In the midst of
the 2016 Presidential Election, stories emerged on the internet that listed the
reasons so many people believed Trump would not win the election. The lists included many of the offensive,
inexcusable things the candidate did during the campaign, and things that the
public learned during the campaign about his past, from referring to Mexican
immigrants as criminals and rapists (Full text: Donald Trump announces a presidential
bid, Washington Post, June 16, 2015), to the transcript of the conversation in 2005
between Trump and Billy Bush of Access Hollywood…
(Trump: …and when you are a star,
they let you do it. You can do anything
Bush: Whatever you want
Trump: Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything.)
Indeed, many people with disabilities voted against Trump in the Election. Unlike the results of the Bloomberg Poll, disabled people voted against him not because he acted like an immature jerk in response to a reporter doing his job. Not because he made fun of a disabled journalist. They voted against him because he promoted policies that would dismantle supports people with disabilities need to live and be independent. On Wednesday morning, November 9, 2016, the day after the Election, Ari Ne-eman wrote "For the millions of Americans with disabilities who depend on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to access health care and public services that mean basic survival, it is policy -- not personal insult -- that has brought terror and despair in the aftermath of last night's Trump victory, (I'm a disabled American. Trump's policies will be a disaster for people like me, Vox, November 9, 2016).
It makes sense
that if asked about disability issues of the 2016 Presidential Campaign, most
people in the general public would remember Trump making fun a reporter over
anything else. Personal insults resonate
more strongly amongst a large general population than policy does. Personal
insults are a stronger news hook than healthcare and the community supports
that allow people with disabilities to live and be independent.
Yet, the
Bloomberg Poll reveals more than what the general public regarded as
unacceptable behavior from Trump during the campaign. I think the Bloomberg
Poll from August of 2016 is an indication of the disconnect between public
perception of the disabled population in the United States, and an awareness of
how government policy impacts people with disabilities.
More than 27
years after the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities are
still often projected as vulnerable, as people who need to be taken care of, as
people who need to overcome their disabilities.
Because the public perceives the disabled population as vulnerable, in
need of protection, the public is more offended if a disabled person, compared
to a non-disabled person, is the victim of harassment. This explains the results of the Bloomberg
Poll.
Nevertheless, protection
of people with disabilities doesn’t equate to public policy that supports
inclusive education, affordable housing, community-based healthcare supports,
and accessible transportation. More often, protection equates to support of
causes that reinforce the image of people with disabilities as broken, helpless
people who need the charity of others to overcome their disability. The problem
with this, besides that the fact that traditional disability stigma is
reinforced, is that people fail to look for solutions through inclusion policy
and advance planning. They propose
solutions that tokenize, patronize, and segregate people with
disabilities.
This past summer,
I moved to Oak Park. A few months after
I moved, someone forwarded to me an email.
The email was originally sent to a disability advocate from
Pennsylvania. The email eventually made
its way to me because it came from someone in Oak Park who is in some way
connected to local planning or government.
The author of the note was looking for advice. The author wanted catchy slogans about
disability that could be posted on traffic signs. The intent, according to the person who sent
the email, was to make the streets and intersections safer for people with
disabilities.
As someone who is
new to Oak Park, I believe the need is there.
Whether someone is a disabled pedestrian or a non-disabled pedestrian,
the streets and intersections in Oak Park are unsafe. Cars race quickly down residential
streets. Drivers often don’t use turn
signals. For some reason, the walk
signals at intersections don’t correspond to green lights. At some intersections, if not all, the walk
signals won’t go on unless a pedestrian pushes the crosswalk button. This is not helpful at all to disabled people
who may not be able to use their arms and hands, or disabled people who may not
be able to find the buttons. I am no
city planner. But issues with the
crosswalk signals or not, to me it seems that the pedestrian conditions in Oak
Park are unsafe for anyone, disabled and non-disabled alike.
Whoever it was
that sent the email to the Pennsylvania disability advocate, his or her approach
was wrong. The approach the traditional
stigmatized view of disability. Signs
and banners with slogans that warn drivers about disabled pedestrians may very
well help drivers become more alert about the disabled, but they probably won’t
fix structural issues regarding traffic and pedestrian issues. Also, the
banners and signs would have separated disabled pedestrians from non-disabled
ones, a reflection of the traditional norm of segregation when it comes to the
disabled.
While criticism
of Trump for making fun of a disabled journalist and banners and signs to raise
awareness about disability is well intentioned, on the national level and in
Oak Park, the best way to support people with disabilities is ensuring that
policy integrates inclusion, integration and access.
