Introduction
One of the most profound social issues within the realm of employment has to be that of equality within the workforce. When one examines equality it brings to task the notion of diversity within the workforce. The notion that equality and diversity are mutually exclusive is one that has raised much concern especially within contemporary society. It has been argued that programs which focus on diversity do so at the detriment of equality. This can be examined especially within the scope of the marginalization of individuals with disabilities. This paper will examine the scope and ramifications of equality and diversity of individuals with disabilities and will illustrate that equality can be achieved through diversity especially for disabled individuals in the workforce.
Disability Movements
As a direct result of the adverse experiences of people with disabilities and the many barriers restricting their activities, the subject of disability was one that was politicized and had demanded attention by the political systems much like the other Civil Rights movements.
For the first time, the disabled represented an interest group and their cause was motivated by the growing concern that individuals with disabilities were systematically victimized and will continue to be violated until something was done to bring attention to their plight (Ward & Meyer, 1999). Through sustained activism and advocacy, disability was transformed from a simple cause to one that had taken on a rights-based connotation (Yongjoo & Haider-Markel, 2001).
The fight to end the systematic discrimination of the disabled was one that was marked by serious limitations on social and political participation. This discrimination prevailed despite the ongoing governmental efforts aimed at improving inclusion of individuals with disabilities. An example of this can be seen in the fact that the employment rates among individuals with disabilities had not been significantly impacted after the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Many disability activists and advocates consistently questioned the efficacy and integrity of governmental programs designed to support the efforts of individuals with disabilities and their families in securing full participation of individuals with disabilities in society. In fact, the Disability Rights Movement has been criticized on the basis that it was a mere duplication in legislative action with regards to the marginalized. It was felt that disabilities policies (especially the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) were unnecessarily litigious, counter-productive, and failed to represent the collective interests of the stakeholders.
These differing interpretations of policy effects facilitate the need for more effective communication with regards to disabilities as well as a more comprehensive understanding of the varying perceptions of stakeholders’ as they relate to the rights and personal characteristics of the disabled (Fleischer & Zames, 2001).
The impact of social movements and interest groups on the delineation and definition of the issues involved remains ambiguous to a great extent as there is a wide range of limitations faced by individuals with disabilities. Essentially, individuals often vary in the problem definitions they choose to adopt (Rochefort & Cobb, 1994). As with any other civil rights movement, the involvement of citizen as well as their attachment to social movement groups varies with some individuals adopting the issue definition advocated by the social movement while others deviate from this definition. Issue definition at the individual level, however, remains vital because it determines whether individuals exhibit a propensity to make claims on government during policy implementation.
This in turn affects the overall impact of the program and reiterates the point that the sole purpose of the government is to respond to the needs of its constituents. The practical implications of this are such than when the demands of the different groups are viewed together; these demands serve to influence program funding as well as to refine the focus of governmental initiatives. Essentially, our frame of thought with regards to social problems relies on the operational definition we utilize when referring to them.
Throughout the course of the addressing the social model of disability, one general theme remains evident. That theme relates to the notion that much of the inherent inaccessibility to services for individuals with limitations has a strong socio-economic tie (Lieberman, 2002). This is most evident in the comparative incomes of individuals with limitations and those without. The first salient point to be made here is that there is a general correlation between income and political participation. Essentially, individuals of higher income generally participate in political activities while individuals of lower socio-economic status are actively engaged in their day-to-day survival (Milbrath & Goel, 1977).
In fact Verba, Scholozman & Brady (1995) purport that individuals of higher socio-economic status possess more civic skills when compared to their lower socio-economic counterparts. This effectively accounts for the difference in participation in politics and alignment with movements for the disenfranchised based on socio-economic status. Furthermore, political participation has a strong association with the development of a more intimate understand o the political environment taken within a social context.
As a direct result, personal involvement in the political process facilitates a clear understanding of the adverse effects of policy and prompts action on the part of the civic minded individual. The implications of this are such that there has been a class-based determination of policy as it relates to individuals with impairments and the end result is the expectation that middle and upper class individuals are more likely to encourage initiatives aimed at ending marginalization of the disabled (Lieberman, 2002).
The most poignant contributors to the Disability Movement have to be the body of legislation which denounces exclusionary practices in both education and employment. Even this body of legislation has proven to be discriminatory in nature in that it utilized generalizations in its descriptions of individuals with limitations. These individuals have been described as individuals with special needs and as such they have been further marginalized. A look at the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seems to be illustrative of this fact. This act was effective in ensuring that disabled individuals were offered the necessary services in order to achieve maintain employment. It however, did not eliminate the preconceived notions with regards to individuals with disabilities and individuals with disabilities continued to be marginalized.
The push to normalization has also been instrumental in ensuring that there is an assurance of education for the developmentally disabled for the first time in 1970. As such, the achievements were remarkable and have changed the lives of many disabled individuals.
Despite this remarkable achievement, some of the ideas within the Social Model of disability proved problematic in that the inclusion of individuals with disabilities facilitated unwarranted attention to the disabled. In lieu of full inclusion of all individuals with developmental disabilities, some theories dictate that such individuals should engage in a constant process of self-regulation to avoid drawing attention to their perceived difference and thereby increasing their chances of social acceptance and ‘passing’. Once again this is reverting to the individual treatment of individuals with disabilities rather than unilateral inclusion (Tregaskis, 2004).
The Disability Movement has made significant changes in the lives of individuals with disabilities. These changes include the inclusion of individuals with disabilities within both the educational and employment segments. It was instrumental in the passage of several prolific pieces of legislature. We have seen a transformation from a medical model of disabilities to a social one. Despite this the attitudes of many individuals have seen very little transformation.
Individuals with disabilities are viewed as “abnormal” and their needs are minimized by virtue of normalization movements. Individuals with disabilities have special challenges they face each day. These challenges include inaccessibility of services. Much of this is due to the physical barriers these individuals face. Over the course of time, this inaccessibility is changing but as much as the services are made accessible to individuals with disabilities, the stigmatism and marginalization remains.
This will not change until each and every one of us becomes cognizant of the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities and attempt to treat individuals with disabilities as we would able-bodied individuals. On the most fundamental level, these individuals need to be treated with the same respect and dignity afforded each person by virtue of being human.
After having examined the social and legal ramification of the marginalization of individuals with disabilities, it is prudent that we examine this from an empirical standpoint. In so doing, Lock, Jordan, Bryan & Maxim (2005) examined the notion that there are clear and concise barrier placed on individuals with disabilities. Their empirical study entitled “Work after stroke: focusing on barriers and enablers” addressed individuals who were disabled by virtue of having a stroke.
The study participants were individuals who had suffered strokes and as a direct result were disabled to varying degrees. In their research, they utilized the qualitative research methodology of focus group discussions to ascertain the effects of a disability on maintaining gainful employment. They conducted five focus group discussions with 49 participants. The participants consisted of thirty-seven (37) stroke survivors and twelve (12) of their supporters.
The resultant data was analyzed in a manner that identified general themes across individuals within the groups. In so doing, the rehabilitation process, the agency in which the individual worked prior and after the stroke, the general social climate and personal attributes were identified as barriers and enablers. The study found that the most influential barriers to successful reintegration into the workforce were the institutional structure and practices as well as the attitudes of some of the individuals within the workplace. They found that many individuals within the workplace systematically and categorically marginalized the individual stroke suffers.
This body of research was poignant in that it examined individuals who had acquired disabilities and were able to clearly see the difference in treatment as a result of their disability. Essentially, they offered a baseline for comparison in that they were able to ascertain the difference in treatment as a direct result of their disability.
Stereotypic Images
Another body of research I found very applicable to the current discussion of the discrimination faced by individuals with disability is one which deals with stereotypic images of these individuals. Heenan (2005) discussed the reliance of individuals with disabilities on disability benefits.
The author examined the notion of whether this reliance served to perpetuate stereotypical images of individuals with disabilities as essentially being parasitic organisms who utilize the system as a means of proliferating dishonesty and as a means of enabling them to remain idle instead of being viable and contributing members of the societies in which they live. It is purported that such stereotypical images proliferate oppression and discrimination and the author indicates that students being trained in them field of social work should be aware of the stereotypes present and be trained in enabling the individuals they serviced in overcoming the effects of these stereotypes.
The participants in this study were first year social work students who would eventually administer services to a wide variety of individuals of different abilities. The training module was divided into three sections. Those sections were a section on historical issues, one on theoretical issues and one on contemporary issues. The historical issues section was devoted to tracing the development of social policy. The theoretical issues section focused on developing analytical skills and the contemporary issues section provided a sound foundation for further study. This teaching strategy was administered over the course of a two week period which involved six hours of active teaching.
The students were divided into groups and administered questionnaires to assess their perception of disability before and after taking the prescribed curriculum. This end result of this study was the notion that it was important to introduce a training module early in the education of social workers as a means of preventing their personal biases from interfering with the services rendered to their clients. This body of research was important in that it pointed out the need to have formal training in order to prevent the effects of stereotypic images. This can definitely be extended to the population at large.
After having examined the ramifications of discrimination both from a legal and a social vantage point, it is prudent that we realize that the fight for equitable treatment under the law is one that is far from being won. Each day many individuals are discriminated against based on their disabilities. They are denied access to services as well as physical access to many places. The laws are in place to prevent this discrimination but the society as a whole still remains very influential in preventing these laws from being enforced.
In order to truly understand the scope and ramifications of this, it is necessary to understand the proliferation of stereotypic images of the disabled. It is felt that in order for a disability to be recognized it has to be visible. This does not take individuals with disabilities such as back injuries into account. Those individuals are viewed as being lazy and out to exploit the social services system. As individuals in the helping professions, it is important that we work to change this perception. In so doing, we can assure equitable treatment of all irrespective of their disabilities.
References
Fleischer, D.Z. & Zames, F. (2001). The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation. Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.
Heenan, D. (2005). Challenging Stereotypes Surrounding Disability and Promoting Antioppressive Practice: Some Reflections on Teaching Social Work Students in Northern Ireland. Social Work Education, 24(5), 495–510.
Lieberman, R.C. (2002). Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change. American Political Science Review, 96(4), 697-712.
Lock, S., Jordan, L., Bryan, K. &Maxim, J. (2005). Work after stroke: focusing on barriers and enablers. Disability & Society, 20(1), 33–47.
Milbrath, L. & Goel, M.L. (1977). Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. Lawrence, KS.: University of Kansas Press.
Tregaskis, C. (2004). Constructions of Disability: Researching the Interface between Disabled and Non-Disabled People. New York: Routledge.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. & Brady, H.E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Ward, M.J. & Meyer, R.N. (1999). Self-Determination for People with Developmental Disabilities and Autism: Two Self-Advocates’ Perspectives. Focus on Autism &Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(3), 133-139.
Yongjoo, J. & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2001). Tracing Issue Definition and Policy Change: An Analysis of Disability Issue Images and Policy. Policy Studies Journal 29(2): 215-231.