Are you ready for another Disability Blogger Link-Up? As always, you can post anything you like, as long as its related to disability.
Technical note: To make the links easier to browse, in the “Your name” blank, type the title of the article. In the "Your URL" blank, paste the address of the item you are posting.
Then click the "Enter" button. That's it!
Have fun posting and reading! Please also share this with others. It's a good way to build our community and give exposure to new disability bloggers.
This Link-Up will close at Midnight Eastern on Sunday. Look for the next regular Disability Blogger Link-Up starting Friday, August 14, 2015.
22 years in Independent Living and I never saw this video about Ed Roberts until yesterday. There’s nothing in it I didn’t know from other sources, but I really feel like I missed out not seeing this much earlier in my Independent Living career.
The video does have a bit of a corporate instructional film feel, but focus on the words, which are as relevant today as they were in the early ‘90s. In fact, I am amazed at how current the content really is. Just update the technology from a “word board” to an iPad, make the music a little more energetic, (or just get rid of it entirely), shoot it in high-res digital, and this could be made today.
Sadly, we don’t have Ed Roberts anymore. He died in 1995. But, there are other people still living who share Ed Roberts’ philosophy and commitment. You might find them working at your nearest Center for Independent Living. If you want to understand what Centers for Independent Living are and what they are supposed to be, this video is an excellent place to start.
Shared Abilities just posted what I hope will be a series of items where parents of kids with disabilities “Ask Andrew” questions about what it is like to grow up from being a disabled child into a disabled adult. Obviously, I have mainly my own experience to draw from, and it’s not like everything went exactly the way it’s supposed to for me. But I figure the failures and shortcomings taught me just as much as the victories.
There’s probably going to be some kind of engineered showdown over funding Social Security Disability here in the United States. Disability activists are going to be pulled in a few different directions. Should we join the effort to “reform” the program and risk validating benefit cuts and narrowing eligibility? Or, should we line up to defend the program as it is, and miss the opportunity to reduce work disincentives and make other improvements we’d actually like to see?
Before we get too far down the road, we should pay careful attention to what’s been happening with “welfare” cuts in the UK, including cuts specifically affecting disabled people:
"One thing the welfare bill accomplishes is to put people who have failed a fitness to work test on to the same payment as people who have passed it, like some tent-revivalist preacher tipping sinners out of wheelchairs and screaming “Walk!” Who would have thought that electing people who hate the welfare state to run our welfare state could go so badly? In practical terms this change means people with things such as MS and Parkinson’s will lose £30 a week. That extra £30 a week was there because, sometimes, chronically ill people’s bodies don’t work so well and they might have to get a bus or a cab or pay the babysitter to stay for an extra hour so they can get to and from the latest humiliation from the Department for Work and Pensions."
This is from an angry article in The Guardian about the Labour Party, the UK’s main left-of-center party that historically has fought for the welfare state and defended the UK’s poor and working class. It’s roughly … and I mean very roughly … equivalent to the US’s Democratic Party. Yet, apparently they are pretty much going along with the Conservative Government’s austerity policies, which include a two-faced stance on disability policy.
Publicly, they use the language of empowerment and confidence in disabled peoples’ ability to work and be self-sufficient, while policy-wise they cut benefits and make everyone who gets benefits prove to poorly-trained bureaucrats that they really do need their government support. Meanwhile, they nudge and wink and tisk-tisk about “welfare scroungers."
It sounds familiar. The same kind of thing could easily happen here, if we aren’t very careful.
By the way, £30 a week, £120 per month, is equivalent to almost almost $47 per week, $187 per month. That's more than the cost of a few lattes.
This morning, a disability activist here in Plattsburgh emailed a bunch of people this Op Ed piece I wrote for the Plattsburgh Press-Republican newspaper about the Americans with Disabilities Act, just before it was signed into law on July 26, 1990.
When I saw what it was, I had a moment of dread. I couldn’t remember writing it, and I wondered if it would be embarrassing. In fact, it’s not bad.
On thing I noticed is that there are actually very few people making the libertarian argument against the ADA anymore. Apart from a few think-tank theorists, hardly anyone uses the ADA as an example of government overreach anymore. That’s a good thing, but also a bad thing. It’s good that we mostly don’t have to deal with ideological opposition anymore. But it’s also disturbing because it is further evidence that most people don’t see the government as an active participant … a cheerleader maybe, but nothing anyone feels afraid of anymore.
Any residual venom seems to be reserved for a few lawyers, and for disability activists.
Anyway, enjoy this pre-ADA, pre-Web, pre-Blog, pre-Disability Thinking snapshot from the archives.
This week I am posting links to articles I have collected the 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The “mainstream” press rarely covers disability issues in any sort of depth. That’s why I decided to stick with the more journalistic pieces, even though most of what I have read about the ADA this week was on personal disability blogs and social media sites.
It’s all about the video above, which I have posted before on this blog. As the man in the video says, there’s a fine line between empowerment and pity. I think there are two key factors. First, it seems like the capitol crawlers wanted to do it, and came up with the idea themselves. Second, they did it for their community, not for themselves.
Robert L. Burgdorf Jr., Washington Post - July 24, 2015
This is the kind of history I love, and I’m amazed at how little I knew about the origins of the ADA. But to me, this is the most important sentence:
“After conducting consumer forums around the country, NCD concluded that discrimination was the biggest problem facing those with disabilities."
It’s easy to forget what a radical conclusion that was at the time. For many today, it’s still a surprise and a revelation that disability discrimination is, in fact, worse than disability itself.
News stories about ADA lawsuits usually make them sound either vaguely sleazy or unrealistic and selfish. This article shows how lawsuits are sometimes necessary to move progress along, and ensure justice for individuals who need it.
The Title I employment provisions may be the least successful part of the ADA, if success means a major shift towards employment for all people with disabilities. But I don’t think the ADA was really designed to deal with macro-level employment gaps. It’s better suited to dealing with very specific individual employment matters. And as a civil rights law, the ADA has nothing at all to do with preparing people for jobs. It removed some barriers to entry, but it was never meant to push people through.
Ananya Bhattacharya and Heather Long, CNN Money - July 26, 2015
Reading about the blind man at the start of this article, I wonder for the millionth time why there aren’t more disabled people who file complaints and sue under the ADA when faced with such straightforward discrimination and lack of accessibility. But it takes resources to pursue complaints and lawsuits, neither of which are likely to make the plaintiff more employable. Especially with employment discrimination, there’s something missing in the ADA, but I don’t know how it could be fixed.
Did the ADA make it harder for disabled people get jobs? It’s an interesting thought that makes some kind of sense, but I’m not convinced the law has been a net negative. After reading this article, I have the feeling that for many of us, the problem is that we are distracted by so many little inaccessibilities, discriminations, and disincentives before we even get to the workplace, and I think employers sense that. They might not think, “I don’t want to hire a disabled person,” but they will think, “This person’s life is too complicated, how would she stay focused on the job?” If the rest of our lives were smoother and more secure, I think we’d be more convincing in the job market.
I agree with Dot Nary’s strategy of letting smaller businesses go with some education, while saving really aggressive advocacy for the big companies that “should know better.” In rural towns like mine, though, that might not be enough. The bigger companies are all on the outskirts of town, and are mostly accessible by now. It’s just that a lot of disabled people can’t get there. The businesses they can reach tend to be smaller, in those old downtown buildings that ALL have steps up and narrow doorways. Eventually, something has to be done about them, too. And after 25 years, “eventually” is, arguably, now.
***
I have to say I’m disappointed that neither of my two favorite news websites, Vox.com and FiveThrityEight.com have posted anything about the ADA anniversary. I wonder if these were conscious editorial decisions, or just carelessness.
I’m going to take a couple of days off from blogging. I’ll be back Sunday, July 26, 2015 with a collection of my favorite articles about the 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ----------
One year ago in Disability Thinking: Digging Up Disability History. Skeletal evidence of prehistoric compassion, and possibly equality of disabled people.
It is hard to get a handle on what the Americans with Disabilities Act has accomplished and meant to disabled Americans for the last 25 years. As a disabled person myself, I have been trying to think of a way to sum up the ADA’s importance.
Pretty much everyone in the disability community celebrates the ADA, but it’s a very glass half full / glass half empty thing for us. How each of us evaluates the ADA says as much about our own personalities and individual experiences than about the law itself. Unfortunately there aren’t many objective measures of the ADA's success or failure. How do we assess the value of the ADA? Has it really made much of a difference?
Maybe we should ask, “What would America be like today, if the ADA had not become law in 1990?"
Set aside the very strong possibility that an ADA of some kind would have passed eventually, in 1995 or maybe 2000. Let’s suppose instead that after failing to pass in 1990, the whole idea of a civil rights law to cover disabled Americans falls out of favor entirely.
Here are 9 ways America would be different today, without the ADA:
1. Most buildings of all kinds built after 1992 would have unnecessary barriers like narrow doorways and steps at entrances. Facilities and features for disabled people would be rare, separate, hidden from view, and hard to find.
2. Disabled people would only venture out into the community or travel for bare essentials. Most recreational places like restaurants, theaters, stadiums, hotels and motels would lack accessibility restrooms, restricting disabled people to only the briefest visits.
3. Sidewalk curb ramps would be rare, and wheelchair users riding in the street would be a major local irritant issue, similar to cars vs. bikes.
4. A handful of colleges and universities would be known for their accessibility and accommodation practices, and disabled people would have to go to them or not go to college at all. A few very expensive private colleges would probably be founded just for students with specific kinds of disabilities.
5. Virtually all disability activism would consist of groups representing specific disabilities lobbying for very targeted benefits and privileges, plus individuals raising money to pay for personal needs. The concept of “disability rights” would be viewed abstractly, discussed mainly by theorists and academics but unfamiliar to most disabled people.
6. There would be huge opportunity and participation gaps between disabled people with some wealth, who could pay for their own accommodations in workplaces and other areas, and those too poor to do so.
7. Far fewer disabled people would even attempt to get jobs, since they would be told quite plainly that they are not being hired because of their disabilities. Mentally ill people would find it almost impossible to get jobs of any kind, as employers would regularly and legally probe into whether applicants had any mental health histories.
8. Elderly people would move into nursing homes and similar facilities sooner and in much higher numbers, due in part to less accessible communities, and also because of the lack of any meaningful commitment to the principals of “most integrated setting."
9. Very few buses trains, or subways would be wheelchair accessible, mostly in the biggest cities and on a handful of the busiest routes. Accessible, affordable public transportation in rural areas would not exist, apart from a few vans operated irregularly by disability non-profits, nursing homes, and churches.
What do you think would be different today without the ADA? Join a Twitter hashtag … #AmericaWithoutADA
First of all, make sure to move the slider over to just before the 1 hour mark, because up until then it’s all title screen. Also, don’t skip the introduction, because it’s amazing. It’s inspiring without being saccharine.
President Obama does seem to understand the fundamental concept of the ADA and of the disability rights movement. The story about his father-in-law is on point, admiring his perseverance, but pivoting to how much easier life would have been for him if the ADA had been law back then. As the young woman introducing the President noted, it’s not magic. It’s not even really about character. It’s about accessibility, accommodation, and equal opportunity.
A selection of disability-related articles and blog posts I read last week, but didn’t have a chance to link to or discuss. It’s an opportunity to catch up with some of the good stuff that’s out there, but doesn’t fit neatly into the week's “big stories.”
Emily Ladau, The Disability Dialog - July 16, 2015
Activists are admired in the abstract, but the truth is that very few manage to be consistently liked. It’s one of the few real downsides to being an activist … on any topic, but maybe especially on disability issues. By definition, activists find fault with others. In the disability sphere, they typically find fault with people and institutions that mean well, or at least think they mean well. Plus, we have to find rather obscure, nit-picky faults that few others even see, but which are in fact hugely important. This is one of the reasons why I’m a much better thinker than I am an activist, and I definitely get where Emily is coming from here.
This is a stunningly good, in-depth, intelligent investigation into how the ADA’s local government and accessibility provisions get ignored in some communities. It digs into multiple failures … governments that never did a decent Self-Evaluation or Transition Plan, local code officials who claim they can’t enforce accessibility standards because of legal technicalities, and businesses that fall back on the assumption that if there aren’t any complaints, it must be OK. The only thing missing from where is sit is to ask what, if anything, people with disabilities and disability rights organizations in this area of Colorado tried to do over the last 25 years to deal with these issues, most of which could have been easily solved long ago. I think it’s one of the least discussed weaknesses in ADA implementation … the lack of a coherent, agreed upon and effective strategy by the disability rights movement.
It kind puts the Alice Wong and Emily Ladau’s discussions of disability activism into perspective. The mix of anger and ambivalence may be both a cause, and eventually another effect of situations like this one in Colorado. More about this later, maybe ...
I have been trying to follow and understand what has been happening to disability benefits in the United Kingdom. It’s confusing. On the one hand, the UK seems to have a somewhat simpler system of support benefits than we have in the U.S. However, it’s hard to tell from the names of programs just what they do and what each of them is for. This article finally explains the Independent Living Fund in a way that I understand. It seems like it was an experiment in giving people direct cash payments instead of regulated, designed programs, something I would like to see more of here in the U.S. Cash allows disabled people to buy whatever they need, instead of having to conform themselves to whatever some program directors want them to do. The problem is that cash benefits are also simpler and maybe easier to cut. It’s just a number, that’s all. And if “everyone” is tightening their belts, why should disabled people be exempt? I suspect that one problem is that most UK voters have no real idea what those benefits mean to disabled people, in practical, day to day terms. Anyway, I feel like watching what happens in the UK might serve as some valuable warnings for us here in the U.S.
I’m not sure why I am including this article on my Weekly Reading List. I like Tig Notaro as a comedian, and the story of her multiple life crises, culminating with breast cancer, and the incredible standup routine she did about, is compelling. But it’s not really about disability. I watched the Netflix documentary, though, and came away with two thoughts that are related to disability. First, I wasn’t as emotionally engaged or impressed as I think I was supposed to be. Second, I still don’t know how Notaro actually feels about being considered not just entertaining and funny … which is what comedians want to be … but “inspiring.” The film seems to take for granted that her story is especially inspiring, and in some way unprecedented. Maybe that’s the problem. As a disabled person, I know that it isn’t. Not to take anything away from her, but what Tig Notaro went through is rare, but not unheard of. I recommend you listen to the pivotal standup show, and watch the film. They are both fun and interesting, but I bet that if you are disabled, you will also find yourself feeling a little ambivalent at times.
