Alison and everyone,
I was a history undergrad and I’ve been involved in lots and lots of political movements. I cannot think of a single example in the history of the world when a petition was an effective political instrument. Can anyone?
I would suggest that those who have particular grievances be much more specific about what those grievances are (the petition is quite lacking on this and instead trades in innuendo) and that they call for some meetings with the APA leadership and membership, including some sessions at division meetings in which people can talk through their specific concerns and think through what might be some good options. I think this is possible in the current governance structure of the APA because there are a hell of a lot of people (or at least a growing minority) who are politically progressive and open to change. A petition is a last resort when those who hold office are not at all interested in change. I have not seen evidence that this is the case here. So, as far as I can see, this petition is just serving to divide and polarize, not actually work toward any substantive change or even show what specific change is needed.
Sorry to be grumpy. But we have a lot of real issues to deal with and this seems to be just sewing discord. Discord is good when it is warranted, but is it warranted here? I would be happy to stand corrected. if there are actual and real complaints about how disability is accommodated or not, I would like to know what these are, very specifically.
best to all, including those who might disagree with me,
Noelle
[log in to unmask]
On Mar 31, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Alison Reiheld <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Folks:
>
> It strikes me that, lost in the discourse over the APA as an institution and
> whether it is exclusionary vs. inclusionary, are Shelley Tremain's broader
> points about the discipline of philosophy as a whole.
>
> For instance, Shelley claims that much of the dominant discourse in political
> philosophy, ethics, and bioethics runs on rails that rest on a bed of
> problematic assumptions about disability, permanently disabled persons,
> dependence vs. independence, and so forth. I suspect many of us would agree
> with this, and hope we would be open to being called out on it and seriously
> considering whether we are deploying such problematic concepts. Note also her
> claim that major publication venues do not consider disability studies to be
> more generally philosophy (I have certainly experienced this with respect to
> feminist phil and even bioethics not being considered generally philosophy when
> I first began, and have heard it is still the case for much philosophy of race
> as well as disability theory).
>
> I think Shelley's right on about those.
>
> I am reminded of some tips I recently saw on engaging with others in a
> productive manner: first say what you agree with, and rephrase the argument so
> well that the author says "yep, that's what I mean". Then, disagree/critique.
> So by all means, critique. But let's not lose sight of some of the very real
> problems that face disabled philosophers (underlying negative attitudes toward
> them as intellectual agents) and those who wish to think carefully about
> disability (not all disabled philosophers do, but have philosophy about
> disability not be considered as "real philosophy" is a real problem).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best,
> Alison
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Alison Reiheld
> Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy
> College of Arts and Sciences
> SIU-Edwardsville
> [log in to unmask]
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Quoting Eva Kittay <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Thank you Liz for this clear statement of what is at issue.
>>
>> Eva
>>
>> Eva Feder Kittay
>> Distinguished Professor of Philosophy
>> Stony Brook University/SUNY
>> [log in to unmask]
>> [log in to unmask]
>> Phone: 212-333-4670
>> https://sbsuny.academia.edu/EvaKittay
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 31, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Elizabeth Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> As Professors Burke, Cureton, and Silvers note in their statement,
>> individuals with disabilities vary, and hence accommodations that fit some
>> people do not fit others. This is why the APA's practice is to work
>> one-on-one with individuals requesting accommodations, so that their
>> particularized needs can be met. Amy Ferrer and others in the National
>> Office are ready to help. Burke, Cureton, and Silvers invite those whose
>> needs remain unmet through the current practice of working with the National
>> Office of the APA to submit their specific complaints to the APA Ombudsperson
>> and to the APA Committee on Inclusiveness in the Profession. Their letter
>> articulates a caution concerning those who do not have the specific
>> disabilities needing accommodation making large generalizations about what
>> disabled philosophers need or what the APA is failing to do for them.
>>>
>>> --Elizabeth Anderson
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Lisa J McLeod <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> Chris Cuomo speaks my mind.
>>>
>>> It seems that reasonable people's experiences/perceptions can differ
>> without mistakes being made.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lisa
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Chris Cuomo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Dear Elizabeth and Task Force members,
>>>
>>> As a member of the APA, SWIP, FEAST and the rest, I'd like to say that I
>> believe this really should say "alleged" rather than "mistaken."
>>>
>>> Thanks for considering,
>>> Chris Cuomo
>>>
>>> On Mar 31, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Elizabeth Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Three APA members with disabilities have posted a statement correcting
>> recent mistaken allegations about the accessibility of APA activities and
>> praising the APA's inclusion of of people with disabilities at
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> http://www.apaonline.org/news/166867/Statement-from-APA-members-with-disabilities-on-accessibility.htm
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Elizabeth Anderson
>>>> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
>>>>
>>>> Chair, APA Task Force on Inclusion and Diversity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following
>> link: https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>>>>
>>>
>>> ############################
>>> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following
>> link: https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lisa J. McLeod, J.D., Ph.D.
>>> Associate Professor of Philosophy
>>> Chair, Philosophy Department
>>> "The return from your work must be the satisfaction which that work brings
>> you and the world's need of that work.
>>> With this, life is heaven, or as near heaven as you can get. Without this —
>> with work which you despise, which bores you,
>>> and which the world does not need — this life is hell."
>>> -- W.E.B. Du Bois, 1958
>>> ############################
>>> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following
>> link: https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>>>
>>>
>>> ############################
>>> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following
>> link: https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> SIUE Web Mail
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
|
