Sunday, December 26, 2010
Your Right to Call Me A Retard Doesn’t Trump Mine to Call You A Bigot
First Published as a letter to the editor in the Washington Post on February 18, 2010
What is glaringly missing from the debate over the epithet "retard" in The Post [" 'Retard': The language of bigotry," op- ed, Feb. 15] is the voice of anyone with a disability who spent a lifetime enduring such garbage.
Since I was a child, growing up with cerebral palsy, I have put up with and, worse yet, witnessed others putting up with derision from schoolyard bullies, so-called satirists and politicians. Is such speech protected by the First Amendment? Certainly it is. Free speech, however, is a two-way street. If you are going to claim the right to utter the word, don't pretend to be foggy about its meaning.
The R-word is a slur based on the rankest forms of prejudice, fear and stereotyping, and everyone from kindergartners to those in high positions knows it. If you want to use the word, use it. But if you are an adult, don't try to shield yourself from criticism by claiming that those who challenge your words and your intent are just being "politically correct" when they call you out for being what you are -- a bigot.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Building on Success Works
Previously published on Disability.gov on October 25, 2010
By Guest Blogger Bob Williams, Office of Employment Support Programs, Social Security Administration
In his best seller, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell explores what enables certain people to experience extraordinary success that defies the odds and falls far outside of the norm. To Gladwell, the success of a Bill Gates or kids playing soccer does not depend so much on someone’s innate abilities, as it does on the "accumulative advantage(s)" he or she experiences in life.
For Gates, these included having access to some of the first computers in high school in the 70’s and then going to a college where he could live in a computer lab 24/7. This is known as the “10,000 hours rule.” Research shows kids born in January or March are likely to be far better at soccer than their friends born later the same year. Why? Because youngsters born in the spring get more coaching and time to play than their friends six to eight months younger.
Gladwell argues the more we understand what factors combine to create personal success, the more we can make those conditions available to others. I agree.
As a baby boomer with significant disabilities, who has a well-established career and a good income, I consider myself an outlier, having beaten more than a few statistical odds. The older I get, the more interested I become in figuring out how what I have experienced might enable young people to access a similar path to success. Here are some of the critical lessons that continue to guide me:
Setting the bar high. Some of my earliest memories of growing up in the 60’s are those of my parents telling me that I would go to college someday. I will never know what prompted them to hold out such hopes, but their belief became my talisman. I failed to make it into college right after high school. By luck and hard work, however, I was eventually accepted and enjoyed every minute.
Working hard pays off. I learned early that hard work matters. I saw my Dad, who owned a small construction company, leave for work early every day and return late. Similarly, my Mom worked long hours cleaning, cooking and taking me to therapy. And going to therapy, I learned that paid off as well. I learned through therapy how to keep my balance, put one step in front of another, to type and ride a tricycle – things that enabled me to keep up with my brothers and sisters, to surpass the low expectations of others and demonstrate to myself that I could do far more than others thought. When a child experiences small successes early, it has a huge cascading effect. Successes build on each other. Setbacks do not become permanent realities. The child learns to define him or herself by his or her successes rather than failures.
Learning from others. Many people in my life – my parents, family, teachers, professors, friends, bosses and colleagues – have offered me critical insights. Increasingly, however, I realize that other people with disabilities have taught me the most. In high school, when I seemed destined for a day activity program, friends with disabilities – some of whom had attended college after having been denied even a basic education – were insistent on making me see that I would go on to college. Largely, it was their confidence, experience and steadfast refusal to accept anything less for or from me that made me push past my initial rejections from college admissions offices.
Capitalizing on the times. Looking back, it is abundantly clear that one of the greatest advantages I have in life and my career is having grown up in the latter half of the 20th Century and living as I do now – in the Digital Age. There is simply no better time to have a significant disability and to be alive. Revolutionary changes in civil rights, technology, the workplace and national mores have occurred over the past 50 years and continue to take place with breakneck speed, leveling the playing field in ways that were scarcely imaginable a few years ago!
I am certainly aware and appreciative of the accumulative advantage I continue to enjoy. More than this, though, I am angry and perplexed that with so many opportunities and possibilities, so few Americans with disabilities have been able to reap the benefits. Building on success works. The challenge is making success a part of everyone’s life so it can work for us all.
Bob Williams was the Commissioner of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities and later headed the Office on Disability, Aging and Long Term Care Policy (in Health and Human Services) in the Clinton Administration. Bob is currently a Senior Advisor to the Acting Associate Commissioner of the Office of Employment Support Programs in the Social Security Administration.
By Guest Blogger Bob Williams, Office of Employment Support Programs, Social Security Administration
In his best seller, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell explores what enables certain people to experience extraordinary success that defies the odds and falls far outside of the norm. To Gladwell, the success of a Bill Gates or kids playing soccer does not depend so much on someone’s innate abilities, as it does on the "accumulative advantage(s)" he or she experiences in life.
For Gates, these included having access to some of the first computers in high school in the 70’s and then going to a college where he could live in a computer lab 24/7. This is known as the “10,000 hours rule.” Research shows kids born in January or March are likely to be far better at soccer than their friends born later the same year. Why? Because youngsters born in the spring get more coaching and time to play than their friends six to eight months younger.
Gladwell argues the more we understand what factors combine to create personal success, the more we can make those conditions available to others. I agree.
As a baby boomer with significant disabilities, who has a well-established career and a good income, I consider myself an outlier, having beaten more than a few statistical odds. The older I get, the more interested I become in figuring out how what I have experienced might enable young people to access a similar path to success. Here are some of the critical lessons that continue to guide me:
Setting the bar high. Some of my earliest memories of growing up in the 60’s are those of my parents telling me that I would go to college someday. I will never know what prompted them to hold out such hopes, but their belief became my talisman. I failed to make it into college right after high school. By luck and hard work, however, I was eventually accepted and enjoyed every minute.
Working hard pays off. I learned early that hard work matters. I saw my Dad, who owned a small construction company, leave for work early every day and return late. Similarly, my Mom worked long hours cleaning, cooking and taking me to therapy. And going to therapy, I learned that paid off as well. I learned through therapy how to keep my balance, put one step in front of another, to type and ride a tricycle – things that enabled me to keep up with my brothers and sisters, to surpass the low expectations of others and demonstrate to myself that I could do far more than others thought. When a child experiences small successes early, it has a huge cascading effect. Successes build on each other. Setbacks do not become permanent realities. The child learns to define him or herself by his or her successes rather than failures.
Learning from others. Many people in my life – my parents, family, teachers, professors, friends, bosses and colleagues – have offered me critical insights. Increasingly, however, I realize that other people with disabilities have taught me the most. In high school, when I seemed destined for a day activity program, friends with disabilities – some of whom had attended college after having been denied even a basic education – were insistent on making me see that I would go on to college. Largely, it was their confidence, experience and steadfast refusal to accept anything less for or from me that made me push past my initial rejections from college admissions offices.
Capitalizing on the times. Looking back, it is abundantly clear that one of the greatest advantages I have in life and my career is having grown up in the latter half of the 20th Century and living as I do now – in the Digital Age. There is simply no better time to have a significant disability and to be alive. Revolutionary changes in civil rights, technology, the workplace and national mores have occurred over the past 50 years and continue to take place with breakneck speed, leveling the playing field in ways that were scarcely imaginable a few years ago!
I am certainly aware and appreciative of the accumulative advantage I continue to enjoy. More than this, though, I am angry and perplexed that with so many opportunities and possibilities, so few Americans with disabilities have been able to reap the benefits. Building on success works. The challenge is making success a part of everyone’s life so it can work for us all.
Bob Williams was the Commissioner of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities and later headed the Office on Disability, Aging and Long Term Care Policy (in Health and Human Services) in the Clinton Administration. Bob is currently a Senior Advisor to the Acting Associate Commissioner of the Office of Employment Support Programs in the Social Security Administration.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Disability Rights and the Tenth Amendment Movement
Several weeks ago, I was mocked when I said that the Tenth Amendment movement needs to be recognized and addressed as a serious threat to the fundamental rights of Americans with disabilities. The attached blog post on why and how IDEA should be regarded as unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment is just the most specific example of why I believe this. It is far from the only reason, however. Like it or not, the more I follow the tenthers the more I gain in my respect for their sophistication, organization and coherence. For the most part, they go out of their way to appear rational, reasoned and reasonable -- distinguishing themselves from the Tea Party without even saying so. Some of their leaders also seek to distant the movement from the States’ rights legacy of the past even though one of its central and explicit tenets is that each state is free to nullify any federal law it chooses not to follow. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, which seems to be the virtual hub of the movement, defines this concept as follows:
Nullification: When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in
question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that State is concerned.
The center is methodically organizing state by state to enact such measures as “State sovereignty” resolutions/legislation, “health care nullification” bills, medical marijuana bills, firearm freedom statutes and a host of similar items. All of which are, I believe, is meant to create constitutional fodder to challenge, curb and roll back the authority of the federal government to regulate all types of activities across states.
Make no mistake about it, though, the aim of the movement is broader still. Simply put, its adherents argue that if the original framers did not conceive or could not conceive of it in the eighteenth century – e.g., 21st century interstate commerce, civil rights, semi automatic weapons, the concept of United States vs. state citizenship, the need for a national social compact – the federal government has no business in interfering in such matters. What is most disturbing is their ultimate goal appears to be to undermine the very idea of America: E Pluribus Unum -- Out of many, one. Instead, they would divide and untie rather than unite the nation. Such notions to cannot go unchallenged.
Links:
“Has the Federal Government Violated California’s 10th Amendment Rights by Forcing Funding Under IDEA?”
http://california.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/has-the-federal-government-violated-californias-10th-amendment-rights-by-forcing-funding-under-idea/.
“The Tenth Amendment Movement” http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/.
Tenth Amendment Center’s State Affiliates, http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/state-groups/.
Nullification: When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in
question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that State is concerned.
The center is methodically organizing state by state to enact such measures as “State sovereignty” resolutions/legislation, “health care nullification” bills, medical marijuana bills, firearm freedom statutes and a host of similar items. All of which are, I believe, is meant to create constitutional fodder to challenge, curb and roll back the authority of the federal government to regulate all types of activities across states.
Make no mistake about it, though, the aim of the movement is broader still. Simply put, its adherents argue that if the original framers did not conceive or could not conceive of it in the eighteenth century – e.g., 21st century interstate commerce, civil rights, semi automatic weapons, the concept of United States vs. state citizenship, the need for a national social compact – the federal government has no business in interfering in such matters. What is most disturbing is their ultimate goal appears to be to undermine the very idea of America: E Pluribus Unum -- Out of many, one. Instead, they would divide and untie rather than unite the nation. Such notions to cannot go unchallenged.
Links:
“Has the Federal Government Violated California’s 10th Amendment Rights by Forcing Funding Under IDEA?”
http://california.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/has-the-federal-government-violated-californias-10th-amendment-rights-by-forcing-funding-under-idea/.
“The Tenth Amendment Movement” http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/.
Tenth Amendment Center’s State Affiliates, http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/state-groups/.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Sovereign Immunity v. One Nation:
Note: I wrote the following more than 5 years ago. The book I refer to -- Narrowing the Nation -- addresses "sovereign immunity" (the 11th Amendment)not the 10th Amendment and broader notions around state sovereignty. However, it seems fair to say that both Amendments are seen by strict constructionists as essential to "narrowing the nation", including by rolling back the ADA, the reach of equal protection, etc. Given the increasing demands of the Tea Party, the Tenth Amendment movement, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul and others to allow states to nullify and otherwise pick and choose what national laws they choose to follow, I am reposting it:
Sovereign Immunity v. One Nation:
One Nation, indivisible. I’ve been thinking about this tenet of our democracy and the need to reclaim it a lot lately. Perhaps this is because I’ve spent the summer reading several books about the civil war. Or because I just began a new one called Narrowing the Nation’s Power about the current Supreme Court’s attempts to inoculate States, localities and their agents against any and practically all efforts to enforce a national set of protections in our Constitution and civil rights laws (Noonan, 2002). One thing that my summer reading is making clear to me is that supporters of “States’ rights” during the Civil War and Jim Crow era and the majority on today’s Court seem to share the following in common: The belief that each State is a sovereign that is somehow equal to, if not superior to the Nation. And, that as such it must be free to act and mete out “justice” as it sees fits without fear of having its laws, policies or practices challenged or called into disrepute by its citizens (or subjects) or the Congress.
According to the Court, each State is entitled to this type of immunity under the 11 th Amendment because private lawsuits imperil its “sovereign dignity” or credibility to govern (Noonan, 2002). Its majority argues that the founders clearly meant this to be the case. However, in his book John Noonan, a senior federal appeals judge in California appointed by Ronald Reagan, takes their logic to task. He points out that the plain language of the 11th Amendment does not limit the rights of citizens living in a particular State to bring a lawsuit against that State. Rather, it merely says that the federal courts should not arbitrate legal disputes brought by citizens against a State other than the one where they reside. In other words, the amendment is completely silent on issues of immunity, sovereign or otherwise.
Noonan also takes issue with the Court’s assertion that the Framers somehow meant this to be its “original intent” even absent such language. English common law provided immunity to the king so that he would be viewed as the maker of the law and his authority could not be challenged. The Court, therefore, believes the Framers naturally would have wanted to accord this same divine right to States. But as Noonan points out those who had fought a revolution against such unbridled power were not likely to confer the same authority upon either the States or the new national government.
Unfortunately, while like many great dissents Judge Noonan’s writings can help to set the judicial stage for reversing several edicts the Court has handed down in recent years, there is much to be done and suffered through in the meantime. In a string of 5 to 4 decisions, the high court has held that State actions must be regarded as being beyond reproach in two key ways. First, it has ruled in several cases, including those involving employment discrimination by States on the basis of age and disability, that common citizens aggrieved by a State’s action cannot be granted damages even when they prove that they suffered harm as a result. The Court has similarly held that because States enjoy this supposed constitutional right to sovereign immunity that it will take it upon itself to police Congress to ensure that it does not overstep its authority to provide citizens a private right of action to sue States and localities.
The case of Garret v. the University of Alabama, which involved disability related job discrimination at a State funded institution, is a good example of how the Court is flexing its muscles in this regard. In a decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist the Court ruled that in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act Congress failed to show that employment discrimination on the basis of disability was such a pervasive problem that States should be made to pay damages in such cases.
The Chief Justice said that Congress relied on anecdotes and second hand information when designing the ADA's State employment discrimination provisions and doing so failed to meet constitutional muster. Under Garrett, people with disabilities still have the right to sue States and localities for injunctive or other relief targeted to remedy specific acts of discrimination.
For the time being the Garrett decision also leaves intact both the employment and public services provisions of ADA. However, many civil rights and disability rights leaders as well as independent legal experts believe that the reasoning used in the decision will be used by the States’ rights majority on the Court to whittle away at and do fundamental damage to the ADA and other civil rights laws in other cases in the future. Moreover, the Garrett decision and others like it are certain to have a chilling effect on two groups in particular. It will severely hamper the ability of individual citizens to compel States to comply with the ADA and other federal civil rights protections as well as effectively hamstring the ability of Congress to try to find legislative remedies to widespread civil rights, economic and social injustices in the future.
Why? Because the Supreme Court now believes that it along with each of the States are in a far superior position to the American people and our Congress to decide the great rights and wrongs of the day far atop of a hill. The Court seems hell bent on making itself and, its cause celebre, the States accountable to no one and with a sovereign immunity writ large enough to impress King George III. There is much about the doctrine of sovereign immunity as propounded by the Supreme Court that will, hopefully, cause many all along the political spectrum – especially those who are centrists – alarm that the Supreme Court and the States are indeed “narrowing the power of the Nation” while greatly expanding their own spheres of influence and domination. This is the one possible silver lining in this ominous storm cloud looming large on our national horizon.
Placed in its proper perspective, however, the legalizing of the notion that States should be immune from being made to pay for violating the federal civil rights of its citizens in the form of monetary damages is but one symptom of a far more endemic and serious problem. Since colonial times up to the present, States have exercised great “discretion” in deciding to what degree, if any, the poor, children, people with disabilities, minorities, prisoners and others are to be afforded the same dignity, liberty and tools to live their lives as freely and fully as other citizens. Today, this is done every time a State allocates both how and how much of its resources as well as a great deal of federal funds are to be spent on education, Medicaid, corrections, welfare to work efforts, etc.
This is very much of a “time honored tradition” in our country and one that is likely to not only continue to rule the day well into the foreseeable future but ruin the everyday lives and futures of millions of Americans, particularly those with significant disabilities and others easily marginalized. It is also a tradition that can and must be shown to be at irreconcilable odds with national principles of fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law. Future essays will explore why this is the case, why it matters and what must be done about it.
Source: Noonan, John, Jr. Narrowing the Nation’s Power. University of California Press, 2002.
Sovereign Immunity v. One Nation:
One Nation, indivisible. I’ve been thinking about this tenet of our democracy and the need to reclaim it a lot lately. Perhaps this is because I’ve spent the summer reading several books about the civil war. Or because I just began a new one called Narrowing the Nation’s Power about the current Supreme Court’s attempts to inoculate States, localities and their agents against any and practically all efforts to enforce a national set of protections in our Constitution and civil rights laws (Noonan, 2002). One thing that my summer reading is making clear to me is that supporters of “States’ rights” during the Civil War and Jim Crow era and the majority on today’s Court seem to share the following in common: The belief that each State is a sovereign that is somehow equal to, if not superior to the Nation. And, that as such it must be free to act and mete out “justice” as it sees fits without fear of having its laws, policies or practices challenged or called into disrepute by its citizens (or subjects) or the Congress.
According to the Court, each State is entitled to this type of immunity under the 11 th Amendment because private lawsuits imperil its “sovereign dignity” or credibility to govern (Noonan, 2002). Its majority argues that the founders clearly meant this to be the case. However, in his book John Noonan, a senior federal appeals judge in California appointed by Ronald Reagan, takes their logic to task. He points out that the plain language of the 11th Amendment does not limit the rights of citizens living in a particular State to bring a lawsuit against that State. Rather, it merely says that the federal courts should not arbitrate legal disputes brought by citizens against a State other than the one where they reside. In other words, the amendment is completely silent on issues of immunity, sovereign or otherwise.
Noonan also takes issue with the Court’s assertion that the Framers somehow meant this to be its “original intent” even absent such language. English common law provided immunity to the king so that he would be viewed as the maker of the law and his authority could not be challenged. The Court, therefore, believes the Framers naturally would have wanted to accord this same divine right to States. But as Noonan points out those who had fought a revolution against such unbridled power were not likely to confer the same authority upon either the States or the new national government.
Unfortunately, while like many great dissents Judge Noonan’s writings can help to set the judicial stage for reversing several edicts the Court has handed down in recent years, there is much to be done and suffered through in the meantime. In a string of 5 to 4 decisions, the high court has held that State actions must be regarded as being beyond reproach in two key ways. First, it has ruled in several cases, including those involving employment discrimination by States on the basis of age and disability, that common citizens aggrieved by a State’s action cannot be granted damages even when they prove that they suffered harm as a result. The Court has similarly held that because States enjoy this supposed constitutional right to sovereign immunity that it will take it upon itself to police Congress to ensure that it does not overstep its authority to provide citizens a private right of action to sue States and localities.
The case of Garret v. the University of Alabama, which involved disability related job discrimination at a State funded institution, is a good example of how the Court is flexing its muscles in this regard. In a decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist the Court ruled that in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act Congress failed to show that employment discrimination on the basis of disability was such a pervasive problem that States should be made to pay damages in such cases.
The Chief Justice said that Congress relied on anecdotes and second hand information when designing the ADA's State employment discrimination provisions and doing so failed to meet constitutional muster. Under Garrett, people with disabilities still have the right to sue States and localities for injunctive or other relief targeted to remedy specific acts of discrimination.
For the time being the Garrett decision also leaves intact both the employment and public services provisions of ADA. However, many civil rights and disability rights leaders as well as independent legal experts believe that the reasoning used in the decision will be used by the States’ rights majority on the Court to whittle away at and do fundamental damage to the ADA and other civil rights laws in other cases in the future. Moreover, the Garrett decision and others like it are certain to have a chilling effect on two groups in particular. It will severely hamper the ability of individual citizens to compel States to comply with the ADA and other federal civil rights protections as well as effectively hamstring the ability of Congress to try to find legislative remedies to widespread civil rights, economic and social injustices in the future.
Why? Because the Supreme Court now believes that it along with each of the States are in a far superior position to the American people and our Congress to decide the great rights and wrongs of the day far atop of a hill. The Court seems hell bent on making itself and, its cause celebre, the States accountable to no one and with a sovereign immunity writ large enough to impress King George III. There is much about the doctrine of sovereign immunity as propounded by the Supreme Court that will, hopefully, cause many all along the political spectrum – especially those who are centrists – alarm that the Supreme Court and the States are indeed “narrowing the power of the Nation” while greatly expanding their own spheres of influence and domination. This is the one possible silver lining in this ominous storm cloud looming large on our national horizon.
Placed in its proper perspective, however, the legalizing of the notion that States should be immune from being made to pay for violating the federal civil rights of its citizens in the form of monetary damages is but one symptom of a far more endemic and serious problem. Since colonial times up to the present, States have exercised great “discretion” in deciding to what degree, if any, the poor, children, people with disabilities, minorities, prisoners and others are to be afforded the same dignity, liberty and tools to live their lives as freely and fully as other citizens. Today, this is done every time a State allocates both how and how much of its resources as well as a great deal of federal funds are to be spent on education, Medicaid, corrections, welfare to work efforts, etc.
This is very much of a “time honored tradition” in our country and one that is likely to not only continue to rule the day well into the foreseeable future but ruin the everyday lives and futures of millions of Americans, particularly those with significant disabilities and others easily marginalized. It is also a tradition that can and must be shown to be at irreconcilable odds with national principles of fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law. Future essays will explore why this is the case, why it matters and what must be done about it.
Source: Noonan, John, Jr. Narrowing the Nation’s Power. University of California Press, 2002.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Something fated -- Part 1
In the spring of 1977, I was a 20 year old about to graduate from high school and my future was crumbling around me. My parents, English teacher, guidance counselor, others with disabilities I looked up to like Phyllis Zlotnick, Armand Legault Bev Jackson and Edie Harris and even the Connecticut Division of Vocational Rehabilitation all were audacious enough to believe that this kid with a communication board and an IBM Selectric had what it took to go to college. However, I had applied to, visited and been rejected by the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana – the only school in the nation that I knew of which was accessible and welcomed students with disabilities. My world and expectations began to shrink. However, then I began to hear of this new law called 504 and those just like me who were sitting in to force the Carter Administration to make it come alive. It would be several years before I met the likes of Ed Roberts, Judy Heumann and Hale Zukas and decades more before as a Clinton era official I proudly visited the federal office building in San Francisco where the sit in were staged.
It was the evening when watching Walter Cronkite I heard the San Francisco sit in succeeded in forcing Carter and Califano to enforce Section 5O4, though; that I knew my life and that of the Nation would change for the better. A rush of pride, tears and joy swept over me that day. Those same feeling of absolute certainty and hope have enveloped me three other times since then: The day Senator Tom Harkin dedicated the final passage of ADA to children with disabilities born that day; the day Mandela freed all of his fellow South Africans regardless of the hue of their bodies from the crushing bondage of apartheid; and most recently, when Micah Fialka-Feldman, a 25 year old student with an intellectual disability won the right to live in a dorm at Michigan’s Oakland University where he is taking classes.
History is never linear, progress is excruciatingly slow and fate is not to be left to chance. We must shape and be ever ready to be shaped by it. The 504 sit ins and the lessons Fialka-Feldman offer important reminders of this. To borrow a phrase from the late, great Tim Cook – for a little history worth knowing on the 504 sit in and the debt we all must continue to pay forward go to:
The Power of 504 (open caption) part 1 and part 2 on DREDF videos
Best wishes for a more just 2010!
It was the evening when watching Walter Cronkite I heard the San Francisco sit in succeeded in forcing Carter and Califano to enforce Section 5O4, though; that I knew my life and that of the Nation would change for the better. A rush of pride, tears and joy swept over me that day. Those same feeling of absolute certainty and hope have enveloped me three other times since then: The day Senator Tom Harkin dedicated the final passage of ADA to children with disabilities born that day; the day Mandela freed all of his fellow South Africans regardless of the hue of their bodies from the crushing bondage of apartheid; and most recently, when Micah Fialka-Feldman, a 25 year old student with an intellectual disability won the right to live in a dorm at Michigan’s Oakland University where he is taking classes.
History is never linear, progress is excruciatingly slow and fate is not to be left to chance. We must shape and be ever ready to be shaped by it. The 504 sit ins and the lessons Fialka-Feldman offer important reminders of this. To borrow a phrase from the late, great Tim Cook – for a little history worth knowing on the 504 sit in and the debt we all must continue to pay forward go to:
The Power of 504 (open caption) part 1 and part 2 on DREDF videos
Best wishes for a more just 2010!
Something fated -- Part 2
Micah Fialka-Feldman, a 25-year-old continuing education student attending Oakland University near Detroit, is a civil rights pioneer in the same class so to speak as James Meredith, who had to sue to attend and live in the dorms at the University of Mississippi in the 1960’s because he was black. Fialka-Feldman recently won a federal lawsuit analogous to Meredith to be able to do what most students take for granted -- live in a dorm.
Due to his intellectual disability, Fialka-Feldman is not pursuing a degree but instead is enrolled in the University’s Options program. Like similar programs at a growing number of colleges and universities across the country, Options provides students with intellectual and developmental disabilities both the opportunities and supports they need to take courses and make the most of college life.
The University, however, thought that education for someone like Fialka-Feldman should end at the dorm’s door and wanted to bar him from living there, ostensibly because he was not on a degree track. However, as Federal Judge Patrick Duggan ruled, the University also based its actions on his disability or more specifically on “prejudice, stereotype (and) unfounded fears” regarding persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in particular. Duggan found this violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 5O4 of the Rehabilitation Act.
As a kid with significant disabilities growing up and going to school in the 60’s and 70’s I faced my own share of prejudice, stereotype and discrimination. Fortunately that begun to radically change when I somehow made it into college. College dorm life was the best thing that ever happened to me. For one of the first and the few times in my life, I felt a part of rather than a part from those surrounding me. Obama is President because in large part because now generations of us have grown up learning and living together. It is like the song says: “Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together try to love one another right now.“ That to me at least is the essence of what a quality liberal arts education ought to embrace and enhance – a richer, deeper understanding of our shared foibles, strengths and capacities – our common humanity.
Oakland University says it is still considering whether to appeal Duggan’s decision. If it does, it may win a reversal and bar Micah from the dorm. Even if this happen, though, justice will eventually win out. "The gradual progress of equality is something fated," de Tocqueville wrote, "every event and every man helps it along". This man and this event are spurring it on more quickly than most. We are all better for it and for that, lets all remember to pay it forward.
Due to his intellectual disability, Fialka-Feldman is not pursuing a degree but instead is enrolled in the University’s Options program. Like similar programs at a growing number of colleges and universities across the country, Options provides students with intellectual and developmental disabilities both the opportunities and supports they need to take courses and make the most of college life.
The University, however, thought that education for someone like Fialka-Feldman should end at the dorm’s door and wanted to bar him from living there, ostensibly because he was not on a degree track. However, as Federal Judge Patrick Duggan ruled, the University also based its actions on his disability or more specifically on “prejudice, stereotype (and) unfounded fears” regarding persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in particular. Duggan found this violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 5O4 of the Rehabilitation Act.
As a kid with significant disabilities growing up and going to school in the 60’s and 70’s I faced my own share of prejudice, stereotype and discrimination. Fortunately that begun to radically change when I somehow made it into college. College dorm life was the best thing that ever happened to me. For one of the first and the few times in my life, I felt a part of rather than a part from those surrounding me. Obama is President because in large part because now generations of us have grown up learning and living together. It is like the song says: “Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together try to love one another right now.“ That to me at least is the essence of what a quality liberal arts education ought to embrace and enhance – a richer, deeper understanding of our shared foibles, strengths and capacities – our common humanity.
Oakland University says it is still considering whether to appeal Duggan’s decision. If it does, it may win a reversal and bar Micah from the dorm. Even if this happen, though, justice will eventually win out. "The gradual progress of equality is something fated," de Tocqueville wrote, "every event and every man helps it along". This man and this event are spurring it on more quickly than most. We are all better for it and for that, lets all remember to pay it forward.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Response to Ethan Ellis? Blog on the CLASS Program
Ethan Ellis' blog on the CLASS Program is a good read. There is, however, one fairly significant factual error in the post -- the CLASS program would be voluntary. Workers would need to "opt out" in order to avoid having pay roll deductions being taken out. There is the rub. Proponents predict most would stay enroll and not "opt out". CBO and the CMS actuary predict the young and "healthy" would not see any benefit to having a little less cash in their pockets each payday and would opt out by the droves. This is aka adverse selection and arguably would drive costs thru the roof. Both sides can point to research to bolster their case -- none of it definitive. I have my own issues with CLASS but have come to view it as a necessary, albeit incremental step. As a nation, we tend not to make social reforms in one fall swoop. That makes things messy as you note. But, I see no other way of getting there from here. One other New Year prediction -- CLASS will become a major point of contention. It might be in the conference report that is voted on by the House and Senate. I think, though, opponents of health reform have been laying low and will try to make it part of a final seize. Best wishes to you and yours for a better 2010!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
