New APPS

2 responses to “Statement from APA members with disabilities on accessibility”

1. 

   Shelley Tremain

   April 2, 2014

   Here is a comment that I have posted this evening to the Inclusion lists-serv. It is a response to criticisms of the petition to the APA and to the Statement from three disabled members of the APA;
   Dear All,
   I would like to add to remarks I posted here last evening. I apologize in advance if my comments seem disjointed or incoherent in any way. I had some minor surgery on my foot this morning and I am on pain medication.
   Maeve [O’Donovan] has forwarded me many of the emails from the FEAST listserv. I have of course also read the Statement. Like Maeve, I am very disappointed in the negative responses that the petition has received from people and institutional mechanisms that I would have expected to support an intervention that is designed to further empower disabled philosophers in particular and disabled people in general. I am also surprised that the Statement of Response by three, ONLY THREE, disabled philosophers has been given the magnitude of authority that is has been given, though it has become increasingly clear why this is the case: it upholds the status quo of the APA. As Maeve suggests, many, many more than three disabled philosophers have signed the petition. The petition now has over 400 signatures, many of these people are disabled philosophers, disabled allies from other disciplines who recognize the ableism that structures current APA policies and practices, and nondisabled allies, many of whom have read the special issue of DSQ in which I published a manifesto of sorts about the ableism of the profession and discipline, have read the many items on my facebook page about disabled academics and disabled people and ableism, and others who in any case know what inequality looks like. Many of these people are leaders in the profession and discipline on social justice, oppression, race, gender, and so on. The Statement wants its readers to believe that people have merely “signed on” to the petition, as if the authors of the Statement (and the nondisabled philosophers who have criticized it on the FEAST list) are the only ones who know what the relevant issues are here with respect to the full participation and equality of disabled philosophers in the association, as if they are the best adjudicators of these matters, as if I and the other disabled philosophers who signed the petition know nothing about disability policy and practice and have misled them. Personally speaking, I would be happy to send my cv to anyone who wishes to see it, an offer I also made to Amy Ferrer in the last email I sent her to which I never received a response. Most readers of this email will know only my academic work, but I have in fact worked in a number of the leading disability policy research institutes in North America.
   The authors of the Statement and its supporters on the FEAST listserv have presented a skewed picture of the petition and its “demands”. First, the authors of the Statement have in large part reduced the claims of the petition to lack of accommodations at APA conferences. I’m afraid that the supporters of the Statement on the FEAST listserv, none of whom is a disabled philosopher, have reiterated this reductive picture of the petition and reinforced it. I would strongly encourage the supporters of the Statement and the authors of the Statement to return to the petition page and actually read the blurb that accompanies the petition and also consider what has been “demanded,” namely, a comprehensive accessibility policy and a committee for disabled philosophers. Unfortunately, in emails advertising the petition, I have indicated that the former would come before the latter, but, of course, the best people to develop the policy will be disabled philosophers themselves.
   Why is the APA so resistant to the formation of a committee on disabled philosophers, as it surely is and has been for many years? Disabled people, as I said here last evening, constitute the largest minority in North America (and worldwide) and are one of the most under-represented groups in the profession, yet we do not have the sort of representation in the APA that other under-represented groups have. How is this justifiable or justified? In fact, no one has even alluded to a justification for this unequal treatment, but rather everyone has side-stepped such a justification: Amy Ferrer, the authors of the Statement, and the critics of the petition on the FEAST listserv. This fact — the fact that disabled philosophers have been denied a committee — is the best refutation of the Statement’s claim that the petition is “groundless” and relies upon “unfounded accusations.” Without a committee, we do not have access to the mechanisms of power and decision-making that other under-represented groups in the profession have: we can’t/don’t have a newsletter, we can’t/don’t have designated slots on divisional programs, and we won’t get the additional support from the newly-formed Task Force that other committees for under-represented groups will get. Again, the Statement in Response to the petition doesn’t address any of these issues. Rather, the Statement has in fact erected smokescreens that obscure the issues power and privilege that are at the heart of the motivation behind the petition. We, disabled philosophers, want decision-making power in the organization and it is really disappointing to see (nondisabled) feminist philosophers who have considerable institutional and professional power and privilege making efforts to deny this to us. This, in short, is a fuller understanding of “accessibility” than the authors of the Statement has presented us with thus far. The Statement of course does not rely upon the idea of accessibility, but rather accommodation. Again, I am disappointed to see nondisabled feminist philosophers, none of whom is a recognized authority on accessibility herself, uncritically and enthusiastically magnify the validity and appropriateness of the contents of the Statement in this regard. The sort of conception of accommodation that the Statement calls the “gold standard” of inclusion is in fact not. The disability scholars who are recognized authorities on the matter of accessibility (and accessibility in academia in particular) have developed much broader and much more inclusive conceptions of accessibility than the authors of the Statement have attempted to convince its readers is best practice in this regard. I am bewildered that feminist philosophers and others would actually argue (and be convinced by an argument) that a government in an ableist, racist, sexist capitalist country would have enshrined into policy practices that best fulfill the rights, entitlements, dreams, ideals, and aspirations of a relatively powerless constituency, that the oppositional thinkers of disability studies have it all wrong.
   Why a widely circulated petition? Answer: because the APA has been almost entirely unresponsive to any criticisms about its treatment of disabled philosophers. Look around you, folks: it’s still not paying attention.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Shelley Tremain

   April 4, 2014

   Below, I have copied statements from signatories to the petition, many of whom are disabled philosophers, some of whom are disabled allies from other disciplines, and some of whom are nondisabled philosophers who support the goals of justice, equality, care, and nondiscrimination (among others) that underlie the petition. The petition now has more than 400 signatures. If you have not signed the petition calling on the APA to institute a Committee of Disabled Philosophers that will develop and oversee the implementation of a comprehensive accessibility policy for the organization, please do so today! In order to add your name to the list of signatories that continues to grow despite the opposition it has encountered from some corners within the APA, 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
   Here is a sample of what your students and colleagues, disabled and nondisabled, who have signed the petition have said about this urgent matter:
   Raymond Aldred: I am a graduate student of philosophy with a severe disability. As such I can readily identify with what Prof Tremain has identified within the profession, and fear that it will only get worse as I progress within philosophy and enter the job market.
   Heather Rakes: It’s long past time for the APA and philosophy in general to be proactive about dismantling ableism in the discipline.
   Heidi Lockwood: Without equal access, we are losing talent, creative ideas, and important perspectives.
   Brittany Davis: No one should hold a professional meeting that is inaccessible in this day and age. It is both inexcusable and unforgivable that the APA is not doing more to make its events and resources widely accessible to the disabled community.
   Tommie Shelby: As I understand it, the APA’s approach to problems of accessibility is to conform to federal law and to make individual accommodations, when possible, in response to requests. Some object to this on the grounds that it is too minimal and places unnecessary and inequitable burdens on those with disabilities. I’m not entirely sure what to think about the question. But I would urge that a committee be formed to reconsider the APA’s policy in response to these serious concerns. At a minimum, the APA should be explicit about why it thinks the organization is doing all it should and can. Otherwise, members of our community will rightly feel that their interests are not being taken seriously.
   Sharyn Clough: I agree with Prof. Shelby’s take on this: “As I understand it, the APA’s approach to problems of accessibility [as iterated in their recent reply to this petition] is to conform to federal law and to make individual accommodations, when possible, in response to requests. Some object to this on the grounds that it is too minimal and places unnecessary and inequitable burdens on those with disabilities. I’m not entirely sure what to think about the question. But I would urge that a committee be formed to reconsider the APA’s policy in response to these serious concerns. At a minimum, the APA should be explicit about why it thinks the organization is doing all it should and can. Otherwise, members of our community will rightly feel that their interests are not being taken seriously.” In addition, I expect more from the APA than minimal conformation with the law, especially when we have increasing evidence that the legal sphere is inadequate to the task of rethinking the conceptual issues surrounding how best to address access, what counts as “disabling,” and why. That’s what philosophers are for!
   Jennifer Epp: Exclusion and discrimination are structural issues. This is a request for an examination and response to structural barriers to participation in our profession for those with disabilities. This is not only reasonable but a matter of justice, fairness and benefit to the profession as a whole.
   Steve Herro: APA is too important of an org to not have a comprehensive access policy!
   Jane Dryden: Accessibility goes beyond good intentions: it requires a well-thought out policy and vigilant attention to its implementation. Philosophy is improved by ensuring better representation.
   Melinda Hall: This is important to me as a professional philosopher and active member of the APA. We need to foster diversity in our discipline and follow through by making the structural changes required to make this happen.
   Catherine Duchastel de Montrouge: Accessibility benefits everyone, and insures that disabled people can participate. Web accessibility is also very important, increasingly so, and should be included in any accesibility policy. Developing an accessibility policy also sustains and encourages conversations about accessibility to take place in multiples ways and environments, including the classroom where accessible standards could easily be instituted for proofs and students. This is also important because I know more disabled students who have dropped philosophy courses than pursued them.
   Jonathan Kvanvig: I would like our small profession to become a model of inclusiveness.
   John Drabinski: Accessibility should be a fundamental value and commitment for the Association, without question.
   Berit Brogaard: It is important to me that disabled philosophers can attend APA meetings and other conferences without having to overcome enormous obstacles.
   Ashwani Peetush: Because it is a matter of justice and fairness.
   Aaron Garrett: This is a fundamental issue of exclusion that should be addressed.
   Audrey Anton: Addressing this issue is important and long overdue!
   Lori Kantymir: Justice requires that no one is treated like a second-class citizen. Making services accessible for people of all abilities is part of justice in this case.
   Maeve O’Donovan: As a discipline committed to understanding and enriching the human condition, philosophy should
   be at the forefront of accessibility, for all of its potential members. Failure to do so limits both access to the profession and the profession’s very purpose for existing.
   Maria Chavez: I have MS and limited accessibility to events limits my social participation and negatively impacts my quality of life.

   LikeLike

   Reply