I love political cartoons and this one is outstanding. It appeared in The Coast, August 7, 2008, According to Bruce Wark it is easier to get a dog past the Canadian Boarder Services Agency than a disabled child.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Cartoon
I love political cartoons and this one is outstanding. It appeared in The Coast, August 7, 2008, According to Bruce Wark it is easier to get a dog past the Canadian Boarder Services Agency than a disabled child.
O Canada: Disabled Not Welcome
Last month a British family tried to move to Canada. Paul and Barbara-Anne Chapman, their two children, Jack and Lucy, as well as their dog, planned to move to Nova Scotia and open a business. Three years of careful planning was undermined on July 12 when they met with a Canadian Border Guard in Halifax. Apparently the Border Guard told the Chapman's they could not legally enter the country because their daughter was disabled. Lucy, 7 years old has Angelman Syndrome, a rare chromosome disorder. The Border Guard stated her daughter was banned from ever entering Canada under section 38 of the Federal Immigration Act. Despite concerted efforts to appeal this ban, the family was forced to return to Britain on July 30.
The above bare bone facts do not tell the whole story. For more than three years the Chapman's have been planning on permanently moving to Nova Scotia. They want to open up a business, hire about 25 people and in 2008 purchased a house in Fall River. The Chapmans are each former police officers and have run a small business in Britain but are drawn to Nova Scotia for many reasons. Clearly, they are ideal candidates to enter Canada--they are well educated, financially stable, hard working people. This is not good enough because they have a disabled daughter. They know this because they tried to enter Canada in 2005. They were explicitely denied entry because their daughter was disabled. Shortly after being denied entry the Supreme Court of Canada modified the disabilities section of the Immigration Act. The Chapman's reapplied to move Nova Scotia under the immigration nominee program. After two years and the support of six sponsors the Chapman's received approval from the provincial government to enter Canada.
Before the Chapmans arrived at Halifax they were under the impression that they had leaped through all the hurdles that were required to enter Canada. They never tried to sneak into country nor did they hide their daughters disability. They did all that was required by law and even got permission for the family dog to enter Canada. All went well until a Boarder Guard told the Chapmans their daughter was being "red flagged". The family was held in the immigration office for five hours and their passports were seized, all because the Boarder Guard deemed their daughter unworthy of entry. In the Chapman's estimation the actions of the Boarder Guards was nothing short of pure discrimination. It is hard to disagree with this assessment.
After reading multiple news accounts in Britain and Canada, it is clear to me the Chapmans are being discriminated against. Canada may welcome a host of different people but disabled people are not among them. This story is about one thing: human rights. Human rights denied to a family and one 7 year old disabled child in particular. I cannot help but conclude that in Canada disabled people are perceived as an onerous and costly burden. I know this because the Canadian Border has explicitly stated this on "Visiting Canada: Who is inadmissible?" According to this information card people whose conditions "might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on the health or social services" cannot enter the country. Disabled people are thus grouped in with terrorists, war criminals, convicted felons, those bankrupt, organized criminals etc. as unworthy.
Attracted by the a high standard of living in Canada and the recent drive to attract skilled workers, the Chapman's came face to face with ignorance and bigotry of not just one Boarder Guard but a government that deems disabled people as being less than fully human. There is no doubt Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is embarrassed. Amazingly, this story has failed to garner much press but what it has attracted is overwhelmingly negative. A CIC spokesperson has been quoted as stating "People with disabilities can come to Canada. In Canada we have rules and regulations to protect the Canadian people and we have to make sure that the proper process is followed. It is not that we do not want them (the Chapmans) here. They just have to follow the proper process which includes ensuring the residency permit is in place before arriving in Canada". I find this statement misleading at best for I have no doubt had their daughter not been disabled the Chapmans would be happily residing in their home in Fall river instead of being forced to return to Britain.
Is it too much to expect the Canadian Border Service to acknowledge they were wrong? In a word, yes. The fact remains everyone in the Chapman family was welcomed to enter Canada except their disabled daughter. Paul Chapman is all too well aware of this and has stated that if he "arrived back in Canada tomorrow and I am alone, or without my daughter, I would be allowed in. I can come and do business, I am allowed to create jobs for Canadians and to invest my money here in Canada's economy. But if I arrived again with Lucy, we would both be put on the very next plane back to the UK". This reality is hard to accept and is nothing more or less than a gross violation of human rights. This cannot be explained away as a paper work error nor is the story about one family and one disabled child. Disability rights are human rights--a fact that many do not acknowledge in Canada and elsewhere. Until that changes I will continue to rail against the sort of ignorance and bigotry that the Chapman family encountered. Their experience also highlights why I am proud to call myself a bad cripple for all bad cripples need to fight for one another or face social invisibility and isolation.
The above bare bone facts do not tell the whole story. For more than three years the Chapman's have been planning on permanently moving to Nova Scotia. They want to open up a business, hire about 25 people and in 2008 purchased a house in Fall River. The Chapmans are each former police officers and have run a small business in Britain but are drawn to Nova Scotia for many reasons. Clearly, they are ideal candidates to enter Canada--they are well educated, financially stable, hard working people. This is not good enough because they have a disabled daughter. They know this because they tried to enter Canada in 2005. They were explicitely denied entry because their daughter was disabled. Shortly after being denied entry the Supreme Court of Canada modified the disabilities section of the Immigration Act. The Chapman's reapplied to move Nova Scotia under the immigration nominee program. After two years and the support of six sponsors the Chapman's received approval from the provincial government to enter Canada.
Before the Chapmans arrived at Halifax they were under the impression that they had leaped through all the hurdles that were required to enter Canada. They never tried to sneak into country nor did they hide their daughters disability. They did all that was required by law and even got permission for the family dog to enter Canada. All went well until a Boarder Guard told the Chapmans their daughter was being "red flagged". The family was held in the immigration office for five hours and their passports were seized, all because the Boarder Guard deemed their daughter unworthy of entry. In the Chapman's estimation the actions of the Boarder Guards was nothing short of pure discrimination. It is hard to disagree with this assessment.
After reading multiple news accounts in Britain and Canada, it is clear to me the Chapmans are being discriminated against. Canada may welcome a host of different people but disabled people are not among them. This story is about one thing: human rights. Human rights denied to a family and one 7 year old disabled child in particular. I cannot help but conclude that in Canada disabled people are perceived as an onerous and costly burden. I know this because the Canadian Border has explicitly stated this on "Visiting Canada: Who is inadmissible?" According to this information card people whose conditions "might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on the health or social services" cannot enter the country. Disabled people are thus grouped in with terrorists, war criminals, convicted felons, those bankrupt, organized criminals etc. as unworthy.
Attracted by the a high standard of living in Canada and the recent drive to attract skilled workers, the Chapman's came face to face with ignorance and bigotry of not just one Boarder Guard but a government that deems disabled people as being less than fully human. There is no doubt Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is embarrassed. Amazingly, this story has failed to garner much press but what it has attracted is overwhelmingly negative. A CIC spokesperson has been quoted as stating "People with disabilities can come to Canada. In Canada we have rules and regulations to protect the Canadian people and we have to make sure that the proper process is followed. It is not that we do not want them (the Chapmans) here. They just have to follow the proper process which includes ensuring the residency permit is in place before arriving in Canada". I find this statement misleading at best for I have no doubt had their daughter not been disabled the Chapmans would be happily residing in their home in Fall river instead of being forced to return to Britain.
Is it too much to expect the Canadian Border Service to acknowledge they were wrong? In a word, yes. The fact remains everyone in the Chapman family was welcomed to enter Canada except their disabled daughter. Paul Chapman is all too well aware of this and has stated that if he "arrived back in Canada tomorrow and I am alone, or without my daughter, I would be allowed in. I can come and do business, I am allowed to create jobs for Canadians and to invest my money here in Canada's economy. But if I arrived again with Lucy, we would both be put on the very next plane back to the UK". This reality is hard to accept and is nothing more or less than a gross violation of human rights. This cannot be explained away as a paper work error nor is the story about one family and one disabled child. Disability rights are human rights--a fact that many do not acknowledge in Canada and elsewhere. Until that changes I will continue to rail against the sort of ignorance and bigotry that the Chapman family encountered. Their experience also highlights why I am proud to call myself a bad cripple for all bad cripples need to fight for one another or face social invisibility and isolation.
Catching Up
I have not been home for much of the last month. Like many others, August seems to be the time of year when I get away from home. I spent some time in Vermont and was with out local Boy Scout troop at summer camp. The weather while I was away was wild. My son and I got poured and hailed on. When in Vermont flash flooding destroyed a bridge and several roads were badly damaged. Further complicating matters was end of the summer class lectures and a broken computer. Thankfully I own an Apple computer and not a single file was lost.
Two fascinating stories have developed or emerged in the last month. First, BBC America broadcast a show that examined Oscar Pistorius efforts to compete in the Olympics. I came away from this show with decidedly mixed feelings. Pistorius is clearly a gifted runner and his life revolves around a single minded effort to compete as an elite athlete. Yet he does not consider himself disabled and a part of me thinks he is very much like Christopher Reeve: a person who is wealthy and thinks he is morally superior to disabled people. Variables that cannot be ignored, ones that I will comment on in a later entry, is the fact Pistorius is South African, the show broadcast about him produced in Britain, and this blog archetypically American.
The second story I will comment about that a reader pointed out concerns the Paul and Barbara-Anne Chapman family. These parents of two children, one of whom is disabled, were refused residence in Canada. The reason they could not enter Canada appears simple: their daughter would be a "burden" on the Canadian health care system. I need to do further reading about this story before I make any comments. Yet it appears at this point that the Chapman's experience reinforces my concern that a national health care system is as flawed as the private system. Do not misconstrue this statement as support for the existing private health care system in the USA but rather acknowledgment that a nationalized system discriminates against disabled people in a different way.
Two fascinating stories have developed or emerged in the last month. First, BBC America broadcast a show that examined Oscar Pistorius efforts to compete in the Olympics. I came away from this show with decidedly mixed feelings. Pistorius is clearly a gifted runner and his life revolves around a single minded effort to compete as an elite athlete. Yet he does not consider himself disabled and a part of me thinks he is very much like Christopher Reeve: a person who is wealthy and thinks he is morally superior to disabled people. Variables that cannot be ignored, ones that I will comment on in a later entry, is the fact Pistorius is South African, the show broadcast about him produced in Britain, and this blog archetypically American.
The second story I will comment about that a reader pointed out concerns the Paul and Barbara-Anne Chapman family. These parents of two children, one of whom is disabled, were refused residence in Canada. The reason they could not enter Canada appears simple: their daughter would be a "burden" on the Canadian health care system. I need to do further reading about this story before I make any comments. Yet it appears at this point that the Chapman's experience reinforces my concern that a national health care system is as flawed as the private system. Do not misconstrue this statement as support for the existing private health care system in the USA but rather acknowledgment that a nationalized system discriminates against disabled people in a different way.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Protecting Crippled People
I just about spit up my lunch when I read a New York Times story about Oscar Pistorius. As readers of this blog know, Pistorius is a South African runner popularly known as the Blade Runner. A double amputee, Pistorius has been in the news on a regular basis. He was banned by the IAAF from competing in the Olympic Games because his prostheses were deemed "an unfair advantage". Pistorius reappeared in the news when the IAAF ban was overturned by the Court of Arbitration. Pistorius has again made headlines--not because of his running ability but because of the IAAFs inability to accept him for what he is--a gifted runner.
Pierre Weiss, secretary general of the IAAF, publicly stated that he hoped Pistorius would not compete in the Olympics for the South African relay team "for reasons of safety". According to Weiss, "It's a decision that rests with the officials of the federation of the South African Olympic Committee" but "we'd prefer that they don't select him for reasons of safety". Apparently Weiss's concern is that since only the first leg of the 4x400 meter relay race is run in lanes Pistorius might injure himself or other runners if he ran in a pack. The spokesman for the IAAF, Nick Davies, explained further that "It is a cautionary note. It is one of the few events where there is physical contact between athletes. You are jostling, crouched down at the line waiting for the baton in a group lined up hip to hip".
The reason I almost spit up my lunch is that for decades disabled were prevented from doing a myriad of ordinary things for reasons of "safety". Disabled people were barred from public schools because they were deemed a fire hazard. That is, the presence of a disabled child might prevent a quick evacuation of a school building or classroom. Of paramount concern was the safety of all children. Disabled people were barred from flying on commercial planes until the Air Carrier Access Act. It was thought disabled people represented a flight safety risk. These are just two examples of where "safety" was used to as a form of social oppression. In the exact same way, the IAAF is trying to oppress Pistorius--what exactly is the safety risk? I am sure Pistorious has fallen during his racing career. I am also sure he has gotten up off the ground as well. Likewise, those he is competing with and against have surely fallen in a race. So what if Pistorius falls--is this a reason to ban him from running? In my estimation, no. To me, the IAAF objects to Pistorius inclusion because he does not represent the symbolic ideal they want to project. The first excuse the IAAF tried, that Pistorius's prostheses gave him an unfair advantage failed, and now they are pulling out yet another well worn excuse--we must protect the "safety" of a disabled person. The subtext, what is not said, is that Pistorius should know his social role, specifically be a dependent docile disabled person grateful for society's largesse.
The end result is that the IAAF is shocked and amazed Pistorius has rights and the ability to assert them.
It is unfortunate that the IAAF has not expressed any interest in taking even cursory glance at how disabled people have been ostracized by society. Had they done so, I doubt the IAAF would have fought so hard to ban Pistorius from running in the Olympics. To me, the saddest part of this story, what is lost or only mentioned in passing, is that Pistorius has not reached the qualifying standard. His personal best time is over a half second shy. This is a legitimate reason for Pistorius not making the South African team, particularly if another runner, with or with two legs, can run faster. The fact Pistorius runs with prostheses is not relevant for at issue is an individual's ability and speed.
Pierre Weiss, secretary general of the IAAF, publicly stated that he hoped Pistorius would not compete in the Olympics for the South African relay team "for reasons of safety". According to Weiss, "It's a decision that rests with the officials of the federation of the South African Olympic Committee" but "we'd prefer that they don't select him for reasons of safety". Apparently Weiss's concern is that since only the first leg of the 4x400 meter relay race is run in lanes Pistorius might injure himself or other runners if he ran in a pack. The spokesman for the IAAF, Nick Davies, explained further that "It is a cautionary note. It is one of the few events where there is physical contact between athletes. You are jostling, crouched down at the line waiting for the baton in a group lined up hip to hip".
The reason I almost spit up my lunch is that for decades disabled were prevented from doing a myriad of ordinary things for reasons of "safety". Disabled people were barred from public schools because they were deemed a fire hazard. That is, the presence of a disabled child might prevent a quick evacuation of a school building or classroom. Of paramount concern was the safety of all children. Disabled people were barred from flying on commercial planes until the Air Carrier Access Act. It was thought disabled people represented a flight safety risk. These are just two examples of where "safety" was used to as a form of social oppression. In the exact same way, the IAAF is trying to oppress Pistorius--what exactly is the safety risk? I am sure Pistorious has fallen during his racing career. I am also sure he has gotten up off the ground as well. Likewise, those he is competing with and against have surely fallen in a race. So what if Pistorius falls--is this a reason to ban him from running? In my estimation, no. To me, the IAAF objects to Pistorius inclusion because he does not represent the symbolic ideal they want to project. The first excuse the IAAF tried, that Pistorius's prostheses gave him an unfair advantage failed, and now they are pulling out yet another well worn excuse--we must protect the "safety" of a disabled person. The subtext, what is not said, is that Pistorius should know his social role, specifically be a dependent docile disabled person grateful for society's largesse.
The end result is that the IAAF is shocked and amazed Pistorius has rights and the ability to assert them.
It is unfortunate that the IAAF has not expressed any interest in taking even cursory glance at how disabled people have been ostracized by society. Had they done so, I doubt the IAAF would have fought so hard to ban Pistorius from running in the Olympics. To me, the saddest part of this story, what is lost or only mentioned in passing, is that Pistorius has not reached the qualifying standard. His personal best time is over a half second shy. This is a legitimate reason for Pistorius not making the South African team, particularly if another runner, with or with two legs, can run faster. The fact Pistorius runs with prostheses is not relevant for at issue is an individual's ability and speed.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The Washington Post is Oblivious
I just finished reading an article in the Washington Post, "Another Obstacle Conquered" published on July 8 by Carol D. Leonnig. This story fits into the classic media model of lets all feel good about how we are helping the handicapped. What obstacle was "conquered"? The House Speaker's Rostrum will be wheelchair accessible. Wow, this makes me feel so much better. And, gee whiz, I am so lucky to be an American and have a law, the ADA, protect my civil rights. Too bad that reality as I know it is radically different from the myth portrayed in the Washington Post story.
I hate to spoil the image of freedom and equality for all but that is simply not reality for millions of disabled people. While there is no doubt major strides have been made since the ADA was passed in 1990, the gulf between disabled people and those that walk on two feet is as immense. The divide is less architectural than it is cultural. Thus when I read that the House Speaker's Rostrum was going to be accessible my thoughts were as follows: No person using a wheelchair has ever led a session of the House. One quadriplegic, Jim Langevin, has served in the House. These thoughts in turn led me to ask why was the House Speaker's Rostrum not made accessible in 1990 when the ADA was passed? Maybe I am missing something but I was under the impression the ADA was made all Americans equal, those that walk and those that cannot.
The message being sent by the House is a tad bit late. Given this, I sadly must agree with Nancy Pelosi who is quoted as saying "Our commitment to a barrier free work place sends an invaluable message to all Americans that the House will lead by example". The example the House has sent to America is not a good one. As I see it the message sent is that the House has ignored the ADA for 18 years. Instead of being embarrassed the House Rostrum remained inaccessible for almost two decades Pelosi and others are slapping themselves on the back for doing a great job. The fact is the Capital and many other symbolically significant parts of Washington remain inaccessible. The excuse often cited for the lack of access is that the law provided a great deal of flexibility in deciding which accommodations can "reasonably" be made accessible for people with disabilities. I for one think the fact the House Rostrum was not made accessible long ago is a far cry from "reasonable". If there were a social demand for access the House Rostrum would have been made accessible years ago. The House Rostrum is accordingly important symbolically and most have failed to comprehend the meaning--it is okay to delay wheelchair access as long as humanly possible because this is accomplished out of the goodness of our heart. This logic conveniently ignores the law and the consequence is that socially wheelchair access is perceived as a mater of choice.
If you think my views are too strident or simply wrong, try using a wheelchair for a few days. Try to go about your life without using stairs and rely totally on elevators, lifts and ramps. What you will find is a shock. What the ADA states as law and what is reality are radically different. Try renting a car with hand controls and you will rarely if ever get your car at the prescribed time or day. Try getting on and off an airplane and you will learn delays of over an hour are the norm, that is an hour after every passenger has already left the plane. Try to go shopping and you will find every accessible changing room is locked and no one knows where the key is. Try and go to the bathroom in a restaurant and you will find it is simply not possible as they are all inaccessible. Try to buy a ticket to any major sporting event on line and you will find that you cannot purchase handicap seats because you must call a "special" telephone number. Good luck waiting to have someone answer. Try to get on a bus and have the driver tell you the wheelchair lift is broken--every day. Try to take a long walk and find curb cuts are routinely blocked by parked cars or simply do not exist. Try entering a classroom but discover you cannot because there is no place sit because the chairs are all bolted to the floor. This is what disabled people such as myself encounter every day. This is exactly why the ADA has been a failure in many ways and why advocates for disability rights have helped to pass an ADA Restoration Act. None of the above seems "reasonable", indeed it reminds me of the Jim Crow Era that black people railed against. This leads me to conclude that the only real way to make society value access is to force it down other's throats by means of civil disobedience. A careful study of the disability rights movement reveals this is incredibly successful. Too bad the media never points out these facts.
I hate to spoil the image of freedom and equality for all but that is simply not reality for millions of disabled people. While there is no doubt major strides have been made since the ADA was passed in 1990, the gulf between disabled people and those that walk on two feet is as immense. The divide is less architectural than it is cultural. Thus when I read that the House Speaker's Rostrum was going to be accessible my thoughts were as follows: No person using a wheelchair has ever led a session of the House. One quadriplegic, Jim Langevin, has served in the House. These thoughts in turn led me to ask why was the House Speaker's Rostrum not made accessible in 1990 when the ADA was passed? Maybe I am missing something but I was under the impression the ADA was made all Americans equal, those that walk and those that cannot.
The message being sent by the House is a tad bit late. Given this, I sadly must agree with Nancy Pelosi who is quoted as saying "Our commitment to a barrier free work place sends an invaluable message to all Americans that the House will lead by example". The example the House has sent to America is not a good one. As I see it the message sent is that the House has ignored the ADA for 18 years. Instead of being embarrassed the House Rostrum remained inaccessible for almost two decades Pelosi and others are slapping themselves on the back for doing a great job. The fact is the Capital and many other symbolically significant parts of Washington remain inaccessible. The excuse often cited for the lack of access is that the law provided a great deal of flexibility in deciding which accommodations can "reasonably" be made accessible for people with disabilities. I for one think the fact the House Rostrum was not made accessible long ago is a far cry from "reasonable". If there were a social demand for access the House Rostrum would have been made accessible years ago. The House Rostrum is accordingly important symbolically and most have failed to comprehend the meaning--it is okay to delay wheelchair access as long as humanly possible because this is accomplished out of the goodness of our heart. This logic conveniently ignores the law and the consequence is that socially wheelchair access is perceived as a mater of choice.
If you think my views are too strident or simply wrong, try using a wheelchair for a few days. Try to go about your life without using stairs and rely totally on elevators, lifts and ramps. What you will find is a shock. What the ADA states as law and what is reality are radically different. Try renting a car with hand controls and you will rarely if ever get your car at the prescribed time or day. Try getting on and off an airplane and you will learn delays of over an hour are the norm, that is an hour after every passenger has already left the plane. Try to go shopping and you will find every accessible changing room is locked and no one knows where the key is. Try and go to the bathroom in a restaurant and you will find it is simply not possible as they are all inaccessible. Try to buy a ticket to any major sporting event on line and you will find that you cannot purchase handicap seats because you must call a "special" telephone number. Good luck waiting to have someone answer. Try to get on a bus and have the driver tell you the wheelchair lift is broken--every day. Try to take a long walk and find curb cuts are routinely blocked by parked cars or simply do not exist. Try entering a classroom but discover you cannot because there is no place sit because the chairs are all bolted to the floor. This is what disabled people such as myself encounter every day. This is exactly why the ADA has been a failure in many ways and why advocates for disability rights have helped to pass an ADA Restoration Act. None of the above seems "reasonable", indeed it reminds me of the Jim Crow Era that black people railed against. This leads me to conclude that the only real way to make society value access is to force it down other's throats by means of civil disobedience. A careful study of the disability rights movement reveals this is incredibly successful. Too bad the media never points out these facts.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Christopher Reeve in the News
Several years ago I published an extremely critical article about Christopher Reeve in the Ragged Edge. Although the Ragged Edge is no longer being published, it remains in my mind one of the most important disability rights periodicals ever produced. For many years after Reeve was paralyzed I refused to criticize him because I assumed he would eventually learn and understand what disability rights were all about. Many newly paralyzed people vow to walk again and most eventually realize that life after spinal cord injury is every bit as rewarding and fulfilling as life was before an injury. Most paralyzed people also come to realize that the major problems they encounter are not medical complications caused by paralysis. Rather the real problem that prevents paralyzed people from being incorporated into society is social, more specifically it is very difficult to "overcome" or avoid the social stigma and isolation associated with using a wheelchair. Reeve never learned this and the longer he remained paralyzed the more obnoxious he became about his quest for a cure. In his quest for a cure, an honorable goal by itself, he reinforced every negative stereotype about disability and set back disability rights for at least a decade. When he was alive I cringed every time I heard him speak and found his willingness to let the media portray him as a tragic figure, a mere shadow of his virile Superman persona, nothing short of despicable.
Reeve is back in the news again thanks to the release of a new unauthorized biography with the dreadful title Somewhere in Heaven by Christopher Andersen. Mr. Andersen is out and about hawking his book and clearly projecting the most simplistic view of disability. Reeve's paralysis was a tragedy, his life hopelessly compromised and elevates his wife, Dana, for sainthood. In interviews Andersen is happy to portray Reeve as a real life super hero. The subtext however is the knowledge that all those unfamiliar with disability consider Reeve's life after he was injured to be pitiful. Anderson and the mainstream press rely a hopelessly out of date perception of disability that Reeve embraced. Thus the focus is on Reeve's supposed "inner strength" and his wife Dana's "remarkable" dedication to her husband. Utterly lost in this feel good portrait is the gross social, economic, and political inequities disabled people encounter every day. Ignored are more than two decades of disability rights legislation that the Supreme Court has tried to overturn given half a chance. No where do I hear about the person with a similar injury to Reeve who within weeks is sent to a nursing from where they are highly unlikely to ever leave. I do not hear about an unemployment rate of 70% among those with a severe disability. Where are the reports about the ADA Restoration Act? Does the average citizen even know the ADA is civil rights legislation?
The focus on Reeve as an archetype for disability often makes me break out in a series of curse words that would make a sailor blush. Reeve was indeed a tragic figure but not for the reasons most people think. I think he surrounded himself with all the wrong people and that his ego did not let him understand that one can be disabled and proud. His singular focus on cure while admirable allowed him to view himself as some how different from every other disabled person. To me, this is the real tragedy in Reeve's post injury life. He could have advocated for cure and been embraced by disability rights activists bent on social change for all people. Instead Reeve accepted and incorporated an overwhelming negative view of disability and thoughtlessly used the ramps and elevators that disability activists fought so hard for. I think Reeve missed an opportunity to radically change the cultural perception of disabled people in this country and that this missed opportunity was particularly unfortunate. This point is reinforced every time I listen to or read about Reeve's life as those unfamiliar with disability spout off about how heroic he and his wife were. The effort to portray him as a heroic figure reveals nothing about Reeve and much about the bigotry and ignorance paralyzed people encounter every time they leave their house. This is the story I want people to think about.
Reeve is back in the news again thanks to the release of a new unauthorized biography with the dreadful title Somewhere in Heaven by Christopher Andersen. Mr. Andersen is out and about hawking his book and clearly projecting the most simplistic view of disability. Reeve's paralysis was a tragedy, his life hopelessly compromised and elevates his wife, Dana, for sainthood. In interviews Andersen is happy to portray Reeve as a real life super hero. The subtext however is the knowledge that all those unfamiliar with disability consider Reeve's life after he was injured to be pitiful. Anderson and the mainstream press rely a hopelessly out of date perception of disability that Reeve embraced. Thus the focus is on Reeve's supposed "inner strength" and his wife Dana's "remarkable" dedication to her husband. Utterly lost in this feel good portrait is the gross social, economic, and political inequities disabled people encounter every day. Ignored are more than two decades of disability rights legislation that the Supreme Court has tried to overturn given half a chance. No where do I hear about the person with a similar injury to Reeve who within weeks is sent to a nursing from where they are highly unlikely to ever leave. I do not hear about an unemployment rate of 70% among those with a severe disability. Where are the reports about the ADA Restoration Act? Does the average citizen even know the ADA is civil rights legislation?
The focus on Reeve as an archetype for disability often makes me break out in a series of curse words that would make a sailor blush. Reeve was indeed a tragic figure but not for the reasons most people think. I think he surrounded himself with all the wrong people and that his ego did not let him understand that one can be disabled and proud. His singular focus on cure while admirable allowed him to view himself as some how different from every other disabled person. To me, this is the real tragedy in Reeve's post injury life. He could have advocated for cure and been embraced by disability rights activists bent on social change for all people. Instead Reeve accepted and incorporated an overwhelming negative view of disability and thoughtlessly used the ramps and elevators that disability activists fought so hard for. I think Reeve missed an opportunity to radically change the cultural perception of disabled people in this country and that this missed opportunity was particularly unfortunate. This point is reinforced every time I listen to or read about Reeve's life as those unfamiliar with disability spout off about how heroic he and his wife were. The effort to portray him as a heroic figure reveals nothing about Reeve and much about the bigotry and ignorance paralyzed people encounter every time they leave their house. This is the story I want people to think about.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Jerry Lewis and the Congressional Gold Medal
In the last 24 hours I have gotten a slew of email from people outraged that Jerry Lewis is being considered for the Congressional Gold Medal "in recognition of his outstanding service to the nation." The bill HR3035 was introduced in the House of Representatives on July 12, 2007. The bill is supported by politicians I refuse to name from New Jersey where Mr. Lewis was born and Nevada where he resides. The effort to award Mr. Lewis the Congressional Gold Medal prominently mentions his efforts to raise money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Congress is correct, Mr. Lewis raised millions of dollars for the MDA. What is conveniently overlooked is the antiquated way in which he raised money via the MDS telethon. Mr. Lewis may have raised millions of dollars but disabled people consider him memorable for other reasons--specifically his obnoxious and bigoted remarks when disabled people began to complain about his fund raising methods that focused on pity. I remember being stunned when I heard him angrily state "Pity? If you don't want to be pitied because you're a cripple in a wheelchair stay in your house". This remark and many other similarly offensive comments helped galvanize disabled people to form Jerry's Orphans" who effectively protested and changed the way the MDA raised money. While Mr. Lewis was not forced out of the MDA and the organization continued to broadcast its telethon, a point was made by Jerry Orphans that had national implications. Disability and disabled people were not and should not be objects of pity. This represented a small but significant step forward in disability rights.
Frankly, I do not care if Jerry Lewis is awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Mr. Lewis' fame and fortune are a thing of the past. The college students I teach have no idea who Mr. Lewis is and many do not even know what a telethon is. To me, this lack of knowledge represents significant social progress. The pity once heaped upon disabled people is growing increasingly uncommon and many young people simply do not make the connection between pity and disability. While there is a long way to go toward true social, economic, and political equality for disabled people, this week I am hopeful about the future. One small and seemingly insignificant social exchange caused me to stop and think. I was on my way to the brand new library after class. The new building is finally complete and I was checking up on the required reading I had on reserve. As I went up the ramp to the only entrance two of my students appeared behind me as I opened the door. As I was going in one student asked me "Professor, how can a school build a new library without an electric door opener?" Before I could reply the other student remarked "Wow, this is really bad. You know the electric door is a must. What were the architects thinking? Did they take a stupid pill?"
The two students I was with instantly recognized the absence of electric doors as wrong and were surprised. I told them the lack of wheelchair access is a never ending problem even in new buildings like the library. They did not seem to understand what I was saying until I told them them all state universities had tight budgets and it was easy to cut out high priced items like electric doors. The veritable light bulb went off above their heads and they proceeded to tell me about all the short cuts that had been undertaken in the dorms and other building on campus I did not routinely go to in terms of wheelchair access. As our conversation tailed off it was clear they considered the lack of wheelchair access on campus was simply wrong--a wrong they had not noticed. The lack of awareness was not unusual but what I found encouraging was the assumption that they expected all buildings to be accessible. Too bad those that designed the new library do not think the same way. In my dreams one of the students I spoke with will become an architect, one that will design buildings that are accessible on paper and in reality.
Frankly, I do not care if Jerry Lewis is awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Mr. Lewis' fame and fortune are a thing of the past. The college students I teach have no idea who Mr. Lewis is and many do not even know what a telethon is. To me, this lack of knowledge represents significant social progress. The pity once heaped upon disabled people is growing increasingly uncommon and many young people simply do not make the connection between pity and disability. While there is a long way to go toward true social, economic, and political equality for disabled people, this week I am hopeful about the future. One small and seemingly insignificant social exchange caused me to stop and think. I was on my way to the brand new library after class. The new building is finally complete and I was checking up on the required reading I had on reserve. As I went up the ramp to the only entrance two of my students appeared behind me as I opened the door. As I was going in one student asked me "Professor, how can a school build a new library without an electric door opener?" Before I could reply the other student remarked "Wow, this is really bad. You know the electric door is a must. What were the architects thinking? Did they take a stupid pill?"
The two students I was with instantly recognized the absence of electric doors as wrong and were surprised. I told them the lack of wheelchair access is a never ending problem even in new buildings like the library. They did not seem to understand what I was saying until I told them them all state universities had tight budgets and it was easy to cut out high priced items like electric doors. The veritable light bulb went off above their heads and they proceeded to tell me about all the short cuts that had been undertaken in the dorms and other building on campus I did not routinely go to in terms of wheelchair access. As our conversation tailed off it was clear they considered the lack of wheelchair access on campus was simply wrong--a wrong they had not noticed. The lack of awareness was not unusual but what I found encouraging was the assumption that they expected all buildings to be accessible. Too bad those that designed the new library do not think the same way. In my dreams one of the students I spoke with will become an architect, one that will design buildings that are accessible on paper and in reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)