 |
 |
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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%