this is becoming an emotionally intense thread, and understandably so. I am sorry to see that some, like Maeve, are feeling hurt by the tone of the discussion, and by what they perceive as a discriminatory and insensitive attitude toward our disabled colleagues. I apologize in advance if what I am going to say will sound insensitive and discriminatory (or, worse, hypocritical). 

 

It seemed to me that one important point made by Teresa Burke and the other two authors of the statement is being overlooked. They remark that it is in the nature of the phenomenon of disability itself that it is very difficult if not impossible to talk of accessibility in general, as opposed to specific and on-request accommodation tailored to the individual needs of the person.

 

I trust Teresa Burke's opinion, since she is an expert on the topic, and has worked extensively on the ethics and philosophy of disability. I am not an expert, but this seems true to me, if only I think of my friends with disabilities (many of whom are philosophers). One has mental issues that affect her work schedule, another has a physical disability that requires him to use specific tools to get dressed, sit comfortably, and so forth. Others need canes to walk. Another one is deaf. Another one has chronic fatigue syndrome. Other disabilities one can immediately think of include blindness, or the need for a wheelchair. I know of a philosopher who doesn't have the sense of smell. I am sure there are many others, with varying degree of intensity and above all which vary along *all sorts of dimensions*. It just seems to me very hard to be able to accommodate in advance *all* of these.

 

One might argue that we should accommodate at least the most common disabilities. This would be a proposal to discuss, but it is not, it seems to me, what is asked in the petition, which demands equal treatment for, I suppose, *everyone*. 

As I said, I know nothing about philosophy of disability (and I regret it) and certainly one merit of the petition is that it invites us all to think more about this topic, but it seems to me that there are *a lot* of complicated issues that require to be worked out, and it is useful to have suggestions like the ones Maeve gave, to look at the actual difficulties of people. But again, I worry that "in principle" accessibility may be impossible to achieve.

 

I am sure the APA Task Force will work on this, and I hope they will keep us posted, but for now I want to raise one last concern.

 

As a mother, I would like the APA to accommodate the needs of the many philosophers who are parents of young children. Having a small child or more constitutes a grave handicap for many of us when it comes to going to conferences, or giving talks. But I am aware that, in addition to cultural obstacles, there are great economic ones. I know that the APA just does not have the funding to provide free or even subsidized child care. 

I wish more support could be provided by the APA to parents, but I am aware resources are right now very limited. I think this is an issue of inclusivity, but I also understand the economic constraints. I am talking about this not to suggest that being a parent is as difficult as being disabled (I genuinely have no idea how to compare the two statutes, and of course they may overlap, and of course there are all sorts of  complications: being a single parent is a lot more difficult than being a co-parent, and a mild disability is different from a debilitating one), but to suggest that something similar may hold when it comes to accommodate even statistically more common disabilities, such as deafness. As Teresa has pointed out to me, both publicly and in conversation, interpreters are very expensive. Ideally it would be great if every APA talk always had an interpreter of American Sign Language (but then of course there is the problem of excluding non-American philosophers), but it's just practically impossible.

 

In general, it seems to me that it would be useful to distinguish issues of discrimination, implicit bias, and of a culture of hostility toward disabled people from issues of what is feasible in practice. I know, the boundaries between the two are often blurred. But we should try. We should also try to believe that at least some of us are in good faith, and that disagreement may not always be a sign of insensitivity or indifference, but, well, plain disagreement about what to do, and as philosophers we should be able to deal with that!

 

All best,

Sara 

 

 

Dear Maeve,

 

I want to second Allison's remark that your message was very helpful in

understanding issues about disability, especially your remarks about

accommodation and equal access.  I will look at the Disabled Philosophers'

Blog

 

Joanne Waugh

American Foundation for Greek Language and Culture (AFGLC)

        Professor of Greek Culture

Director, Interdisciplinary Center for Hellenic Studies

Director of Graduate Studies and Associate Chair

        Department of Philosophy

University of South Florida

Tampa, Florida 33620

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/2/14 4:30 PM, "O'Donovan, Maeve" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

>Hello everyone,

>

>I write as one of the signers of the petition, and as a disabled

>philosopher who is disturbed by the responses to the petition from those

>who are critical of it. I think there is something being asked for in the

>petition that is not being understood, and I am surprised by the tone and

>content of the criticisms of the petition.

>

>What is being asked for:

>

>As has been pointed out by others, the petition calls attention to the

>difference between an environment that accommodates disabilities and one

>that is accessible in nature, and it asks that the APA and the profession

>make a move from being the former to being the latter. Much of the

>criticism of the petition rests on claims that accommodations are made,

>but this is not what the petition is asking for from its addressees.  I

>venture a guess that the majority of the people involved in discussing

>this petition, including those without disabilities, know that it's far

>better to be given equal treatment (accessible environments) than to have

>to ask for it (accommodations). Also, the petition explains that the

>absence of an accessible environment at APA events contributes to an

>overall hostility met by many persons with disabilities in the field. The

>existence of the petition itself, as well the many posts on the Disabled

>Philosophers blog (and to confidential listservs to which I hope a member

>of the committee has access) are evidence of the fact that there are many

>persons in our field who are living with disabilities and who are meeting

>great obstacles in their careers as a result of a lack of accessibility

>and, in some cases, as a direct result of asking for accommodations. So

>whatever is being done in our field and by the APA, for philosophers with

>disabilities, it is clearly not enough and we, the signers, are asking

>for more.

>

>Tone and content of criticisms:

>

>Shelly Tremain is an accomplished philosopher who is a trailblazer, and

>she began this petition. Many more of us have signed it. I am not alone

>in experiencing the criticisms of our petition--criticisms that claim

>that petitions aren't helpful or that a lack of concrete demands somehow

>diminishes this particular petition--as disingenuous. They sound too much

>like what we heard when we were demanding that attention be paid to the

>lack of gender and racial diversity in the profession, demands that

>resulted in the forming of the very task force that is now critical of

>the petition signed by many disabled philosophers and their allies. For

>those who want specific grievances to be made public, they already are.

>They are posted on the Disabled Philosophers blog on a regular basis.

>

>To further this conversation, here is my concrete recommendation: I

>recommend that members of the Committee on Inclusion and Diversity read

>or re-read all of the posts on the Disabled Philosophers blog and, if

>granted permission, be given access to the posts on confidential

>listservs for philosophers with disabilities, then devote a meeting to

>discussing the significance of these postings for the work of the

>committee ("to identify problems faced by the discipline in advancing

>inclusion and equitable treatment of historically underrepresented groups

>at all levels of philosophical pursuit, and to suggest policies that can

>effectively address these problems"

>http://www.apaonline.org/news/153559/Announcing-the-APA-Task-Force-on-Dive

>rsity-and-Inclusion.htm).

>

>On a final note, it shouldn't be ignored that the members of the Task

>Force on Inclusion and Diversity include tenured, full professors while

>many of the philosophers with disabilities who post their experiences are

>students and those searching for tenure-track jobs. It is a great thing

>that there are now feminist philosophers in positions of power in our

>discipline, including President of the Eastern Division of the APA; this

>doesn't mean our profession is no longer deserving of criticism when it

>comes to the needs of those on its margins. There are now many who hold

>positions of power to do something concrete and positive in response to

>this petition, and I look forward to seeing that happen.

>

>Maeve

>

>Maeve M. O'Donovan, Ph.D.

>Associate Professor and Chair of Philosophy

>School of Arts & Sciences

>Notre Dame of Maryland University

>4701 N. Charles Street

>Baltimore, MD  21210

>410-532-5129

>[log in to unmask]

>

>www.pickeringchatto.com/raceandgender

>

>############################

>

>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

 

 

 

--

Sara Protasi