Disability and Public Policy
Dane Neville
With:
Dr. Rickie-Ann Legleitner:
College of Arts, Communications, Humanities and Social Sciences: English and Philosophy Department, University of Wisconsin-Stout
Within sovereign realm of the State, public policy (law) serves as the legal framework responsible for molding the experience of its citizens. Sometimes, the State will disenfranchise its citizens whereupon it is necessary to pass judgement upon the State – giving fair and honest measure to its value – to determine whether the State can be repaired or if the State must be disbanded. This essay constructs a rhetorical analysis of the United States Congress’s creation of public policy for people with disabilities to evaluate the merit of those laws. Success of a public policy is defined by Martin Luther King Jr.’s terms of understanding just and unjust laws[1] Assuming only that language constructs our world perception[2] (Gould), this essay will demonstrate that; until our country facilitates a proactive dialogue for the cooperative creation of public policy for people with disabilities with the inclusion of people with disabilities – any law for people with disabilities created by the U.S. Congress will be unjust.
Language, as an operator for cognitive construction of understanding, is paramount – the language we use to describe our ideas is the vessel with which we communicate with the universe; our words are the building blocks with which our consciousness of a relationship with time, in space, is conceived. (Gould) Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues explains, “Conceptions of disability as a burden hav[e] theoretical capacity to reinforce “ableism” or discrimination” (Parham, Michie, Allyse). Or as Bill Nye says, “Words are very important, it’s how we describe ideas” (Wisconsin Public Radio). In other words, informational dichotomies – that is, information unconsciously categorized in an either, or, (binary), fashion (Komjath, Totik)– constructs existentially limiting word views, ideas, and understanding of self-awareness.
People must be conscious of, “Perceptions (of our external and internal environments), thoughts (information processing), feelings (emotions), motivations (drives) and of a unique self having those experiences” (Gould). According to The Mind-Brain Problem and Consciousness. Given the context of our inquiry; consciousness, and the self-awareness of language, must be endowed with paramount importance. The Mind-Brain Problem and Consciousness postulates; with a conscious awareness of the impact of language, “We can integrate perceptions of current events. . . [and] plan future actions that will be adaptive”. Because, “Only humans typically have verbal consciousness. [And] this vastly expands our mental capabilities, [for] pre-evaluating problem solutions” (Gould).
Given self-awareness and verbal conscious are imperative to the cocreation of proactive dialogue (Gould); the United States government, as writ in U.S. Public Law 110-325 (2008)[3], defines disability with ‘respect to an individual’*. Thereby constructing a world-view where having a disability is defined as: being less active in society, having a record of societal activity deficiency, or society perceives that said individual is deficiently active within society. (P.L. 110-325) In this world – in addition to being able to live without soiling oneself; leading an active life is defined as, “Caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working” (P.L 110-325)
Therefore, to be fully active within society, an individual must be independently capable of: caring for themselves, performing physical labor, learning to read, write, as well as verbally communicate ideas with others, and produce for work for the United States economy. That is, if any human condition exists, has existed, or is perceived to exist, that significantly inhibits the United States’ definition of major life activities, that individual is not an able member of the society.[4]
Within Membership of the 113th Congress: A Profile, Information Research Specialist Jennifer E. Manning of the U.S. Congressional Research Service, a study creating a historic breakdown of U.S. Congressional membership demographics[5]. Categorized by: party breakdown, age, occupations, education, congressional service, religion, gender, and, ethnicity. (Manning). This breakdown reveals that there are, of 435 representatives and 100 senators, 25 members of the U.S. Congress with medical degrees(Manning). The power of language-life within the mental trilogy determines our motivations (Gould); therefore, the power of emotional response to stimuli, specifically the actions derived from that response is sown throughout the creative process of our world view. In this light – if ≈5% of Congressional members have a language life constructed with a medical background (Manning) – the meek language-life of the U.S. Congress creates the fundamental misrepresentation of disability in the creative process of disability public policy.
Given the understanding; mental capacity for problem/solution analysis is directly tied to verbal consciousness, and accepting that personal motivations have a powerful influence on cognition (Gould), consider this; 4% of the U.S. Senate’s population (100% of physical) and 6% of House’s population (85% physical, 15% psychological) (Manning) have any vocational training in human health – because of this, only a small amount of conscious awareness can be dedicated to disability because the majority population has no vocational motivation for disability awareness (Gould).
Accepting the successfulness of a public policy is dependent on its justness, defined as, “A code that a majority compels a minority to follow”. (King) We can conclude that creation of a just policy for people with disabilities is impossible if the majority population the body responsible for creating the policy is fully abled.[6]
Accepting the problematic nature of minority exclusion in the context of public policy and recognizing that this practice breeds unjustness; we can expand our consideration intersectionally to recognize that –encompassing and beyond ability – through proportional misrepresentation, any policy-target population identity can be systematically marginalized. Religious identity is among the least diverse identifying demographics of U.S. Congress. 98% of Congressional members identify religiously, 96% of Congressional members identify with a Judeo-Christian affiliation while only 1% of members identify religiously outside of Judaism and Christianity. Emile Durkhiem details primitive peoples’ turn to religious explanations of phenomena,
“These explanations, which to us seem so surprising, are to the primitive mind the simplest explanations in the world. Primitive man does not see in them a sort of ultima ratio to which the intellect only turns when all else fails, but the most direct method of understanding and visualizing what he sees”. (Concerning the Definition of Religious Phenomena) Or as Max Mller explains, “Religion is a mental faculty or disposition which . . . enables man to apprehend the Infinite under different names and under varying disguises. Without that Faculty, no religion, not even the lowest worship of idols and fetishes, would be possible; and if we will but listen attentively, we can hear in all religions a groaning of the spirit, a struggling to conceive the inconceivable”. (Introduction to the Science of Religions)
If 96% of the U.S. Congress identifies to the Judeo-Christian dogma; our assertion that language is the fundamental constructor of our perception of reality (Gould) and understanding that religion is not a fantastical perception of reality (Durkhiem) but an early attempt to conceive infinity (Mller). We can perceive the impact Judeo-Christian literature has on the problem/solution evaluation process (Gould) of the U.S. Congress. In the Old Testament, the book of Leviticus outlines the religious law of the Jewish people. In reference to disability, Leviticus (21) outlines how individuals with a disability are denied access to religious titles as well as access to the altar of God. As disability, in the presence of God, would defile holiness in a sacred space. (16:23) Whereas the New Testament, in the Gospel according to Mathew (25), declares in the Final Judgement of God, those who serve to relieve others of suffering, regardless of circumstance, receive the glory of heaven[7]
Defining a just law by the following terms, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust”. (King) As well as accepting the impact language has on cognition (Gould). And having deduced that demographic misrepresentation and law created by a majority and imposed on a minority creates unjust laws (King), the following claims can be made:
Public policy made for people with disabilities by a religiously identifying U.S. Congress is unjust. Given 96% of the U.S. Congress identify themselves with Judeo-Christian doctrine (Manning), If the religious explanation of phenomena is the simplest attempt to perceive the unknown (Durkheim); the book of Leviticus denies people with disabilities access to spiritual equality (22 16:23) and although the Gospel according to Mathew advocates for the compassionate treatment for all, the language base of the New Testament is formed in the Old Testament. And the problem/solution analysis process of a lawmaking body is conceived in language and language forms our cognitive perceptions of reality (Gould). Then identifying with a religious doctrine contributes to our cognitive perception of reality. Therefore, any worldview formed in the New Testament is rooted in the language of the Old Testament to form its perspective. Further, any public policy made by a Congress’ the majority Judeo-Christian identity is formed from a cognitive perspective rooted in language that degrades the human condition (King) and cannot be just.[8]
For us to truly grasp the gravity involved with participating in a system that, by definition, cannot create a just law for people with disability, it is important to understand the nature of oppression, a concept described within Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “In concrete, objective contexts, both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for a person as an uncompleted being conscious of their incompletion. . .[both] are real alternatives, only the first is the people’s vocation”. (Friere) Meaning that we as people have, at the base of their existence, two options: to be built up as humans, or to be dehumanized. Friere underlines that people naturally seek humanization, and, that dehumanization validates an individual drive for humanization. In Friere’s cognitive frame work, “Oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves”. Therefore, the mission of the oppressed is, “To liberate themselves and their oppressors as well” (Freire). Those who oppress cannot liberate the oppressed; for the public policies of the U.S. congress, liberation from the shackles of systematic ableism is a nonreal conclusion.
With our understanding of oppression and our Congress’ ability to create just policy, the above argument mandates an understanding of ‘false charity’ and ‘true generosity’ (Friere),
True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity. False charity constrains the fearful and subdued, the "rejects of life," to extend their trembling hands. True generosity lies in striving so that these hands— whether of individuals or entire peoples— need be extended less and less in supplication, so that more and more they become human hands which work. (Friere)
Grasping this concept allows us to visualize a path to recreate a word in which people of all abilities are cocreators. Our current system of government is a system that requires the so called ‘rejects of life’ to be dependent upon that system for humanization – therefore the system itself is one of dehumanization. As Pedagogy of the Oppressed explains, “The oppressed, at a certain moment of their existential experience, adopt an attitude of "adhesion" to the oppressor. . . This does not necessarily mean that the oppressed are unaware that they are downtrodden. But their perception of themselves as oppressed is impaired by their submersion in the reality of oppression”. (Friere) Ergo, the creation of a just law for people with disabilities must come from a system that seeks people of all physical abilities to co-create public policy with equity. [9]
Having outlined the current problematic and oppressive nature for creation of U.S. public policies for people with disabilities, it is important to decode the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). Martin Luther King Jr. believed, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection” (King). So, when the ADA national network has a timeline of the historic battle for disability rights, beginning in 1986 (ADA.gov) a precedent for skepticism exists. As we have earlier defined – the historical precept for our Congress’ perception of disability has already been constructed by language (Gould) – and in the case of the majority (96%) of the U.S. Congress, that language life has direct roots in Judeo-Christian text (Miller). When the ADA website sets the historic marker for the beginning of disability civil rights at 1986 (ADA.gov) but the religious doctrine the majority (96%) of Congress subscribes to dogma which identifies disability as means for segregation from positions of religious prestige (Leviticus) as early as 7th Century B.C.E. (The New Living Translation Bible), it can be assumed that between at least 1776 and 1986, the United States Congress was either an active participant or bystander in the oppression of people with disabilities.[10]
Given our early conclusions, further proof that the U.S. Congress requires investigation is provided in Mind Matters: Mental Disability and the History and Future of the Americans with Disabilities Act, “The finding that 43 million individuals are disabled gives content to the ADA's terms, specifically the term 'disability.' . . . Among those covered by the Act, [Congress] undoubtedly would have cited a much higher number. . . That it did not is evidence that the ADA's coverage is restricted to only those whose impairments are not mitigated by corrective measures” (Concannon). Meaning outside of Congress, the U.S. court systems also struggles with the interpretation of the ADA’s definition of disability. Finding, in some cases, people with disabilities, “Can perform all of their major life activities just as efficiently as an average couch potato” (Concannon).
Abundantly, many of the cases in which people with disabilities file suit against the State produce a common result[11], “Civil penalties of up to $55,000 for the first violation and $110,000 for any subsequent violation”. (USDJ) However the entire process of paying for wrongdoing is unbelievably complicated The Institutional and Cultural Logics of Legal Commensuration: Blood Money and Negotiated Justice in China explains, “The cultural meanings of money. . . In particular, blood money is valued both for its certainty and its symbolic value as a token of apology” (Ng, He) This means, for people with disabilities, the questions must be asked. Can financial compensation be truly valued as a token of apology (Ng, He), or is the distribution of money itself a further perpetuation of false generosity (Friere)?
Where can we go from here? Martin Luther King Jr. states, “Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. . . Without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation” (King). Throughout this essay, we have pondered whether there is a just logical basis for the exclusion of people with disability for policy formulation, although in many ways focusing on religious identity can be limiting; given our investigation’s conclusions our initial postulation stands firm. If the U.S. Congress does not facilitate the creation of public policy for people with disabilities with the inclusion and cooperation of people with disabilities then any law for people with disabilities created by the U.S. Congress will be unjust.[12]
Although this essay identifies Judeo-Christian dogma among other things, as a source for prejudice against people with disabilities*** it must be understood that our path towards justness is one that must be walked in solidarity. It is only with the application of King’s wordsδ given our assumptionα that any demonstration of unjustness can be perceived; this model of analysis allows for innumerous investigations of systematic oppression. It is with the impending weight of that knowledge that we must base our decisions. In the words of Harriet McBryde Johnson, “Ultimately we’ll make a world that’s fit to live in, a society that has room for all its flawed creatures” (Unspeakable Conversations). Until our cognitive perceptions of reality are constructed in a language-life harmonizing our existential-selves in equality, we will continue the perpetuation of the systematic oppression of people with disabilities within the United States.[13]
1 There are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. . . Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful
[2] language constructs our world perception
[3](A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.
Major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working. . . a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immunes system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as – (I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants of other implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies; (II) use of assistive technology; (III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or (IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications”.
[4] To be fully active within society, an individual must be independently capable of: caring for themselves, performing physical labor, learning to read, write, as well as verbally communicate ideas with others, and produce for work for the United States economy. If any human condition exists, has existed, or is perceived to exist, that significantly inhibits the United States’ definition of major life activities, that individual is not an able member of the society.
[5] Refers to statistical data provided within Manning E. Jennifer. Membership of the 113th Congress: A Profile. Congressional Research Service, Nov. 24, 2014. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf
[6] The successfulness of a public policy is dependent on its justness, and the creation of a just policy for people with disabilities is impossible if the majority population the body responsible for creating the policy is fully abled.
[7] 16 Then the Lord said to Moses, 17 “Give the following instructions to Aaron: In all future generations, none of your descendants who has any defect will qualify to offer food to his God. 18 No one who has a defect qualifies, whether he is blind, lame, disfigured, deformed, 19 or has a broken foot or arm, 20 or is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or has a defective eye, or skin sores or scabs, or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron who has a defect may approach the altar to present special gifts to the Lord. Since he has a defect, he may not approach the altar to offer food to his God. 22 However, he may eat from the food offered to God, including the holy offerings and the most holy offerings. 23 Yet because of his physical defect, he may not enter the room behind the inner curtain or approach the altar, for this would defile my holy places. I am the Lord who makes them holy.
[7] 33 He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’ 37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,[f] you were doing it to me!’ 41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.[g] 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ 44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’ 45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’ 46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”
[8] Any public policy made by a Congress’ the majority Judeo-Christian identity is formed from a cognitive perspective rooted in language that degrades the human condition and cannot be just.
[9] Our current system of government is a system that requires the so called ‘rejects of life’ to be dependent upon that system for humanization – therefore the system itself is one of dehumanization. Ergo, the creation of a just law for people with disabilities must come from a system that seeks people of all physical abilities to co-create public policy with equity.
[10] Between at least 1776 and 1986, the United States Congress was either an active participant or bystander in the oppression of people with disabilities.
[11] See United States v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, and, Bourdon v. Croft
[12] If the U.S. Congress does not facilitate the creation of public policy for people with disabilities with the inclusion and cooperation of people with disabilities then any law for people with disabilities created by the U.S. Congress will be unjust
[13] Until our cognitive perceptions of reality are constructed in a language-life harmonizing our existential-selves in equality, we will continue the perpetuation of the systematic oppression of people with disabilities within the United States.
Works Cited:
Concannon James, Mind Matters: Mental Disability and the History and Future of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Academic Law Reviews. http://www-lexisnexis-com.ezproxy.lib.uwstout.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=147744&sr=TITLE(MIND+MATTERS+MENTAL+DISABILITY+AND+THE+HISTORY+AND+FUTURE+OF+THE+AMERICANS+WITH+DISABILITIES+ACT)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B2012
Enforcing the ADA, Status Report from the Department of Justice, January - March 2003. United States Department of Justice, Jan. 2004. Web. 11 Apr. 2017. https://www.webharvest.gov/peth04/20041015174719/http://ada.gov/janmar04.htm
Gould Jay. Mind-Brain Problem and Consciousness, University of Western Florida April 15,2009. http://uwf.edu/jgould/documents/Mind-BrainandConsciousnessProblem_000.pdf
Ng Kwai, Hang. He Xin, The Institutional and Cultural Logics of Legal Commensuration: Blood Money and Negotiated Justice in China, American Journal of Sociology 122, no. 4 (January 2017): 1104-1143 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/689268
King Jr, Martin. Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963. Web. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
Komjath, Peter, and Vilmos Totik. Problems and theorems in classical set theory. New York: Springer, 2010. Print.
Parham Lindsay, Marsha Michie, Megan Allyse, Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues, Current Genetic Medicine Reports, 2017, 5, 1, 44
Pickering, W.S.F., and Jacqueline Redding. Durkheim on Religion, edited by W.S.F. Pickering, and Jacqueline Redding, James Clarke & Co, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uws-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3328621
Johnson, McBryde Harriet. Unspeakable Conversations, Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis. Routledge 4th edition. Print.
Freire, Paulo, Ramos, Myra Bergman, and Myra Bergman Ramos. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, edited by Paulo Freire, et al., Bloomsbury Academic & Professional, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uws-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1745456.
Pub. L. 101–336, § 3, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 329; Pub. L. 110–325, § 4(a), Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3555. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:12102%20edition:prelim)
Nation Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Wisconsin Public Radio. Bill Nye, Madison Extension, Wisconsin, 22 Apr. 2017. Radio.
Manning E. Jennifer. Membership of the 113th Congress: A Profile. Congressional Research Service, Nov. 24, 2014. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf
The New Living Translation Bible. Illinois: Tyndale Publishers Inc, 2013. Print