Lest I be misunderstood, let me reiterate my position on the debate at hand.
That is to say, in my original and subsequent posts I never intended to
imply disagreement over the premise that a PWD would likely bring many
highly desirable skills, qualities, and attitudes to the involved position.
Moreover, I agree that an individual without a disability could not possibly
possess the personal experiences and resulting sensitivity as would be true
for the PWD who is otherwise qualified for the position.
In my position as an adaptive computer technologist, for example, I would
far and away rather hire lab, training, and technical staff who have
disabilities and who have personal experience using adaptive technology.
There is nothing charitable or patronizing about my preference for hiring
individuals with disabilities. Rather, this preference is based solely on
sound programmatic management strategies and the desire to provide high
quality, meaningful computer resources and services. There is better than a
99.9% chance that anyone I hire will in fact have a disability. Yet, I
cannot even fathom announcing any position as restricted to those with a
disability. I guess this is why I am not a philosopher because such a
restriction just seems so degrading to the applicants with disabilities. On
the practical side, I do not want to deprive myself from learning about
anyone who has an interest in employment with my organization. After all,
an individual with or without a disability can fill some positions in my
organization equally as well. Someone applying for a position for which I
would prefer filling with a PWD might just prove to be an ideal candidate
for another position(s) in my organization-now or in the future. Give
preference to someone with a disability because s/he might bring extra and
highly desirable skills, experience, and attitudes to the job-and not just
because they happen to have a disability? You betcha! Restrict anyone from
applying for the position? Not in a million years!
As homan suggested, "What the requirement should really be about is a
parameter that is an abstract: attitude." Earlier, donam commented that,
"...a possible way around/through/encompassing both sides of the debate be
to word such an ad with an ambiguous-yet-restrictive phrase such as:
'Disability experience required.'" Using homan's and donam's points as a
foundation, why not in the selection process attach some scheme of weighted
values to all position components and criteria? For example: personal
experience with inequalities encountered by individuals with disabilities is
worth 10 points; having been a consumer of services provided by the involved
or a similar agency is worth 10 points; and so fourth-assigning a value to
whatever criteria a PWD might bring to the position and for which is of
importance to the position and the involved agency. Then, continue with
quantifying other aspects and criteria of the position-e.g., education,
training, experience, references-whatever is germane to the position and
agency's needs. With weighted values, the agency could arbitrarily assign
greater value to personal experience as a PWD over all other criteria for
that matter. Such a scheme clearly and fairly awards credit to the unique
skills and capacities that only a PWD could bring to the job. Credit is not
"given" solely because the applicant has a disability. Rather, the PWD is
awarded justified credit for the experiences, attitudes, and sensitivities
s/he has acquired as a result of being a PWC. Yet, such an approach does
not categorically preclude others from competing for the position. What's
so wrong with this scenario?
Respectfully to All,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Marsh
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 6:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Another job in Leeds?
Hello, regarding the debate around employing only disabled
people in certain
jobs - I wholeheartedly agree with it.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
