision does not conform to a disability rights ideology. This is pure bull shit. I am sorry to use such vulgar words but I am perplexed how the parents can dismiss the entire disability community. I find comments such as the following misleading at best: "We are in the unfortunate situation today where activists with political power and motivated by their ideology have successfully taken a potentially helpful option away from families whose pillow angels might benefit". If disability rights activists had such power it is news to me. In fact, the disability rights perspective has been totally ignored by the media and medical ethics professionals.
The parents maintain Ashley X and people with all other disabilities are vastly different--a chasm separates the two and no slippery slope exists. This may help the parents sleep at night and dismiss the views of others without thought but such a position is dead wrong. Slippery slopes exist and I for one do not consider my social condition to be any different from Ashley X. I know people often think I cannot walk and as a result cannot think. Whether I like it or not I carry the same stigma as Ashley X. My life and Ashley X life is simply not valued by mainstream society.
The future for disability rights is grim and people such as Ashley X parents are of no help. Like Christopher Reeve, they are so overwhelmed by their own interests they refuse to consider the broader implications of their views. Ashley X parents are even considering writing a book and telling their story in other ways. I shudder to think of the options available and I cannot think of one positive thing that could result. The Ashley Treatment thus remains as depressing today as it was a year ago.
After reading the CNN story and the interview with Ashley X parents I am truly depressed. Disability rights is simply not making any progress. Sadly I think the social acceptance of the civil rights of disabled people has regressed substantially in the last year. The Ashley Treatment is an extreme but one that highlights the divide between those with and those without a disability has widened. The mainstream media repeats and accepts as fact what Ashley X parents write. Millions of people, if Ashley X parents are to be believed, have visited their website and all except for a tiny minority of disability rights activists support them.
I find the position of the parents self serving. They bemoan the media frenzy that surrounds them yet keep their blog active and grant interviews to CNN. They chastise disability rights activists and scholars for their extreme views yet maintain parents seeking the Ashley Treatment must be diligent and tenacious. The parents estimate under 1 % of children with a disability are like Ashley X. No foundation in fact exists for such a figure.
Those that oppose their decision are characterized as a "loud minority", infuriated that their decision does not conform to a disability rights ideology. This is pure bull shit. I am sorry to use such vulgar words but I am perplexed how the parents can dismiss the entire disability community. I find comments such as the following misleading at best: "We are in the unfortunate situation today where activists with political power and motivated by their ideology have successfully taken a potentially helpful option away from families whose pillow angels might benefit". If disability rights activists had such power it is news to me. In fact, the disability rights perspective has been totally ignored by the media and medical ethics professionals.
The parents maintain Ashley X and people with all other disabilities are vastly different--a chasm separates the two and no slippery slope exists. This may help the parents sleep at night and dismiss the views of others without thought but such a position is dead wrong. Slippery slopes exist and I for one do not consider my social condition to be any different from Ashley X. I know people often think I cannot walk and as a result cannot think. Whether I like it or not I carry the same stigma as Ashley X. My life and Ashley X life is simply not valued by mainstream society.
The future for disability rights is grim and people such as Ashley X parents are of no help. Like Christopher Reeve, they are so overwhelmed by their own interests they refuse to consider the broader implications of their views. Ashley X parents are even considering writing a book and telling their story in other ways. I shudder to think of the options available and I cannot think of one positive thing that could result. The Ashley Treatment thus remains as depressing today as it was a year ago.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
A Second Case of Wheelchair Dumping
Mr. Sterner is not the only disabled person to be assaulted by the police at the Orient Road Jail. A second case has come to light. According to John Trevena, Mr. Sterner's lawyer, Benjamin Rayburn, 32, who is paralyzed and currently serving a 10 year prison sentence was also dumped out of his wheelchair (Trevena represents Rayburn). Rayburn was arrested October 3, 2006 on charges of aggravated battery with a firearm and a warrant for grand theft. According to an incident report, Rayburn was verbally abusive and threw a crack pipe at the police officers. Rayburn refused to calm down and Detention Deputy Bret Strohsack wrote he was forced to "relocate Rayburn from his wheelchair to the holding cell floor". A video clearly shows Rayburn being dumped out of his wheelchair. Unlike Sterner, Rayburn broke the law and has a long criminal history. He was arrested for good reason--he shot a man in the back with a .32 caliber handgun (the victim recovered). No one at the jail has any intention offering Rayburn an apology.
The second case must prompt the Florida attorney general's office to broaden their investigation. Regardless of what a disabled person has done wrong, dumping them out of their wheelchair is inexcusable. I would also like the attorney general's office to investigate why it is standard practice to take away a person's personal wheelchair when arrested and replace it with a jail issued wheelchair. This by itself can cause a disabled person to be injured.
Sadly, the emergence of a second so called wheelchair dumping incident is not a surprise. I expect other cases will come to light in Florida and elsewhere. I suspect when disabled people are arrested they are more likely to be abused by police and inmates. The easiest and most effective way to abuse and humiliate a person that uses a wheelchair is to dump them onto the floor. This is clearly not only a physical violation but a human rights violation as well. Guilt is or innocence is not relevant. The sooner this fact is acknowledged the better.
The second case must prompt the Florida attorney general's office to broaden their investigation. Regardless of what a disabled person has done wrong, dumping them out of their wheelchair is inexcusable. I would also like the attorney general's office to investigate why it is standard practice to take away a person's personal wheelchair when arrested and replace it with a jail issued wheelchair. This by itself can cause a disabled person to be injured.
Sadly, the emergence of a second so called wheelchair dumping incident is not a surprise. I expect other cases will come to light in Florida and elsewhere. I suspect when disabled people are arrested they are more likely to be abused by police and inmates. The easiest and most effective way to abuse and humiliate a person that uses a wheelchair is to dump them onto the floor. This is clearly not only a physical violation but a human rights violation as well. Guilt is or innocence is not relevant. The sooner this fact is acknowledged the better.
Civil Rights People Do Not Understand
Yesterday was the sort of day that makes me love technology and yearn for social isolation. For my birthday last week my mother bought me an ipod touch. This new electronic toy is a useful tool and modern marvel. I absolutely love it. I have spent my evenings listening to music, podcasts, and audio books. After a week, I am confident that I know how to use most applications on the ipod and decided it was time to purchase a case for it in the event I drop it.
Content with the world and my place in it, I drove to local mall where the Apple store is located. My good mood came to an abrupt halt before I even got to the store. I found an empty spot in handicap parking and proceeded to get my wheelchair out of the car. A total stranger was walking by, came to a dead stop and began to stare at me as though I was a freak of nature. The behavior of this individual was not all that unusual--people often stare or at least take a long glance at me when I get my wheelchair in or out of the car. Why putting a wheelchair in and out of the car is so fascinating to people I will never quite understand. Regardless, when a person stops dead in their tracks to stare at me I get annoyed. I also stop what I am doing and stare back. This is exactly what I did yesterday in the mall parking lot. When I starred back the individual in question told me not to stop because, and I quote, "I didn't know people like you could get your twisted and ugly bodies out of a car by yourself. This is amazing, I wish I had my camera".
The person that accosted me undoubtedly took ignorance to a higher level than most people. Yet the behavior and statement was within the norm and highlights an inherent problem with American culture. Disability in the broadest sense of the term is not perceived to be a civil rights issue. The same person that accosted me yesterday would never make an over the top bigoted statement to a black person. He knows that would be wrong--it is a well understood and known cultural assumption that prejudice based on the color of one's skin is socially unacceptable. Can the same be said about disability rights? In a word, no. Disability rights author Mary Johnson has noted that no one wakes up in the morning and thinks "I am going to be prejudiced against disabled people today". Yet explicit prejudice against disabled people is routine and socially acceptable. Interactions such as the one I had with the person at the mall may seem trivial but when this happens day in and day out it has a cumulative impact. The message sent is clear: any one can comment on the mere presence of a disabled person because they are not fully human. Crippled people have no social standing--pun intended. We crippled people are not equal. Ordinary life is not possible and routine activities never thought of such as getting in and out of a car become major achievements. This thinking makes my guts churn. It makes me angry and what happens when I assert my rights? I am perceived to have a "chip
on my shoulder". The social predicament is a Catch 22 situation. I cannot assert my rights because I run the risk of being called bitter, mad at the world because I cannot walk. Conversely, if I do not assert my rights as a human being I am perceived to be the good cripple, subservient, happy for societal largesse.
My civil rights or lack of them as a crippled man never ceases to bother me. I have lost many nights sleep questioning why are bipedal humans so resistant to the inclusion of people with an obvious disability. Is it a matter of ignorance? Is it money? Do people resent ramps and elevators? What is inherently wrong with using a wheelchair? For the bipedal readers of this post I have news: there is nothing wrong with me or using a wheelchair. Walking is truly over rated. The problem is not mine it is yours.
Content with the world and my place in it, I drove to local mall where the Apple store is located. My good mood came to an abrupt halt before I even got to the store. I found an empty spot in handicap parking and proceeded to get my wheelchair out of the car. A total stranger was walking by, came to a dead stop and began to stare at me as though I was a freak of nature. The behavior of this individual was not all that unusual--people often stare or at least take a long glance at me when I get my wheelchair in or out of the car. Why putting a wheelchair in and out of the car is so fascinating to people I will never quite understand. Regardless, when a person stops dead in their tracks to stare at me I get annoyed. I also stop what I am doing and stare back. This is exactly what I did yesterday in the mall parking lot. When I starred back the individual in question told me not to stop because, and I quote, "I didn't know people like you could get your twisted and ugly bodies out of a car by yourself. This is amazing, I wish I had my camera".
The person that accosted me undoubtedly took ignorance to a higher level than most people. Yet the behavior and statement was within the norm and highlights an inherent problem with American culture. Disability in the broadest sense of the term is not perceived to be a civil rights issue. The same person that accosted me yesterday would never make an over the top bigoted statement to a black person. He knows that would be wrong--it is a well understood and known cultural assumption that prejudice based on the color of one's skin is socially unacceptable. Can the same be said about disability rights? In a word, no. Disability rights author Mary Johnson has noted that no one wakes up in the morning and thinks "I am going to be prejudiced against disabled people today". Yet explicit prejudice against disabled people is routine and socially acceptable. Interactions such as the one I had with the person at the mall may seem trivial but when this happens day in and day out it has a cumulative impact. The message sent is clear: any one can comment on the mere presence of a disabled person because they are not fully human. Crippled people have no social standing--pun intended. We crippled people are not equal. Ordinary life is not possible and routine activities never thought of such as getting in and out of a car become major achievements. This thinking makes my guts churn. It makes me angry and what happens when I assert my rights? I am perceived to have a "chip
on my shoulder". The social predicament is a Catch 22 situation. I cannot assert my rights because I run the risk of being called bitter, mad at the world because I cannot walk. Conversely, if I do not assert my rights as a human being I am perceived to be the good cripple, subservient, happy for societal largesse.
My civil rights or lack of them as a crippled man never ceases to bother me. I have lost many nights sleep questioning why are bipedal humans so resistant to the inclusion of people with an obvious disability. Is it a matter of ignorance? Is it money? Do people resent ramps and elevators? What is inherently wrong with using a wheelchair? For the bipedal readers of this post I have news: there is nothing wrong with me or using a wheelchair. Walking is truly over rated. The problem is not mine it is yours.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
More on Obama
I have never been driven to become active in politics. This week I have been reminded why I have consistently avoided getting politically involved. To be blunt, the more I have learned about Barack Obama the less impressed I have become. If he, the acknowledged best candidate for people with disabilities, is the fiercest advocate for disabled people we are in deep trouble. Change, if it is to take place, had better happen quickly or it will not happen at all. This came to me after a reading an article by Jim Dickson, Vice President for Government Affairs of the American Association of People with Disabilities. According to Dickson, primary elections are more important than the general election. In part, this is because the candidates who remain have identified their supporters and decided which issues to base their platforms on. This makes sense to me and based on my email exchange with Seth Harris at the Obama campaign they have decided they are doing the best they can to lure disabled voters. Their best may or may not include access at campaign events and interpreters for the deaf. Their best may include access information on their website but I would not hold my breathe waiting for that to happen. Change, if it is going to take place, will not be coming any time soon.
This is all profoundly disappointing and not only is part of me angry but I feel misled. Earlier this month I read an open letter written by former Clinton officials who endorsed Obama. Seth Harris, Paul Steven Miller, Sue Swenson, and Robert Williams, all major political figures, wrote that Obama was the "disability communities best choice for change" and urged people to "join us in voting and caucusing for Barack Obama". They maintained that there is a need for dramatic change and that Obama represented the best chance for us to change the world, one where it was possible "to build a society in which every person can feel that they belong". This may or may not be true. But one thing I am sure of--it is hard to caucus for a candidate if there is no way to find out if events designed to support a candidate are accessible. It is hard to caucus for a candidate if no interpreters are present.
Based on what I have read on line, I sense a growing dissatisfaction among disabled people with Obama. For instance, I read an interesting post by Ben Vess. Apparently Ness, a deaf man, went to an Obama rally in Virginia Beach and left decidedly unimpressed. He asked people staffing the event if an interpreter would be present and no one knew the answer and was told to simply wait and see if someone showed up. While an interpreter was present, he expected him/her to be on stage and off to one side, clearly visible to the deaf audience. Instead the interpreter was behind the stage, out of sight of many and could not hear Obama because she was behind the speakers. This led Vess to wonder why an interpreter was present (here is the link: http://blog.benvess.com/
Obama has not as yet lost my vote but I am certainly moving in that direction. Running a campaign is complex, costly, and time consuming. I have no doubt including information about a host of access issues is a daunting task. But the more I read the more I get the impression the Obama campaign is trying but ready to concede defeat. The desire may be there to include information about access but that does not help Vess see an interpreter placed behind a stage nor does it help me when I need to know if an event is wheelchair accessible.
Seth Harris wrote to me that he thinks "we're well ahead of the rest of society but nowhere near finished". Part of the problem for Obama is that they are dealing with people who have limited experience with accessibility issues. This observation is sadly not a surprise and an indictment of American society that passed the ADA almost two decades ago--a law that has been gutted by the Supreme Court and ignored and violated whenever possible. I wonder if with Obama we are going to get change or just politics as usual.
This is all profoundly disappointing and not only is part of me angry but I feel misled. Earlier this month I read an open letter written by former Clinton officials who endorsed Obama. Seth Harris, Paul Steven Miller, Sue Swenson, and Robert Williams, all major political figures, wrote that Obama was the "disability communities best choice for change" and urged people to "join us in voting and caucusing for Barack Obama". They maintained that there is a need for dramatic change and that Obama represented the best chance for us to change the world, one where it was possible "to build a society in which every person can feel that they belong". This may or may not be true. But one thing I am sure of--it is hard to caucus for a candidate if there is no way to find out if events designed to support a candidate are accessible. It is hard to caucus for a candidate if no interpreters are present.
Based on what I have read on line, I sense a growing dissatisfaction among disabled people with Obama. For instance, I read an interesting post by Ben Vess. Apparently Ness, a deaf man, went to an Obama rally in Virginia Beach and left decidedly unimpressed. He asked people staffing the event if an interpreter would be present and no one knew the answer and was told to simply wait and see if someone showed up. While an interpreter was present, he expected him/her to be on stage and off to one side, clearly visible to the deaf audience. Instead the interpreter was behind the stage, out of sight of many and could not hear Obama because she was behind the speakers. This led Vess to wonder why an interpreter was present (here is the link: http://blog.benvess.com/
Obama has not as yet lost my vote but I am certainly moving in that direction. Running a campaign is complex, costly, and time consuming. I have no doubt including information about a host of access issues is a daunting task. But the more I read the more I get the impression the Obama campaign is trying but ready to concede defeat. The desire may be there to include information about access but that does not help Vess see an interpreter placed behind a stage nor does it help me when I need to know if an event is wheelchair accessible.
Seth Harris wrote to me that he thinks "we're well ahead of the rest of society but nowhere near finished". Part of the problem for Obama is that they are dealing with people who have limited experience with accessibility issues. This observation is sadly not a surprise and an indictment of American society that passed the ADA almost two decades ago--a law that has been gutted by the Supreme Court and ignored and violated whenever possible. I wonder if with Obama we are going to get change or just politics as usual.
Monday, February 18, 2008
An Obama Update Updated
I received a polite, informative, and promising email from Seth Harris, co-chair of the Obama campaign's Disability Policy Committee. Apparently an accessibility check list has been in the works and will be released and, more importantly, used soon. According to Harris, who is also a professor at New York Law School, the Obama campaign website is managed out of Chicago but events are not. This obviously makes inclusion of access information more problematic but not impossible to resolve. While Harris' email was promising and supportive in general there were phrases of concern. For instance he noted access was a "desirable goal" while I would characterize it as a must. I replied to Harris email this morning and remain committed to insuring access information be posted at the Obama campaign website. In my email to Harris I wrote that it was not just the right thing to do but would demonstrate Obama is really a man of change. It would also distinguish Obama from every other person running for president. This I would think is very desirable for a politician. I have no idea if I will be successful in my efforts and part of me feels like the classic character in the children's book The Little Engine That Could who repeats "I think I can I think can". Obama is a man of power while I am a man with, well, a blog and determination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)