New APPS

Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science. Mostly Philosophy.

recent posts

about

    Disabling philosophy

    By Shelley Tremain, draft of a comment that is forthcoming in the April issue of The Philosopher's Magazine.

    Data compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy indicates that the disparity between the labor-participation rates of employable disabled people and employable nondisabled people across all sectors of American society is abysmal: 21% for disabled people compared to 69% for nondisabled people. More specific figures for the disparity between disabled and nondisabled people employed as full-time faculty in academia are even worse, with philosophy boasting the greatest disparity in this regard of all disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, comparable only to the STEM fields. For although disabled people comprise an estimated 20-25% of the North American population, surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 by the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association (APA) suggest that they comprise less than 4% of full-time faculty in philosophy departments in the U.S. and, according to a 2013 survey conducted by the Equity Committee of the Canadian Philosophical Association (CPA), they comprise less than 1% of full-time faculty in philosophy departments in Canada. In other words, nondisabled people comprise an estimated 96-99% of full-time faculty in North American philosophy departments. These figures are shocking, constituting almost complete exclusion of disabled people from professional philosophy.

    Why is there such a striking disparity between the percentage of disabled people in the general population and the percentage of disabled people in professional philosophy? Why are there virtually no disabled people employed full-time in North American philosophy departments? Are there no disabled philosophers? Is there some characteristic, trait, or sensibility that all disabled people intrinsically possess that makes them especially averse to philosophical inquiry? Are disabled people, as a social group, somehow better-suited to other areas of the humanities or not suited for academia at all?

    Rather than attribute the grievous demographics of professional philosophy to some feature or characteristic inherent to disabled people, that is, to some individual or collective deficiency, defect, or flaw intrinsic to disabled people themselves (a standard response when ableism in any sphere or facet of culture and society is pointed out), we should turn the critical gaze back onto professional philosophy itself in order to discern both the best explanation for why there are so few disabled people in its ranks and the best answer to the question of what should be done to rectify this unacceptable state of affairs. For surely we philosophers agree that there should be a concerted profession-wide response to the current situation, that is, we can surely agree that something pro-active must be done about the egregious under-representation of disabled people in philosophy. Or can “we”?

    I asked myself that self-same question again recently when I read esteemed feminist philosopher Ann Cudd’s featured posts on the Pea Soup blog in which Cudd (1) articulated prevalent misconceptions about disabled people by (among other things) equating “permanently disabled” with permanently unemployable, wholly incapacitated, and necessarily dependent; and (2) objectified and essentialized disabled people by referring to us as “the disabled.” Given that these and other uninformed views and implicit biases about disabled people underlie the philosophical perspectives that many philosophers hold (after all, Cudd’s remarks are responses to and participate in a prominent discourse of political philosophy and ethics), it is no wonder that “permanently disabled” people are not regarded as viable colleagues in the profession, nor considered worthy of the role of “professional philosopher.” Similar, and even more harmful, misconceptions about disabled people can be identified in cognitive science, bioethics, and other sub-disciplines. In fact, much of the very subject matter of philosophy runs counter to efforts to increase the representation of disabled people in the profession.

    In October 2013, I published an article entitled “Introducing Feminist Philosophy of Disability” in a special issue of Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ) whose theme is Improving Feminist Philosophy and Theory by Taking Account of Disability. Given its role as an introduction to the special issue, the article is designed to provide a context within which readers of the journal unfamiliar with the demographics of philosophy can situate the contributions to the issue; hence, the introduction identifies noteworthy institutional, structural, discursive, and material factors that contribute to the hostile environment that disabled philosophers confront and delegitimize research and teaching in philosophy of disability. I was concerned to show how some of the central institutions and venues of the discipline and profession of philosophy – including the APA and the New APPS and Leiter Reports blogs – were (each in its own ways) biased against disabled people and treat them unequally, as well as show how other influential elements of the field – such as PhilJobs and PhilPapers – diminish the importance of philosophy of disability, disqualifying it from the realm of what counts as philosophy. The article spells out how the APA (its website, conferences, committee structure, and so on) has systematically failed to represent disabled philosophers equally; how the architecture of PhilJobs and PhilPapers implicitly and structurally precludes critical work on disability; how feminist philosophers reproduce ableism in their work; and how the ableist language and other discursive practices of numerous philosophy blogs variously demean disabled people and contribute to the exclusion of disabled philosophers.

    In the six months since I published the DSQ article, little in philosophy has changed: The APA has taken no noticeable measures to include vital information missing from its website, nor has it redesigned the inaccessible website itself, nor has it acted in any significant way upon any of the other criticisms or recommendations that I make in the article; the conceptual and organizational frameworks of PhilPapers and PhilJobs have not been modified, but rather continue to respectively marginalize and obscure research and teaching in the area of philosophy of disability, for the most part classifying work on disability in medical terms and ignoring its political character; some philosophy blogs continue to generate discursive practices that degrade disabled people and discount disabled philosophers and philosophy of disability; and most mainstream feminist philosophers continue to conceptualize and write about feminism and diversity in terms that limit their scope to gender alone, or to gender, race, and sexuality, or to gender, race, and class, producing “intersectional” analyses that essentially boil down to considerations of (binary) gender to which race and sexuality or race and class are rather haphazardly added and in whose terms disability is nowhere to be found. Notably, the New APPS blog altered the practices for which I criticized it in the article, with John Protevi at New APPS blogging about my DSQ article and the entire issue and emphasizing their importance for the field, as well as posting links to the article and table of contents for the issue.

    The intransigence of the aforementioned formally and informally institutionalized dimensions of the discipline and profession notwithstanding, there does, nevertheless, seem to be an upsurge of recognition amongst some philosophers that disabled people are under-represented in, and have been systematically excluded from, the profession of philosophy (or so I would like to think); that philosophical claims, arguments, and positions are thoroughly embedded in a complicated matrix of ableist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, and classist force relations; and that the uncritical reproduction of these relations of power within philosophy constitutes a host of injustices that must be eliminated.

     

    A petition is in circulation calling on the APA to develop a comprehensive accessibility policy and to strike an advisory committee to oversee its implementation. Click here to add your name to the growing list of signatories to the petition.

     

    Useful links:

    http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3877/3402

    http://dsq-sds.org/issue/view/108

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disability/

     

    Author information

    Shelley Tremain holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy (York University, Toronto), is the author of numerous articles and reviews on disability, feminism, Foucault, bioethics, and ableism in philosophy, and editor of Foucault and the Government of Disability (University of Michigan Press, 2005), a second edition of which is due out later this year.

    Posted in , ,

    24 responses to “Disabling philosophy”

    1. Tara Nelson Avatar
      Tara Nelson

      Relatedly, a truly sexist and essentialist view of women’s abilities in philosophy has reared its head on the blogosphere, and Showalter seems unable to respond to it effectively. Hope someone here can nip this in the bud. It’s in the comments section on http://laughingphilosopherblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/on-amy-ferrer-the-apa-and-the-colorado-site-visit/

      Like

      Reply
    2. Michael Kremer Avatar
      Michael Kremer

      To Shelley Tremain: What I am about to say is probably already obvious to you. But maybe not to all readers here.
      Concerning Ann Cudd’s use of “disabled,” it seems to me that there is a serious problem of language here. In fact we have two legal contexts in which the term “disability” is used in different, and in fact incompatible ways.
      On the one hand, there is such a thing as “disability insurance,” both private and public (Social Security). To qualify for beneifts one must be incapable of employment either in general or in one’s chosen profession. Thus from the US government’s official publication about Social Security disability benefits: “If you are working and your earnings average more than a certain amount each month, we generally will not consider you disabled. … For the state agency to decide that you are disabled, your medical condition must significantly limit your ability to do basic work activities—such as walking, sitting and remembering—for at least one year.” etc. And from my University’s description of their long-term disability insurance plan: “When you suffer an illness, injury or disabling condition that prevents you from working for more than 3 months, the University offers Long Term Disability Insurance (LTD) to provide supplemental income to allow you to focus on your recovery.”
      This is a common use of the term “disabled” which is written into many laws and contracts. Yet there is an obvious contradiction between this use of “disability” and the use involved in the ADA, which defines a disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” Since the ADA is meant to “guarantee[s] that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to participate in the mainstream of American life” including “to enjoy employment opportunities,” this is clearly incompatible with a use of “disability” to refer to a condition which makes one incapable of employment either in general or within one’s chosen field, or beyond a low income limit.
      What I think is true (and this surely bears out your point), is that the first use of “disability” is the one that nondisabled philosophers are far more likely to think of. That is the use of the term which seems to apply most directly to them, in the sense that they are likely to be covered by “disability insurance” and may have had to decide what level of insurance to enroll in etc)… We nondisabled philosophers encounter the second, ADA use only in contexts involving others — such as accessibility of buildings, accommodations for certain students, etc — unless we have disabled family members or friends.
      While some disabilities in the second sense are in fact disabilities in the first sense as well — some conditions can after all make one incapable of employment — not all or even most are, by any means. The linguistic confusion made possible by the ambiguous use of the term “disabled” then can have very negative effects. [Further confusion arises when some disability insurance policies allow for “partial disability” where one’s work and salary are reduced to a percentage and the insurance helps to make up the difference — this is the case under my University’s “optional plan” which is described at the above link.]
      I am going of for too long just stating the obvious. But just recognizing what might be going on with Cudd’s use of “disability” language has helped me see the urgency of this issue in a new light. I hope it’s alright for me to have expressed this from my own nondisabled point of view. It’s just a start, I know. And I am open to correction on anything I’ve said here.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Rachel Avatar
      Rachel

      Some small changes are happening. I was a keynote speaker at a recent workshop on diversity in philosophy. The keynote talks were taped, and I asked if they were going to be transcribed for deaf and hard of hearing people. They weren’t…but the request prompted them to change their plans. It’s small, but it’s something that I’ll keep asking now when I’m speaking somewhere.

      Like

      Reply
    4. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      Thank you for the reference. I will have a look.

      Like

      Reply
    5. Tara Nelson Avatar
      Tara Nelson

      Thanks, Berit. The commenter’s handle is ‘Highly Adequate’, if that helps find the offending comments. HA actually endorses Larry Summers’ sexist “women can’t do math” trope.

      Like

      Reply
    6. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      I will respond to Michael’s fabulous remarks very soon. In the meantime, however, I want to draw everyone’s attention to the petition that is linked to at the bottom of the post. The petition is a call for the APA to develop a comprehensive accessibility policy and strike a committee to oversee its implementation. The APA has responded to the petition, but we find the response unsatisfactory and will continue to solicit signatures and raise awareness within the profession about this grave situation. One signatory to the petition wrote:
      “I’m very disappointed by the APA’s response. At this point in our profession I had hoped our professional organization would have recognized the importance of truly [including disabled philosophers] as opposed to merely complying with regulations.” (Aaron Garrett, The New School)
      For information about the current inequities that disabled philosophers confront within the APA in particular and professional philosophy more broadly, read my article “Introducing Feminist Philosophy and Theory by Taking Account of Disability” here: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3877/3402.
      To add your name to the growing list of signatories to the petition and to read the APA’s response, please go here: http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-american-philosophical-association-we-call-upon-the-apa-to-properly-apply-its-own-non-discrimination-policy-by-developing-a-comprehensive-accessibility-policy-and-striking-an-advisory-group-to-oversee-its-implementation

      Like

      Reply
    7. ajkreider Avatar
      ajkreider

      Shelley Tremain,
      At the risk of being an apologist for the APA, I do wonder what their (our!) obligations are given the obvious financial limitations of the organization. Much of what you suggested in your original piece seems easily doable. But to create anything approaching, say, a universal design space for APA regional meetings could be very expensive (and thus, beyond the APA’s reach).
      Very interested to hear your thoughts on how to balance these out.

      Like

      Reply
    8. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      Michael, first, let me say that I’ve enjoyed interacting with you here in the past, always finding your remarks refreshingly open and humble. Thanks very much for drawing attention to the important issue of ambiguity with respect to disability and language and conceptions of disability.
      You identify two senses of disability/disabled: the second sense to which you refer is enshrined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which was effectively brought into existence after years of struggle by the American disability rights movement (check out this filmic history of the US movement: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/lives-worth-living/). The first sense is pre-ADA, though it is still in use in some contexts.
      The situation is even more confused and confusing than your remarks suggest, however. Furthermore, as my remarks immediately above suggest, what is also at issue is whose language and conception gets to define a group of people, who gets to decide, which conception and what language should philosophers who write about disability and social justice use, and in particular, what sort of conception and language about disability and disabled people should I expect that a feminist philosopher who writes on inclusion/exclusion and disabled people would use.
      Although the second sense that you identify, enshrined in the ADA, was motivated by the American disability rights movement (and let’s underscore that you have referred to American policies and language), a growing number of philosophers of disability and disability theorists internationally have moved away from the conception of disability that is assumed on the terms of the ADA, where disability is a property or characteristic of individuals. Activists in the UK in the mid-1970s developed a different definition of disability on whose terms disability is a form of social oppression and a disabled person is someone subjected to and by this form of oppression. The thinking of the UK disability activists who drew a distinction between between impairment and disability is analogous to the thinking of second-wave feminists who drew a sex-gender distinction. In a number of places in my work on disability, I have formulated a different approach that nevertheless draws upon the work of the UK disabled people’s movement (notice that they even define their movement in a different way) but which has been much influenced by Foucault and other poststructuralist thinkers such as Judith Butler. For an overview of the US and UK definitions of disability and my reconception, I would recommend that you take a look at my Hypatia article “Biopower, Styles of Reasoning, and What’s Still Missing From the Stem Cell Debates.” You can find it here: https://www.academia.edu/2480887/Biopower_Styles_of_Reasoning_and_Whats_Still_Missing_from_the_Stem_Cell_Debates
      OK, I’ll stop there and hope you continue to contribute to the conversation.

      Like

      Reply
    9. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      Rachel, It’s encouraging that you have made a commitment to promote accessibility to audio-taped conference and workshop proceedings. The provision of transcriptions of audio-taped and video-taped conference, meeting, and workshop proceedings should be part and parcel of the organization of such events. I recently pointed out to a friend/colleague that there was no transcription of the Soundcloud made of an event he organized. He is unable to provide a transcription at this stage of the event’s organization because he doesn’t have the funds to hire someone to do the transcribing. Such an allocation of organizational funds needs to be taken into account at the earliest planning stage of a given event, that is, should become a priority item in one’s budget planning and proposals, etc. Furthermore, transcriptions must be provided in a timely fashion. One of the problems with the APA website that I pointed out in my introduction to the special issue of DSQ is that Soundclouds and videotapes have been put on it without accompanying transcriptions or captioning. Same thing for the Hypatia website. That should not be happening and in fact is in violation of the ADA.

      Like

      Reply
    10. Aaron Garrett Avatar
      Aaron Garrett

      I find it puzzling that the APA would not want, like the MLA has tried, to make the easy changes to its website and to some procedures that would give people who feel excluded a greater sense of inclusion and make practical issues easier . I am not a disabled person, but I do sometimes ask for special accommodations for diet. I hate doing it, I feel like it singles me out. Ramify this up many, many levels of stress and difficulty in “ordinary” situations that I never even think about as difficult. The end result would probably be just not wanting to bother, given all of the difficulties and the sense that I am an outsider who is being allowed access due to largesse. My guess, and it’s just a guess from my minimally informed perspective, is that this what happens when one continuously encounters these sorts of obstacles — as Shelly suggests people leave academia entirely or move to areas of academia where there is more of a sense of inclusion. I really hope that the APA is now thinking through how to make things more easily navigable and inclusive, as I also hope they are thinking through the “smoker”, helping single parents at the APA with children, and many issues concerning diversity in philosophy. This is a juncture where the APA should take leadership on a whole bunch of central issues where leadership is needed. I am optimistic that they will.

      Like

      Reply
    11. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      Excerpts from my “Introducing Feminist Philosophy of Disability” Disability Studies Quarterly 33.4 2013:
      “Notwithstanding the appearance of these sessions on recent divisional programs, the APA does a poor job of representing disabled philosophers and advocating for their concerns and interests. Attention to the accessibility of the association, generally, and to its divisional meetings, in particular—in the form of real-time captioning (CART), American Sign Language (ASL), large-print and Braille registration and other materials, directional signage for wayfinding at meetings, attendant services, and so on—is not considered part and parcel of the usual organizational practices of the national APA; that is, the assumptions of Universal Design (UD) have not entered the conceptual or linguistic repertoire of the APA (or indeed of philosophers in general). Instead, the association remains wedded to an individualized and privatized conception of disability, wherein accessibility is conceived as an end state, rather than as a practice,6 and whereby the requirements of a certain range of people are taken for granted and naturalized as “normal,” regular, and typical, the preferential allocation of appropriate resources for which is rendered invisible precisely insofar as these requirements are considered “standard” and basic, while the requirements of certain other people (namely, disabled people) are perceived as “special needs,” idiosyncratic, and extra-ordinary, the allocation of resources to which is regarded as supererogatory, discretionary, and supplementary, construed as “accommodation,” and taken into account only if and when individual disabled people make “special,” “confidential” requests for the provisions and services that they require. Nevertheless, no specific information about how to make these accessibility requests or any other general information about disability (let alone an established comprehensive accessibility policy) is publicized on the newly-furbished website of the APA, which offers no more than links (under a tab entitled “Resources on Diversity and Inclusiveness”) to a blog-post elsewhere on the web that gives rudimentary instructions about organizing an accessible conference, to a blog-post elsewhere that provides information about a largely inactive listserv, and to a couple of blogs also elsewhere on the web, one of which is pretty much defunct. 7 In short, the national APA provides no useful information to its membership about (for instance): what chairs and others participants of divisional meetings should do in order to increase the accessibility of sessions at the meetings (e.g., use microphones, repeat questions from audience members, provide oral description of Powerpoint slides, and make hard copies of presentations available); what provisions and services will “upon request” be made available at a given divisional meeting (e.g., CART, large-print registration materials, attendant services, and so on); whom to approach within the association in order to make these latter arrangements; what measures hiring committees should implement in order to ensure that they do not import biases and prejudices into their assessments of disabled candidates; and how departments can improve the (hostile) climate that disabled faculty confront in the discipline and profession.”
      “The dire situation of disabled philosophers vis-à-vis the APA in particular and professional philosophy more generally, that is, many of the obstacles to the participation of disabled philosophers within the APA and, arguably, the profession of philosophy more broadly would be addressed if a committee devoted to improving the status of disabled philosophers existed within the association, a committee, that is, on a par with the committees in the association that serve other underrepresented groups in the profession: the Committee for the Status of Women in Philosophy, the Committee on the Status of Blacks in Philosophy, the Committee on Hispanics, the Committee on Asian & Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies, the Committee on Indigenous Philosophers, and the Committee for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Philosophers. 10 A committee devoted to improving the status of disabled philosophers could (among other things) press the national APA executive to develop a comprehensive policy on accessibility for the association at large, organize sessions in slots that are guaranteed on the programs of the divisional meetings, and establish and disseminate a newsletter to the APA general membership (as most of these other committees do) in which issues of concern to disabled philosophers and relevant to disability and philosophy would be considered, raising the profile of disabled philosophers within the association and also within the profession at large. 11 If a committee devoted to disabled philosophers were treated on a par with the aforementioned APA committees, furthermore, the chair of the committee (like the chairs of the other committees) would hold a position on the national Standing Committee for Inclusiveness in the Profession, 12 giving disabled philosophers another avenue through which to influence APA policy and practice. That, to date, no such recognized committee has been established to address and advocate for the concerns and interests of disabled philosophers at this level of the hierarchy in the APA is yet another way in which the constituency of disabled philosophers receives inequitable treatment within the association and ultimately is tacitly discouraged from remaining in the profession at all.” 13
      “The implicitly and explicitly ableist practices of the APA are in stark contrast to the ways that the Modern Languages Association (MLA) treats its disabled members. As many readers of this journal know, the MLA has a seven-member Committee on Disability Issues, with two staff liaisons to the Committee in the national MLA office itself. The provision of CART, ASL, attendant services, etc. is included in all sessions of MLA conventions. Individual disabled members are not expected to pre-arrange accessibility requirements. A specific section of the MLA website, furthermore, includes the names and emails of the current Committee members, access guidelines for organizers and session participants of MLA convention sessions, access guidelines for hiring departments, instructions on how to use sign-language interpreters, and a list of sessions related to disability on the program of a given year’s upcoming MLA convention, about a dozen of which sessions take place within slots on the program that are guaranteed in accordance with MLA policy. The Committee on Disability Issues of the MLA (n.d.) has enshrined all of these practices into the standard operating policies of the MLA. Another vital effort to move toward access is the Composing Access webpage co-sponsored (n.d.) by the Committee on Disability Issues in College Composition (CDICC) and the Computers & Composition Digital Press (CCDP) of the National Council of Teachers of English. See also the website of the STEM (Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Disability Committee, which aims to support and improve policies, practice, and provision for disabled people studying or working in the STEM fields. See STEM n.d.”
      “At a meeting of the national APA Executive Committee in the fall of 2004, a decision was made to create the position of “Disability Issues Representative” on the Inclusiveness Committee, rather than to form a Committee for Disabled Philosophers whose Chair would hold a position on the Inclusiveness Committee. In other words, the individual who holds the position of “Disability Issues Representative” on the Inclusiveness Committee is not answerable nor accountable to the members of a committee who themselves would have been selected and appointed to a (hypothetical) Committee for Disabled Philosophers because they have expertise of some kind with respect to disability vis-à-vis the discipline of philosophy and professional philosophy. The role of the individual who holds the position of “Disability Issues Representative” is to serve the interests of all of the disabled members of the APA, including organizing sessions on disability at the divisional meetings, raising awareness in the profession about disability, providing information about accessibility requirements, arranging accessibility for individual members at the divisional meetings, etc. Readers of this introduction can draw their own conclusions about the efficacy of this position, given everything that I point out about the general practices of the APA with respect to disabled philosophers. They should, in addition, consider whether any other underrepresented group in the APA and the profession of philosophy at large would be expected to accept this kind of tokenistic representation.”
      “From 2004 to early 2013, I have brought the issue of the crucial need for an APA Committee for Disabled Philosophers (and the ableism of APA policies more generally) to the attention of every person who has served as either the Executive Director of the APA, the Ombudsperson of the APA, Chair of the APA Inclusiveness Committee, or APA Disability Issues Representative, as well as to readers of/subscribers to the Feminist Ethics and Social Theory (FEAST) listserv, the Society for Women in Philosophy (SWIP) listserv, the Feminist Philosophers blog, the New APPS blog, and the Women in Philosophy Taskforce (WPHTF) list-serv. In all cases, these calls for attention to the situation of disabled philosophers vis-à-vis the APA have been either ignored, dismissed, pushed aside, or shut down. In short, the APA has engaged in a sustained form of epistemological ignorance about how its policies affect its disabled members and disabled philosophers more generally and the feminist philosophical and broader philosophy community have enabled it to do so. Note that an APA Committee for Disabled Philosophers, were it to be established, should not be used to relieve other groups and committees with the APA of their responsibilities to disabled members of the association. For instance, a Committee for Disabled Philosophers should not be used as a strategy to relieve the APA Committee on Sexual Harassment of its obligation to address the issue of how sexual harassment is inflicted upon and experienced by disabled women philosophers.”
      Read the entire article here: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3877/3402

      Like

      Reply
    12. Michael Gillan Peckitt Avatar
      Michael Gillan Peckitt

      I am hugely encouraged to see that Shelley Lynn Tremain has started this campaign. As an academic philosopher with a disability (cerebral palsy) based for the moment in Osaka, Japan, but also holding an honorary position at a UK University, I am certainly concerned about this issue. For me, it is an issue of representation and the care that that representation enables.
      In most University departments in the UK there is no ‘Disability Officer’, no policy regarding how to accommodate staff (and indeed students) with a disability. Disabled staff are often reliant on luck and willing allies (I was luck in that most of my colleagues are female, and there is at least a common concern about inequality), and we shouldn’t be reliant on those things. A policy on disability, so that everyone knows ‘where they stand’ (forgive the ableism) would go a long way to help the situation.

      Like

      Reply
    13. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      If you haven’t signed the petition calling for the American Philosophical Association to develop a comprehensive accessibility policy and institute a committee to oversee its implementation, please do so now!
      The petition began to circulate at 9am EST on March 14. At approximately 5:00 EST on March 14, the APA responded to the petition. At that time, there were 92 signatories to the petition.
      We found the APA’s response unsatisfactory and have persisted, continuing to circulate the petition and raise awareness in the philosophical community and across the broader academic community about the inaccessibility of the APA and how disabled philosophers continue to be disempowered in the association.
      We now have over 300 signatures on the petition.
      Most of the signatories to the petition are philosophers who recognize the injustice of the current state of affairs in the association. Increasingly, however, scholars outside of philosophy, especially theorists and educators who work in the interdisciplinary field of Disability Studies, have begun to circulate the petition and sign on to it.
      Signatories from outside of philosophy regard it as scandalous that an association comprised in large part by scholars who write about justice, integrity, equality, diversity, and other esteemed values would fail to concretize these ideals by perpetuating policies and practices that contribute to the exclusion of disabled philosophers.
      The best way to tell the current leadership of the APA that we do not want our philosophical work and our profession’s reputation tarnished in this way is to sign the petition today! You can do so here:
      http://www.change.org/petitions/the-american-philosophical-association-we-call-upon-the-apa-to-properly-apply-its-own-non-discrimination-policy-by-developing-a-comprehensive-accessibility-policy-and-striking-an-advisory-group-to-oversee-its-implementation

      Like

      Reply
    14. Jay T. Dolmage Avatar
      Jay T. Dolmage

      I have worked in the fields of English Studies and also in Disability Studies to advocate not just for access but for accessibility, and so what I recognize happening here with the APA is particularly troubling. My feeling is that the APA is refusing to understand the structural ableism inherent to their organization — and inherent in all organizations. This ableism is something that requires active and continued diligence to counter. If the APA doesn’t work against ableism, then what is the APA for? Academics with disabilities, regardless of rank or affiliation, are marked out for wearing out by systems that require them to invest extra time, resources, and energy to participate on the most basic level. The response from the APA needs to be the sort of investment in continued and systemic change that allows disabled philosophers to participate on the highest levels, and a Committee would be one place to start. This Committee should then be charged with holding the APA accountable for the existing ableist structures from the digital to the directorial, from conferences to hiring practices, but also to move beyond the “retrofitted” and tokenistic fixes that I fear will be all that the APA offers. Making small accommodations for a few members, and requiring them to jump through hoops to ask for them over and over again is not accessibility. The APA has an opportunity here to make a significant change. But if this change isn’t made, there will be ways that the APA will be held accountable.

      Like

      Reply
    15. Michael Bérubé Avatar
      Michael Bérubé

      Most of the necessary accommodations don’t involve serious expense, and the MLA implemented them years and years ago. Here are the access guidelines for the convention:
      http://www.mla.org/conv_access_guide
      And the guidelines for hiring:
      http://www.mla.org/dis_hiring_guidelines
      And a few tips on employing ASL interpreters:
      http://www.mla.org/using_sign_language
      Last but not least, it’s helpful to have a list of disability-oriented panels and presentations at the convention, like so: http://www.mla.org/disability_studies_13
      Thanks, Shelley, for fighting the good fight. I sense that this intervention is long overdue.

      Like

      Reply
    16. Margaret Price Avatar
      Margaret Price

      The cost of accessibility is measured in many ways. For example: The Conference on College Composition and Communication willingly pays for sign interpretation for anyone who requests it at our annual conference (CCCC). But cost goes beyond paying for that accommodation: It also requires ongoing responsiveness to how that accommodation is implemented. If interpreters are hired without any attention to their area of specialization, or familiarity with academic discourse, the interpretation that results may be difficult to follow. (This is what happened at CCCC just a couple of weeks ago.) Access must be a participatory endeavor, one that involves the voices and participation of disabled people from the first moments–while NOT relying on those same disabled people as “experts” who are responsible for educating the rest of the organization. I’ve been impressed by CCCC’s efforts so far, though we still have a long way to go. (And although MLA’s written guidelines are excellent, that conference’s actual success at implementing them has a long way to go, as well.) I applaud Dr. Tremain and those joining her in this conversation. Attention to academic access is long overdue.

      Like

      Reply
    17. Stephanie Kerschbaum Avatar
      Stephanie Kerschbaum

      I have been following this post and the ensuing discussion with a lot of interest. I want to add to the conversation that while it is vitally important to have allies within an organization who can advocate for access needs and resist ableist organizational tendencies, willful ignorance, and barriers, intentional or unintentional, the biggest asset for any organization is collective action that directly involves disabled people whose access needs are directly impacted by organizational processes. The organizations and conferences that have been most successful–in my experience–these include the National Council of Teachers of English and the Modern Language Association, as referenced above–at providing access and ethically negotiating processes for requesting accommodations are those that have communities of disabled and nondisabled scholars alike working together to collectively take action on access issues. I strongly urge the APA to establish communicative mechanisms that would enable members to communicate access barriers and resist the impulse to call on individual actions as a primary means for addressing the systemic ableism within academia.

      Like

      Reply
    18. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      I think the events of the last week have thrown into relief the systemic and structural ableism that permeates the APA and its organizational practices. Let me state that again, and somewhat differently: in the draft article that comprises the original post, in the Disability Studies Quarterly article to which the original post refers, on countless occasions in the past, and, with a few exceptions throughout this thread, the APA has been charged with engaging in and reproducing widespread discriminatory ableist practice and policies. How can this happen in an organization comprised in large part by scholars who write about esteemed values such as justice, equality, care, responsibility, diversity? Furthermore, how, if at all, has the APA responded to this very serious charge?
      As we have all seen, this charge (and articulations of it) has been actively ignored by the APA establishment over the past week, or at least trivialized as yet one item in a “laundry list” of topics that were not regarded as important enough to be given priority and addressed here. Why wasn’t this serious charge regarded as a priority? The short answer is that the APA is first and foremost by and about the concerns of nondisabled people: from its inaccessible and inadequate website, to its disempowering committee structure, to its Site Visits and Site Visit Reports that focus almost entirely on the situations of nondisabled heterosexual white women, the APA is a thoroughly ableist institution.
      The first sentence in the APA’s hastily-written official response to the petition in circulation reads as follows: “The APA board of officers takes very seriously the issues of accessibility and inclusiveness and welcomes the opportunity to evaluate, expand, and improve the association’s current policies and practices.” Is that what we have witnessed over the past week? Notwithstanding the Executive Director’s passing mention of “accessibility for disabled philosophers,” has any of the member of the APA board of directors come on to New APPS and addressed the charge according to which the APA discriminates against disabled philosophers and engaged in discussion about it? Has the chair of the board? What about any of the three current divisional Secretary-Treasurers? Has any of the current Presidents of the three divisions? Or the past divisional Presidents and Eastern Secretary-Treasurer? What about the “Disability Issues Representative” who supposedly consults with us and advises the board? How about the Chair of the Inclusiveness Committee? The APA Ombudsperson? Indeed, none of these people has deemed the charge and discussion of it here serious enough to show up, though, admittedly, we have been advised that it is “on their radar.”
      The second sentence of the APA’s response to the petition reads as follows: “The APA is always open to suggestions and recommendations for improving inclusiveness.” Is this really so? My DSQ article provided a cursory accessibility audit of the APA, its practices, policies, and climate, outlining the systemic, widespread problems in the organization and offering recommendations. Has the APA been “open” to learning about these problems and entertaining recommendations for resolving them? Apparently not, since, as I point out in the draft article of the original post, none of the problems that I highlighted in the DSQ article has been corrected or addressed. Yet, I know that some of the board members read the DSQ piece, including the Executive Director to whom I sent a pdf of the article (though this was one of the emails to which I received no response from her, the most recent one of which was sent on March 12, two days before the petition began to circulate). Why wasn’t a decision made at the November National board meeting to rectify some of the problems that I identified in the article? Indeed, why aren’t these concerns taken seriously by the APA? When I made an intervention on Jason Stanley’s facebook page, drawing attention to the inaccessibility of APA conferences, the incoming Eastern Division Secretary-Treasurer responded to me in roughly this way: ‘send me an email and I will see what I can do for the upcoming conference.’ This, it seems, is the extent of commitment and accountability to disabled philosophers that currently structures the organizational practices of the APA: empty rhetoric on the part of the national office and an overall lack of accountability to disabled philosophers on the part of the APA board of officers.
      How is this lack of accountability made possible? Though organizational practices and failure to apply them equally is usually a complex matter, in this case, a few of the leading causes can be identified: First, there is at present (and in the past) no comprehensive accessibility policy to which disabled philosophers can appeal in order to hold the organization accountable for its ableism and inaccessibility (the non-discrimination policy of the organization is inadequate for this particular purpose, given its individualistic formulation). Second, the association continues to keep disabled philosophers unorganized, disenfranchised, and fragmented by refusing to allow us to form a Committee on Disabled Philosophers to which the same privileges and responsibilities would accrue that are afforded to other underrepresented groups in the association. Third, with respect to issues pertinent to disabled philosophers, the APA currently (and in the past) relies upon the opinions of, and follows the advice of, one or two individuals who hold (out)dated views on disability and accessibility, are not regarded as authorities on these matters outside of the organization itself, and who have a vested interest in maintaining their positions as experts on these matters within the organization. Taken in combination, these three factors ensure the perpetuation of the ableist status quo within the APA.
      So, how will the APA respond to this charge now? As Jay Dolmage (who is widely regarded as an expert of accessibility in academia) notes above, the APA has the opportunity to make a significant change at this time. I hope it has the integrity and fortitude to make this change. Rest assured, however, that we will continue to circulate the petition amongst philosophers and raise awareness about the structural and systemic ableism of the APA until and unless the organization does so.

      Like

      Reply
    19. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      Representative of the APA have begun to circulate a pdf that is linked on the APA website. The pdf itself is inaccessible: it has no bookmarks, no running headers and footers, and no document title. These are among the issues that can make documents and the website on which they are placed inaccessible.
      Nevertheless, if the APA is genuinely concerned about ensuing the inclusion of disabled philosophers and improving the accessibility of the association, the petition suggests two ways in which to further this momentum: develop a comprehensive accessibility policy and strike a committee to oversee its implementation.

      Like

      Reply
    20. Matthew J. Brown Avatar
      Matthew J. Brown

      For those interested in the document Shelley Tremain mentioned @19, it now appears to be available in both HTML and PDF formats on the APA website here:
      http://www.apaonline.org/members/group_content_view.asp?group=110430&id=377401

      Like

      Reply
    21. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      I`m glad that the APA has now provided the document in other formats, though there are certainly inadequacies with the documents contents. Nevertheless, the fact that the inaccessibility of the initial document needed to be pointed out to the APA shows: (1) its experts have limited understanding of website accessibility; and (2) the need for a committee on disabled philosophers that will provide necessary feedback on the operations of the APA.

      Like

      Reply
    22. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      If you haven’t signed the petition calling on the APA to establish a comprehensive accessibility policy and a committee on disabled philosophers that would oversee its implementation, please do so now! Our goal is to reach 500 signatures. To help us reach our goal, please add your name to the growing list of signatories here:
      http://www.change.org/petitions/the-american-philosophical-association-we-call-upon-the-apa-to-properly-apply-its-own-non-discrimination-policy-by-developing-a-comprehensive-accessibility-policy-and-striking-an-advisory-group-to-oversee-its-implementation

      Like

      Reply
    23. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      The word on the streets or, rather, the internet is that the APA Task Force would be discussing whether to recommend the formation of a Standing Committee on Disabled Philosophers and Philosophy of Disability to the APA Board of Directors and that in turn the Board of Directors would vote upon this recommendation. Such a decision likely would be made at the Pacific APA meeting next week. Thus, we must continue to apply pressure on the APA!!
      If you haven’t yet signed the petition to the APA, please do so today! Talk to your colleagues about the urgent need for a Committee on Disabled Philosophers and Philosophy of Disability and urge them to sign the petition if they haven’t done so already!
      We now have more than 450 signatures thus far! To add your name to the growing list of signatories to the petition, click on this link: http://www.change.org/petitions/the-american-philosophical-association-we-call-upon-the-apa-to-properly-apply-its-own-non-discrimination-policy-by-developing-a-comprehensive-accessibility-policy-and-striking-an-advisory-group-to-oversee-its-implementation
      In the event that the APA Board of Directors votes NOT to initiate a Standing Committee on Disabled Philosophers and Philosophy if Disability, we will initiate other forms of resistance and insurrection!! 🙂

      Like

      Reply
    24. Shelley Tremain Avatar
      Shelley Tremain

      Disabled people make up an estimated 20-25% of the population in North America, yet disabled philosophers account for only an estimated 1-4% of full-time faculty in philosophy departments. Despite these figures, the APA has repeatedly refused to allow disabled philosophers to form a Standing Committee akin to the Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession, the Committee on LGBT Philosophers, on Black Philosophers, and other committees that serve other under-represented groups in the profession. A petition has been circulating to make the APA act on its professed commitment to equally serve all under-represented consituencies in the profession. If you have not yet signed the petition, please do so now by clicking on the url at the bottom of this message.
      On Thursday, April 17 at 1:00pm, at the Pacific APA meeeting in San Diego, the Inclusiveness Committee of the APA is holding a session designed to convince delegates that it is doing its utmost for under-represented groups, including disabled philosophers.
      We want philosophers going to the Pacific APA this week NOT TO ATTEND this session.
      By boycotting this session, you will be acting in solidarity with disabled philosophers who are petitioning the Board for recognition and the rights and benefits that other under-represented groups have in the association, as well as sending a clear message to the APA, namely, that equality for disabled philosophers requires more than the occasional session at divisional conferences that showcases only one or two disabled philosophers.
      There are close to 500 signatories to the petition. To add your name to this growing list of signatures, go here: http://www.change.org/petitions/the-american-philosophical-association-we-call-upon-the-apa-to-properly-apply-its-own-non-discrimination-policy-by-developing-a-comprehensive-accessibility-policy-and-striking-an-advisory-group-to-oversee-its-implementation

      Like

      Reply

    Leave a reply to Michael Gillan Peckitt Cancel reply