Reblogged: Disabled People in the Public Eye

[dianahsieh]

On Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I’ll answer a question on whether disabled kids be kept out of the public eye. The question was inspired by this story of a waiter who refused to serve a table of customers due to their unpleasant remarks about a five-year-old child with Down’s Syndrome at another table. The child was not being loud or disruptive, and he was known and liked by the waiter. The people at the other table reportedly said that “special needs kids should be kept in special places.”

Apparently, that view has some currency among Objectivists, starting with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand Answers includes the following Q&A:

OY. I’m not a fan of mainstreaming disabled children in schools, except on a case-by-case basis, when everyone benefits thereby. However, the idea that disabled children ought to be kept away from normal children just flabbergasts me.

It’s simply a fact that some people in this world of ours suffer from mental and/or physical disabilities. Even otherwise normal people suffer from disabilities on occasion — not just injuries and illness, but the effects of aging too.

Disabled people are morally entitled to live their lives, pursuing their values to the best of their ability — just like everyone else. That means they’ll be out in the world, where children might see and/or interact with them. Hence, parents should speak to their children about disabilities, including how to interact with disabled people in a morally decent way. That’s an important part of a child’s moral education — if you don’t want little Johnny to push Grandma down the stairs because she was walking too slowly for his tastes, that is.

The moral education required here isn’t rocket science. Disabled people should be treated with civility and respect — just like everyone else. They might merit the effort of a bit of kindness, such as holding open a door or speaking slowly — just like everyone else. Of course, disabled people can be rude or disruptive or offensive or bothersome too. That’s pretty standard behavior for normal people too, albeit with less excuse. The sensible response is not to demand that disabled people be hidden from sight, but rather to put some distance between yourself and the bothersome person. See? Not rocket science!

Well… I’d better stop there, before I dive into a full-blown rant. I have plenty more to say on this topic on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio… so I hope that you join us!

Link to Original

[tadmjones]

"Oy" is right ,what a topic. Rand made comments on a Donahue interview along the lines , and in the context of public funding of education, where she spoke to her views that handicapped childrens' needs for education should not be seen as a priority in spending if it meant that children with perhaps above average intelligence would lose out in a bidding war of public funds. As a parent of a public school child I agree with that stance. But as the parent (and taxpayer) of a handicapped child I (we, my wife and I) had to take a different tact as it concerned our daughter. Here's the odd part: in contemporary educational systems/districts(not based on O'ist principles) we had to bring court action to have our child 'placed' in an enviroment we thought was the most appropriate to her situation, that being one in which she was situated among peers. The problem with the current educational philosophy is that peers are defined as those most nearly related as it concerns chronologic age.

We felt any advantage she may gain from peer exposure would be from peers in the truer sense eg those with similar limitations. If she observed that peers could accomplish certain things while being 'like' her, it may help to motivate her to doing likewise. Briefly, if public funding of education is going to be a mainstay of society, handicapped children should be segregated but not to 'protect' others, more to create and ensure enviros(cliche term) to facilitate actual peer mentoring(again cliche, but more pointed).

[Nicky]

Hence, parents should speak to their children about disabilities, including how to interact with disabled people in a morally decent way. That’s an important part of a child’s moral education — if you don’t want little Johnny to push Grandma down the stairs because she was walking too slowly for his tastes, that is.

The moral education required here isn’t rocket science. Disabled people should be treated with civility and respect — just like everyone else. They might merit the effort of a bit of kindness, such as holding open a door or speaking slowly — just like everyone else. Of course, disabled people can be rude or disruptive or offensive or bothersome too. That’s pretty standard behavior for normal people too, albeit with less excuse. The sensible response is not to demand that disabled people be hidden from sight, but rather to put some distance between yourself and the bothersome person. See? Not rocket science!

Sure, just listing a bunch of feel-good cliches isn't rocket science. Nowhere do you make an effort to identify the problems of interacting with mentally disabled people (especially with having children interact with disabled people), or attempting to solve them.

Mentally disabled people do not, in fact, exhibit "pretty standard behavior". Caring for and interacting with them requires knowledge, experience and rationality children couldn't possibly have. The horror stories of interactions between regular and disabled children, left unsupervised, are endless. They almost always involve improper and abusive sexual behavior and violence, directed towards either the normal or the disabled child. You can't just trust children to be "kind and respectful" to everyone no matter what, and you most certainly can't trust a disabled child to be that way in return.

Your only answer to this problem, in this post at least, is "teach them to act in a morally decent way". And your only example of what morally decent is is "don't push your grandmother down the stair, because she's too slow". Personally, I think that's a fairly low standard of moral decency, and most definitely doesn't cover the ability to properly interact with mentally disabled children (not to mention that it still doesn't cover the other side, of the disabled child properly interacting with normal children). And, finally, it doesn't answer the question: What ARE the moral benefits of the massive effort required to attempt to raise a normal child alongside a mentally disabled stranger? Yes, you've claimed it as a benefit that this way the normal child won't push his grandmother down the stairs, but I can't accept that line of reasoning by itself, for obvious reasons. If you could provide something more convincing, I'd love to hear it.

Personally, I can't think of anything. I think children have their hands full understanding just other normal people, there's no reason to complicate their lives further. And then there's what the poster above me said: disabled children aren't all that well served by the arrangement either.

[Nicky]

I do think Rand phrased her point poorly on that talk show. Disabled people aren't a plague of locusts one must "keep their children away from". The better phrasing would've been "don't actively seek to expose children to disabled people, there's no reason for it - despite what the altruists will have you believe, there's no big moral lesson in it".

And, of course, there are always plenty of exceptions. There are disabled people who are better than most able-bodied people. I would love my future children to be exposed to Stephen Hawking (and at least one disabled person I know personally, who isn't famous) for instance, and I bet Ayn Rand would approve of it too.

But she was in front of an audience, I'm at home carefully considering every word I type. So I won't judge too harshly.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Nicky

[mdegges]

"Does integrating disabled children into 'normal' schools provide any benefits?" Of course it does!

 

In regards to 'normal' children:

1) On a super basic level, children will learn that mentally/physically disabled people exist. (Hiding away disabled children in special schools doesn't change that fact. They exist, and they require the same things that normal kids do: friends, teachers, tutors, etc.)

2) On a social level, children will learn how to communicate with disabled people. (This is an important part of growing up- being able to interact with a wide variety of people. It will also be less of a shock to see disabled people as children grow up. It will become 'normal' or just another part of life.)

3) On a deeper level, children will wonder why certain people are disabled while others are not. What's the cause of physical/mental disabilites? (This is another important part of growing up- realizing that some things are out of our control.)

 

In regards to disabled children:

1) "Disabled children do not want to be eternally infantalised, or to be objects of pity. They don’t want to be objects of charity or do-goodery, nor do they want to be in society to provide ‘inspiration’. They simply want to be themselves and to be accepted for what they are. They want to live and to be educated together with their non-disabled peers." -B. Drayne

2) "...Results showed that not only did those in the experimental group improve but that those who stayed in the special school declined in comparison to their own previous scores." -Copeland

3) According to this study about inclusion for students with down syndrome, inclusion helps teachers, students, and disabled children in multiple ways.

Edited May 19, 2013 by mdegges

[Nicky]

"Does integrating disabled children into 'normal' schools provide any benefits?" Of course it does!

 

In regards to 'normal' children:

1) On a super basic level, children will learn that mentally/physically disabled people exist. (Hiding away disabled children in special schools doesn't change that fact. They exist, and they require the same things that normal kids do: friends, teachers, tutors, etc.)

A benefit is something that you gain, meaning that you didn't have it and now you had it. Are you really suggesting that, unless we make sure to put disabled children in regular classrooms, normal children will not know that they exist?

2) On a social level, children will learn how to communicate with disabled people. (This is an important part of growing up- being able to interact with a wide variety of people. )

Let's say there are 20 children in your kid's class. That gives him 19 kids to communicate with, either way. One of those kids is from Mexico and speaks Spanish, knows all the local customs, etc., another from Japan, same deal, another is great at math, another loves astronomy, another wants to be an artist, etc. etc.

You share your theory about how it would be good for your kid to have a mentally disabled classmate with the school administrator. So he asks which kid should be replaced: which of the above listed kids do you consider a less valuable classmate for your kid, than the mentally disabled child? Are you going to go with the math geek? The Mexican kid? The artist? You have to pick. Everything is a trade-off in life. You can't have infinite variety, our time and resources are both limited.

Why is it more important for a child to learn to communicate with a disabled child than with any of the children I listed?

3) On a deeper level, children will wonder why certain people are disabled while others are not. What's the cause of physical/mental disabilites? (This is another important part of growing up- realizing that some things are out of our control.)

Why?

[mdegges]

1) Yes. Assuming that disabled kids use their own school buses, go to separate schools, have different friends, socialize differently, etc.. then where are kids going to learn about them? In college, maybe? At work, when they are forced to communicate with a disabled person? (Wouldn't it be better to expose your child to this at an early age so that they can learn to understand it?)

 

2) I would not say that one kid is more valuable to have in a classroom than another. The purpose of class is to be taught a subject, expose children to peers around their own age, and get them to learn how to develop friendships (ie: communicate and play well with others). As long as the kids are more-or-less on the same page, it doesn't matter what particular kid is in the class. As long as their grades continue to be maintained, they should be fine. Maybe you'll have a 10yr old kid with downsyndrome in a class with younger kids- but if that's the mental level he's at, what's wrong with putting him there? The downsyndrome kid, his teacher, and his peers will adapt to his presence. (My point is, we don't have classes just for 'mexican kids' because they're 'mexican' or just for kids with 'ADD' because they have 'ADD.' We just have classes, and whoever meets the reqs and/or test levels to place into a certain grade, should not be denied entrance- unless all the classes in that grade level are literally filled up- then the parents will have to take their kid to a different school.)

 

3) Some kids are born with mental defects. Some are born with physical defects. Some develop either (or both) later in life. Being exposed to this is a part of life. For example, I went to walmart the other day and the greeter had some sort of mental illness. If that was my first time ever seeing a mentally ill person, I would probably have asked 'what's wrong with that guy? why is he like that?' sort of like when you see a vet in a wheelchair with 2 stubs. Being exposed to that early on makes you realize 'Hey. these people exist. I have to communicate with them sometimes. And when I do, I see that they're not that much different than I am. They're still human- they should be treated that way.'