Intruder's defense reflects objectification of little people

Every day, google news sends me a report with news stories that include the word dwarf and stories that include the word midget.  For a week or two during December of 2016, the same story popped up multiple times on my daily google alerts for the word midget.  The story was of a man who broke into the apartment of a couple with a two-year old girl.  In the middle of the night, the father of the two-year-old woke up to find the intruder in the living room of his family's apartment, sitting on a couch and holding the little girl.  The father chased the man, who dropped the two-year old on the couch, out of the apartment.  He caught up to the intruder in the apartment parking lot, where they apparently tussled until police showed arrived and arrested the intruder.  In court, the intruder evidently was devastated to learn what he had done.  He explained to the court that he was drunk when he entered the apartment, believing it to be the home of his friend with whom he had been drinking. According to a story from the Washington Post, when the intruder learned the victim of his break in was a two-year old girl, "he became very upset and broke down crying. Oren (the intruder) said he would never hurt a child and does not remember the details of this incident because he was ‘black out drunk.’ ”  The Washington Post, and the many other outlets that ran the story, reported that the intruder thought the girl was "a midget."  Another story, from the Arizona Republic, says that court documents report that the intruder reported " he played with the "midget" and possibly picked her up."  

In terms of what is repulsive, unacceptable, and criminal, breaking into someone's home, then assaulting a two-year-old clearly inspires more rage than assaulting an adult aged person of short stature.  Nevertheless, I am amazed and frustrated that the intruder in this story defends his actions by claiming he thought the girl was "a midget."  Offensive language aside, the intruder believes it is culturally acceptable to physically handle a person of short stature without his or her permission, and believed that it is okay to use a person of short stature as an object of entertainment, like a toy to pick up and play with.  

Of course, the intruder's intentions may not be relevant in the context of the horror that the parents and the young toddler experienced.  But this story to me is also a reflection of behavior that some people of short stature are forced to deal with.  The actions of the intruder may seem odd, but it's not uncommon for little people, when at a bar, a party, a large sporting event, or anywhere that includes people who have too much too drink, to be forced to defend themselves against pats on the head, being picked up, or being physically handled in some way.  Unfortunately, judging by the fact the intruder used "picking up a midget" as a defense, it seems physically handling a little person is acceptable to some people. 

Competent to deal with a sometime intolerant culture

Yesterday, everyone on staff where I work participated in a Cultural Competency seminar. The seminar was designed to equip staff to work better with each other, with the consumers with whom we interact, and with other groups with which we work. The idea was that sometimes tensions exist between all of these parties -- Tensions that derive from diverse cultural backgrounds and experiences. The seminar was like a good class that I would sit through during my years in college, in so far that the seminar really got me thinking. But more so than anything else, the seminar got me thinking about the tensions that I confront in my day-to-day as a person with dwarfism.

Similar to my days as a college student, I took some notes during the seminar. I wrote down a bunch of things said by the facilitator. She said, “If you want to be in a world that works for everyone, you have to be willing to jump into the scummiest ponds.” That got me thinking. I wonder what that means for a person with dwarfism on the worst of days? A letter posted recently on the Washington Post blog referenced anecdotes from Bob Whittemore. Whittemore is a person with dwarfism. He wrote to the Post because he is against Florida legislation that seeks to repeal current legislation that prevents bars from hosting dwarf tossing events. He shared anecdotes with the Post. Whittemore wrote,

Have you ever, after a productive day of business, walked into a bar with your colleagues and customers to celebrate the day, and are suddenly grabbed by a total stranger who wants to pick you up and throw you as far as he can, because it would be a “hoot”?

This is one reason why Little People of America and many others are against the repeal legislation, because something as obscene as dwarf tossing affects many more than just the people directly involved. But beyond legal protections, how does one confront this type of behavior on an individual level? In order to create a world that works for everyone, do people with dwarfism need to submerge ourselves within the dirty ponds?

The facilitator also said yesterday, “The best way to deal with intolerance is to get related to people.” Does that mean we need to walk around in the shoes of the intolerant ones who treat people with physical difference as mere objects?

As distasteful as it sounds to give intolerance some room to maneuver in order to understand it, I think the facilitator is correct. If people with dwarfism, and other groups that are subjected to discrimination, are going to make change, we have to understand where and who the discrimination comes from, and why. But just because we make an effort to understand the roots and motivation behind discrimination and intolerance, it doesn’t mean we have to stop fighting against it.

Washington Post story reinforces why m word campaign is important

On Friday, the Washington Post published a story about a person of short stature wanted by the police for murder. Working on the story, the reporter who wrote the piece called me. As the reporter briefed me about the story, I remembered an interview on the national news a few years ago. The story was about a person who is Deaf in custody for an alleged crime. The national news interviewed Andy Imparato of the American Association of People with Disabilities for the story. I remember the on-air interview lasted nearly seven or eight minutes, throughout which Imparato kept stressing the same message -- a person who is Deaf should not be treated any differently under the law, but has a right to accommodations in order to access their legal rights and a fair trial. I think of that interview often as a great example of delivering a good message about disability. While the reporter spoke to me over the phone, I imagined I might be asked similar questions to those asked of Imparato. But I was wrong, the reporter wanted my thoughts about language used over the police wire.

Evidently, the person who called 911 never used the word midget to describe the alleged murderer. Rather, the caller, when describing the suspect, said something like "a 3'11" man who might be a dwarf." But the police dispatcher relayed put out an All Points Bulletin over the police wire using the word midget. The reporter, aware of LPA's efforts around language, asked what I thought of police using a word lpa is trying to wean out of the English language. Despite what LPA and little people in general think of the word, there are far worse uses of it than over a police wire. In addition, because there are still many times the word is used, both benignly and as a slur, in most cases, the little person community is better served doing proactive systemic outreach than by attacking the individual or institution responsible for using the word.

That said, I think the Washington Post story is a great example of why LPA is trying to stop use of the word midget. What didn't make it into the story, but what the reporter shared with me, is that soon after the APB went out, within police and media circles, the situation became comic. Police and media would snickered amongst themselves, asking each other sarcastically, "Have you seen the midget?" Once the description of the suspect transitioned from a 3'11" male to "a midget," the word all of a sudden dominated the situation. It was no longer about a crime, or a about a person. It was about a midget. That is one of the problems with the word. As people of short stature, dwarfism is just one element of who we are, something to take pride in, but just one piece that defines us as individuals. But because of the history behind the word, once the word midget is used to describe a person, it trumps all other elements of the person's individualism and removes their perceived humanity.