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