G's story illustrates two important things, at least.
First, this child was never actually required to travel between home and school like parcel post, because her parents (1) were able to obtain qualified legal representation, and (2) filed an administrative complaint and prevailed in an "impartial due process hearing" [here is where I'd like to insert a link referencing Special Education law & regulations]
The second important point to her story is that it illustrates the viseral nature of community attitudes and embeded biases with respect to disability. In other words, makes you wonder just how much so-called progress and enlightment reflects simply a growing sophistication, the trend to cloak discriminatory intent with inclusionary rehetoric, and the abiltiy to get away with substituting "appearance" for substance when it comes to real tolerance, acceptance, and equality.
Oh, and justice.
Suggested Reading:
The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public
Susan Schweik, New York University Press, New Your and London www.nyupress.org (c) 2009
In 1881, the Chicago City Code read, "Any person who is diseased,
maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed... shall not... expose himself to public view." These "ugly laws" began in San Francisco in 1867, then spread through the U.S. and abroad; many in the U.S. weren't repealed until the 1970s.
http://www.nyupress.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment