Bill wrote:
Is the INCLUSION model itself bad
>(rubbish) - or, is the manner in which inclusion is often served up the
>rubbish part?
This part of your statement worries me:
> Does, however, this absolute restriction of the opportunity to people with
> disabilities feed into the pervasive attitude that individuals with
> disabilities are to be treated or regarded differently? In other words, is
> this practice of so boldly and explicitly limiting the position to an
> individual with a disability congruent with prevailing models of inclusion,
> and focus on ABILITY vs. disability, etc.?
because we NEVER ask that question about the absolute restriction of
employment opportunity to 'people with abilities', as Vic Finkelstein would
say, in many areas of economic and social reproduction, and we rarely
consider that ABILITY is itself a construct designed to uphold 'normalcy'.
This is still the case especially with the legislation we now have. It
seems to me that the context of 'the Leeds job' is important. Are you
saying that non-disabled people are qualified to deliver disability
equality training? Surely that diminish the whole purpose of such training.
I might concede that partnerships would be the best way forward eventually,
and I have worked in partnership WITH a (very special) hearing person in
deaf equality training. But in the present climate (and especially in the
light of Laurence's comment - though there are people with cognitive
impairments who are respected academics and there are disabled people with
learning difficulties who provide training), I'm not so sure. I'm not
saying that this won't or can't change. I will say, however, that it won't
change until 'people with abilities' accept that they maintain the
institutionalisation of disability. My training partner is 'special'
because of this acceptance, and no, she doesn't think this is reverse
discrimination.
>I see a lot of "token inclusion" going on in all sectors.
>Examples of services, resources, and opportunities that really are inclusive
>- and without ulterior motive - are indeed few and far between. I fully
>agree that token inclusion models are rubbish. Yes, the "aims" of inclusion
>often are not directed to the intended (allegedly intended) beneficiaries.
>Would we, however, really want to abandon the inclusion practices that are
>working; that are truly inclusive; that are properly motivated?
I have written extensively about the topic of tokenism (most of the jobs I
have occupied have been 'token' appointments) and on this point I agree.
But I don't think that the employment of disabled people by organisations
OF disabled people is tokenism, so I'm not sure how this is relevant to
your argument
>
>Indeed, appalling inequalities are routinely lobbed against individuals with
>disabilities. I couldn't agree more. The playing field is horribly uneven
>for individuals with disabilities. Given that, one can hardly argue with
>Mairian in that, " ... we must continue to fight it in whatever way we can."
>That is, except to the extent that "whatever way" means further degrading
>those with disabilities by publicly proclaiming that they must have jobs
>especially and exclusively set aside for them.
I'm sorry? The degrading thing is surely in the implication that there are
NOT jobs that disabled people are more qualified to do, so presumably we'll
give them to 'people with abilities' because (of course) they're qualified
to do anything.
>It's hard to build a case
>against social service models such as sheltered workshops out of one corner
>of the mouth, while out of the other corner we are announcing positions only
>for individuals with disabilities.
It's only hard because we don't make a distinction between sheltered
worshops which for many disabled people are the only option because society
says that is ALL disabled people CAN do (that's a bit like women and
housewifery and black people and slavery argument) and jobs which disabled
people may WANT to do and are better qualified to do but are prevented from
doing because we don't make this distinction.
>
>Yet, how does outwardly stating "for individuals with disabilities
>only" truly help the movement and the cause for individuals with
>disabilities?
>Turn the situation around. Consider a hypothetical position
>announcement that included the following statement: "Only those without
>disabilities need apply." How would individuals, with or without
>disabilities likely respond to such an announcement?
That's why the movement was formed, as I said. And there are plenty of jobs
that do just this e.g. a deaf person can only apply for teacher training if
they can hear and understand conversational speech at a distance
of....blah, blah, blah. Maybe not your words, but the same meaning. I would
have thought that a pragmatist might call a spade a spade.
>As you pointed
>out, "... fight in anyway we can." There is, however, a lot to be said
>about TACT and DIPLOMACY.
... Or perhaps silence? I thought we tried that for centuries. In the
counselling profession, there is a well-known understanding that the
continued suppression of ANGER leads to depression and diminished ABILITY.
In this instance, I'm ANGRY, Bill.
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"
*********
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|