Mairian and all --
You ask why *disability* was left of the textbook cover -- I was
disappointed that *disability* was not included on the cover and wondered why
that is. I was told there was concern that people (I assume that means
professors interested in using the text in their classes) might choose not to
use it because they don't understand the inclusion. The decision was made to
educate readers in this edition, then include it on the cover in the next --
education as a process. At least it was in the text and this, as far as I
can tell, is a first in this type of book. Some sociologist have told me
that they have to include *disability* in their courses through supplemental
readings because the main course texts omit the category.
So, Mairian, this certainly does resemble your story about the presenter who
chose to draw the audience, then educate. It's too bad that the topic of
*disability* is avoided like it is and that one must resort to such methods
in order to get an audience. On the other hand, people with disabilities
have been avoided for so long, our movement is relatively new, and it will
take time to effect change within and without the academy. I don't
particularly like this strategy, but it is realistic.
Best,
Beth
Beth Omansky Gordon
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|