Meanings Of "Special"

Disability-Focused Charter Schools Renew Inclusion Debate

Arianna Prothero, Education Week - September 16, 2014

This is one of the best articles without a definite axe to grind that I have read about inclusion vs. self-contained special education.

I have a feeling that one of the factors influencing why some parents of disabled kids move away from inclusion, towards "special", disability-focused charter schools is that people with different backgrounds and life experiences have different ideas of what "special" means.

To some, "Special" is:

Notable, remarkable, tailored, individualized, enriched, prestigious.

To others, "Special" means:

Stigmatized, ostracized, relegated, segregated, sheltered, excluded.

Some peoples’ experiences of “special” are positive, suggesting consumer goods and services that are individually crafted, made to order, as opposed to manufactured and standardized.

Others understand “special” more in terms of unwanted attention, deprivation, even punishment.

Sometimes, the word “special” drips with irony and smarm. It's a euphemism. It's supposed to be a good thing, but isn’t always meant that way.

Other times, it’s more straightforward. Sometimes "special" really means "better" or "exceptional".

For some of us, the idea of "special" schools will always have a sinister connotation. For others, "special" schools suggest students who are cherished and given generous attention, with the most advanced and expert educational techniques.

The flip side, of course, is that some view "mainstream" public schools as the most promising way to ensure inclusion and capability in adult life, while others see them as rigid, bureaucratic institutions where anyone different is neglected and uniqueness is ground down into bland conformity. Or worse, they are ultra-competitive and socially ruthless, while "special" schools are safe havens where especially sensitive, atypical students have a better chance to thrive.

All of these images and feelings are in active play, related to but also separate from verifiable, quantifiable facts about how education of kids with disabilities works, what it does and doesn’t do for them, and how it succeeds and fails to meet parents’ needs and expectations.

I find whole topic complicated and upsetting.

Buy It - Game Of Thrones, Season One

Season One introduces us to two of the series' many fascinating disabled characters ... Tyrion Lannister, a.k.a. The Imp, a.k.a. The Half Man ... and Bran Stark, the young son of Eddard Stark, and a paraplegic. Seeing the very different roles these characters play in the sprawling story shows the different ways disabled characters can function on TV shows.

If you haven't watched the show, what are you waiting for? And don't forget to tune in to my Disability.TV Podcast discussion of disability on "Game Of Thrones", with Alice Wong (@SFdirewolf), posting this Friday, September 19.

T4 Monument

Nazi 'euthanasia' of the disabled 'can never be forgotten’

Andreas Jürgens, Deutsche Welle - September 2, 2014

Monument Seeks to End Silence on Killings of the Disabled by the Nazis

Melissa Eddy, New York Times - September 2, 2014

Remembering the Nazi T4 program is important, and not just in the "don't forget about us" sense. The reasons why disabled people were targeted were in many respects similar to why other groups were targeted, but in other ways different.

On the one hand, Nazis argued that life with disabilities was intolerable for the disabled themselves, and that killing them was an act of compassion.

I have seen footage from Nazi propaganda films that push the supposed wretchedness of life with a disability by showing disabled people living in neglect and squalor. It's a more distilled version of how people today conflate the stigma and bureaucratic nightmares imposed on disabled people with the experience of disabilities themselves. We treat disabled people horribly, then look at them and note how horrible it is to have a disability. Treating disabled people better doesn't seem to be taken seriously as an alternative solution. Instead we get increased support for "assisted suicide", and in the Nazi's case, forced euthanasia, (i.e. medically murdering disabled people).

Nevertheless it’s an interesting difference. I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Nazis ever tried to justify killing Jews, Homosexuals, and Communists by saying that it was a kindness to them.

At the same time, Nazi theorists argued that disabled people were an unproductive drain on the state's resources, a negative drag on the ongoing biological improvement, strengthening, and purification of the German race. So really, it didn't matter whether killing disabled people was compassionate or not. It was good for the state, and good for the race, and for the Nazis, that was reason enough.

Both arguments ... compassion and the good of the state ... were full of shit, but you can still hear echoes of those arguments today. It is striking how often discussions of, say, assisted suicide start out citing individual choice and the compassionate end to someone’s suffering, and then morph into musings about the high cost of sick peoples’ final months and the “wastefulness” of “extending" peoples’ lives with “machines”.

We need this specific memorial to this part of the Holocaust because we need the reminder that horrible policies aren’t only enacted for explicitly horrible reasons. Sometimes, they develop out of ideas that seem to some to be eminently reasonable, even progressive.

#JusticeForIssy

Changing Conversations: When Parents Murder Disabled Children

Shannon Des Roc, BlogHer - September 11, 2014

#JUSTICEFORISSY: STATEMENT BY AUTISM WOMEN’S NETWORK

Disability Visibility Project - September 15, 2014

Some more thoughts on sympathy for parents who murder disabled children:

- In general, I support discussing how systemic failures and economic injustice can partially explain some individual violent crimes, including murders and suicides. But it seems like the only widely accepted context for such discussions is with the murder of disabled children. Similar discussions involving other kinds of people and situations … such as gang violence and school shootings … are generally despised as excusing and coddling criminals. Somehow, though, killing disabled people is in some way "understandable". How can that be anything but galling and scary for people who have disabilities?

- We absolutely should talk more about the unacceptable delays and gaps in support services to parents of kids with disabilities ... but never in connection with the murder of disabled children. We cannot afford to undermine the idea that disabled children … even the most difficult and baffling … are sentient human beings.

- We shouldn't assume that parents who go off the deep end are always ill-served. Some fumble or even reject opportunities for support, out of confusion, exhaustion, or failure to recognize promising pathways when they appear. Some parents also find it hard to engage support because they feel it's a weakness to ask for help, or because they are terrified of being judged or losing parental authority. All of these can be legitimate concerns, but are never enough to justify, or even properly explain, murder.

- When we do discuss systemic failures, we also need to discuss the influence of well-funded, popular, but unhelpful, wrong, and destructive ideas about disability and child rearing that are regularly fed to parents who often don't even know there are other points of view. With autism, especially, parents urgently need to be told that no matter how mystifying their behavior and communication might be, autistic children are first and foremost people, not wild animals or tortured, miserable monsters.

- One reason why a note of sympathy keeps coming up in cases where parents murder their disabled children is that by and large, people find it easier to identify with frustrated parents at the end of their rope, than with children who have what seem like mysterious, frightening disabilities.

- To repeat … discussing the lack of support for parents is fine and necessary, but NOT IN CONNECTION WITH ACTUAL MURDER OR ATTEMPTED MURDER OF DISABLED CHILDREN OR ADULTS. It should be a taboo, indecent, simply not done.

Historical Reminder

“Each refused to surrender to physical limitations that might have destroyed them.”

— Narration about Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, in Ken Burns’ documentary, “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History”

When we question the idea of “overcoming” disabilities today, we should occasionally remember that not so long ago, many if not most disabilities really did threaten to “destroy” people, either directly or indirectly. Many disabilities still do, today, but the line between illness and disability then was far more blurry then as it is now.

"Red Band Society" Followup

Hollywood has it wrong: I’m a teenager with an illness, and it’s not glamorous at all

Lillie Lainoff - Washington Post - September 12, 2014

I saw this article only minutes after posting my piece yesterday on upcoming new TV shows with disabilities themes, in which I expressed some cautious optimism about "Red Band Society”. After reading the article, I’m a bit less optimistic, but I will still be looking for positives I think may be there.

One problem may be the rather hard to define but in some ways crucial difference between chronic or terminal illness … like cancer or cystic fibrosis, and disabilities … like being an amputee or a paraplegic. As I mentioned yesterday, the line is blurry. However roughly speaking, one group copes more often with active pain, illness, and unpredictability. The other group has to focus more on adaptation and social integration. One group may or may not survive. The other probably will, for the long haul, while their disabilities will always be with them. It looks like this show will mainly be about illness, not disability. My interest is partly in seeing how the two kinds of situations can be both different and similar.

I agree with Ms. Lainoff that another big problem is how the hospital will be portrayed. I think they might get away with giving us such a happy, nurturing hospital with so much freedom granted to the patients, if the show made clear that it is some kind of special, innovative institution designed specifically for seriously ill teens. Maybe they talk about that in the Pilot, but Ms. Lainoff didn’t mention it, so I’m doubtful. It’s okay to show an atypical, idealized setting, as long as there is some explanation for that. Otherwise, it’s just rose-colored glasses.

As for how Red Band Society’s characters represent chronic illness or disability, again it makes a difference which thing they want to represent. A cheerful representation of chronic illness will seem more fraudulent than if they really mean to portray disability. Maybe the writers and show runners are confused. Non-disabled people who create movies and TV shows are very easily confused about the ideas and ideals they think they are presenting.

Weekly Wrap-Up

Tips, Freak Shows, and Friday Night Lights.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

• Another Podcast Update … And Request
• Disabled TV Character Survey - Update

Monday, September 8, 2014

• Disability.TV Podcast - Supplemental
• What’s To Be Done?

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

• AHS: Freak Show Trailer

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

• 4 More Tips For Parents

Thursday, September 11, 2014

• Pistorius Verdict - Part 1

Friday, September 12, 2014

• Disability.TV Podcast - Friday Night Lights
• Schedules

Saturday, September 13

• Fall TV Alerts

Fall TV Alerts

Two TV shows premiere this week that in different ways deal with the disability experience: Red Band Society, and the new Ken Burns documentary, The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.

I am absolutely locked in for the "The Roosevelts." As a former history major, a political junkie, and a disabled person, it’s a trifecta. Both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt are iconic historical figures and political pioneers … not to mention Eleanor’s leadership on so many issues. Franklin, of course, spent most of his adult life and all of his Presidency dealing every single day with the paralysis that resulted from Polio. But from what I can recall in my somewhat less intensive reading about Teddy Roosevelt, it seems like he, also, dealt in a way with what today we would call disabilities. He was certainly a “sickly” child. And although I don’t believe his conditions continued into adulthood, most historians believe that his early experience of “weakness” and “frailty” profoundly affected Theodore's personal philosophy, and maybe even his political outlook.

I wonder if Burns will make that connection. In fact, I am a little nervous to see how he handles FDR’s polio, too. I hope he doesn’t confine it to one episode and then leave it behind once Franklin resumes politics. I also hope Burns calls upon more recent historical accounts that undercut the idea that FDR kept his paralysis a total secret. He might even include a few interviews with James Tobin, author of a very recent book on the subject I reviewed back in January.

Here are two relevant scenes from Burns’ film, available on the PBS website:

These key parts of the series seem to be set for Wednesday evening. Unfortunately, so is the premiere of "Red Band Society" on FOX.

I will be reviewing each episode of this new show for the TV website Gotta Watch It!, but I’m going to wait until winter, probably, before doing an extensive discussion of it on my Disability.TV Podcast.

If the show itself is any good, it looks like it will explore many different aspects of the disability experience … institutionalization, the strengths and flaws of the medical model, camaraderie among people with diverse disabilities, disabled people struggling for freedom and agency, and the murky boundaries between disability and life-threatening disease. Of course, if the acting, writing, or filming are sloppy or lazy, then it won’t be worth watching regardless of any positive messages it might try to send. Plus, dealing with these interesting disability issues doesn’t mean the show will deal with them well. I’m a little concerned that they’ll try too hard to portray the hospital as “fun” all the time. On the other hand, I love the idea of these kids bonding, helping each other out, and trying to wriggle out of the medical model control they are under.

I am looking forward to finding out if it all works.

Schedules

The Schedule Talk

It Keeps Going - August 20, 2014

(Via the Wheelie Wifee Tumblr blog)

This blogger goes on my favorite disability blogger list because she focuses on practical ways to combat depression, aimlessness, and inactivity … risks I think disabled people face more than most. This is especially true for those of us who do not have jobs. There are usually good reasons why we don't, but whether or not you are even in the market for a job, it can get really depressing when it seems like you have nothing to do every day.

I would like to note three more benefits for disabled people of making and using a schedule, beyond the benefits discussed in the article:

1. It keeps you ready for the rhythms of employment, in case the right opportunity comes along to get back to the workplace.

2. It provides you with coherent answers to job interview questions about what you’ve been doing while unemployed.

3. If you need to apply for disability-related benefits, a detailed daily schedule can help document the extent and limits of your activities.

For my schedule, I use Apple Calendar and Todo, applications that work on my Macintosh computer and iPhone.

Disability.TV Podcast - Friday Night Lights

On this episode of Disability.TV, Maddy Ruvolo and I discuss the critically acclaimed series about the high school football town of Dillon Texas, and one of the longest running and nuanced disabled characters on TV, Jason Street. You can find Maddy on Twitter @maddyruvolo, and at the Disabled Girls Talk Podcast, which she hosts along with Emily Ladau.

Upcoming Podcasts

September 19

Game Of Thrones - Part 1

Guest Co-Host Alice Wong

September 26

Mini-Cast

October 3

Game Of Thrones - Part 2

Guest Co-Host Alice Wong

October 10

Mini-Cast

October 17

Glee

Guest Co-Host Cheryl Green

October 31

Ironside (2013)

Guest Co-Host Kamilah Proctor

Click one of the links to subscribe to the podcast at iTunes or Stitcher.

Pistorius Verdict - Part 1

Oscar Pistorius trial: Why murder was ruled out

BBC - September 11, 2014

The BBC quotes from the judge’s initial decision, that Oscar Pistorious is not guilty of premeditated murder, but that she will pass a sentence on him tomorrow for “culpable homicide”:

"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.

"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.

The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.

"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said. [Emphasis mine]

Whatever else comes out of this case in the end, this rather oddly worded statement nevertheless addresses the disability issue pretty effectively. Disability can certainly be a vulnerability when it comes to the threat of physical violence. However, it would be too much to give everyone with a verifiable vulnerability extra leeway to shoot people. Each case should be judged on its individual merits, and there are many situations where disabilities aren’t vulnerabilities at all.

That, coupled with the fact that the judge says Pistorius did not act reasonably, actually says quite a lot.

4 More Tips For Parents

TALKING TO KIDS ABOUT DISABILITY (AND VOLDEMORT)

Mary Evelyn, What Do You Do Dear? - September 5, 2014

This is a terrific article with great advice for parents of disabled kids, and kids with disabilities themselves. Slack-jawed stares and uncomfortable questions are often the first and most frequent encounter disabled people have with the social stigma of disability. So, I would like to add four more suggestions for parents on how to help their children handle disability-related pointing, staring, and asking.

1. Age makes a difference ... the age of your child, and of the person doing the pointing, staring, or asking. If you child is older than the person asking the questions … if your child is a teen and the other kid is 5 years old … it's a good opportunity to help your disabled child take on age-appropriate responsibilities. Teach them that as the older child, they should be a little kinder and more forgiving to the younger child than they might want to be. Help them recognize situations where they can help make someone more comfortable with and respectful about disability.

2. Help your child recognize situations where frank disability questions are okay. For example: doctor’s appointments, certain educational settings (though not necessarily all of them), and dealing with police, firefighters, and EMTs.

3. Empower your child to establish appropriate personal boundaries. Teach them effective, constructive ways to respond when people cross those boundaries. Let your disabled child know they have a right to be treated respectfully, and that they don't have to put up with everything from everybody, even from adults, just because they have disabilities and need help and supports that most other people don’t. It’s good to be appropriately grateful. It’s dangerous to feel beholden.

4. Help your disabled child develop effective and efficient ways to explain their disabilities to others. Having a brief, straightforward answer to the most “frequently asked questions” can be practically helpful, and give one added confidence.

AHS: Freak Show Trailer

Another trailer for American Horror Story: Freak Show.

A few thoughts on this particular brand of “problematic” disability depiction:

I have seen depictions of disability on TV that disturbed me, but didn’t piss me off. I generally don’t mind disability depictions that are upsetting. It’s disability depictions that feel wrong and harmful that bother me.

On paper it is a simple matter to distinguish between what’s in the actual “text” and what is “meta”. For instance, if a AHS “Freak Show” includes scenes where audiences gasp and swoon on viewing physically deformed people on display, the text itself is offensive, but the show may or may not be criticizing the behavior of the freakshow audiences, portraying them as ignorant or nasty. It's possible to have a progressive depiction of regressive behavior. But what if we, the audience at home, not only tut-tut about those old-timey rubes and their insensitive attitudes, while at the same time we also kind of join in their morbid curiosity about lookin’ at freaks? The lines blur, and writers can get away with a lot by insisting that they are just commenting on things as they are, or were.

I hope freak shows don’t become the next hipster affectation or Steampunk theme. People should know about the times, not so very long ago, when people both cynically and sincerely believed that gaping at deformed people was enlightening, like participating in science, appreciating the wonders of nature. But I don’t want people to start thinking it’s okay again, even nostalgically.