I wanted to add my post this week, while I had some free time. Unfortunately I am on the road as I am doing this, and I do not have my materials (any of our readings). Anyway, I wanted to paraphrase something I cited in my mid-term, being that I cannot make a direct quote (and I apologize that I cannot remember where this citation is from right now).
To paraphrase, the idea I wanted to mention (which follows are discussion for the past few weeks) is that the law cannot give us what culture will not allow. In this program we are asked to write about what we've learned over the course of our studies, and I think this is the one of the more valuable lessons. In fact, it has been my experience through reading and in practice.
I used to think that the law was very powerful, and quite frankly I'm not sure how I fell about that now. Right now, I'd have to say that I think power is powerful. I wish I could get into the details, but we (representatives for a complainant) have been put in a position where a powerful entity is going to go unscathed for violating what I (and so would all of you) consider to be a basic human right. That same entity honestly believes that it has done absolutely nothing wrong.
Getting back to culture-
I am reminded of a point we discussed in class about remaining confrontational. One of the biggest problems we have generally is that the neighbors (whoever yours may be) are not getting pissed off about disability rights. To make matters worse, in my experience at least, certain parents I know are not getting pissed off about disability rights either. In fact, I've had to correct / confront parents I know for getting pissed off at their kids "inappropriate behavior" on more than one occassion.
As I backtrack and read what I'm writing it seems like I'm lost. But, I think this is happening because when it comes to disability rights, people just don't get it (which is what we've been discussing). This leads us to the questions of how do we get people to "get it" and how do we push people begin to understand why they don't get it? My intention is not to answer that question, because there are many answers.
But we can have all the law in the world and it won't make a difference until the general public gives a sh!t. I guess this is the great problem with all of the "isms" that are in existence. I'd really like to see this addressed in the classroom at an early age (but how, I'm not sure).
My first sense of community came from being in school (guess who wasn't included in that space). So I'm not surprised that my neighbors are basically indifferent when it comes to disability rights (as I was for many years too because it was never even a thought). I think that could have been completely different had my community been different.
I can only imagine what a young people's reactions would be if they were told they could not sit together for a sporting event. That didn't happen in my community because other young people with disabilities were not visible to us at all. We didn't really even have a chance to be pissed off, because we were basically unaware (not meant to be an excuse). I think that is a real issue for the development of culture.
Friday, March 20, 2015
ADA Backlash and the Limits of Legal Reform
In class yesterday we talked a lot about the limits of the law and legal reform as a means of engendering social justice/change. Without a doubt, having recourse to the law is important and such reforms are absolutely worth pursuing. I think one of the issues with the disability rights movement, however, is that legal reform has all too often been seen as an end goal instead of something to pursue in the interim. Combatting deeply-ingrained ableist thinking demands radical restructuring of society.
Marta Russell’s essay, “Backlash, the Political Economy, and Structural Exclusion,” speaks to this point really well. She asserts that businesses were responsible for the strongest backlash against the ADA and argues that “the backlash against the ADA is a product of capitalist economic opposition” and, further, that “liberal policy proscriptions will necessarily fail to create the conditions required to achieve economic and social justice” (p. 255). Russell points to job insecurity as endemic to capitalism, an economic system under which disabled people have historically been and continue to be unemployed at vastly higher rates than non-disabled people. She explains that “a substantial body of research challenges the notion that differences in human capital, quality of education, and years of work experience can adequately explain the wage differentials and employment patterns that remain prominent in the economy”— much like the massive pay disparities between male and female surgeons we discussed yesterday (p. 261).
Further, Laden and Schwartz’s essay points to how cognitive and bodily norms rooted in ableism are exploited for profit through the manufacturing and subsequent exploitation of fear surrounding those who don’t or can’t subscribe to such norms. They reveal how norms around psychiatric normalcy are employed to advance the trope of the mentally ill “dangerous coworker” (p. 192). In turn, professional services are marketed to employers to alleviate this manufactured fear. As the authors note, “The commodity value of disseminated fear is obvious. Reshaping perceptions of extraordinary events by representing them as commonplace increases the perceived need for professional services, if only to address liability concerns” (p. 194). Importantly, businesses consistently exploit the fear and anxiety around disability that pervades ableist societies for capital gains. This is apparent in anxiety around autism, ADHD, and other disabilities depicted as “epidemics” that reproduce ableism while simultaneously cultivating fear that is easily exploited by industry in order to sell various tests, interventions, pharmaceuticals, etc., particularly to mothers (via “super mom” tropes that render mothers responsible for protecting their children from the apparently endless threats of illness/disability their children face).
Beyond this, though, and as Dani astutely pointed out in class today, there are some folks with disabilities who really will never be able to “work” in the way it is understood under capitalism. Russell raises the point that within a capitalist economic system, the conception of disabled people as “unproductive” is hegemonic (p. 264). So, while illuminating the pervasive misconceptions that lead employers to resist hiring folks with disabilities or providing oftentimes inexpensive accommodations is important, this work does little to alter a system in which some cannot be understood as anything but “severely disabled,” and therefore not valuable. It is this line of thinking that leads to a conception of assisted suicide as the “compassionate” provision of a “service.” Learning to value the lives of folks presently only intelligible as “severely disabled” requires, I think, far more radical structural and societal change than liberal legal reforms can ever offer.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Separate but equal?
In class last week we spent some time talking about the disability rights movement and whether the ADA supports the movement. We all obviously agree that the ADA was an important step, although there is a huge question mark on the timing of its passage.
My thoughts for this blog center around why the ADA is generally not looked at as a civil rights movement document, much as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is.
So the ADA is all about insuring rights for a group of people. In this way, it is very similar to the CRA of 1964. It's a document that empowers people and gives them a legal statute and method to stand up for their rights and assert them throughout society. This document should allow for the growth of a movement within the disability community to achieve equal rights, just as other groups continue to fight for their equal rights.
However, those in the disability community, 25 years later, are still fighting for their rights in general. They are still working to establish their rights as people instead of working past that and trying to equalize themselves to those that are privileged in our society (generally the able-bodied white male). On top of this, the movement that was present in the 80s and into the 90s has fractured unbelievably since the ADA's passage. Why is this so? Why are we at this place in society when 25 years after the CRA of 1964 (think about how things were in 1990) things may have been unequal as ever, but the rights of blacks had definitely been established by then.
My theory: the ADA has actually helped to fracture the movement. Yes, the ADA was, and continues to be, a monumental document for those with disabilities. However, the ADA, unlike the CRA, takes a certain amount of pride in the individualization of its implementation. When applying the CRA, one does not look to "how black" someone's skin is to appropriately provide support or rights to the individual. The CRA officially recognized the "plight of the African Americans" as a class. There is no separation between people with tan skin versus people with dark skin, no differentiation about what rights someone has if their relatives were brought over on a slave ship 200 years ago or if their parents moved to America from Jamaica last year, no difference in the establishment of rights depending on whether you were raised in NYC, Chicago, Mexico, or Africa. There is still a difference in implementation (racism definitely still exists), but there is no differentiation in the establishment of rights in the CRA. Those discriminated against were untied as a class within the document.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the ADA identifies different types of disabilities.. it sets out regulations for different types of disabilities.. it favors rights for the physically disabled over rights for the mentally (or otherwise invisibly) disabled.. it has specific regulations for specific types of accommodations.. it allows for escape hatches for certain entities and their treatment of certain disabilities.. it allows for discretion when implementing (probably establishing too) rights for individuals with disabilities.. and, in my mind, the most debilitating part of it is that it allows for the treatment of each case brought before the courts to be assessed on an individual, case-by-case basis.
Now, damages and fines for different grievances should always be scaled to the infraction. A company that does not hire one person because they are black should have different repercussions than the company that habitually will not serve black patrons, offers different work environments, or supports physical attacks on black persons. Absolutely. But, there is not a question of whether recourse is available to those persons that are offended by the actions of the company. That is the very basic difference. A person in a wheelchair, or that is deaf, or blind, or has a low IQ very rarely has a case if they are not hired - even if they can prove it is because of their disability - if the company can use a loophole. If a company regularly does not serve people in wheelchairs (steps by the door), it will be treated differently than if they do not serve a blind person (no braille menu available), or a deaf person (no interpreters available at a hospital). There are specific regulations for all these things (or a lack thereof, specifically for those with mental disabilities) and thus there is no cohesive and implementable statement from the ADA that all will be treated equally, or even all have the same basic rights, because the ADA - although establishing rights legally - does so separately. Separate but equal? Wasn't that the premise being overturned in the CRA? Yet we praise the ADA for establishing separate (but equal?) rights for those with disabilities.
It's like the CRA made sure that everyone used the same drinking fountain, but the ADA established that drinking fountains should be created based on individual circumstances of ability. There is no premise of equality here, there is celebration of the individual rights instead of the rights of a class.
Okay, I've put this out there... now to say that I really really struggle with these thoughts because I see the ADA as a huge step forward for the rights of individuals with disabilities... but when I look at it through this lens, I see a legal document that purposefully and intentionally disables the class of people affected by it by denying their establishment as a class and setting up actions based on individuality rather than rights for all - which precludes it from being a civil rights issue and (permanently?) places these issues into the individual realm with no real traction. The only civil rights action that can be asserted in this way, I believe, would be a class action suit.. but with the differentiation of disabilities within the ADA and its regulations, can there ever really be a class action suit that isn't delegated to one "type" of disability? (ie: blind persons (people that have a family history in slavery), deaf persons (people that are 'first generation' Americans from a predominantly dark skinned country), persons with invisible disabilities (those living in ghettos).)
Help?
My thoughts for this blog center around why the ADA is generally not looked at as a civil rights movement document, much as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is.
So the ADA is all about insuring rights for a group of people. In this way, it is very similar to the CRA of 1964. It's a document that empowers people and gives them a legal statute and method to stand up for their rights and assert them throughout society. This document should allow for the growth of a movement within the disability community to achieve equal rights, just as other groups continue to fight for their equal rights.
However, those in the disability community, 25 years later, are still fighting for their rights in general. They are still working to establish their rights as people instead of working past that and trying to equalize themselves to those that are privileged in our society (generally the able-bodied white male). On top of this, the movement that was present in the 80s and into the 90s has fractured unbelievably since the ADA's passage. Why is this so? Why are we at this place in society when 25 years after the CRA of 1964 (think about how things were in 1990) things may have been unequal as ever, but the rights of blacks had definitely been established by then.
My theory: the ADA has actually helped to fracture the movement. Yes, the ADA was, and continues to be, a monumental document for those with disabilities. However, the ADA, unlike the CRA, takes a certain amount of pride in the individualization of its implementation. When applying the CRA, one does not look to "how black" someone's skin is to appropriately provide support or rights to the individual. The CRA officially recognized the "plight of the African Americans" as a class. There is no separation between people with tan skin versus people with dark skin, no differentiation about what rights someone has if their relatives were brought over on a slave ship 200 years ago or if their parents moved to America from Jamaica last year, no difference in the establishment of rights depending on whether you were raised in NYC, Chicago, Mexico, or Africa. There is still a difference in implementation (racism definitely still exists), but there is no differentiation in the establishment of rights in the CRA. Those discriminated against were untied as a class within the document.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the ADA identifies different types of disabilities.. it sets out regulations for different types of disabilities.. it favors rights for the physically disabled over rights for the mentally (or otherwise invisibly) disabled.. it has specific regulations for specific types of accommodations.. it allows for escape hatches for certain entities and their treatment of certain disabilities.. it allows for discretion when implementing (probably establishing too) rights for individuals with disabilities.. and, in my mind, the most debilitating part of it is that it allows for the treatment of each case brought before the courts to be assessed on an individual, case-by-case basis.
Now, damages and fines for different grievances should always be scaled to the infraction. A company that does not hire one person because they are black should have different repercussions than the company that habitually will not serve black patrons, offers different work environments, or supports physical attacks on black persons. Absolutely. But, there is not a question of whether recourse is available to those persons that are offended by the actions of the company. That is the very basic difference. A person in a wheelchair, or that is deaf, or blind, or has a low IQ very rarely has a case if they are not hired - even if they can prove it is because of their disability - if the company can use a loophole. If a company regularly does not serve people in wheelchairs (steps by the door), it will be treated differently than if they do not serve a blind person (no braille menu available), or a deaf person (no interpreters available at a hospital). There are specific regulations for all these things (or a lack thereof, specifically for those with mental disabilities) and thus there is no cohesive and implementable statement from the ADA that all will be treated equally, or even all have the same basic rights, because the ADA - although establishing rights legally - does so separately. Separate but equal? Wasn't that the premise being overturned in the CRA? Yet we praise the ADA for establishing separate (but equal?) rights for those with disabilities.
It's like the CRA made sure that everyone used the same drinking fountain, but the ADA established that drinking fountains should be created based on individual circumstances of ability. There is no premise of equality here, there is celebration of the individual rights instead of the rights of a class.
Okay, I've put this out there... now to say that I really really struggle with these thoughts because I see the ADA as a huge step forward for the rights of individuals with disabilities... but when I look at it through this lens, I see a legal document that purposefully and intentionally disables the class of people affected by it by denying their establishment as a class and setting up actions based on individuality rather than rights for all - which precludes it from being a civil rights issue and (permanently?) places these issues into the individual realm with no real traction. The only civil rights action that can be asserted in this way, I believe, would be a class action suit.. but with the differentiation of disabilities within the ADA and its regulations, can there ever really be a class action suit that isn't delegated to one "type" of disability? (ie: blind persons (people that have a family history in slavery), deaf persons (people that are 'first generation' Americans from a predominantly dark skinned country), persons with invisible disabilities (those living in ghettos).)
Help?
Language in the ADA
The ADA was passed at a time where there was a very simplistic idea of what disability was. The ADA worked to expand the idea of what is defined as a disability. The ADA defines a person with a disability as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity, a person who has a history of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived as having such an impairment. In my opinion, this definition shifted away from the medical model that many people were using at the time and created a shift towards a social model understanding of disability. By including “a person who is perceived as having such a disability” in the definition of a person with a disability, the ADA is recognizing that it is not necessarily an “impairment” that causes a person to suffer from discrimination but it is society’s reaction to how it perceives a person. The legislation considered the social aspects of disability and began to see the way in which disability is a social construct in which a person could suffer from disability discrimination without ever actually having an impairment because of the way in which society “disables” any person it suspects of having a disability. While I praise the legislation for its expanded understanding of who should be considered in the definition of a person with a disability, I must critique the language commonly used in conjunction with the ADA.
The language of “reasonable accommodation” and “undue burden” is troublesome because of the way it evaluates a person’s experience in being discriminated and weighs it against the cost to society. This ultimately sets limits on the inclusion of people with disabilities in society and says that inclusion is only worth so much.
The “undue burden” language perpetuates the stereotype that people with disabilities are burdens to society. While I understand why a utilitarian analysis is used (by adopting an economic analysis of the cost and the benefit), I also recognize problems not only with this type of thinking, but also with the term used to refer to the analysis. By society commonly referring to this defense under the ADA and the “undue burden” defense, society is stressing the burden portion of the analysis.
Perhaps, this is reflective of the view on disability that much of society has. Often times, people with disabilities are seen as burdensome to society. The ableist mode of thinking that many people throughout society use includes an assumption that people with disabilities must rely on other people and cannot be self-sufficient. People who think like this tend to believe that people with disabilities are burdensome to those friends and family members without disabilities who have to take care of the person with the disability. Not only is this way of thinking dangerous because of the way in which it relies on underlying stereotypes and assumptions related to disabilities, but it is also dangerous in that it overlooks the benefits that people with disabilities bring to society. Yet, we included this type of language in the law. By focusing on the defense of “undue burden,” the language in the ADA is focusing on the burden to society of including people with disabilities. While the law technically includes an analysis as the benefits as well, the language commonly used (“the undue burden defense”) demonstrates that although the benefit is to be considered, it should not be the focus. Perhaps, the language should say something similar to “evaluating the positive effects” or “benefit analysis” if the defense is to continue to be included.
While the ADA cause some progress towards creating equality for people with disabilities in society, the ADA also could improve on some aspects. As a society, we should strive not only to change the law to make it better, but also to change society’s perceptions so that a civil rights law, such as this one, is not needed.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Post #6 - More Confrontational
So I'm not exactly sure where I will end up at the end of my post this week, but I know I wanted to start by giving attention to the idea of being, or remaining, more confrontational.
One of the last ideas we left last week's class with was related to an acknowledgment that we have a system now that is simply not working. At the same time we also recognized that we are at or near a tipping point in the sense that we can change things- but how? Confrontation was the idea we left with.
If I was allowed to do things my way, let's just say that I have a hypothetical issue that I'd like to use confrontation as tool to solve. Why would I like to use confrontation? Well, it is because the law simply isn't working for me in this hypothetical situation.
See, in my hypothetical situation I have client who should be protected by the ADA. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do because the current interpretation of the law, in the state and circuit in which I am dealing with (hypothetically), is wrong. Without going into all of the facts of my hypothetical, I will just say that it involves an employer's denial of a reasonable accommodation for an applicant.
Now, it seems logical that if an employer violates the ADA by not providing a reasonable accommodation for an applicant, it should be subject to a penalty. The problem I have in my hypothetical situation is that in order to have a case, I have to show that my hypothetical applicant suffered an adverse employment action. In this type of situation, an "adverse action" might be that the applicant was offered a "lesser" job than other applicants, or that the applicant was simply not hired.
Well guess what, neither of those two things happened in my hypothetical situation. The applicant was offered a job, but was not interested in taking it after being denied a reasonable accommodation for the application process. So being that there is no "adverse action" due to the job offer, there is no cause of action for this particular hypothetical plaintiff– it wouldn't be possible to satisfy all of the elements required to state a claim. The courts are split on whether the simple denial of providing a reasonable accommodation creates a cause of action for a potential plaintiff.
The worst part is that a seasoned attorney who works in the particular hypothetical jurisdiction would know this and probably wouldn't advise his or her client (employer) to settle such a matter. So we're left with an employer who did something wrong by technically violating the law (though they would never admit that) and an applicant who was wronged by being denied a reasonable accommodation, but no real remedy for the applicant and no real penalty for the employer. So instead of being served justice in this hypothetical situation, we're being served a sh!t sandwich.
Obviously there are ways to fix this problem, but it would take a very long time– the legal process is a long one. To be honest, I'm pretty sure this is not the type of split in the courts that we would ever see our highest court settle. So, what do we do? I think confrontation (in its many forms) provides, if not the whole, the beginning to the answer to that question.
One of the last ideas we left last week's class with was related to an acknowledgment that we have a system now that is simply not working. At the same time we also recognized that we are at or near a tipping point in the sense that we can change things- but how? Confrontation was the idea we left with.
If I was allowed to do things my way, let's just say that I have a hypothetical issue that I'd like to use confrontation as tool to solve. Why would I like to use confrontation? Well, it is because the law simply isn't working for me in this hypothetical situation.
See, in my hypothetical situation I have client who should be protected by the ADA. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do because the current interpretation of the law, in the state and circuit in which I am dealing with (hypothetically), is wrong. Without going into all of the facts of my hypothetical, I will just say that it involves an employer's denial of a reasonable accommodation for an applicant.
Now, it seems logical that if an employer violates the ADA by not providing a reasonable accommodation for an applicant, it should be subject to a penalty. The problem I have in my hypothetical situation is that in order to have a case, I have to show that my hypothetical applicant suffered an adverse employment action. In this type of situation, an "adverse action" might be that the applicant was offered a "lesser" job than other applicants, or that the applicant was simply not hired.
Well guess what, neither of those two things happened in my hypothetical situation. The applicant was offered a job, but was not interested in taking it after being denied a reasonable accommodation for the application process. So being that there is no "adverse action" due to the job offer, there is no cause of action for this particular hypothetical plaintiff– it wouldn't be possible to satisfy all of the elements required to state a claim. The courts are split on whether the simple denial of providing a reasonable accommodation creates a cause of action for a potential plaintiff.
The worst part is that a seasoned attorney who works in the particular hypothetical jurisdiction would know this and probably wouldn't advise his or her client (employer) to settle such a matter. So we're left with an employer who did something wrong by technically violating the law (though they would never admit that) and an applicant who was wronged by being denied a reasonable accommodation, but no real remedy for the applicant and no real penalty for the employer. So instead of being served justice in this hypothetical situation, we're being served a sh!t sandwich.
Obviously there are ways to fix this problem, but it would take a very long time– the legal process is a long one. To be honest, I'm pretty sure this is not the type of split in the courts that we would ever see our highest court settle. So, what do we do? I think confrontation (in its many forms) provides, if not the whole, the beginning to the answer to that question.
Thinking from the people with disabilities' view
It is a well-known phenomenon in nowadays society that people without disability is hard to understand people with disabilities’ difficult. It is not easy to realize the people with disabilities’ hard time in daily life, and their personal feelings inside. Thus, people won’t understand what the people with disabilities’ truly need and desire. As for a designer, the most important theory I have learned is that design cannot be arbitrary, only rely on your eyes is not enough and memories cannot be completely believed either. No matter as an individual or an organization, trying to know people with disabilities’ experience and feeling shall not only be based on the outside information from social media or other resources in library. That is only one side of the coin.
How to think deeply from people with disabilities’ perspective and feel their emotion is the task I really try to handle with right now. I attempted several ways to experience the life in wheel chairs, Interviewed the elders who lives in a small space who are using wheelchair, listening to her complaining about the problems in her life and what she whats to change in the future. Yes, according to the interview I knows a lot, but simply becoming a good listener is not enough, those interviewees share their problems to me and I believe that problems is not only a trouble for them, but also a precious opportunity to make people with disabilities’ life experience becoming much better.
After the interviews, me and my design classmates use role play activity to make a clear view of their daily life, we borrowed a manual wheelchair and use it to go around in Huntington Hall, but the research solution is disappointing for me, even this building which accommodates lessons about people with disability, it is not completely accessible. No one cleans the ramp of this building, instead, people chose to close that door with ramp. And there is only one bottom is other side’s auto door, there is no bottom between two heavy auto doors, people with disability or the elders use walkers should go through that door quickly, if they cannot pass those doors in 15 seconds, they need to open it by themselves, but the truth is they cannot make it, that door is even hard to push by a young people. I feel so angry and anxious when I cannot make it, such as there is no body care about me and when somebody come to help, I felt embarrass and ridiculous, because I need help sometimes, however I really hope that I can be more independent, I hope that I can go everywhere with wheelchair by myself. I really felt the mood but that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Like aphasia, they understand everything in their mind, but no one knows their feeling form their perspective, because they cannot make a meaningful sentence or some simple words to communicate. Bad communication also gives it no access to the outside world, if the individual and organization leave the people with disability alone as aphasia, they will lose hope and be angry. There is must something push the society’s improvement and let everyone in this society knowing their feel, instead of letting the people with disability struggle on their life and rights.
The struggle is real
I think we've probably all heard this phrase: The struggle is real. Usually attached to a # or in reference to, generally, a silly issue that someone is struggling with - although I have seen it used several times in relation to civil rights issues.
Here, I'm using it to add to the conversation we were having at the end of class - starting or pushing a social movement. I consider myself a children's advocate. Some of those children have disabilities, some do not. I am not always actively fighting for the disability civil rights movement, but it is a big part of what I do fight for on a daily basis. My main issue is educational rights.
The questions I raised in class are the questions I struggle with every single day while trying to find my own niche in the advocacy/activist world. I have been struggling with these questions for years. How can one person become a leader in a advocacy situation? How does your decision to participate affect your work life? How does one permeate the public without "selling out" to corporate moguls? And if you do, will the end justify the means?
Ragged Edge brought these questions to the forefront because it forces us to look at something that resonates with all of us, but is not popular or mainstream. And although blogs have seemingly replaced a subscription piece, as these stories were, they do not resonate the same way. How do we take the popularity of blogs and combine them with the impactability of something such as the Ragged Edge? I'm still turning my gears to come up with answers to all these questions - not only for disability civil rights, but for my broader scope of educational rights for all children.
Maybe the answer is cat memes. They seem to work for everything else..... Maybe we should start a meme war...
Here, I'm using it to add to the conversation we were having at the end of class - starting or pushing a social movement. I consider myself a children's advocate. Some of those children have disabilities, some do not. I am not always actively fighting for the disability civil rights movement, but it is a big part of what I do fight for on a daily basis. My main issue is educational rights.
The questions I raised in class are the questions I struggle with every single day while trying to find my own niche in the advocacy/activist world. I have been struggling with these questions for years. How can one person become a leader in a advocacy situation? How does your decision to participate affect your work life? How does one permeate the public without "selling out" to corporate moguls? And if you do, will the end justify the means?
Ragged Edge brought these questions to the forefront because it forces us to look at something that resonates with all of us, but is not popular or mainstream. And although blogs have seemingly replaced a subscription piece, as these stories were, they do not resonate the same way. How do we take the popularity of blogs and combine them with the impactability of something such as the Ragged Edge? I'm still turning my gears to come up with answers to all these questions - not only for disability civil rights, but for my broader scope of educational rights for all children.
Maybe the answer is cat memes. They seem to work for everything else..... Maybe we should start a meme war...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)