FYI: I'm an academic and was one of the Princeton 14-but then again I
think I was the only one-since the 60's academics have earned the
reputation of being consertive for good reason. Your thoughts??????
Phyllis
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Jim Davis wrote:
> Points of Agreement with a few recent posts:
>
> A. All public education re: disabled rights & disability, need NOT
> revolve around reactions to Singer. (Thank you, Phyllis.) People with
> disabilities (to avoid a recent point of confusion -- I mean: people
> with disabilities -- both of the visible & invisible kind), who are
> academics, or who are not academics, can carry a message to a larger
> audience, not only by reacting to what Singer says... or just by
> focussing on what we have to say.
>
> B. As I wrote in a note to Lennard Davis (no relation) the other day--
> I suggested that if DS academics find venues in which to do this. they
> should consider sharing these opportunities, with disabled rights
> activists (who aren't academics).
>
> I'd further say that it's interesting, that I have not seen any posts
> putting any of this in terms of: "How can DS academics support the
> disabled rights movements that (already) exist?" In case people
> weren't at the Princeton demonstration (and therefor only have the
> dishonest media reports to go on; pretending the crowd was all
> "right-to-lifers")... MOST of the people showing up to demonstrate, were
> (non-academic) people with disabilities. Many of them may not know
> what the word "epistemology" means, but since much of their knowledge is
> first hand... not putting things in fancy mystifying terms -- is hardly
> a disqualification from public speaking.
>
> C. A post received today mentions the question I asked, buried in my
> Oct. 14th one.. has Princeton hired any "ethics" Profs. who teach
> students, in a way that is consistent with human rights of PD's. (To
> which I had added: A prof. of EQUAL rank?)
>
> /\/\/\/
>
> I'm disappointed that nobody thought the following items I posted were
> worthy of comment:
>
> 1. Princeton's other apparent contribution to perpetuating a world of
> BARRIERS (of the architectural type), to people with disabilities. By
> both the published curricula of it's Architecture School (which seems to
> ignore accessibility & "universal design"), AND by that architectural
> school's largely inaccessible building.... which would discourage any
> student with a mobility disability -- who cannot climb many stairs --
> from studying at Princeton.
>
> 2. It's interesting that disability and diversity on campus, was
> recently a hot topic for discussion here.... but a posting about a list
> member DOING a little something, concrete, about it-- (Oct. 7) by giving
> 2 workshops to a mostly AB audience, at New York University conference
> -- drew zero comment.
>
> Is that because the person posting it doesn't have an "edu" at the end
> of his address? ... Isn't a "famous name"? (Merely someone with one
> foot in the activist world, and for now, one foot formerly in & soon to
> be returning to, teaching.)
>
> Or perhaps, could the silence-- because the conference where he gave
> those lectures, was one on lesbian & gay popular culture? I'm asking
> these NOT as rhetorical questions, but I really want to know. If anyone
> "out there" thinks they know the answer, please post it or E-Mail me,
> directly.
>
> A word to the wise: Unity among PD's or people who teach DS, not to
> mention coalition building ..... doesn't get encouraged, by divisive &
> highly selective (+ therefor homophobic) whining, about "Look at how
> those so-powerful gay people are (allegedly) 2 inches ahead of us, in
> that one area." I keep hearing that sort of thing... though I have
> never, ever, heard an AB gay scholar or leader, doing the opposite
> equivalant-- like comparative whining about "they got their ADA passed,
> but we didn't get any of our federal bills passed".
>
>
>
> /\/\/\/\
>
> One more item, for my "Agreement List":
>
> I can personally vouch for what Mairian Corker posted recently:
>
> "But in the academy, there is yet another hidden danger and that is that
> there is a huge gap between talk / intent and practice. I've met many
> people who write wonderful books that say all the right things, but
> treat me and other disabled people like shit! ..... I think we avoid
> the issue of power...."
>
> This spring, I attended my first SDS Annual Meeting. Due to economic
> considerations, I was only able to travel to Washington for part of one
> day. Though the 2 panels I attended were very good, unfortunately I
> wasted my "networking" time on 2 individuals, who I later found out are
> -- in one case, blatantly homophobic, and in the other case.. some
> promised cooperation on something... has not materialised, for some
> unknown reason... perhaps the fact that after the understanding was
> reached, I sent this person some of my work, which functioned as a
> "coming out"? Perhaps being a newcomer, whose disability is not yet
> "visible" doesn't help, either? Who knows?
>
> I don't know, today, if I'll have the time & money to travel to the
> next, year 2000 SDS Annual Meeting, in Canada. But even if going is
> feasible... I'm not sure that I'd go. For me, that's a lot of resources
> to spend-- on hearing stuff that I could have read, if the networking
> part will be soured by -- meeting people who (in my small experience,
> so far) turn out to be mysteriously unreliable, and/or blatant bigots.
> If only the bigots came with name tags identifying them as such, so I
> don't waste time on them!
>
> It would be more useful & practical if SDS members, and like-minded
> people (including interested activists), could have less formal LOCAL
> get togethers. Frankly, not only would it be less travel difficulty....
> but at that local level, with a frequency of meeting greater than once
> yearly -- it would be more possible to figure out "who's who".
>
> If anyone "out there" could tip me off, to who the known homophobes are
> in SDS, it would be of great practical help, so I can just steer clear
> of them, on a personal level. (Unless, of course, they're in positions
> of power.)
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
