Dear Anita et al.,
I will comment only on the part of your e-mail that appears to me to be an intentional misrepresentation of my intent, words, and character. You write:

"Third, Audrey seems to have opined that there aren’t many people with disabilities in philosophy in the first place, and therefore we are hard to recruit for a conference.  If that is true, then of course the discipline as a whole should be engaged in affirmative efforts to recruit more such philosophers.  Such a program would be very welcome.  But the suggestion in her description that individuals with disabilities are unreliable and don’t show up is exactly the sort of thing that feeds disability discrimination. And I believe it to be misleading."

1) I have no idea how many people in philosophy identify as disabled. You are correct. But I think it is fair to say that if the issue is that they are not being considered or are not represented, then the presumption IS that their numbers are low. If you have statistics on the number of philosophers with disabilities, then, please, share them. But the conference was about diversifying philosophy, the topics were about helping people who were in a minority and were not represented to our satisfaction, and you know that this is all that I meant.
2)I in no way suggested that "individuals with disabilities are unreliable and don’t show up." I was stating a fact about one session. I implied no such thing and you know that. If you inferred that, then I think you owe me an apology for suggesting it publicly, as any rational person can see that this is NOT the meaning behind my words, and those words do not signify nor even imply what you suggest. The complaint from earlier e-mails (to which I was responding) was that there were not enough people either representing disabled philosophers or discussing disabled philosophers. It is a fact that the committee had tried to have 2 more such people on the program than the final program showed. As a member of the conference, I saw earlier drafts of the program with "other speakers TBA" next to the other presenter's name. Given that some of the people who complained about the subject matter's representation claimed that they needn't actually attend a
 conference to tell whether the program is biased, I pointed this out as a possible counterexample. If you were not a presenter, you may not have seen earlier drafts. If you did not see earlier drafts, you would not have seen the TBA. I came to the defense of the organizers because I had direct empirical evidence that they were planning on having EVEN MORE than six talks dedicated to the vast subject of disability. So the accusation that they were insensitive to this area of diversity were mistaken. THAT was my point.

Audrey

 

--- On Mon, 6/10/13, Anita Silvers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Anita Silvers <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Diversity and Disability
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Monday, June 10, 2013, 6:18 PM
> Dear FEAST Colleagues,
> I’m reluctant to prolong the conversation about the
> regrettable bashing of the Dayton Diversity Conference that
> was executed in the name of individuals with
> disabilities.  But I’m overcoming my hesitation in
> the hope of a teachable moment to help members of this list
> recognize some of the kinds of conduct that constitute
> disability discrimination.
> 
> One of the most virulent kinds, addressed in the U.N.
> Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, is to
> substitute the aims and judgments of other people for those
> of individuals with disabilities.  In line with this
> caution, I’m reporting what I myself have heard first hand
> about tge Dayton Conference and am not supposing that other
> disabled individuals share my view unless they have told me
> so directly.
> 
> To begin with, for years our discipline has had to endure
> unsubstantiated attacks made in the name of individuals with
> disabilities on organizers of events.  Two years ago,
> for example, an attack was broadcast over the internet based
> on completely false claims about the
> wheelchair/mobility-limitation accessibility of the venue of
> the APA Central Division.   As a wheelchair
> user with many years of direct experience of the venue, I
> knew that the charges – made by a non-wheelchair user who
> had never been at the site – were false. 
> Nevertheless, as Chair of the APA Inclusiveness Committee, I
> asked the APA Ombudsperson to investigate; her conclusion
> after a thorough investigation was that the charges were
> false.  I do not know what the attacker, who in the
> past had engaged in similar misrepresentation purporting to
> speak for individuals with disabilities, meant to
> accomplish, but the result was to create unnecessary fear
> about nonexistent barriers for some individuals with
> disabilities who planned to attend the
> meeting.   
> 
> I was not at the Dayton meeting, having previously made a
> commitment to be in Boston that left no margin for the kinds
> of travel precautions I must arrange because I travel with a
> wheelchair.  But before, during, and after the Dayton
> meeting I heard from friends with various disabilities who
> praised it and commented on the organizers’ readiness to
> make accommodations.  Let me underline that, of course,
> I do not know every philosopher with a disability and am
> just reporting what I heard from some such
> individuals.  
> 
> What finally prompted me to comment, however, is an exchange
> on the FEAST list, undoubtedly made in good faith by both
> parties, that could, I fear, discourage the inclusion of
> individuals with disabilities from diversity efforts in
> philosophy.  This had to do with the representation of
> individuals with disabilities at the conference.  
> 
> First, some such individuals were identified in one or
> another way with disability; others participated in a
> differently identified role.  Second, as Andrea
> observed, some individuals with non-visible disabilities
> choose not to identify publicly as disabled in order not to
> expose themselves to disability discrimination (whether
> people with psychological disabilities are more vulnerable
> to discrimination may not be answerable because disability
> discrimination has so many faces and
> modes).   
> 
> Third, Audrey seems to have opined that there aren’t many
> people with disabilities in philosophy in the first place,
> and therefore we are hard to recruit for a conference. 
> If that is true, then of course the discipline as a whole
> should be engaged in affirmative efforts to recruit more
> such philosophers.  Such a program would be very
> welcome.  But the suggestion in her description that
> individuals with disabilities are unreliable and don’t
> show up is exactly the sort of thing that feeds disability
> discrimination. And I believe it to be misleading.
> 
> As I indicated, philosophers with disabilities appeared on
> several parts of the program, talking about issues other
> than disability.  I trust there is no requirement that,
> unlike other members of under-represented groups, we must
> restrict our philosophical work to a single aspect of our
> identity.  Moreover, disability issues have attracted
> much philosophical work from individuals who are not members
> of this under-represented group, probably much more than for
> other minorities. So one can’t tell from a conference
> program what the representation of individuals with
> disabilities actually is.  
> 
> Disability discrimination remains widespread and oppressive,
> but it is counter-productive to invoke it to attack the
> Dayton Diversity Conference, and may be counter-productive
> as well to reference its effects to defend the
> conference.  It is true that one (not two) members of
> the panel on disability did not make it to the Dayton
> meeting – that one individual was on his way until an
> airline failed to transport his power wheelchair
> correctly.  This was, of course, a violation of the Air
> Carriers Act; sadly, in the last few years airlines have
> been less and less compliant with existing law. But we need
> to be on guard against allowing discriminatory barriers -
> which unfortunately continue to make participation in some
> events more challenging for individuals with disabilities -
> a pretext for dismissing admirable efforts (like those made
> by the organizers of the Dayton Conference) to effect full
> inclusion. 
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Anita Silvers
> Professor and Chair, SFSU Philosophy Dept.
> Chair, APA Inclusiveness Committee
> 
>   
>   
> 
> ############################
> 
> 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