November 17, 2008

I could relate to what Hehir describes as the differential treatment of people with disabilities as either people who should be pitied or as "supercrips" (to use his language). There have been many times when I have met people for the first time and told them about my blindness and they have responded with "I am so sorry", as if my disability were some kind of terminal illness. Other times the response has been the opposite. The other person has reacted as if I am somehow extraordinary because I have "overcome" my blindness to get a college education. Both types of reactions are examples of ableism because they fail to recognize the person with a disability for who they truly are, as someone with the same hopes and dreams (and faults and problems) as everyone else. If you really thought about it, being a Hispanic or African American male in the U.S. (especially in certain areas of the country), or being poor, is in many ways a disability, and yet no one would say "I'm sorry" upon meeting a person from one of those backgrounds for the first time (but for some reason it is ok to do this with people who have low vision or have other disabilities that may not be readily apparent).

As I read what Hehir had to say about language and people who are deaf or blind, I kept coming back to Lisa Delpit's idea of the culture of power. I agree with Hehir that deaf and blind students should be involved as much as possible in the decisions that affect their lives. This includes being able to choose the form of communication that is the most efficient and/or comfortable for them, whether it be Braille for a blind person or signing for a deaf person. As a bilingual person who had to learn English the hard way through complete immersion (almost losing the ability to speak my mother tongue in the process), I think I understand the importance of language for reinforcing a person's identity and self-esteem. You can't say that you value someone as a person while denying them the most natural of acts, that of self-expression.

At the same time, I think it is important to learn as many ways to communicate as possible because it will result in increased access to the mainstream culture in which blind and deaf people have to function on a daily basis. I think it is possible to look at language among people with disabilities using the same lens Lisa Delpit used when she looked at language among students of color. Yes, the use of their natural, authentic language may help students of color feel that they and their culture are accepted and appreciated, but it may also keep them from learning the standard forms that they need to fully participate in the culture that is in power. In much the same way, relying exclusively on Braille or signing may keep students who are blind or deaf from participating fully in society. What happens if a blind person wants to read a book that is not yet printed in Braille (and it usually takes some time for books to become available in that format), or if a sign interpreter is not available for a deaf person? In those situations the reliance on one form of communication would be a detriment. I would argue for the development of multiple means of communication as a way to achieve the dual goal of recognizing the person with a disability and their right to self-expression while at the same time giving that person improved access to the mainstream culture.

I think it is important to recognize that while Braille is a very efficient method of communication for the blind, there have been many advances in audio technologies over the past few years that make them a viable alternative. As someone who is interested in podcasting, I have seen firsthand how this technology can be used to deliver information to blind people in a way that is more natural and authentic (using real human voices rather than synthesized speech). The use of improved speech readers has also made it easier for people with visual impairments to access the Web (where much of life seems to take place these days). Improved technology has converged with changing attitudes to make the Web a valuable tool for people with visual impairments and other disabilities. The change in attitudes has come about as a result of many web developers realizing that creating accessible web sites does not just benefit people with disabilities, but everyone who uses the web (it results in faster loading pages, easier to maintain code, and so on). Web accessibility is based on many of the same principles as universal design for learning, which Hehir advocates. It seems that practices and policies do not get implemented or supported until there is some kind of appeal to the self-interest of the able-bodied sectors of society, and universal design is a subtle way to appeal to that self-interest to bring about change in a way that addresses the needs of people with disabiltiies.