Thursday, December 17, 2009
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 16, 2009
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts
WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts: ·
Marie Collins Johns, Deputy Administrator, Small Business Administration· Gwendolyn E. Boyd, Member, Board of Trustees of the Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation· Jonathan M. Young, Chair, National Council on Disability· Carol Jean Reynolds, Member, National Council on Disability· Fernando Torres-Gil, Member, National Council on Disability· Chester Alonzo Finn, Member, National Council on Disability· Gary Blumenthal, Member, National Council on Disability· Sara Gelser, Member, National Council on Disability· Ari Ne'eman, Member, National Council on Disability· Dongwoo Joseph "Joe" Pak, Member, National Council on Disability
President Obama said, “I am grateful that these fine individuals have chosen to serve in my administration. They will bring a depth of experience and valued perspective to their roles, and I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead.” President Obama announced today his intent to nominate the following individuals: (I have snipped everyone's bio but Ari's. You can see them all on the link above.) Ari Ne'eman, Nominee for Member, National Council on DisabilityAri Ne’eman is the Founding President of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, where he initiates and directs efforts to increase the representation of autistic individuals in public policy discussions. He is a leading advocate in the neurodiversity movement, frequently briefing policymakers and speaking publicly on disability and autism policy issues. Mr. Ne’eman also serves as Vice Chair of the New Jersey Adults with Autism Task Force, where he represents autistic adults in reviewing the state’s autism services. He also previously served on the New Jersey’s Special Education Review Commission, where he authored a minority report on the topic of aversives, restraint and seclusion. Mr. Ne’eman previously served as the Policy Workgroup Leader for the Youth Advisory Council to the National Council on Disability. He is a board member of TASH and the Autism National Committee. In 2008, he received the HSC Foundation “Advocates in Disability” Award. Mr. Ne’eman is currently an undergraduate at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County where he studies political science and expects to graduate in May 2010. In 2000, Mr. Ne’eman was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder.
This makes Ari the youngest presidential appointee in U.S. history.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Thank you for permitting me to address this meeting of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee.
I am representing the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. I appreciate having had the opportunity to represent ASAN at the recent Scientific Workshop.
The meeting offered many opportunities to make changes as the Strategic Plan is updated for 2010.
Inclusion of an objective to study ethical issues related to “the assessment and communication of genetic, environmental, and clinical risk for autism” was one of the recommendations from Panel 1, the panel I participated in. This objective does not go far enough in that it only addresses assessment and communication of risk. It does not address other ethical issues which we believe to be important. Therefore we strongly urge an objective that would address ethical, legal, and social issues related to all aspects of research, not just the communication of risk, although that is a critical area, given recent developments in identifying prenatal risk factors.
Another area for concern about ethics is early intervention, as interventions are initiated at earlier and earlier ages . Ideas about what early interventions will work are generally based on assumptions of non-autistic people about what “the reasons for autistic behaviors” might be, with little to no input from autistic adults, who can inform and guide research. A concerted effort is being made to increase acquisition of biological materials, such as skin fibroblasts, brains, and other tissue types. There is an ethical concern with collecting biologic samples from young children, who are not capable of giving permission. Potentially, children might not want to contribute biological material, if one of the purposes was for developing a prenatal test aimed at selecting people like themselves out of the gene pool. Although there are many reasons for collection of biological materials, this concern must be addressed. People on the autism spectrum who can communicate,* and people with other disabilities such as Down Syndrome, and their families, have advocated against, and continue to advocate against, such an aim.
In general, recommendations of many of the panelists to include adults in many sections of the Strategic Plan are a step in the right direction.
Although the IACC does not fund research, presumably it has some influence on research priorities, or it would not bother to come up with budget recommendations. Here are some figures from the 2009 Strategic Plan.
Recommended budget for diagnosis and assessment: $133,600,000 For biology and risk factor research, $179,000,000. For causes and prevention, $216,400,000 [almost 28% of the IACC recommended budget]. Treatment and intervention gets $190,100,000.
For “Where Can I Turn For Services?” Where, indeed? Not to the IACC recommended budget, which suggests a grand total of $25,330,000 [3.27%]. If research were really funded at the levels recommended by the IACC, that question becomes even more anxiety-provoking for autistics and our families. We will certainly need to turn to avenues other than the IACC for answers to questions about needed services and supports. Research into causes, biomarkers, prevention, etc. will not help people who are alive today and need evidence-based information about services and supports.
Recent research and initiatives in the United Kingdom can provide a model for services-oriented research and also research into adult issues. The National Health Service has released a study of autistic adults, indicating that prevalence of autism in adults in the UK is one in a hundred, similar to the recent figure here of 1 in 91 children. Interestingly, the NHS report avoids alarmist rhetoric and talk of “an epidemic of autism.” In addition, initiatives such as the “Don’t Write Me Off” employment campaign and “Supporting people with autism through adulthood” can make a real difference in the lives of autistics, especially and young people who are transitioning out of school settings. Sadly, the United States is falling behind on crucial issues related to services and lifespan issues and is failing autistic adults, families and communities.
Currently the Strategic Plan does not address communication differences and disabilities at all. This is a surprising omission, since one of the criteria for an autism diagnosis is communication disability. Although panel 4, on treatments and interventions, mentioned communication as an emerging tool, specific mention of communication research should be incorporated into the 2010 Strategic Plan.
*[Note: The comment "people on the spectrum who can communicate is NOT intended to mean that there are autistic people who cannot communicate. Everyone communicates. It's an error I wish I had caught before I delivered the comments, but I am posting the comments as I delivered them.]
Paula C. Durbin-Westby Board of Directors The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Join The Autistic Self Advocacy Network and allies as we protest Autism Speaks at their “Walk for Autism” on Saturday, October 31 at the National Mall in Washington DC.
Autism Speaks’ recent choice to use fear, stigma, misinformation and prejudice against autistic people as a fundraising tool does real damage to people with disabilities and to the cause of disability rights.
We protest the agenda of Autism Speaks and the organizations that have merged into it, including Cure Autism Now and the National Alliance for Autism Research. Comments by co-founder Suzanne Wright include a call to “eradicate autism for the sake of future generations,” ignoring autistics who are here now and our families and communities. Although Autism Speaks is capable of addressing the very real needs of autistic children and adults, and our families and communities, it chooses not to.
An analysis of Autism Speaks 2008 financial report reveals that only 4% of Autism Speaks’ total funding is spent on family services. 65% is spent on research in areas that focus on “curing” autism. Another 28% is spent on “awareness” and fundraising. The “awareness” component does almost nothing to educate people about autism itself and is mostly geared toward raising funds for “curing” autism. Pages on Autism Speaks’ website support James Watson, who was dismissed from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory after making grossly racist remarks, and Autism Speaks has funded Dr. Joseph Buxbaum, who asserted that a prenatal test would soon be available, indicating what sort of “cure” might be expected.
The literature in the “Participant Guide” that is used specifically for fundraising for the Autism Speaks “Walk for Autism” walks includes such language as “shocking,” “terrifying,” and the coupling of cancer and AIDS statistics with autism statistics. This rhetoric is offensive and misleading, adding to the stigma autistics and other people with disabilities must face from society.
Autism Speaks' recent PSA, titled “I Am Autism,” presents autistic individuals as kidnap victims, burdens, and inhuman. In the video, autism is presented as a soul-stealing entity that ruins marriages, causes bankruptcy, triggers embarrassment, and erodes morality.
This latest example of using fear, pity and stigma to raise money is in line with Autism Speaks past fundraising videos, which have presented being autistic as akin to being in a fatal car accident, being struck by lightning and other situations resulting in death. The walks are held in order to fund a mega-million operation (over $22 million this year raised from “Autism Walks” alone), which includes annual salaries that go as high as $600,000 a year for top executives. All the efforts in Washington DC have raised almost enough to pay the salary of one top-level executive in the organization: $461,918.
Autism Speaks does not give any consideration to the damage its alarmist rhetoric causes to autistic people and our families and friends. Although claiming to “speak” for autistics, autistic self-advocates are not represented at any level in the organization.
Autism Speaks is one of an increasingly few number of major disability advocacy organizations that refuse to include any individual with the disability they purport to serve on their board of directors or at any point in their leadership and decision-making processes. In large part due to Autism Speaks’ public relations strategy of presenting Autistic people as silent burdens on society rather than human beings with thoughts, feelings and opinions, Autism Speaks’ governance policies are deeply unrepresentative and out of step with the mainstream of the disability non-profit community.
We will carry out our protest at the Old Folklife Festival Site, between Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive, in between 14th and 15th Streets. We will assemble there between 8 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. The closest Metro stations to the protest site are Smithsonian and Federal Triangle.
Please RSVP to the address below so we will know how many people are coming. Metro transportation information is below the ASAN addresses.
Paula C. Durbin-Westby
Board of Directors
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Metro accessibility information:
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
We, the undersigned organizations representing self advocates, parents, professionals and allies in the Autism, Autistic and Disability Communities, are writing to you to express our concern about the recent actions of Autism Speaks. Our work is about helping empower and support people with disabilities of all kinds, including adults and youth on the autism spectrum, and we recognize that there are a wide variety of means towards accomplishing this goal. Yet, Autism Speaks’ recent choice to use fear, stigma, misinformation and prejudice against Autistic people as a fundraising tool does real damage to people with disabilities everywhere. The most recent example of this lack of ethics can be found in Autism Speaks’ new “I am Autism” campaign which states, “I am autism...I know where you live...I work faster than pediatric AIDS, cancer and diabetes combined. And if you're happily married, I will make sure that your marriage fails. Your money will fall into my hands and I will bankrupt you for my own self-gain...I will make it virtually impossible for your family to easily attend a temple, birthday party, or public park without a struggle, without embarrassment, without pain...I am autism. I have no interest in right or wrong. I derive great pleasure out of your loneliness."
Not only does this campaign rely on offensive stereotypes and inaccurate information (research indicates that parents of Autistic children are not more likely to divorce than parents of non-Autistic children), but it also does real damage to the cause of disability rights. By choosing to portray Autistic people as husks of real people, stolen out of our own bodies, Autism Speaks reinforces stereotypes and prejudice against people with disabilities that have existed for centuries and have been the source of pain, segregation and violence.
We are calling on you to end your support for Autism Speaks and to find new ways to show your support for Autistic people and others with disabilities. As the result of a pattern of unethical behavior and irresponsible governance, outlined below, we believe that Autism Speaks as an organization no longer deserves your time, energy, money and support.
Autism Speaks uses damaging and offensive fundraising tactics which rely on fear, stereotypes and devaluing the lives of people on the autism spectrum: Autism Speaks’ unethical fundraising tactics are not limited to the new “I am Autism” video. Its television Public Service Announcements compare having a child on the autism spectrum to having a child caught in a fatal car accident or struck by lightning. In fact, the idea of autism as a fate worse than death is a frequent theme in their fundraising and awareness efforts, going back to their “Autism Every Day” film in 2005. Indeed, throughout Autism Speaks’ fundraising is a consistent and unfortunate theme of fear, pity and prejudice, presenting Autistic adults and children not as full human beings but as burdens on society that must be eliminated as soon as possible.
Very little money donated to Autism Speaks goes toward helping Autistic people and families: According to their 2008 annual report, only 4% of Autism Speaks’ budget goes towards the “Family Service” grants that are the organization’s means of funding services. Given the huge sums of money Autism Speaks raises from local communities as compared to the miniscule sums it gives back, it is not an exaggeration to say that Autism Speaks is a tremendous drain on the ability of communities to fund autism service-provision and education initiatives Furthermore, while the bulk of Autism Speaks’ budget (65%) goes toward genetic and biomedical research, only a small minority of Autism Speaks’ research budget goes towards research oriented around improving services, supports, treatments and educational methodologies, with most funding going towards basic research oriented around causation and genetic research, including the prospect of prenatal testing. Although Autism Speaks has not prioritized services with a practical impact for families and individuals in its budget, its rates of executive pay are the highest in the autism world, with annual salaries as high as $600,000 a year.
Autism Speaks excludes the people it pretends to represent: Autism Speaks is one of an increasingly few number of major disability advocacy organizations that refuse to include any individual with the disability they purport to serve on their board of directors or at any point in their leadership and decision-making processes. In large part due to Autism Speaks’ public relations strategy of presenting Autistic people as silent burdens on society rather than human beings with thoughts, feelings and opinions, Autism Speaks’ governance policies are deeply unrepresentative and out of step with the mainstream of the disability non-profit community.
Contrary to the “I am Autism” video, which equates autism with AIDS and Cancer, autism is not a terminal disease. It is a disability, one that comes with significant challenges in a wide variety of realms. Yet the answer to those challenges is not to create a world in which people are afraid of people on the autism spectrum. The answer is not to create a world in which the word autism is met with terror, hatred and prejudice. It is to work to create a society that recognizes the civil rights of Autistic people and others with disabilities. It is to work to create a world in which people with disabilities can benefit from the supports, the services and the educational tools necessary to empower them to be full citizens in society.
We are Autism’s true voice – Autistic people and those with other disabilities ourselves, and our allies, family members, friends and supporters. Autism Speaks does not speak for us. We are not stolen – we are right here. Our lives may be difficult – but they are worth living. Autism Speaks Does Not Speak For Us and we will not work with an organization that relies on damaging and offensive stereotypes to advance an agenda out of step with those they purport to represent. We call upon you to recognize this and find better avenues for your admirable desire to support Autistic people and our families. We call upon you to end your support for Autism Speaks.
National and International Organizations:
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE)
The National Council on Independent Living (NCIL)
Disability Rights and Education Defense Fund (DREDF)
The National Youth Leadership Network (NYLN)
Autism Network International (ANI)
The Autism National Committee
Little People of America (LPA)
Not Dead Yet
The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
The Autistic Spectrum Partnership In Research and Education (AASPIRE)
Mothers From Hell 2
The Center for Self-Determination
Disability Rights Advocates
Kids As Self-Advocates (KASA)
Service Dog Central
The National Empowerment Center
Disabled Youth Collective (DYP)
The Arc of the United States
The National Coalition of Mental Health Consumer/Survivor Organizations
Feminist Response in Disability Activism (FRIDA)
The ICORS Asperger’s Listserv
ADA Watch/National Coalition on Disability Rights
The Asperger’s Women Association (AWA)
Autistic Self-Advocacy Network-Australia
Autism Rights Group Highland in Scotland, the United Kingdom
The Autistic Community of Israel
Autreach IT in the United Kingdom
The Southwest Autistic Rights Movement (SWARM) in the United Kingdom
The London Autistic Rights Movement (LARM) in the United Kingdom
The Aspergers Network in the United Kingdom
Local, State, and Regional Organizations:
The Center for Disability Rights in Rochester, NY
The Regional Center for Independent Living in Rochester, NY
The Michigan Disability Rights Coalition
The Institute for Disability Access in Austin, Texas
The Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education
The Paraquad Center for Independent Living in St. Louis, Missouri
The Lonesome Doves in Pennsylvania
Together Enhancing Autism Awareness in Mississippi (TEAAM)
Wesleyan Students for Disability Rights at Wesleyan University in Connecticut
Tangram in Indianapolis, Indiana
The Disability Activists Work Group (DAWG) in Oregon
North Carolina Disability Action Network
Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago in Chicago, Illinois
Topeka Independent Living Resource Center in Topeka, Kansas
Disabilityworks in Chicago, Illinois
Ardinger Consultants & Associates in Maryland
Statewide Parent Advocacy Network of New Jersey
Wisconsin Family Assistance Center for Education, Training and Support
Aspergers Young Adults of North Alabama (AYANA)
Access to Independence of Cortland County, Cortland, New York
Youth Power, New York
The New York Association on Independent Living
Self-Advocates As Leaders (SAAL) in Oregon
Green County Independent Living center in Oklahoma
The Beyond Compliance Coordinating Committee at Syracuse University in New York
Saturday, September 26, 2009
As many of you are aware, Autism Speaks sunk to a new low yesterday - even for them! The "I am Autism" campaign repeats the same tired old lies as the NYU Child Study Center's Ransom Notes ads, which our community successfully stopped in 2007, and goes even further, presenting Autistic people as useless burdens on society, on our families and on the world at large. “I am autism. I have no interest in right or wrong. I will plot to rob you of your children and your dreams….And if you’re happily married, I will make sure that your marriage fails. Your money will fall into my hands, and I will bankrupt you for my own self-gain,” says the video campaign. Full text is available here.
As we did in response to the "Ransom Notes" ads, we are preparing a joint letter from the disability community in response to these horrific statements, which we hope to have available early next week. If you are connected to an organization that might be interested in signing on to such a letter, please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org immediately.
In addition, we are encouraging people to act immediately by joining ASAN in writing singer Bruce Springsteen, scheduled to participate in an Autism Speaks fundraiser in November, to end his newfound association with this organization that devalues our lives and speaks about us without us. You can contact Springsteen's publicist at email@example.com or by phone at 718-552-7171.
Finally, as we mentioned in our initial press release this morning, ASAN Activists and allies are preparing to confront Autism Speaks fundraising in their own communities. If you would be willing to organize a protest in your community, whether you are a self advocate, family member or other ally, please e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org. There has never been a more important time for our community to assert our voice.
Thank you and, as always, Nothing About Us, Without Us!
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Autistic Community Condemns Autism Speaks’ “I am Autism” Campaign
“We are the true voices of Autism,” say Autistic adults; Campaign spreads stigma, prejudice and inaccurate information; ASAN vows protest of upcoming Autism Speaks fundraisers
Washington, DC (September 23rd, 2009) - The autism community reacted in horror today to Autism Speaks’ new “I am Autism” campaign, presenting Autistic people as kidnap victims and burdens on their family members and communities.
“I am autism. I have no interest in right or wrong. I will plot to rob you of your children and your dreams….And if you’re happily married, I will make sure that your marriage fails. Your money will fall into my hands, and I will bankrupt you for my own self-gain,” says the “I am Autism” video, released yesterday and created by Academy Award-nominated director Alfonso Cuarón and Grammy-nominated songwriter/producer Billy Mann.
“This is the latest in a series of unethical fundraising strategies adopted by Autism Speaks,” said Ari Ne’eman, an adult on the autism spectrum and President of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), “This type of fear mongering hurts Autistic people, by raising fear and not contributing in the slightest to accurate understanding of the needs of Autistic adults and children.”
ASAN’s Columbus, Ohio chapter has already made arrangements to protest Autism Speaks’ upcoming local fundraising walk and other ASAN chapters will be making similar arrangements shortly, said Ne’eman.
In addition to relying on fear and pity mongering to raise funds, the Autism Speaks video repeats frequently referenced claims of higher than average divorce rates amongst parents of Autistic children. However, a 2008 study conducted by HarrisInteractive for Easter Seals in cooperation with the Autism Society of America found divorce rates for parents of Autistic children lower than those for families with no children with disabilities. The video also relies heavily on the idea of rapidly increasing autism rates. Another new study, released the same day as the video, by the British Government’s National Health Service found that autism rates among adults are the same as amongst children, indicating that the popular “epidemic” claim of rapidly increasing autism incidence is likely false.
“This video doesn’t represent me or my child,” said Dana Commandatore, a parent of an Autistic child living in Los Angeles, California. “Whatever the challenges that autism may bring, my son deserves better than being presented as a burden on society. Autism Speaks’ misrepresentation makes my life and the life of my child more difficult.”
“Autism Speaks seems to think that parents' embarrassment at their kids' meltdowns is more important than autistic kids' pain,” writes Sarah, an Autistic blogger at the blog Cat in a Dog’s World, “Autistic people deserve better than what Autism Speaks has to offer.”
The new video is reminiscent of the December 2007 NYU Child Study Center “Ransom Notes” campaign, which consisted of faux ransom notes claiming to be from an anthropomorphized disability which had kidnapped a child. Those ads were withdrawn after two and a half weeks, due to widespread outcry from self-advocates, parents and professionals and the condemnation of twenty-two national disability rights organizations, led by the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. The Ransom Notes controversy was reported on by The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Good Morning America, The Washington Post and other major media outlets.
ASAN announced plans to work with the cross-disability community on a similar response to Autism Speaks’ campaign. “The voices of real autistic people, and of families who do not subscribe to the presentation of their family members as something sinister and criminal, clearly do not matter to Autism Speaks,” said Paula Durbin-Westby, an adult on the autism spectrum in Virginia, who serves on the board of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. “Our community is furious about Autism Speaks’ continued exploitation and will be taking action.”
Selected initial responses to Autism Speaks’ “I am Autism” campaign from bloggers in the Autism community follow:
Club 166 (Parent): http://club166.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-will-they-listen.html “The above video takes up where the Ransom Campaign ended, and goes on from there. Not content just to dehumanize autistic individuals, the Autism Speaks video goes on to paint a picture of horror using the most vivid imagery it can find-your marriage will fail, you will go broke, you will never be able to function in society at all, etc… Two years ago the NYU Child Study Center claimed ignorance of the way that autistic (and other disabled individuals) felt. The response at that time was heard throughout the country, even in major national media. I wonder what excuse Autism Speaks can possibly come up with this time.”
Turner and Kowalski (self-advocate): http://turnerandkowalski.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/i-am-autism-speaks/ “I am Autism SpeaksI will steal your voice and make sure you can never speak for yourself.I will steal your parents’ money and spend it on a residence on Park Avenue.I will use demeaning language to degrade, pity and marginalize you.I have declared war on you.”
http://daisymayfattypants.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-if-someone-did-this-with-say-downs.html “This is horrific. I cannot believe that these people thought it was OK to demonize a developmental disorder in this way, behaving as though autism were something separate from the people who have it, like a wart or a blight or a boil that should be burned off or lanced and drained before it infects someone else or destroys your marriage, rather than what it really is, a differential neural construct that is just as much a part of the people who have it as their eye color. Is there any other developmental difference or genetic disorder that could be vilified in this way with an assumption of impunity? Dyslexia? Schizophrenia? Tourette's? Depression? Chromosomal disorders? Doubt it.”
Sarah (Self-advocate): http://autisticcats.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-autism-embarrassment-trope.html “Autism Speaks seems to think that parents' embarrassment at their kids' meltdowns is more important than autistic kids' pain. They're wrong in that, and they're also wrong to suggest that donating money to Autism Speaks and trying to find a "cure" is the only way to solve this problem. Because while Autism Speaks-funded scientists play with genes in their laboratories, real autistic people are living our lives and will continue to suffer serious anxiety in many public places. Instead of writing another check to Autism Speaks, I suggest actually trying to figure out why an individual autistic person may be experiencing these difficulties. And taking steps on both a personal and societal level to ensure that public places are more accommodating of autistic people.
Autistic people deserve better than what Autism Speaks has to offer.”
-- Ari Ne'eman
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Reminiscent of the failed Ransom Notes campaign, the latest video in the Autism Speaks arsenal uses a disembodied “voice of autism” that uses threat tactics, aimed at parents of autistic children.
“Voice” of autism: The “voice” speaks in a creepy, gloating, clipped tone, accompanied by the type of music reserved for scary movie scenes, saying repeatedly “I will” do (something particularly nasty) to “you,” the parent of a child on the autism spectrum.
The litany of threats listed by the “voice” give an air of criminality to “autism.” Some of the threats include robbery, pain, and “relishing desperation.” “You ignored me… and that was a mistake,” threatens the voice.
“I am autism. I have no interest in right or wrong.” “I know no morality.” How dare Autism Speaks say that we have no interest in right or wrong? Yes, I know the creators of this video would say “It is autism that is speaking, not autistic people.” Think again: You cannot separate autism from the autistic individual; you impute immorality to us by pretending to speak “our” language. It’s offensive and it is damaging to us.
“Voices” of parents: The second half of the film is the “voices” of parents and others who are “fighting back.” A list of people who will fight against “autism” follows. “Parents, grandparents, schoolteachers, pediatricians, friends”, etc. Everyone but anyone on the spectrum.
“We speak the only language that matters,” the voices of the “autism community” assert. The “community” envisioned here is a monolithic community of fighters-against-autism and not the real-life community of parents (including autistic parents), families, and communities, many of whom are disgusted by Autism Speaks’ dehumanizing tactics.
The voices of real autistic people, and of families who do not subscribe to the personification of autism, and therefore their family members, as something sinister and criminal, clearly do not matter to Autism Speaks.
United Nations: Near the end of this section we hear repeated by many voices: “We are the United Nations.” It’s pretty clear that Autism Speaks is trying to gain a foothold in creeping out people in other countries.
The United Nations, by showing this film, violates its own principles in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
“As a change of perceptions is essential to improve the situation of persons with disabilities, ratifying countries are to combat stereotypes and prejudices and promote awareness of the capabilities of persons with disabilities (Article 8).”
Finally, a voice of a parent/autism community member asks: “Autism, are you listening?”
Yes we autistics and our families and friends are. We are listening to myths, negative stereotypes, the co-opting of our very real and human voices, being made, ironically enough, to say things that we would not say, threaten people in ways that we would not threaten them, and participate in our own stigmatization. And we will not rest until this sort of Ransom Notes-esque “autism awareness” campaign is thoroughly discredited.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201
Dear Secretary Sebelius:
Thank you for your leadership this week in bringing the issue of Long Term Services and Supports back into the health care reform discussion by expressing support for including the Community Living Attendant Services and Supports (CLASS) Act in the health care reform legislation currently making its way through the Congress. As leaders of grassroots disability organizations, we write to request a meeting so that we can open up a line of communication with you and your team as health care reform takes center stage.
The disability community has advocated that reforming Long Term Services and Supports (LTSS) is a critical component of any health care reform initiative. As you know, adequate home and community services are not only preferred by seniors and people with disabilities, but also save money by avoiding serious secondary medical conditions, unnecessary trips to the emergency room, hospital stays and doctor visits. With your letter supporting inclusion of the CLASS Act, the administration has taken a first step in addressing this critical issue.
Although the CLASS Act would expand resources available to individuals and families to purchase LTSS to enable them to remain in their own homes in the community, this legislation does not:
eliminate the institutional bias in the Medicaid program which forces Americans with disabilities and older Americans into nursing facilities and other institutions;
meet the needs of seniors and people with disabilities who are already in nursing facilities or other institutions or who are at immediate risk of being forced into such a setting;
address the needs of seniors and people with disabilities who will require LTSS but won’t qualify for the proposed benefit because they are not working;
address the needs of persons who acquire disabilities earlier in life and won't qualify because they cannot secure employment;
provide any actual assistance for five years after it is enacted because people must contribute for five years before they can receive any benefit;
or meet the needs of persons with significant disabilities who would require more assistance than would be provided under this benefit.
That’s why we need the Community Choice Act (S683/HR1670).
The Community Choice Act (CCA) would eliminate the institutional bias in Medicaid and give a real option for seniors and people with disabilities who want to live in the community with LTSS.
It would address the needs of individuals who are at risk of institutional placement and give people who are already in such settings an opportunity to return to community living. CCA would provide immediate relief to Americans who are struggling with this issue, whether they were born with a disability, acquired one later in life, or are helping a family member. CCA provides a safety net for people with the most significant disabilities and allows people with incomes above the Medicaid level to buy into this program. Ultimately, the Community Choice Act brings federal LTSS policy in line with the Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. L.C. decision, giving every American with a disability the right to live in the most integrated setting.
We are writing to urge that the administration express its public support for including the Community Choice Act in the Affordable Health Choices Act. As a Presidential candidate and as a United States Senator, President Obama has expressed his support for and cosponsored the Community Choice Act. This legislation has a broad base of support within the aging and disability communities. In fact, over 80 national aging and disability organizations have endorsed this legislation.
We look forward to working with you to end the institutional bias so that every American is given a real choice in how and where they receive long term services and supports. We respectfully request a meeting with you this month to discuss how we can work together to accomplish our mutual goals.
Bruce E. Darling
Andrew J. Imparato
President and CEO, American Association of People with Disabilities
President, The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Executive Director, Hearing Loss Association of America
Nancy J. Bloch
Chief Executive Officer, National Association of the Deaf
Executive Director, National Council on Independent Living
Daniel B. Fisher, MD, PhD
Steering Committee Member, National Coalition ofMental Health Consumer Survivor Organizations
Chester Finn, President, Self Advocates Becoming Empowered
cc: Henry Claypool, Director, Office on Disability
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Scott Michael Robertson
Board of Directors:
Paula C. Durbin-Westby
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
1660 L Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
Participate in the AASPIRE Gateway Project
You are invited to participate in a continuing online research project called the AASPIRE Gateway Project. This online research project is conducted by the Academic Autistic Spectrum Partnership in Research and Education (AASPIRE, http://aaspireproject.org) in collaboration with Oregon Health & Science University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Portland State University, and the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network.
The AASPIRE Gateway Project is recruiting participants with and without disabilities, and participants on the autism spectrum, for a series of continuing online studies on topics such as health care, Internet use, online sense of community, identity, problem solving, and perspective taking. The goals of the online AASPIRE Gateway Project are
(1) to collect the Gateway Survey data;
(2) to use the Gateway Survey data to invite eligible participants to AASPIRE’s continuing online research studies; and
(3) to use the Gateway Survey data in AASPIRE’s continuing online research studies.
You may participate in the AASPIRE Gateway Project and contribute to continuing AASPIRE research studies if you are at least 18 years old, and you have access to the Internet.
The first step in joining the AASPIRE Gateway Project is completing the online AASPIRE Gateway Survey. The AASPIRE Gateway Survey asks about (a) personal information, such as age, gender, disability, education, and employment status, (b) information about which hand you prefer to use when doing activities such as writing with a pen or pencil, and (c) information about your personal preferences regarding interests, habits, and social interactions. Completing the AASPIRE Gateway Survey will take approximately 20-40 minutes. In return, you may choose to be entered into a drawing for a 1 in 25 chance to win a $25 gift certificate to Amazon.com or to receive 1 extra credit point in your introductory psychology class if you are a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Adults who identify as having a disability and adults who identify as being on the autistic spectrum are especially encouraged to participate in the AASPIRE Gateway Project.
If you're interested in participating in the AASPIRE Gateway Project, or would like to learn more about AASPIRE or the study, here are three ways you can get started:
1) Go to the study’s website at www.aaspire.org/gateway.
2) Send an email to email@example.com.
3) Make a telephone call to Christina Nicolaidis, MD, MPH, at (503) 494-9602 or Morton Ann Gernsbacher, PhD, at (608) 262-6989.
OHSU IRB # 3762; UW IRB# SE-2008-0749
Principal Investigators: Christina Nicolaidis, MD, MPH, Oregon Health & Science University
Morton Ann Gernsbacher, PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Katherine McDonald, PhD, Portland State University
Dora Raymaker, Autistic Self-Advocacy Network
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tony Attwood Says What He Really Thinks about Cassandra Phenomenon and Affective Deprivation in his April 9, 2009 Video
Note: The anti-“Cassandra” campaign has nothing to do with Tony Attwood personally but everything to do with his endorsement of the “Cassandra Phenomenon” (aka “affective deprivation,” “Cassandra Affective Deprivation Disorder,” etc.). We continue to hope that Dr. Attwood will address the situation and disassociate himself from the concept, even given this recent video release.
In this video, posted on AutismHangout, and titled April 9, 2009, Tony Attwood clearly states:
[minute 7:47 into video] “We have what we call the Cassandra Phenomenon.
In Greek mythology, Cassandra had the gift of prophecy, but the curse that no one would believe her. So what can happen is that, at home, you see these sorts of components, but other people will think ‘You’re mad, what do you look for in a relationship?’, etc.
“Now, what you tend to get is a sense of loneliness. Often, ironically, the partner is an extreme socialite, which was chosen by the person with Asperger’s so that in fact, they could have social guidance: a maternal, caring, compassionate person, who is very good at understanding his point of view, but may not be that he’s good at understanding your point of view.
“So the issue is going to be: loneliness, affection deprivation [minute 8:37 into the video].
“When the person is upset at themselves or upset about something they tend to go inwards and not share their concerns or emotions and may get by with the capacity of affection that I call a “cup,” not a “bucket, and this particular lady may have the capacity of a bucket and she gets a cup. And she feels depressed, very very common with those who are a partner… who have a partner with Asperger syndrome. Now, there are a number of good books in this area, most published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers, at www.jkp.com and then a new book just out, by Maxine Aston, which is a workbook for couples. Now, one of my concerns here is that other people may not believe you and some people you can’t convince it unless you say “Marry him and live with him!”
Continuing at [Minute 10:07]: “And what happens is, you become Aspie. It’s an infectious process, and she may not like the sort of person she’s become…
On May 8, 2009, Attwood posted his form letter on the FAAAS site, as a response to the Autistic Self Advocacy Network’s petition, and as a response to the very many individuals who have written to him over the years.
Although in that letter, he claims that “Cassandra Affective Deprivation Disorder,” was coined by Maxine Aston and is not an official diagnostic category,” in fact, it’s quibbling.
Attwood himself started using, and still uses, the term “Cassandra Phenomenon” and also feels quite comfortable using “affective deprivation” at the same time that he publicly pretends to distance himself from the whole concept. In addition his unprofessional talk of the partner of a person with AS “becoming Aspie- it’s an infectious process” is both inaccurate and also demeaning. For people on the autism spectrum being compared with “infection,” and an infection that leads one to “not like what has become” one does wonder whether Attwood’s assertion in the form letter that “in all my presentations, I have approached the issues in a very positive way examining strategies to make a successful relationship" is accurate.
ASAN has addressed the inadequacy of the form letter here:
If Tony Attwood has, within the past two months, stopped believing in and using the terms “Cassandra Phenomenon,” “affective deprivation,” and the metaphor of “infectious process” he should immediately inform the Autistic community, either via another form letter posted to FAAAS, on his website, or directly to Autistic individuals.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Dr. Attwood: I would like to state quite clearly that having a diagnosis of autism or Asperger’s syndrome does not render a person automatically incapable of being a good partner and parent. Indeed, many of the people I know with autism and Asperger’s syndrome as clients and friends are exceptionally good parents and partners. Should a separation occur between partners and a Court examine the issue of custody of children and access then in my opinion, any decisions should be made on the basis of the abilities of each parent and not simply assume that a parent with autism or Asperger’s syndrome is incapable of being a good parent.
ASAN: In addition to the possibility that an Autistic person might be assumed to be automatically incapable of being a good partner and parent, which is the most extreme danger posed by false stereotypes of family violence, these stereotypes have given rise to more subtle forms of discrimination in family law. FAAAS has explicitly urged family law courts and social workers to view Autistic partners and parents as more likely than others to be abusive. An article by Sheila Jennings Linehan on the FAAAS website, entitled Representing Cassandra in Matrimonial Law, characterizes the non-Autistic spouse as "a normal individual subjected to prolonged moral distress" who is not believed when she "accurately predicts future harm to her children." Along with Maxine Aston, the article specifically cites you, Dr. Attwood, as authority for such statements. FAAAS member Harriet Simons presents seminars for social workers in which she makes similar claims. Your continued association with FAAAS suggests that you endorse these false claims and, as such, increases the risk that Autistics and others with neurological disabilities will face discrimination within the family law system.
Dr. Attwood: The term “Cassandra Affective Deprivation Disorder” has been coined by Maxine Aston. It is not an official diagnostic category. I do know that stress within a relationship between an adult with Asperger’s syndrome and their partner can lead to the neurotypical partner having signs of a clinical depression. Effective relationship counselling by a counsellor knowledgeable in the area of autism and Asperger’s syndrome can significantly improve the relationship and help alleviate the signs of depression.
ASAN: By failing to acknowledge that stress within a relationship can contribute to depression for either partner, Dr. Attwood—and by your repeated endorsements of Maxine Aston in books and interviews—you are perpetuating the false claim that being in a relationship with an Autistic partner is psychologically harmful to a non-Autistic partner. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for suggesting that depression affects only the non-Autistic partner or that it is caused by affective deprivation related to the Autistic partner's responses. Several recent research studies specifically examining the affective dimensions of empathy and alexithymia found no impairment in the affective responses of Autistic individuals. (Rogers, Dziobek, Hassenstab, Wolf, & Convit, 2007; Berthoz & Hill, 2005; Silani, Bird, Brindley, Singer, Frith, & Frith, 2008.) Rather, cognitive and linguistic differences lead to misunderstandings. Thus, a presumption that the non-Autistic partner suffers from affective deprivation is unwarranted. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network recommends that those who counsel couples with one Autistic partner should adopt a nonjudgmental approach to identifying and constructively addressing misunderstandings that have occurred.
Dr. Attwood: According to my knowledge, there is no research to suggest that people with autism and Asperger’s syndrome are likely to be violent in a relationship to any greater degree than a typical person in the general population. I do know that a significant proportion of the clients that I see in my clinical practice express to me their concern in their ability to manage their temper but we now have programs such as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy to help those with autism and Asperger’s syndrome manage feelings such as anger. Problems with anger management also occur in the ordinary population but the nature of the treatment of difficulties with anger management must include an appreciation of the different experiences and cognitive profile of someone with an Autism Spectrum Disorder.
ASAN: Research studies have established that Autistics are no more likely to commit violent acts or violent crimes than the general population (Murrie, Warren, Kristiansson, & Dietz, 2002; Barry-Walsh & Mullen, 2004). Notwithstanding the scientific evidence, however, FAAAS has repeatedly and falsely stereotyped Autistics as likely to be violent and abusive toward family members and others. When interviewed in July 2008 for a Canwest News Service article, Karen Rodman, founder of FAAAS, asserted that Autistics often lose their temper for no reason. In a local news interview with the Cape Cod Times in February 2007, Rodman argued that Autistic students should be put into segregated schools because their presence purportedly could endanger other students. Dr. Attwood, by continuing to associate with FAAAS and by serving on its Professional Advisory Panel, you are in effect endorsing and lending your credibility to these harmful and prejudiced assertions. In this context, your discussion of clients seeking help for anger problems, who clearly are not a representative sample of the Autistic population as a whole, serves only to muddy the waters further.
Dr. Attwood: I have presented workshops for FAAAS for couples where one of the partners has a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome and in all my presentations, I have approached the issues in a very positive way examining strategies to make a successful relationship.
ASAN: In light of the clearly documented history of false stereotypes of violence and psychological harm promoted by FAAAS and other groups associated with the pseudoscientific affective deprivation concept, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network suggests that presenting couples workshops in different venues would be far more likely to result in positive and successful relationships. Dr. Attwood, we therefore reiterate our demands that you promptly disassociate yourself from Maxine Aston, FAAAS, and all similar groups and apologize to our community for the harm done by your past associations with them.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Supreme Court is seeking to resolve a conflict among the Circuit Courts of Appeals, which have taken conflicting approaches to the question of whether a court's analysis of the content of an IEP should consider only the written IEP or whether the court has discretion to consider other evidence as well.
Parents play a major role in developing an IEP, which is analogous to a contract with the school district specifying the educational services to be provided to the child. Related services such as occupational therapy also must be specified in the IEP pursuant to federal law as set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(4). School districts are prohibited from making unilateral decisions about a child's IEP.
Consistent with the general rule that in contract law, evidence outside the written terms of the contract ordinarily is not admissible in court, three Courts of Appeals have ruled that only the written IEP should be considered in determining whether it is adequate. However, three other Courts of Appeals, including the court from which the Winkelman case was appealed, reached the opposite conclusion in deciding that an IEP lacking the required specific content could nevertheless be found valid based on consideration of other evidence.
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network is asking the Supreme Court to rule that when courts analyze the content of an IEP to determine its adequacy, only the written IEP should be considered. A school district should not be allowed to omit required content from a child's IEP and then to assert later that it intended to supplement the IEP. Allowing districts to postpone decisions on the content of an IEP can lead to considerable delay in providing occupational therapy and other necessary services. The educational well-being of Autistic children and other students with disabilities is best served when they receive therapy without interruption or delay.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Ari Ne'eman writes:
"As we speak, Congress is deliberating on vast and important changes to the system of health care in the United States. This issue is one of crucial importance to all Americans, but of particular interest to those Americans who interact with public health insurance more than almost any other group -- people with disabilities."
Among the topics addressed are:
1. Long Term Services and Supports (LTSS)
2. Health Care Disparities for People with Disabilities
3. Insurance Discrimination
4. Stop discrimination in the provision of care
To read more click on the link above.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The House Committee on Education and Labor held a full hearing this morning on Examining the Abusive and Deadly Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Schools.
One of the witnesses, Toni Price, testified about the death of Cedric Napoleon, who was a foster child in her care at the time he was killed by improper use of restraint.
According to Price’s testimony, and verified by Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations U.S. Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C., the death, which occurred in Texas in 2002, was ruled a homicide.
The grand jury did not indict the teacher.
The student is said to have been restrained because “he would not stay seated.”
The teacher now teaches in a public high school in Loudoun County, VA. The teacher is licensed to instruct children with disabilities.
According to Gregory Kutz, The Loudoun County schools were informed about this last Friday, May 15.
It is not known whether VDOE was made aware of the teacher’s homicidal act in Texas at the time of hiring.
Toni Price’s testimony can be found here:
Kutz’s testimony can be found here:
An article published at the time of Cedric’s death appears here:
To leave comments at the Committee on Education and Labor's blog, go here:
Monday, May 18, 2009
Scientists are closing in on the genes linked to autism. So why is Ari Ne'eman so worried?
By Claudia Kalb NEWSWEEKPublished May 16, 2009 From the magazine issue dated May 25, 2009
A few lines from the article:
Neurodiversity activists see their mission as a fight for civil rights, and Ne'eman and others are willing to stir unrest. "Ari's very straightforward," says Lee Grossman, head of the Autism Society of America, who supports many of Ne'eman's efforts. "He tells it like it is from his perspective."
"We're having a national conversation about autism without the voices of people who should be at the center of that conversation."
The May 25 2009 issue is on newsstands now. Read more at:
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
ASAN-VA recommendations for proposed revisions to Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children With Disabilities in Virginia
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the leading organization run by and for autistic people rather than parents or providers, recommends the following:
The developmentally delayed category must conform, at a minimum, to the age range of three through nine, as detailed in 34 CFR Part 300.8(b). Many children will not be identified by the age of 5; additional time will ensure that children are correctly identified and avoid miscategorization, which can cause severe educational delays. We recommend keeping the current Virginia definition of developmental delay intact, with a definition of 2-5 for preschoolers and 6-9 for elementary-aged children. All language in the proposed regulations that restricts a child’s access to FAPE based on “age eligibility” should be removed.
Expand the definition of autism under 34 CFR 300.8(c)(1)(i) so that the full autism spectrum ranging from what is often called “classic autism,” Asperger Syndrome, PDD-NOS, Rett Syndrome, and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder are included. This will underscore that appropriate services should be provided to all children on the autism spectrum, and also avoid the pitfalls of mislabeling or denial of eligibility for FAPE.
Retain the specific learning disability of dyslexia in the form found in 34 CFR 300.8(10)(i). The proposed revision of the definition of dyslexia is too narrow and by its focus on phonological component of language disregards other components of dyslexia and may result in the denial of appropriate services.
Interpreting services are beneficial for children with disabilities other than deaf and hard-of-hearing. Children with Down Syndrome, apraxia, autism, and other disabilities can benefit from interpreting services. Eliminate disability-specific language so that a broad range of children who need these services can be included.
Retain the child study committee. Elimination of the child study committee may result in missed opportunities for the identification of children with disabilities, which will adversely affect subsequent eligibility for services at an appropriate age. This could set a child up for long-term difficulties in the school setting.
Retain all parental involvement as defined in the current special education regulations, including participation in Functional Behavioral Assessment, parental consent for the termination of services, and involvement in, determination of members of, and notification of changes to the IEP. Parents must also retain all rights outlined in 34 CFR 300.530(e)(1), (2) and (3): Discipline Procedures, in order to ensure that all pertinent information is received and considered, regarding a manifestation determination of a child’s disability.
Address disproportionality concerns by implementing Early Intervening Services found in 34 CFR Part 300.226: “An LEA may not use more than 15 percent of the amount the LEA receives under Part B of the Act for any fiscal year….to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services…”
Work to address underdiagnosis of the autism spectrum in rural, minority and low-income communities by dedicating funding towards training and other identification measures through the state Child Find infrastructure.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The past half-century has seen a great proliferation in new kinds of conversation about rights. Once primarily relevant in the context of criminal justice and property disputes, rights-based discourses have expanded their scope throughout our society. We have civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, disability rights, immigrant rights, GLBT rights, commercial rights, social rights, privacy rights, animal rights, children’s rights, student rights, parental rights and countless more. Though we may not all agree on the extent or even legitimacy of them, it cannot be disputed that we have broadened our global conception of the role for this concept called rights in our social, legal, economic, policy and societal frameworks. And yet, at the same time as we have updated the role of rights-based conversations in our society, we remain with some very obsolete ideas about where rights come from. This holds us back.
We go out to the world and we tell them in so many ways that it is time for our rights to be realized. We talk about inclusion, we talk about integration, we talk about access, but when we are asked why, our answers are typically phrased in the language of either cost-benefit or desperate need. The one turns our civil rights struggle into a conversation on policy technicalities; the other evokes the very charity-oriented model of disability support that we have been trying to escape. Neither type of response brings the understanding and the knowledge necessary to communicate both the nature and the urgency of our priorities because both talk about rights without talking about where they derive. To legitimize our rights, we have to explain where they are from and so show that they do exist in the ways we talk about.
But where do rights derive? That is the question. The enlightenment political philosophy that our country was based on put forward the idea of a social contract, arrived at by individuals in a state of anarchy, determining to place some of their G-d-given natural rights into a central government for the purpose of securing the remaining ones. This theory carries with it much charm – it fits with our nation’s philosophy of government by the people, for the people, it recognizes and respects rights as inalienable, not temporal whims to be overridden by the first tyrant with a passing fancy. Unfortunately, it is anachronistic and also inaccurate. There has never been a state of nature and our modern ideas of rights go far beyond the negative right protections against government intervention that are all this model allows for. Our community would not be the only one left out by such a limited conception of rights, but we certainly would be one of the first and one of the worst served.
What does that leave us? Where do rights come from? The United States Declaration of Independence says that men are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”. I believe that to be true – for both men and women, it should be noted. And yet, for our purposes, this does not help us very much. Because the very reason we seek a source for rights in the first place is to help us understand what they are. Barring a theocracy tied to a particular holy text, the belief that rights are divinely inspired does not shed much light on their nature.
You, the people here gathered today, represent some of the most important leaders of a movement devoted to securing and advancing recognition of the rights of a segment of the global population that has been denied them, perhaps more extensively and more pervasively than any other. For generations upon generations the very idea that our population was discriminated against, was deprived of rights was not even on the agenda. Disability was – and in so many senses, still is perceived – as a problem that should be solved by charity and whose persistence could be blamed only on the lack of sufficient humanitarian instincts on the part of the public and the as yet too slow progression of medical science. Disability rights were not on the agenda as far as rights crusaders were concerned – that was a province for those who ministered to the poor unfortunates of the world, the sad accidents, the there but for the grace of G-d go I angels who gave of themselves and found meaning in those tragic burdens.
Then things started to change – not so much with the world, though it is starting, slowly and not yet by any means surely, but with ourselves. We began not to conceive of our existences as mistakes, our misfortunes as G-d’s will and our utility limited to being gracious for that which hath been given us. We got activated. We got interested. We got angry. We looked out on the world and found the blame for our misfortune lied not with G-d or with medical defects but with a society that was built up for centuries upon centuries without any thought to the prospect that people like us might live in it. In that moment – and we have each found it at different points in our lives – but in that moment, we saw power abused, we saw injustice – in short, we saw wrongs and so our rights were born. In that moment – that epiphany – the world changed for us, and disability rights were born.
In my own community – that of Autistic adults and youth, a group that has been targeted with an unprecedented wave of fear and pity-mongering as of late by entities that unjustly attempt to speak on our behalf – this paradigm shift is motivated by multiple sources. At one level, the socially constructed nature of at least some of our difficulties is a simple conclusion to reach, as many of our challenges are social in nature. At another level, our community’s outrage at lack of representation in the national conversation about us brought us to the disability rights outlook. This is represented for us in the neurodiversity movement, which seeks to recognize our neurology as legitimate and change the autism conversation from one of cures and eugenics to one of quality of life and equality of opportunity. Our movement for what we desire – independent, understanding, opportunity and respect – is a response to attempts to force on us what we oppose – dependency, isolation, pity and loss of control over our own lives.
The very foundation of our legal system comes from something remarkably similar. Why do we guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of petition, freedom of assembly, much less the right to a speedy and public trial or to not have troops quartered in ones home? It is a direct outgrowth of our experiences with the British crown and it was only once we had that experience with injustice that we could properly understand what justice looked like. A quick look across history will reveal much the same thing. Our national experience with slavery imprinted us with the right to freedom from forced servitude on the basis of race. The gains of the civil rights movement were not just the result of superior organization and a superb moral cause, they were our nation’s recognition – still partial – of the legacy of lynching, segregation and racism. Anti-Semitism was driven from the country club to the conspiracy theory fringe when the knowledge of the Holocaust came into our homes. Gay rights have advanced because of public awareness of brutal hate crimes such as the torture and murder of Matthew Shepard. To quote Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, rights come from wrongs.
Let us be clear. This does not mean that we are purchasing social goods with our victimhood. There are those who would put it in those terms – the people who claim that we are owed something not because it is objectively just for us to receive it but because of our community having been deprived something else that should justly have been ours. Many aspects of the disability policy framework built in decades past are built on that idea, the retributive model of disability. This is the concept behind much of our Social Security Disability infrastructure. The result of it has, in fact, been a form of inaccessible infrastructure unto itself, with individuals forced to swear, even as many are only just starting their lives, that they are incapable of ever working in meaningful employment in order for them to gain the government support necessary to survive. This system was built on old assumptions of dependency – it was built for the conversation about need, not for the one about rights and about justice. It is one of many examples of the kind of infrastructure we must radically alter if we hope to bring the conversation about disability into the 21st century. Another example can be found in the judicial decisions that necessitated the recently signed into law ADA Amendments Act. For what reason did the disability community have to, eighteen years after the ADA first came into effect, work to pass it once again for a considerable portion of the disability population? It is because the judges that interpreted the narrow definition of disability that the legislation sought to fix saw the ADA as a law about charity – specifically, charity for the most severely impaired – not justice for all those who are being discriminated against.
What does the idea of rights coming from wrongs imply then, if not compensation for having been victimized? It should serve to show us what direction our advocacy should take and, much more importantly, it should show the public reason why the goals our advocacy aspires to realize are important. For too long, our civil rights movement has been one by stealth. Even as we built tremendous political power and created civil rights laws and social welfare programs, we often did it not by making a credible claim that this is the way the world should be, but by playing on the idea that society should show “compassion” and “pity” for the disabled. This was not entirely our fault. We’re dealing with a media and, as a result, a general public that has not even begun to understand the nature and implications of disability rights. But regardless of why we are here, we still have to deal with the results of having won our legal and political victories while bypassing the social ones that should have come first. The consequence is that our movement and all the progress it has brought is still seen, in most circles, as one of charity or worse still as a stopgap until – be it by eugenics, euthanasia or medical cures – disability is no longer a part of the human experience. This is what Dr. tenBroek was referring to when he wrote about our “right to live in the world” and the failure of the broader community to accept that right as of yet.
This knowledge places our struggle for recognition of even our victories on the civil rights front in context. Why, almost twenty years after the ADA, do we still see such extensive discrimination and lack of access in terms of employment and places of public accommodation? Why, ten years after Olmstead, do we still see institutions and nursing homes that are near impossible for our people to escape? Why, after Deaf President Now and many similar such actions are so many disability organizations groups that speak about us, without us? Why after the MDA Labor Day Telethon and Ransom Notes and countless other examples of unethical fundraising and advertising tactics do we still see media campaigns that devalue our very personhood and cast us as less than human?
The answer is because when we come to the public with our demands of rights and speak those rights unto the world with all the passion of that aforementioned epiphany, the world only sees part of the message. They see the demand for rights but not the wrongs from which the rights were born. They look at the individual who uses a wheelchair who cannot enter an inaccessible building or the Autistic student who, like I myself have been, is excluded from his home school and what they see is not an inaccessible infrastructure but needy, pitiful dependents. And they may meet our immediate demands for laws and public programs, as charity is still seen as necessary and good and proper by so many well-meaning souls. However, the enforcement of those laws and the implementation of those programs will never be as urgent or as meaningful a priority to them as it is for the “true” civil rights movements.
To them, this is still very much a conversation about need – not injustice. This is not a petty distinction. To have a conversation about justice is to call for a civil rights movement that all members of the human community should feel a moral obligation to join and support. To have a conversation about mere need is to call only for charity conducted mostly by those who usually do not feel that need themselves and have their own ideas about the manner in which it should be fulfilled.
I am reminded, by way of example, of an experience my group, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, had when leading a protest against offensive advertisements depicting children with disabilities as kidnap victims posted across New York City. The campaign, called “Ransom Notes”, consisted of faux ransom notes from the disabilities that had taken the normal children that were supposedly once in the bodies of now disabled young people. We mobilized thousands of Autistic people and those with other disabilities, brought support from two dozen national and regional disability rights organizations and also garnered some support from sympathetic segments of the parent and professional community. Finally, after thousands of phone calls and e-mails, our story began to hit the media – with the UPI headline, “Ads anger parents of autistic children.”
Of course the story was accurately reported in other news sources and we did succeed in getting the ads withdrawn, but there is a certain sense of frustration over the lack of agency that is allowed our community. Even when every single one of the organizations doing press outreach and explaining our case to the public were consumer-controlled disability rights organizations, the only available paradigm that the media could place this in was one in which we were only passive onlookers as our parents fought on our behalf. Every disability group and most disability rights activists have similar stories.
And so even as we spend more money and more political will on disability issues than we ever have before, we are limited in what we can achieve because the conversation is not one about justice, it is not one about recognizing wrongs and rectifying the institutions that continue to commit them. It isn’t about putting power in the hands of the people who have been deprived it. It is about charity and dependency and all of those other things that infantilize and marginalize us, controlled by those who speak for us on our behalf and without our permission.
The average member of the public does not know about Buck v. Bell or the tens of thousands of Americans with disabilities or perceived to have disabilities who were involuntarily sterilized as a result of the eugenics movement. They do not know about Willowbrook or the countless Americans with disabilities who have had to live out their whole lives in institutions – much less the many Americans with disabilities who still must suffer this segregation. They don’t know about the Judge Rotenberg Center or school abuse through aversives, restraint and seclusion. The people in charge of our futures do not understand our history. They don’t see ADAPT calling out, “We Will Ride” or “Free Our People”. They don’t see Deaf President Now at Gallaudet. All they see is the Jerry Lewis MDA telethon or the Autism Speaks fear-mongering television advertisements or Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey promoting pseudo-scientific claims of pharmaceutical company-government conspiracies to poison their children into autism with vaccines. It isn’t just because the money and the media power is in the hands of those other groups. It’s because the public narrative about disability doesn’t know where to place groups like ASAN and the NFB and a movement like ours. The ideas about dependency run so deep, the charity and victim models are so ingrained, that the response of most reporters and members of the general public to our message is one of cognitive dissonance before pigeonholing our movement into whatever disability narrative is easiest for them to classify us into. Maybe this is why the disability movement has not yet had our Rodney King or Matthew Shepard moment – since the concept of disabled people as suffering is a natural, normal, expected thing in the eyes of the media and the public, suffering brought on from discrimination or abuse is simply placed into the same, “unfortunate but unavoidable” category as all disability-related misfortunes tend to be.
A perfect example of this can be found in the Supreme Court’s Alabama v. Garrett decision, were the court struck down Congress’s attempt to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states from damages under ADA lawsuits on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to “identify a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the disabled." To a slim majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court, disability discrimination is not the result of having built infrastructures for only a portion of the population but a perfectly rational act that the equal protection clause cannot be expected to serve as a remedy for. To quote the Court, “the Fourteenth Amendment does not require States to make special accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions toward such individuals are rational. They could quite hardheadedly–and perhaps hardheartedly–hold to job-qualification requirements which do not make allowance for the disabled. If special accommodations for the disabled are to be required, they have to come from positive law and not through the Equal Protection Clause.” Here, once again, disability rights are not matters of equal protection given to full citizens under the law, they are portrayed as matters of charity that good hearted people engage in.
The good news is that this does show us what our next steps should be. It explains the biggest obstacle for the disability rights movement’s ascension to the next level of rights discourse in America - placing us on par with other minority groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation and similar attributes. That obstacle is the failure to take our message to the public. I’m pleased by the progress that we’re seeing in that direction in respect to the growing Disability History movement, attempting to incorporate the history of people with disabilities and our civil rights struggle into the classroom just as the experiences of other American minority groups has been incorporated. In many ways, finding a way to cement our past into the American national narrative will be the best way to ensure we have a future. We must carry that message forward, but to succeed we need our President and Congressional representatives to join us in making that case to the American people. Furthermore, it is important for us to memorialize and to educate the public about the achievements of men such as Dr. Jacobeus tenBroek as well as other disability leaders like Ed Roberts or Justin Dart not just to pay respect to those who have gone before but to show the world that we do have a history of taking control over our own lives and that there is a real and legitimate civil rights movement of, by and for people with disabilities. To quote Ed Roberts, “the greatest lesson of the civil rights movement is that the moment you let others speak for you, you lose.” Showing the world those parts of our past where we have confronted the wrongs that are being committed against us and restored agency to our community is one way for us to take back our voice.
Another thing that we must do is to begin to confront and to confront vigorously those organizations and groups that speak about us, without us. When Jerry Lewis or VOR or Autism Speaks go to the public and claim to represent the needs and perspectives of the disability community with their calls for more pity, more segregation, more eugenics and more distance from our dream of being recognized as equal citizens in this society, they perpetrate upon us an obscenity. This obscenity nevertheless has use in that teaches us about how important to the disability rights movement it is for us to take control of our own message and our own community. We must organize not just around laws but around the public conversation on disability, confronting those corporate donors and political infrastructures that give support to these repressive, fear-mongering groups that challenge our right to live in this world. To quote Dr. tenBroek himself, “there are…large and powerful agencies abroad in the land, considerable in number and vast in influence, which remain hostile to our movement in thought, in speech, and in action. Under the guise of professionalism, [they] would perpetuate colonialism. [Their] philosophy is a throwback to the age of the silent client, before the revolution in welfare and civil rights, which converted the client into an active and vocal partner in the programming and dispensing of services. In…[their]…lofty disregard of the organized blind as the voice of those to be served, [they] betray bureaucratic bias that is…[an]…image of the blind client not as a person to be served but as a defective mechanism to be serviced.” The same could be said about many similar groups that speak about us, without us in many disability communities.
Finally, in order to communicate our message to the public, we must also realize that the most effective social change comes not from activism but from individuals. For the public to understand that the disability message is a civil rights message, they must hear that message from their friends, their family members and their co-workers with disabilities. Beyond this, for us to accomplish that, we must succeed in broadening the base of the disability rights movement to encompass a broader scope of people with disabilities in general. There remain too many people with disabilities who do not yet have the chance to participate in our community. We must broaden our community and give every disabled person access to the disability culture and perspective.
I’d like to end by quoting American philosopher Henry David Thoreau, who said, “You have built castles in the clouds, now you must build the foundation underneath them.” As we talk about how to imprint the American public with the meaning and message of the disability rights movement, we talk about what must be done to build the foundations that will show that our vision is no dream. This is what we must do. This is what we can do. This is what we will do. Thank you for your time and I look forward to working with all of you to bring this hope into reality.
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Paula C. Durbin-Westby
May 4, 2009
[Sentences in square brackets are for clarification purposes and were not spoken.]
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
You may now have two people who are interested in summarizing the 120 scientific studies mentioned earlier. [in reference to only 6 IACC members submitting comments on hundreds of scientific studies up for review].
Augmentative and Alternative Communication:
It is gratifying to see that the IACC is addressing the critical issue of Augmentative and Alternative Communication.
Now it is time to allocate funding to AAC research. Including a presentation about AAC is an important but preliminary step.
Since communication difficulties are experienced by many people on the autism spectrum, funding research in this area should be a high priority. Advances in communication technology, and the development of AAC options that are affordable, will have a practical application to the lives of people on the autism spectrum, throughout the entire lifespan.
Because of the extreme disparity between services/quality of life funding and the funding of basic research, funding for AAC should be diverted from the millions of dollars allocated to genetic and treatment research and NOT drawn from the already minimal funding for service-related research.
Community-Based Participatory Research:
I recommend using a community-based participatory research model for AAC and other research. Rather than being “grown-up children” as far as research is concerned, autistic adults must be included as collaborators in research, for both practical and ethical reasons. The community-based participatory research paradigm is one model; others may be developed and utilized. [“grown-up children” in reference to comment made by Susan Swedo about the role of autistic adults in research studies.]
One likely outcome of including people on the autism spectrum as collaborators and co-researchers is that the research will be made more relevant to the lives of people on the autism spectrum, including not only adults but children as well.
Just one example from a current research area is that of eye contact research. It has been recently discovered that autistic children look at mouths more than at eyes. Although this is an exciting new discovery for researchers and others, it is not necessarily news to people on the autism spectrum, who are often aware of the reasons and motivation for our own actions.
In addition, studies have already been undertaken that show that typically-developing children also use multi-modal perception to process their experiences.
It has been suggested that some sort of retraining could be done to direct children to not look at mouths but at eyes. The theory is that by looking at mouths children, and presumably adults who do not make much eye contact, are missing important social cues… and that we don’t make use of our peripheral vision.
While it is critical to understand the underlying mechanisms for human communications and processes, the design and application of scientific theories, especially when young children are involved, should have participation, input, and oversight from people on the autism spectrum.
Researchers should take into consideration the numerous self-reports of people on the autism spectrum about the necessity of looking at people’s mouths in order to compensate for auditory processing difficulties, among other reasons. Including co-researchers who are on the autism spectrum can positively inform research so that time and taxpayer money are not wasted and so that studies involving autistic children as subjects do not cause additional difficulties when children are retrained to look away from mouths and possibly lose a significant visual method of accessing receptive communication. Audio-visual synchronies are important not just because they are early indicators of autism but because they are a critical component in how we make sense of communication inputs.
Once again, a chronic or fatal disease model or metaphor is not appropriate for autism. Autism is not fatal like cancer, and, as an autistic person with kidney disease, I can tell you that they are not comparable. The IACC must promote appropriate language to reduce myth-making and stigma. [reference to comments comparing autism to cancer and kidney disease.]
Autistic self-advocate organization as public member:
The time has come for the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee to include representation from autistic self-advocacy organizations such as the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, which has had a representative at all but one of the IACCC meetings since November 2007. Autistic self-advocacy organizations are an increasingly recognized stakeholder in autism policymaking and should not be purposely excluded from the Committee that makes decisions about federal funding for research. The public law that created the current IACC has been in place since 2006/2007. The newly founded Autism Science Foundation has is represented, if not officially [by Alison Singer, president of that organization] but still no representative from a major autistic self-advocacy organization has been named to the committee. Adding a public member from an autistic self-advocate organization will begin to redress the existing imbalance in parity, and add a much-needed dimension of focus on research and policy that will benefit people on the autism spectrum across our lifespans.
This will enable research into AAC, eye contact, and other areas, to move from the “promising practice” realm to a best-practice reality.
1. R000239930- Benefits of Averting Gaze and Cues to Comprehension. Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth.
2. Read My Lips: Using Multiple Senses in Speech Perception. Rosenblum, Lawrence D. Current Directions in Psychological Science
3. YouTube video on multi-modal processing:
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Here is a link to an article on ASAN's Public Service Announcement produced with the Dan Marino Foundation.
The article is by columnist Valerie Brew-Parrish.