I will readily admit that I am not as familiar with Deaf culture as I would like. Two recent stories, one about the upcoming Super Bowl Commercial by Pepsi and the other about a deaf Mom who was refused service at a local Steak and Shake, highlighted why I must rectify my ignorance and demonstrated why the ADA us needed.
On the blog A Deaf Mom Shares Her World a woman details her experience at a drive through Steak and Shake in Illinois. Here is the link to the story:
http://putzworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/steak-and-shake-denies-service.html
I was deeply touched by this story because it reminded me of the many unnecessary social obstacles I have had and still encounter raising my son. This story also reinforced why such seemingly small incidents have such a profound cumulative impact. It is too easy for those who are not disabled to remark that seemingly unimportant incidents should be quickly forgotten. The problem is that these so called small incidents are not isolated experiences. The social affronts may not appear particularly offensive but when they take place day after day they reinforce that the lives and inclusion of people with disabilities are not valued. Thus when I encounter needless obstacles like the deaf Mom that was refused service I get agitated quickly. I am also quick to point out when my civil rights are being violated. This opinion is rarely if ever appreciated and far too many people think I and other disabled people who assert our rights have a "chip on their shoulder". This convenient rationalization ignores the fact the problem disabled people encounter has nothing to do with a particular physical deficit but rather with societal prejudice.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Rolling: Film and Disability
The vast majority of films produced to date portray disabled people in a way that reinforces negative stereotypes. Disabled people are often depicted as angry, sad, or bitter individuals who are unable or unwilling to overcome their physical deficit. The "problem" always rests with the individual and their flawed or damaged character. There are, of course, some exceptions. For example Coming Home (1978), Children of a Lesser God (1986), Born on the Fourth of July (1989), My Left Foot (1989), Water Dance (1992), and Passion Fish (1992) all have some redeeming value. At the opposite end of the spectrum there are films that openly advocate or at least tacitly approve killing disabled people (Million Dollar Baby). Regardless, the message sent to society by film makers is clear: the lives of disabled people are not valued--America has no use for such flawed people.
In the past few years, independent film makers and documentaries have begun to shed positive light on disabled people. The first such film was Murder Ball (2005), critically acclaimed but a box office bust. Murder Ball was ground breaking in that it portrayed the lives of young paralyzed men who played international Quad rugby and followed the intense competition between Para Olympic teams. The men depicted were cool, funny, and typical jocks. The year after Murder Ball was released another documentary, So Much So Fast, was released that was well received. This film was about Stephen Haywood and the impact his diagnosis of ALS had on him and his family. So Much So Fast also explored why rare conditions such ALS have not been studied by drug companies. Both Murder Ball and So Much So Fast are excellent films and in different ways try to explore what life is like for disabled people. To a certain extent they succeed but the gritty reality of every day life for disabled people is not the focus.
The real world experiences of disabled people are the subject of Gretchen Berland's superb documentary Rolling that will be airing this month on Public Television. More than any other film I have ever seen, Rolling provides the viewer with a real life understanding of what life is like when one uses a wheelchair. The film is based on 212 hour of tape taken over a period of two years (2001 to 2003). The vast majority of the film footage was recorded by three people (Galen Buckwalter, Vicki Elman, and Ernie Wallengren) from Los Angeles who had video cameras mounted on their wheelchairs. For those unfamiliar with disability, the film is not easy to watch yet gripping at the same time. It took less than thirty seconds for me to be hooked and realize Rolling was going where no other film about disability has ever gone. The opening observation made by Buckwalter was: "Because most people can walk and run and climb, and since I can't, I'm defined as disabled. Not only defined as disabled, I'm expected to act and feel disabled. For many years I did the same, but what they don't see now is that I'm a survivor". What Buckwalter is able to survive is not the injury that rendered him paralyzed but the stigma, prejudice, and social isolation that results from using a wheelchair. This is exactly where Rolling excels--it graphically reveals the gross social inequities that exist for people who use a wheelchair.
Several themes are evident throughout Rolling and Berland is obviously a first rate story teller. Among the themes that struck me as particularly important are independence versus dependence, the utter failure of the health care system to provide basic services to disabled people, the lack of wheelchair access and the resulting social isolation as well as the lack of common respect awarded to people that use a wheelchair. To me, this is old story but never have I seen a film get to the nitty gritty of what it is like to be disabled. This is not a sexy or cool film--it is a remorseless indictment of American society that reveals the overwhelming social and practical obstacles disabled people routinely encounter. For those unfamiliar with disability, some scenes are bound to be shocking. For example, when Vicki Elman's wheelchair breaks her doctor wonders aloud "what are we going to do with you? Do you want to go to a nursing home or get a baby sitter at home?" During filming of Rolling Elman was forced to enter a nursing home and where an aide tells her to urinate in a bed pan or in diaper she states "the degradation begins".
The greatest strength of Rolling is that by the end of the film Buckwalter, Elman, and Wallengren are humans who even the most resistant person to inclusion will acknowledge are treated poorly by their bipedal peers. Once the social stigma associated with using a wheelchair is removed the viewer simply sees three ordinary people who have learned how to adapt. Using a wheelchair is a means of empowerment and enables people to lead a rich and full life. This is what makes Rolling such an important contribution for illustrating this is a major accomplishment on the part of Berland. I hope Rolling and the website created by Thirteen.org for the film will be widely utilized by colleges and groups interested in disability rights, health care reform, and disability awareness advocates. Berland and all those associated with Rolling are to be commended for making a major contribution one that I hope will enlighten those willing to think about their preconceived notions about the meaning of disability.
In the past few years, independent film makers and documentaries have begun to shed positive light on disabled people. The first such film was Murder Ball (2005), critically acclaimed but a box office bust. Murder Ball was ground breaking in that it portrayed the lives of young paralyzed men who played international Quad rugby and followed the intense competition between Para Olympic teams. The men depicted were cool, funny, and typical jocks. The year after Murder Ball was released another documentary, So Much So Fast, was released that was well received. This film was about Stephen Haywood and the impact his diagnosis of ALS had on him and his family. So Much So Fast also explored why rare conditions such ALS have not been studied by drug companies. Both Murder Ball and So Much So Fast are excellent films and in different ways try to explore what life is like for disabled people. To a certain extent they succeed but the gritty reality of every day life for disabled people is not the focus.
The real world experiences of disabled people are the subject of Gretchen Berland's superb documentary Rolling that will be airing this month on Public Television. More than any other film I have ever seen, Rolling provides the viewer with a real life understanding of what life is like when one uses a wheelchair. The film is based on 212 hour of tape taken over a period of two years (2001 to 2003). The vast majority of the film footage was recorded by three people (Galen Buckwalter, Vicki Elman, and Ernie Wallengren) from Los Angeles who had video cameras mounted on their wheelchairs. For those unfamiliar with disability, the film is not easy to watch yet gripping at the same time. It took less than thirty seconds for me to be hooked and realize Rolling was going where no other film about disability has ever gone. The opening observation made by Buckwalter was: "Because most people can walk and run and climb, and since I can't, I'm defined as disabled. Not only defined as disabled, I'm expected to act and feel disabled. For many years I did the same, but what they don't see now is that I'm a survivor". What Buckwalter is able to survive is not the injury that rendered him paralyzed but the stigma, prejudice, and social isolation that results from using a wheelchair. This is exactly where Rolling excels--it graphically reveals the gross social inequities that exist for people who use a wheelchair.
Several themes are evident throughout Rolling and Berland is obviously a first rate story teller. Among the themes that struck me as particularly important are independence versus dependence, the utter failure of the health care system to provide basic services to disabled people, the lack of wheelchair access and the resulting social isolation as well as the lack of common respect awarded to people that use a wheelchair. To me, this is old story but never have I seen a film get to the nitty gritty of what it is like to be disabled. This is not a sexy or cool film--it is a remorseless indictment of American society that reveals the overwhelming social and practical obstacles disabled people routinely encounter. For those unfamiliar with disability, some scenes are bound to be shocking. For example, when Vicki Elman's wheelchair breaks her doctor wonders aloud "what are we going to do with you? Do you want to go to a nursing home or get a baby sitter at home?" During filming of Rolling Elman was forced to enter a nursing home and where an aide tells her to urinate in a bed pan or in diaper she states "the degradation begins".
The greatest strength of Rolling is that by the end of the film Buckwalter, Elman, and Wallengren are humans who even the most resistant person to inclusion will acknowledge are treated poorly by their bipedal peers. Once the social stigma associated with using a wheelchair is removed the viewer simply sees three ordinary people who have learned how to adapt. Using a wheelchair is a means of empowerment and enables people to lead a rich and full life. This is what makes Rolling such an important contribution for illustrating this is a major accomplishment on the part of Berland. I hope Rolling and the website created by Thirteen.org for the film will be widely utilized by colleges and groups interested in disability rights, health care reform, and disability awareness advocates. Berland and all those associated with Rolling are to be commended for making a major contribution one that I hope will enlighten those willing to think about their preconceived notions about the meaning of disability.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Katie Thorpe: No Hysterectomy and Disability Rights Attacked
The press in the UK is reporting that Katie Thorpe will not have a hysterectomy. Readers of this blog will recall the Thorpe case is similar to the Ashley Treatment that sparked wide spread controversy in 2007. A spokeswoman for the Mid Essex Hospital NHS Trust refused to comment on the Thorpe case due to patient confidentiality. Two disability rights groups, Scope and the Disabled People's Council were pleased with the decision.
I am relieved that Ms. Thorpe's will not be subjected to surgery. I wish others, including Katie Thorpe's mother, felt this way but based on comments in newspapers such as the Telegraph and Daily Mail, this is not the case. Indeed, the venom spewed toward disability rights is nothing short of stunning. Ms. Thorpe's mother claims she had "overwhelming support" and that the NHS was scared by a tiny minority--disability rights groups such as Scope. Thorpe's mother cited "political correctness" as being a factor in the refusal to remove her daughter's womb and stated in the Daily Mail that "the Trust has bowed down to what they perceived to be public opinion". Apparently Thorpe was told that the surgery would not be performed because it was not clinically necessary.
Two of the aforementioned disability rights groups, Scope and the Disabled People's Council, were singled out by Thorpe for sharp criticism. Thorpe's comments were echoed by the vast majority of comments published in newspapers. The comments I read were all supportive of Thorpe and graphically illustrate the cultural divide between those with and without a disability remains immense. Here is a small sampling of what some had to say:
"Katie's mum know what's best for her in this case" and the "buffoons should back down"
"People who know nothing about the family's day-to-day situation are just full of what's right and wrong"
"Nature, for whatever reason, has essentially taken away this girls normal life"
"Disabled groups are delighted, shame on you"
"Its all about the well being and quality of life of a person, why is this even an issue?"
"This is ludicrous! Common sense needs to be brought in occasionally"
The Ashley Treatment and Thorpe case are disturbing at multiple levels and are not yet resolved. In the United States Douglas Diekema who was the medical ethicist involved in the Ashley Treatment is on the lecture circuit speaking about the so called "Pillow Angel". Katie Thorpe's mother vows to keep fighting and hopes her daughter will eventually be permitted to have a hysterectomy. These developments are troubling and demonstrate that equality for disabled people is illusive and an up hill battle.
I am relieved that Ms. Thorpe's will not be subjected to surgery. I wish others, including Katie Thorpe's mother, felt this way but based on comments in newspapers such as the Telegraph and Daily Mail, this is not the case. Indeed, the venom spewed toward disability rights is nothing short of stunning. Ms. Thorpe's mother claims she had "overwhelming support" and that the NHS was scared by a tiny minority--disability rights groups such as Scope. Thorpe's mother cited "political correctness" as being a factor in the refusal to remove her daughter's womb and stated in the Daily Mail that "the Trust has bowed down to what they perceived to be public opinion". Apparently Thorpe was told that the surgery would not be performed because it was not clinically necessary.
Two of the aforementioned disability rights groups, Scope and the Disabled People's Council, were singled out by Thorpe for sharp criticism. Thorpe's comments were echoed by the vast majority of comments published in newspapers. The comments I read were all supportive of Thorpe and graphically illustrate the cultural divide between those with and without a disability remains immense. Here is a small sampling of what some had to say:
"Katie's mum know what's best for her in this case" and the "buffoons should back down"
"People who know nothing about the family's day-to-day situation are just full of what's right and wrong"
"Nature, for whatever reason, has essentially taken away this girls normal life"
"Disabled groups are delighted, shame on you"
"Its all about the well being and quality of life of a person, why is this even an issue?"
"This is ludicrous! Common sense needs to be brought in occasionally"
The Ashley Treatment and Thorpe case are disturbing at multiple levels and are not yet resolved. In the United States Douglas Diekema who was the medical ethicist involved in the Ashley Treatment is on the lecture circuit speaking about the so called "Pillow Angel". Katie Thorpe's mother vows to keep fighting and hopes her daughter will eventually be permitted to have a hysterectomy. These developments are troubling and demonstrate that equality for disabled people is illusive and an up hill battle.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Rolling Documentary
Most films about disability are terrible. The emotions that film makers want to illicit are consistently negative--fear, pity, and awe. This is the subject of Martin F. Norden's The Cinema of Isolation that discusses the way disabled people have been portrayed in films. In recent years terrible films remain the norm. In fact I would argue a new genre has been created that I characterize as being disability snuff films. Million Dollar Baby is a perfect example and received critical acclaim. I cannot help but note here when I saw the film the audience cheered when the main character was killed--a shocking reaction to me.
In sharp contrast to bad films, at least one documentary, Murder Ball, stands out in that it sends out a very different and positive thought provoking message. I hope another documentary that is currently being aired on PBS, Rolling, can be as successful as Murder Ball. Rolling was created by Gretchen Berland a physician and film maker at Yale University. While I have not seen the film I have heard Dr. Berland interviewed on NPR's Talk of the Nation (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17993638) and saw three short clips from the documentary. Berland, I suspect, is unlike many of her peers in that she appears to be socially skilled and particularly empathetic. The film has an interesting and novel approach. For two years three people who live in Los Angeles that use a wheelchair mounted a camera on their wheelchair and filmed their daily lives. The results seem impressive and I look forward to seeing the film in its entirety.
Rolling will be aired on PBS in the New York Metropolitan area on January 31 at 10PM. Thirteen.org will have the complete listings. In the meantime I encourage people to listen to the NPR show linked above. I would also love to hear from those who may have seen the film.
In sharp contrast to bad films, at least one documentary, Murder Ball, stands out in that it sends out a very different and positive thought provoking message. I hope another documentary that is currently being aired on PBS, Rolling, can be as successful as Murder Ball. Rolling was created by Gretchen Berland a physician and film maker at Yale University. While I have not seen the film I have heard Dr. Berland interviewed on NPR's Talk of the Nation (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17993638) and saw three short clips from the documentary. Berland, I suspect, is unlike many of her peers in that she appears to be socially skilled and particularly empathetic. The film has an interesting and novel approach. For two years three people who live in Los Angeles that use a wheelchair mounted a camera on their wheelchair and filmed their daily lives. The results seem impressive and I look forward to seeing the film in its entirety.
Rolling will be aired on PBS in the New York Metropolitan area on January 31 at 10PM. Thirteen.org will have the complete listings. In the meantime I encourage people to listen to the NPR show linked above. I would also love to hear from those who may have seen the film.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Reaction to the Pistorius Ban
The reaction to the ban of Oscar Pistorius competing in the Olympics has been as swift as it is negative. AP reports declare that Pistorius' prostheses known as Cheetahs give him a "clear edge over able-bodied runners". This has been stated so many times that it is not even subject of discussion much less dispute. Yet the man who supposedly reached this conclusion, Peter Brueggemann a professor at the German Sport University, did not explicitly state this--the IAAF that banned Pistorius did. Brueggemann studied the protheses used by Pistorius for just two days and specifically concluded that Pistorius was able to expend "25% less energy" and that "the mechanical advantage of the blade in relation to the healthy ankle joint of an able-bodied athlete is higher than 30%". Does this mean Pistorius has a "clear edge over able-bodied runners"? Brueggemann himself does not necessarily think this translates into an advantage. I am by no means an expert on human physiology and sport science but it seems to me more evidence is needed to reach a conclusive decision to ban Pistorius. It also seems to me that the debate about Pistorius has less to do with the limits of technology than it does with one person's inate ability to run very fast via unconventional means.
The implications of banning Pistorius could be profound. Will all other disabled people be banned from competing in the Olympics? Where does the IAAF draw the line on what is socially acceptable technology? Sneakers are fine as is lasik surgery but not prosthetic devices? I have tried to remain objective about Pistorius--a level playing field is the goal for all who compete in the Olympics and governing bodies such as the IAAF are needed. Yet after reading the reaction and comments about the ban of Pistorius I cannot help but conclude a lot more is going on than a discussion about the orthodoxy of running. This in turn has led me to wonder if there are other reasons, far more prejudicial ones, that are preventing Pistorius from racing against other bipedal men. Pistorius is not the stereotypical image of an Olympian--his body is profoundly different than the idealized Olympian athlete. Thus I cannot help but conclude that it is Pistorius' mere presence that is so objectionable to many. This thought came to me after reading the comments appended to an AP report and a particularly thoughtless article by Michael Rosenberg (I feel bad but Pistorius shouldn't be an Olympian, Fox Sports 1/14/08). The tone of Rosenberg's article was snide and demeaning--he portrayed himself as a horrible man for supporting the ban of Pistorius because he "couldn't get past the idea that you run with your legs, and that the best runners in the world, by definition, need to run with their legs". I refuse to repeat the comments left by readers that are nothing short of shockingly prejudicial and bigoted.
If I used Rosenberg's logic I along with every other paralyzed person in the country would be unable to leave our homes and the Para Olympic games would not exist. The only form of normal locomotion is a bipedal gate and based on the comments I read about Pistorius we crippled people had better shut up. Such venom is and remains a shock to me. It makes me realize that we only pay lip service to the rights of disabled people in this country--for if one scratches below the surface the image that emerges is one of out right bigotry. Disabled people are not wanted and their expectations of being treated equally is deeply resented by the majority of people who are bipedal.
The implications of banning Pistorius could be profound. Will all other disabled people be banned from competing in the Olympics? Where does the IAAF draw the line on what is socially acceptable technology? Sneakers are fine as is lasik surgery but not prosthetic devices? I have tried to remain objective about Pistorius--a level playing field is the goal for all who compete in the Olympics and governing bodies such as the IAAF are needed. Yet after reading the reaction and comments about the ban of Pistorius I cannot help but conclude a lot more is going on than a discussion about the orthodoxy of running. This in turn has led me to wonder if there are other reasons, far more prejudicial ones, that are preventing Pistorius from racing against other bipedal men. Pistorius is not the stereotypical image of an Olympian--his body is profoundly different than the idealized Olympian athlete. Thus I cannot help but conclude that it is Pistorius' mere presence that is so objectionable to many. This thought came to me after reading the comments appended to an AP report and a particularly thoughtless article by Michael Rosenberg (I feel bad but Pistorius shouldn't be an Olympian, Fox Sports 1/14/08). The tone of Rosenberg's article was snide and demeaning--he portrayed himself as a horrible man for supporting the ban of Pistorius because he "couldn't get past the idea that you run with your legs, and that the best runners in the world, by definition, need to run with their legs". I refuse to repeat the comments left by readers that are nothing short of shockingly prejudicial and bigoted.
If I used Rosenberg's logic I along with every other paralyzed person in the country would be unable to leave our homes and the Para Olympic games would not exist. The only form of normal locomotion is a bipedal gate and based on the comments I read about Pistorius we crippled people had better shut up. Such venom is and remains a shock to me. It makes me realize that we only pay lip service to the rights of disabled people in this country--for if one scratches below the surface the image that emerges is one of out right bigotry. Disabled people are not wanted and their expectations of being treated equally is deeply resented by the majority of people who are bipedal.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Oscar Pistorius Fights for his Rights
According to AP reports, Oscar Pistorius is going to contest the IAAF ruling that he cannot compete in the Olympics. Pistorius will bring his case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. I admire Pistorius--not for contesting the IAAF conclusions that ban him from competing but for the larger framework in which he has based his argument. AP reports quote Pistorius: "I feel it is my responsibility, on behalf of myself and all other disabled athletes to stand firmly and not allow one organization to inhibit our ability to compete using the very tools without which we simply cannot walk let alone run".
I am interested to see how the media reacts to Pistorius stance. Sadly, I am not hopeful a nuanced view will prevail. Judging by reports and columns already published in the New York Times Pistorius' cause will be demeaning. The IAAF is already attacking Pistorius claiming they have no idea what his motivation is. Like any other athlete with or without legs, Pistorius dreams of competing in the Olympics. As to the IAAF claims that Pistorius prothesis give him an unfair advantage, I suggest they do a little bit of reading about the needless social obstacles disabled people are forced to overcome.
I am interested to see how the media reacts to Pistorius stance. Sadly, I am not hopeful a nuanced view will prevail. Judging by reports and columns already published in the New York Times Pistorius' cause will be demeaning. The IAAF is already attacking Pistorius claiming they have no idea what his motivation is. Like any other athlete with or without legs, Pistorius dreams of competing in the Olympics. As to the IAAF claims that Pistorius prothesis give him an unfair advantage, I suggest they do a little bit of reading about the needless social obstacles disabled people are forced to overcome.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Sport, Disability, and Media Distortion
Avid golfers probably recall the name Casey Martin. They likely remember Martin was the professional golfer who fought for the right to use a golf cart on the PGA tour. In 1997 Martin sued the PGA under the ADA arguing that a golf cart was a workplace accommodation. Martin's case went all the way to the Supreme Court and, much to the dismay of the PGA, the court ruled Martin was correct.
I have not thought about Martin until this morning when I read the New York Times with my coffee. In the sports section I was interested to read a story about Oscar Pistorius (Study Suggests That Amputee Holds Unfair Advantage). Very few Americans know who Pistorius is. I have heard the name and know he is a world class paralympic sprinter from South Africa. I only know this much because Pistorius has had the nerve to compete and beat some bipedal runners. In short, he is a world class athlete but this is not why Pistorius is controversial. Pistrorius wants to compete in the Olympics against able bodied runners. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), track's governing body, has been and remains opposed to including Pistorius. Even though there is no scientific evidence, the IAAF claims Pistorius' high tech prosthesis called cheetahs give him an unfair advantage over able bodies athletes. The chances of Pistorius ever competing in the Olympics are a long shot at best.
According to the New York Times, the IAAF spent $50,000 researching the Pistorius case and concluded that any disabled athlete that wants to compete against able bodied athletes must prove that any adaptive device such as Pistorius' prosthetic legs does not give them an advantage over able bodies athletes. The IAAF conclusion mirrors recent Supreme Court decisions, especially the Sutton Trilogy, that requires disabled people to prove they are in fact disabled (in the eyes of the court it is possible to be too disabled or, conversely, not disabled enough). When I made this connection between the IAAF and the Supreme Court I realized not much has changed when it comes to the perception of disabled athletes and how they are portrayed in the media.
Disabled athletes and adaptive sports provide mainstream media outlets with endless fodder for what I call feel good stories. Disabled people know what I am writing about--the dreaded 90 second piece at the end of the national news that portrays the "remarkable, "heart warming" story about a disabled person who finishes a marathon or some other athletic event. What is celebrated is not the athletic achievement but the ability of a person to "overcome" obstacles that prove the person in question is amazing. Reducing the accomplishments of disabled athletes to nothing more than such a feel good story is nothing short of demeaning. It reinforces every negative stereotype about disability and conveniently ignores the fact the overwhelming number of problems disabled people encounter are social. At issue is not a disabled person's ability but rather how they handle a specific physical disability. Thus Martin's athletic skills are reduced to a discussion about his request for a golf cart or Pistorius' use of high tech prosthesis. Both men violated a social norm--they are too good. They are significantly better than other disabled athletes and, worse yet, capable of beating able bodies athletes. This does not fit anywhere within the realm of "feel good stories". The result it that the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets do not know what to make of athletes such as Martin and Pistorius. In contrast, like other disabled people I have no such issues. To me, the two men in question are simply world class athletes who deserve respect.
I have not thought about Martin until this morning when I read the New York Times with my coffee. In the sports section I was interested to read a story about Oscar Pistorius (Study Suggests That Amputee Holds Unfair Advantage). Very few Americans know who Pistorius is. I have heard the name and know he is a world class paralympic sprinter from South Africa. I only know this much because Pistorius has had the nerve to compete and beat some bipedal runners. In short, he is a world class athlete but this is not why Pistorius is controversial. Pistrorius wants to compete in the Olympics against able bodied runners. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), track's governing body, has been and remains opposed to including Pistorius. Even though there is no scientific evidence, the IAAF claims Pistorius' high tech prosthesis called cheetahs give him an unfair advantage over able bodies athletes. The chances of Pistorius ever competing in the Olympics are a long shot at best.
According to the New York Times, the IAAF spent $50,000 researching the Pistorius case and concluded that any disabled athlete that wants to compete against able bodied athletes must prove that any adaptive device such as Pistorius' prosthetic legs does not give them an advantage over able bodies athletes. The IAAF conclusion mirrors recent Supreme Court decisions, especially the Sutton Trilogy, that requires disabled people to prove they are in fact disabled (in the eyes of the court it is possible to be too disabled or, conversely, not disabled enough). When I made this connection between the IAAF and the Supreme Court I realized not much has changed when it comes to the perception of disabled athletes and how they are portrayed in the media.
Disabled athletes and adaptive sports provide mainstream media outlets with endless fodder for what I call feel good stories. Disabled people know what I am writing about--the dreaded 90 second piece at the end of the national news that portrays the "remarkable, "heart warming" story about a disabled person who finishes a marathon or some other athletic event. What is celebrated is not the athletic achievement but the ability of a person to "overcome" obstacles that prove the person in question is amazing. Reducing the accomplishments of disabled athletes to nothing more than such a feel good story is nothing short of demeaning. It reinforces every negative stereotype about disability and conveniently ignores the fact the overwhelming number of problems disabled people encounter are social. At issue is not a disabled person's ability but rather how they handle a specific physical disability. Thus Martin's athletic skills are reduced to a discussion about his request for a golf cart or Pistorius' use of high tech prosthesis. Both men violated a social norm--they are too good. They are significantly better than other disabled athletes and, worse yet, capable of beating able bodies athletes. This does not fit anywhere within the realm of "feel good stories". The result it that the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets do not know what to make of athletes such as Martin and Pistorius. In contrast, like other disabled people I have no such issues. To me, the two men in question are simply world class athletes who deserve respect.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Adaptive Skiing and Sports
My son Tom and I are new to alpine skiing. After he "retired" from hockey last year we were interested in taking up a new sport--something that was physically taxing, fun, and, from my viewpoint, would take him far away from his Xbox. When my niece, who works as a program co-ordinator for Vermont Adaptive, invited us up last winter we jumped at the chance. It turned out my son was a natural on skis. I was not so gifted and struggled for a variety of reasons foremost among them finding the correct sit ski (for a person with a high level of injury, t-3, the correct gear is very important).
This ski season has gone much better. Using a dual sit ski as opposed to a mono ski that is common I expect (hope) to be independent by the end of the season. I love the freedom and sensation of skiing. Being outside in the cold, the views from the summit, and seeing my son speeding by me are all wonderful. But I wonder what other non-disabled people really think about my efforts. In Vermont I rarely get that "Oh my gosh, you are such an inspiration" comment that I detest. Yet I remain concerned about how I am perceived. Do others understand that I am like any other parent who simply wants to spend time with their kid? This question leads me to wonder about the value of adaptive sports. Here I am not referring to events such as the Para-Olympics where the athletes are young, gifted, and driven. These men and women are professionals and should be perceived as such.
I am your typical weekend warrior--nothing more and nothing less. I am skiing to have fun like the vast majority of people. But I am not like others. I use and wheelchair and sit ski. Do people look beyond my wheelchair and sit ski and see me for who I am? I would like to think so yet I am not sure this is the case. When you add in the high cost of skiing my concerns grow exponentially. What is the point of having adaptive sport programs if 70% of disabled people are unemployed? Do not misconstrue what I am trying to get at: adaptive sport programs are great and have a place in society. It is just that on our drive back home I was pre-occupied with the gross economic and social inequities that disabled people encounter on a daily basis. Social stigma and the lack of economic independence prevent far too many disabled people from leaving their home and, for some, visiting a ski area is a pipe dream. As we approached home I broached this issue with my son who has an innate ability to reduce complex issues to their most common denominator. He remarked that I could not change the world in one weekend and that I should really be thinking about ways to improve my form so that I could keep up with him. He went on to note that what made people think the most in his estimation was little a little sign my niece put on my wheelchair while I was skiing. It stated: "Gone Skiing". He told me that as people trudged by, many stopped, thought a second or two and laughed. This, he thought, was an indication that people questioned their preconceived notions about "dudes that use a wheelchair" and that I should just enjoy myself. I hope my son is correct and will work on not only my form but on advances the rights of disabled people.
This ski season has gone much better. Using a dual sit ski as opposed to a mono ski that is common I expect (hope) to be independent by the end of the season. I love the freedom and sensation of skiing. Being outside in the cold, the views from the summit, and seeing my son speeding by me are all wonderful. But I wonder what other non-disabled people really think about my efforts. In Vermont I rarely get that "Oh my gosh, you are such an inspiration" comment that I detest. Yet I remain concerned about how I am perceived. Do others understand that I am like any other parent who simply wants to spend time with their kid? This question leads me to wonder about the value of adaptive sports. Here I am not referring to events such as the Para-Olympics where the athletes are young, gifted, and driven. These men and women are professionals and should be perceived as such.
I am your typical weekend warrior--nothing more and nothing less. I am skiing to have fun like the vast majority of people. But I am not like others. I use and wheelchair and sit ski. Do people look beyond my wheelchair and sit ski and see me for who I am? I would like to think so yet I am not sure this is the case. When you add in the high cost of skiing my concerns grow exponentially. What is the point of having adaptive sport programs if 70% of disabled people are unemployed? Do not misconstrue what I am trying to get at: adaptive sport programs are great and have a place in society. It is just that on our drive back home I was pre-occupied with the gross economic and social inequities that disabled people encounter on a daily basis. Social stigma and the lack of economic independence prevent far too many disabled people from leaving their home and, for some, visiting a ski area is a pipe dream. As we approached home I broached this issue with my son who has an innate ability to reduce complex issues to their most common denominator. He remarked that I could not change the world in one weekend and that I should really be thinking about ways to improve my form so that I could keep up with him. He went on to note that what made people think the most in his estimation was little a little sign my niece put on my wheelchair while I was skiing. It stated: "Gone Skiing". He told me that as people trudged by, many stopped, thought a second or two and laughed. This, he thought, was an indication that people questioned their preconceived notions about "dudes that use a wheelchair" and that I should just enjoy myself. I hope my son is correct and will work on not only my form but on advances the rights of disabled people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)