PhilosopherCrip

I am not a lawyer and don’t know very much about interpreting law. However, it seems to me that the case of Micah Fialka-Feldman is a pretty classic example of those in power hiding behind “policy” as a way of masking their discrimination. Fialka-Feldman is 24 year old student with a mild intellectual disability who wants to live on the campus of Oakland University near Detroit. Micah attends 16 credit hours of classes per week and pays full time tuition. Yet, University trustees and officials have repeatedly rejected his requests to live on campus and forced him take a 2 hour bus ride each day to attend their university. They justify this decision by pointing to their “policy” of only allowing students in degree granting programs to live in one of their 1,800 dorm rooms, some of which remain vacant. The logic behind this decision, which has been tentatively supported by a federal judge, is that Micah would be seeking unequal opportunity by asking that the policy be waived for him when other continuing education students were denied the opportunity to live on campus.

On the face of it, this seems like it may be a justifiable decision, right? After all, the university is not JUST rejecting Micah’s claim on housing resources, but all 1,400 continuing education students who are taking classes but not earning a degree (although, it’s my understanding that there was some backpedaling done to try and be consistent with this policy and some English as a Second Language students were no longer allowed to live in the dorms, once it was apparent a law suit was in the works). Let’s put the ESL cases aside and look only at the “facts” that are being reported in the main stream media. That is, let us take the university at its word and consider the justifiability of denying Micah housing because of this policy.

Micah on his campus

First, it needs to be understood that virtually EVERY case of discrimination and bigotry can be framed in terms of a “policy.” The rhetoric is always the same. Opponents of same sex marriage argue that they have nothing against gay people, but don’t want to give them the “special privilege” of a state sanctioned marriage that can only happen by waiving the policy that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Women are not being discriminated against when they are denied employment and advancement, but rather, there is a policy in place that excludes people who may become pregnant at some point. People with disabilities aren’t being segregated and incarcerated in nursing homes rather than receiving support services while living in their own homes with friends and family, they are merely being medically treated in accordance with the policies of Medicaid.

The fact is, policies aren’t handed down from God, accidentally resulting in some discrimination. This policy is not some kind of natural law. Policies are MANUFACTURED , sometimes according to bigoted attitudes that are already in place. The activist has always recognized this and never accepted the excuse of “that’s our policy.” Essentially, policies are the codification of existing habits, many of which are chauvinistic in various ways.

The question to ask is not “why does Micah deserve special treatment and a waiver of this policy?” but “why is the policy written in this way and what else could it look like?” When we ask the question in that way, it becomes clear that this policy is a thinly veiled case of discrimination. There is no housing crunch at Oakland University. I can hardly imagine that all of the 1,400 continuing ed students would want to live on campus, squeezing out the matriculated students. Typically, continuing ed students are not of typical college age and lifestyle and it would be absurd to think that they will flock to the dormitories.

So, if the possibility of a housing crisis is not driving the manufacture of this policy, what could be the justification for keeping away “non-degree earning students?” I have seen plenty of references to the “policy” justifying the exclusion of Micah from living on campus, but where is the justification of the policy itself? Why is whether a student is enrolled in a degree granting program or not at all relevant to whether they should be able to live on campus? Of course, the University could not allow just anyone who wishes to live in university housing to do so. It could not be the case that anyone off the street is allowed to move in, regardless of affiliation with the academic institution. However, why is the bright line drawn at whether a student is earning credit toward a degree? How is this at all relevant? Wouldn’t it make more sense to draw the line at whether a student is enrolled full time and needs to have space on campus because she is spending a lot of time there?

So, if there is no housing crunch at Oakland U that would be impacted by a more inclusive policy and there is no obvious connection between earning degree credits and living on campus, why has the university chosen to manufacture this policy in this way? What existing habits are being codified here and are they worth preserving?

Is it unreasonable to suggest that this policy is a throwback to the dark ages of not wanting to live with “those kinds of people?” Is it far fetched to think that a policy of keeping non-matriculated students off campus is a desire to keep at arms length those who differ from us in age, class, and, yes, disability?

Finally, as an educator and especially as an “almost philosopher,” some critical questions that were recently raised by Micah’s dad struck a strong chord with me. When trying to clarify our thoughts on this situation we should not limit ourselves to a critique of this particular policy, but also try to think in new ways about some of the most fundamental assumptions we make about education. This situation highlights in some very interesting ways questions about what a student is and what the purpose of education ought to be. I will leave these for another post.

Recently, my friend Annie passed away at the age of 24.  Some of you may know Annie, as she was a crip in Chicago who was a regular face at the Pride Parade selling her 3eLove Tshirts.  The name of this small business was itself a moral imperative issued by Annie’s basic philosophy of life, “Embrace diversity. Educate your community. Empower each other. Love life.”  3eLove was one of Annie’s many projects.  I don’t think anyone knew the details of all the work she did in the crip community and, surely, only Annie’s mind contained the seeds of the work she planned to do.  It’s my understanding that some of those plans included “beginning her PhD coursework in Community Health, suing the hell out of the state of Illinois for all of the misery that they put her through over P.A. hours, helping me [her brother, Stephen] write a disability education model and marketing it to school districts, writing a book, going on Oprah, and then going on a national ass-kicking tour.”  Those were just her plans for the year 2009 and, knowing Annie, they weren’t that exaggerated. To get a sense of the circumstances of Annie’s passing, check out the facebook note her brother wrote about those series of events.  That is not my story to tell.

Knowing Annie as a person and as an advocate (I don’t like the term, but it’s one she used to describe herself), there seemed to be a unity to her work.  That unity was a radical pride and active rejection of the stigma and shame that society heaps upon crips.

Let me back track a bit.  We are told that the kinds of help we need is not “normal” and that our way of living is one that should happen in isolation.  Even still, this isolation is enforced with the coerced segregation of people with disabilities into nursing homes and institutions.  We are seen as the Other and told that having “pride” means hiding anything about us that deviates from the cultural norms.  Even some of my most powerful activist friends struggle with shame at some of the ways their life is different from the typical.  They want to hide the markings and symbols of their difference because that is what we are told “prideful” people do… they try to normalize and assimilate as much as possible.  I know I have been guilty of this as well throughout my life.

The beautiful, inspirational Anne Marie Hopkins, 1984-2009

This definition of pride is what Annie made an active attempt to completely and utterly demolish.  The insight that Annie taught me is that crip pride is not about banners and marches and t-shirts and policy papers.  Crip pride is as simple to understand as it is morally grueling to achieve — we must live visibly on our own terms, as we are, without apology or shame.  This is what Annie achieved in a way that I have never before witnessed, but hope to witness again in others among our community.

To understand what I am talking about, take a sample of how she lived her life as a crip publicly and without shame by checking out her blog, “Annie D and the Band of Love.”  Some instances of her truly radical pride would be her description of her newly hired personal assistant who, allegedly, dreams of becoming a porn star, “I’m sure wiping ass and hanging out with me will only add to Jame’s qualifications as a cockstar. He is quite pleasant to look at which helps with my well being, porn star or not” … or her cat “For some reason, every cat I have own has always loved to chill in my wheelchair. It always has to be at a very bad time, like when my PAs are trying to move me from my bed to my chair or from the toilet to the chair. He’s always gotta be there. He’s an attention whore I guess” … or her roommate/PA who she keeps around “because he can entertain himself, but we also spend a lot of time together eating, recreating, getting awesome, watching instant netflix, completing our studies, dancing around the apartment, traveling, pooping, urinating, and farting, dog walking, smelling like onions, holding down facilities at UIC, reading and listening to audiobooks.”  Unfortunately, her blog was a relatively new project and so there aren’t as many postings as I wish there were.  I wish Annie had had more time to teach us how to live well.

Annie’s way of living seems to really come up against the “supercrip” narrative in some interesting ways.  The supercrip phenomenon is one of the common possible responses our American culture offers in public interaction.  That is, many times, both strangers and friends will go out of there way to tell a person with a disability how “inspirational” or “amazing” they are, as they go about their daily routine.  Of course, the unspoken premise behind this is a very low set of expectations for people with disabilities more broadly.  “Wow!  Look at that! You go out to eat at restaurants on the weekends and sometimes see a movie!”  The harm of the supercrip narrative is that, by setting up everyday activities as “amazing,” it obscures the idea that people with disabilities SHOULD be doing these everyday things as an accepted and integrated part of the community.  That is, its foundation is the notion that disability itself is something that is overcome rather than social and environmental barriers.  Put another way, the problem with the supercrip narrative is that it implies that the disabled life is, fundamentally, of less value.  The only way average, everyday activities can be seen as amazing and inspirational is if that person is starting off from a very dismal place.  Supercrips are seen as the exception to the rule of disability misery.

Professor Charles Xavier -- some crips really DO have super powers!!!

So, what then, are we to make of Annie’s celebration of everyday life?  If we understand her as inspirational or amazing, are we just dressing up the supercrip narrative in new clothes?  I really don’t think that is the case.  In fact, I think what Annie was doing was dismantling some of those hidden premises to the supercrip narrative.  By rejecting the shame in having her butt wiped and living pridefully, Annie was rejecting the notion that disability is something you “overcome.”  For Annie, her disability was part of her joy in living.  She unapologetically displayed how she had a good life not DESPITE her disability but WITH her disability.  If we could all live like Annie, someday the only supercrips around will be the X-Men.

I’ve been kind of vague with most of my teachers and colleagues about how I am spending next week. I’m never exactly sure how folks will react to the idea of non-violent direct action civil disobedience. Sometimes, I get an amused chuckle when I explain to someone what ADAPT does. Other times, I get a reaction of disbelief, people thinking that oppression and the non-violent resistance that opposes it are historic relics. Another common response is condescending advice like “You can’t expect to get anywhere if you’re so angry like that. Why don’t you just ask them nicely for what you want?” Some of the people that are closest to me understand my motivations, but worry that my history of direct action activities may harm me or my career later down the line. The best explanation I know of what non-violent direct action is, how it works, and why marginalized groups use it is MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”

Of course our situations are not exactly analogous, but there are many similarities in the systems of our oppression and how they are sustained by privaleged classes. One similarity is that we are often - condescendingly - told that we should tolerate our marginalization with a pleasant disposition and not rock the boat. The fact is, ADAPT is trying to address the fact that thousands upon thousands of people with disabilities are incarcerated in nursing homes against there will across the US because of the way benefit programs are set up. This situation is sustained by the deep pockets of the nursing home lobby, combined with the cultural bigotry and social ignorance of our country that says people with disabilities are not capable of integration and are better off segregated out of view. This combination means that negotiation with the power structure controlling this issue is an impossibility.

Martin Luther King's Mug Shot

The full text of MLK’s illuminating letter can be found at: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

In the meantime, this will get you started with an understanding of the reasoning behind why non-violent direct action is an essential tool: “You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.”