I have been reading and learning quite a lot from the discussion which
has ensued from this job posting -- and now feel compelled to respond to
Marian's latest posting.
I think that there are differences between service provision jobs and
non-service provision jobs in terms of who might be the most appropriate
candidate.
I agree that for example that a job for disability equality training
might more appropriately be done by a disabled person, just as Linda
Marsh pointed out in an earlier posintg that when accessing social
services for women one should be able to expect that one would find a
woman in the job.
I agree that there are terrible barriers which disabled academics (both
students and faculty) face -- and they need to be addressed and removed.
However, that is different than a position which asserts that membership
in a certain group -- or a certain identity should be privileged in
scholarship. I was taught feminist
theory by a man -- and he did an excellent job. And I might add that I
was extremely happy to see that there were men out there who were taking
feminist theory that seriously and not simply ghettoizing it as
something only of interest or relevance to women.
Likewise, I am an African historian -- I teach African studies, but I am
not African. And I think that is fine. (though it I agree that
Africans face great barriers in academia and this too needs to be
addressed) I think more people who are not
African should gain more knowledge about Africa, should take a greater
interest in Africa because it too hs been ghettoized on the world stage,
and this is a problem. African studies are relevant to and should be
pursued by all kinds of people -- not just people form Africa or of
African descent. After all no-one questions why American academics
might want to study French history .....
Lastly, I think that disability studies might also be studied and taught
by non-disabled persons, such as myself, and not become only an
intellectual place for disabled academics for similar reasons.
Otherwise personal experience would be prioritized as THE
epistemological base for disability studies, rather than as an important
ontological perspective. Furthermore, as with "women's studies" and
African studies, I think it is crucial that the academic community in
general not be allowed to be merely dismissive of the field -- thus I
think it is extremely important for disabled and
non-disable academics alike to feel that they are able and welcome to
participate in disability studies. I might also add that multiple
perspectives (even when personal experience is privileged as a key
epistemological base) can enhance any
field of research since individual researchers each bring their own
personal and intellectual perspectives which makes things more dynamic.
For example -- myself, I had a severe chronic illness throughout my
childhood, resulting in a permanent colostomy. In some instances, and
in some institutional settings because of this chronic illness I am
classified as a "disabled dependent" (whatever that means) and in others
not. It is interseting for me to reflect on what this type of labelling
means -- where it comes from -- how I may in some ways have benefitted
fomr a poltical movement that I never totally identitifed with etc. As
I do my research I am
realizing all kinds of ways in which positioning of bodily difference --
ie
publicly versus discretely (a colostomy of course being somehow "hidden"
under clothing) affects people, their bodies and their identities, or
the ways in which chronic illness, and
anthropological understandings of chronic illness fall short of an
ability to capture the complex and social nature of disability -- though
I might add that the study of chronic illness as a diachronic and both
very personal and very social
phenomenon can also benefit from the work of disability studies and
vice-versa.
So while again, this is not a comment on the enormous barriers which
disabled scholars still face in the workplace -- it is another appeal to
overcome our postioning of "us" and "them" -- or at least a call to
unpack what we mean by those sentiments, and why
Julie
Julie Livingston
National Institute of Research
Private Bag 00708
University of Botswana
Gaborone, Botswana
-----Original Message-----
From: Mairian Corker <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, July 04, 1999 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Jobs for disabled people only (was Leeds job etc)
>In response to my comment,
>>
>>>Further, since disabled people are not *people* in UK law - they are
their
>>>'disabilities' (i.e. impairments) as defined by the government's
>>>definition. Therefore, it seems to me that the British government is
itself
>>>setting the role model you so despise - the 'job criterion' is
implicitly
>>>that you must fit the disability exactly as described by the
legislation
>>>before we can consider the possibility that you might have been
>>>discriminated against in making a job application (no points for
someone
>>>with HIV or severe hay fever there Bill!). This is another reason why
some
>>>jobs need to be disabled people only.
>>>
>Michael wrote:
>
>>Could it be simpler than this? Some jobs are resereved for people of
>>different sex, race et cetera for no other reason than people expect
those
>>of that minority to be in that position. Disability is defined by the
govt
>>and some jobs set aside for disabled people, it works like this for
everyone
>>(fortunately or unfortunately)
>
>It's not as simple as this Michael, because it doesn't work like this
for
>everyone. Jobs can only be reserved for disabled people through a
loophole
>in legislation i.e. the absence of a legal requirement for GOQ. The
side
>effect of this loophole (and I have taken legal advice on this) is that
if
>a job is advertised for Deaf people only, a disabled person or a deaf
>person could make a claim under the DDA. In other words, the
legislation
>doesn't only render us unequal in relation to women and black and
ethnic
>minorities, but it also risks setting disabled people against each
other.
>The definitions are themselves suspect and as Alden points out, are
>actually definitions of impairment, not disability. The government's
>attempts to define disabling practice, in particular indirect
>discrimination do not match up to the amount of time that has been
spent by
>the Task Force in trying to define impairment. Although I do not have
>access to the minutes of Task Force meetings, I can only assume that
they
>have spent rather less time trying to understand the social model
because I
>feel sure that the model and its relevance for defining both
'dsiability'
>and 'reasonable accommodation' has been articulated by disabled people
on
>the Task Force. I find this emphasis truly amazing given the huge
amount of
>literature on the subject of impairment. Can it be that the government
is
>still none the wiser after all the billions of pounds that have been
>allocated to medical research?
>
>> Why was I taught Feminism by a woman?
>
>Why are there now many books about men 'doing' feminism and a growing
>number of books about 'masculinity', and why is disability studies in
the
>UK so limited in its discussion of the intersection with feminism?
>
>>Why is
>>the gynaecologist at my hospital a woman?
>
>Most of the gynaecologists I've been confronted with were men,
especially
>at senior level.
>
>>why was a friend of mine taught
>>Engineering by a man?
>
>Because the engineering profession is sexist!
>
>>I would not expect it to be othewrwise. And that is
>>my point - no govt involvement just social expectations.
>
>So social expectations are enough to uphold inequality or reinforce it?
I'm
>not sure what you mean. What about the sructures and cultures that have
>created this and are they not reinforced by policy?
>
>>Though I wouldn't
>>mind the cases named above to be reversed i.e Feminism taught by a
man.
>
>I would mind a lot because acceptance would mean reproducing
inequality. In
>fact if I were applying for courses on feminism, I wouldn't apply for
any
>courses on feminism where the tutor is a man as a matter of principle,
>given the kind of sexism that still happens in universities, and this
would
>include intersectional courses on feminism within disability studies
that
>are taught by disabled or non-disabled men. I feel it's important to
make a
>stand.
>
>> If
>>you eliminate govt involvement social expectations (remember there was
a
>>time when it was illegal for a woman to work) remain.
>
>And the dominant social expectation is that disabled people are in need
of
>'care', 'better attitudes' and 'special' provision, not real jobs with
>promotion prospects. Social understandings of gender have been around a
lot
>longer and women have not been institutionalised in the way that
disabled
>people have - women are visible without even saying anything. In view
of
>this we need government intervention that is far more intelligent and
>reflects the huge changes in our understanding of disability, rather
than
>the individual views of a few 'hand-picked', out-of-date, biased
experts.
>
>So, like you, I'll go with Voltaire "I disapprove or what you say [or
do]
>but would defend with my like your right to say it". But I see it as
>complex because 'my like' are unequal on many different dimensions, not
>just disability, and some of those dimensions as yet have no
legislative
>protection. This might well turn out to be yet another excuse for
>unscruplulous employers to pre-empt disability legislation by placing
>emphasis on these unprotected categories. This is where coalitional
>politics assumes significance.
>
>Best wishes
>
>
>Mairian
>
>
>Mairian Corker
>Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
>Department of Education Studies
>University of Central Lancashire
>Preston PR1 2HE
>
>Address for correspondence:
>111 Balfour Road
>Highbury
>London N5 2HE
>U.K.
>
>Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
>Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
>Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
>
>*********
>
>"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
>
>*********
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
