The other day, a lady -- who identifies as a feminist -- and I conversed about income inequality. She advocates for women's rights, including the right to equal pay. When I agreed with her, she was satisfied, and was ready to drop the conversation. However, I could not contain my curiosity, so I asked her if she knew that people with disabilities are payed sub-minimum wage. See, many people do not know this, and no one -- with the exception of the disability community -- seems to care that it is happening. She expressed that she could not fathom that the government would allow that to happen, and that it must just happen in the private sector. I informed her that in encouraging businesses to hire people with disabilities, the federal government passed a law that allows employers to pay the disabled sub-minimum wage. I went on to explain that this piece of legislation was legitimized by the perception that people with disabilities do not work at the same quality or speed as the general population. She did not seem bothered by this information; she even said that the legitimization made sense. I questioned her on this; I asked her whether all people -- disabled or not -- should be payed based on their generalized ability. She did not have an answer, and the conversation ended there.
Why should the topic of disability -- or ablism -- be treated any differently than feminism, racism or sexism? The conversation I had (mentioned above), is not uncommon; it may be on a different topic, but the theme is still the same. It seems the mentality is as if everyone should have (or maybe even given) access to a happy and fulfilling life, except the disabled.
This theme was woven tightly throughout the tapestry threads of Western Washington University. As a political science major, I read many textbooks on the topics of environmentalism, feminism, racism, and sexism; the topics of economic inequality and intersectionality would pop up time after time. However, the topics of disability and ablism would rarely bubble to the surface, unless I brought it up.
One of the times that disability made an appearance (prior to my assistance), was when my Economic Inequality professor addressed Social Security. This was during one class period, and was the only day she addressed disability, and she lumped all disabled and elderly people together. She talked about Social Security, but not Supplemental Security Income (SSI); she talked about Medicare, but not Medicaid; she did not inform the class of the savings limit placed upon any person who collects SSI, nor the income limit that people, who require assistance to live in their own homes, have to stay under in order to receive their allotted hours of assistance. She did not address the lack of affordable and accessible housing, nor the number of disabled people who are forced to live in institutions. She also did not share that both the likelihood of a disabled person living in poverty and the unemployment rate of people with disabilities is twice as high as that of the able-bodied population, nor that over eighty percent of the working aged population, who are also disabled, are not employed. This class did however cover the economic inequality, and the intersectionality of racism, sexism, and classism, with the addition of environmental consequences. Despite the disabled population being the largest minority in the United States, and that disability and poverty go hand and hand, the term ablism did not even come up in any of my professor's lessons.
There was also one mentioning of disability in the textbook for my Economic Inequality class. Thrown somewhere in the pages of this book was a statistic (on a scale of 10) stating that on average, a person in a room will rate their level of happiness two points higher when there is a person in a wheelchair in the same room, than when there is not. This means that people feel better about their life circumstances just because someone else is in a wheelchair; this rings pity, and reflects the notion that life with a disability is sad or more difficult than a "typical" life. A random person in a wheelchair -- just like any random person -- should not make anyone more or less happy based on their supposed circumstances. A person, who is in a wheelchair, should make people happy because their company is enjoyable, not simply because they are in a wheelchair; however, this takes getting to know them. The wheelchair should not be a factor in making people feel happier.
The curriculum of my Economic Inequality class did not stand alone. In my Cultural Studies Class, we had a text book that was filled with articles written by a diverse set of authors; there were over two-hundred articles written on race, gender, and class -- all pretty evenly distributed numbers wise -- and there were only three that fit within the theme of disability/ablism. I did however, have many opportunities to address this topic in my class. My professor greatly appreciated my input, and did acknowledged that the book was lacking in the area of disability.
A third time that disability arose in one of my classes, was in one of my Political Theory classes; this occurred when our class addressed the court case Buck v. Bell. This court case rules that Buck, the plaintiff, was allegedly retarded, and therefore, it was deemed appropriate for her sterilization. However, this time, I was given the opportunity to learn how a student felt about people with disabilities. This particular student voiced that he believed that the court was in the right; since this woman was disabled, she should not be able to procreate. His belief about disabled people was strengthened when our professor clarified that this woman was not actually disabled; he quickly changed his mind, stating that he was now in disagreement with the court, and that it was wrong for them to sterilize a woman as she should have a right to her own body. He pretty much was saying that a "normal" woman has the right to her body, but a disabled woman does not. Just the simple factor of disability swayed his mind. I was so mad; I felt like I was going to explode. This time I kept my mouth shut; I just sat their fuming. Today, I wish I had said something, but I did not want to open my mouth as I knew I would not have been able to keep my cool.
One more memory of disability being mentioned, was in my 20th Century German History class; my professor -- as well as some readings -- did include the disabled when listing which groups of people were considered lesser and killed by the Nazis; but that is just it, just mentioned.
These were the few times that the topic of disability came up in my numerous classes at WWU; however, this theme of there being a lack of disability awareness did not end with curriculum, it extended to the classes offered, and the mentality of the campus. Even though WWU offered classes on the study of this group and the history of that group, WWU does not offer disability studies courses. WWU does not offer American Sign Language (ASL) either; WWU does not consider ASL a foreign language. When there were events put on by the Disability Outreach Center, there were at most fifteen attendees, the majority whom had a disability.
The Disability Resources for Students (DRS) also reflected the attitude towards people with disabilities by making inappropriate comments like, "there are other students on campus who have worse problems than you," and not providing students with their accommodations until they are reported to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The president of WWU also made his feelings towards people with disabilities clear when he passed both my concerns and I off to one of his six vice presidents. This can be compared to a written threat toward a student of color, that President Shepard addressed promptly, and in which the community grew to know about.
Even though WWU, and Liberal academia and the media in general advocate profusely for allies to come along side all people groups, this theme of just leaving the disabled community to fend for themselves happens time and time again. Not many know about disability policy, or seem to care for that matter.
This is a different story, however,when the topic of euthanasia (AKA Death with Dignity) arises. There are many able-bodied allies that happily come along side the disabled who desire to end their life, but not along side those who desire to live their life. Maybe, just maybe, if the media would stop portraying disability as a terrible fate, and enlighten the world on what it is actually like to have a disability -- that we are just people living our lives -- and in turn, we and the topic of disability would no longer be a taboo subject.
People with disabilities are people, but until we are portrayed as people, our equal opportunities will continue to be denied, perpetuating the terrible image of disability. We will continue to be stuck in this conundrum of: until the world is universally accessible, disability will continue to be considered a horrific fate, but at the same time, until disability is considered just a part of life -- rather than a horrible reality -- accessibility will continue to not be deemed a prominent issue that is necessary to be fixed.
If the world knew that we are people and that our lives do matter, allies would be advocating for us to have an equal opportunity to live life rather than advocating for our right to off ourselves. And if the world began to educate themselves on what life with a disability is truly like, the world would slowly, but surely, become universally designed; the barriers to people with disabilities, along with the justification of their demise, would be eliminated.
No comments:
Post a Comment