Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The Politics of "Choice"

Critics of the National Employment First Movement often refer to “choice” as a fundamental argument in promoting their point of view. Needless to say, a diverse range of stakeholders hold strong opinions about integrated employment as a valued, preferred outcome in support of people with disabilities. This is especially true with respect to men and women who live with complex and significant disabilities.

So going to work is a choice?? Well I guess there are a lot of people who believe it should be if you live with a disability. If fact, individual choice is imbedded in many public policies associated with disability education and adult services.

Promoting an individual’s rights and choice about services they receive is about staking the high ground. It’s the honorable and respectful thing to do, right? Well, of course, it is. However, it’s also a clever and convenient cover for maintaining the status quo.

Let me be perfectly clear here. This is America. People should certainly have a “choice” about whether or not to work. And few people I know take issue with this point.

Despite strong values about the importance of work, leaders in the National Employment First Movement are not interested in forcing or coercing anyone to work against his or her will. Everyone needs to come to his or her own conclusions about the value of working and make a thoughtful decision fitting to personal circumstances. This is true for all working-age adults whether they live with a disability or not.

For most Americans, however, choosing an occupation and going to work is pretty much an expectation. And “not working” is rarely included in a menu of acceptable options. For most Americans coming from modest means, the real choice is not about whether to work but rather making choices about the right career. And most Americans take affirmative actions to make a living if for no other reason than to avoid a lifetime of dependency and poverty.

My wife Colleen and I raised our three daughters with high expectations about choosing a career. We encouraged each of our daughters to use their natural strengths. We supported them to discover these strengths and consider their proper impact in the workforce. And we encouraged each of them to exploit her interests and talents for economic, social, and person gain.

No doubt, these are common expectations rooted in the American family tradition and certainly embodied as underlying values in our nation’s educational system. Well, that is, unless you are born with or acquire a disability.

Let’s examine some facts. The federal Department of Labor indicates only 22% of Americans with disabilities were participating in the workforce in January, 2010. By way of contrast, 70% of all Americans were participating in the labor force despite the worst economic recession in more than 60 years.

Educators and disability service professionals often make claims about delivering “person-centered” and “individualized services.” In fact, development of individualized education programs (IEP) is the law for a majority of students supported by special education in our local high schools. Yet eight out of ten Americans are not participating in the workforce due to the presence of a disability. Well sorry, but I’m not buying this argument that 78% made an informed choice not to work.

To be brutally honest, employability issues are complex and the deck has always been stacked against individuals with disabilities. Our communities in America were not crafted with universal design principles encouraging the participation of all. And this fact is evident in policies and practices associated with our schools, communities, and workforce. The truth is a majority of Americans with significant disabilities will spend much of their lives in a parallel universe designed primarily to support them apart from their peers who don't have disabilities.

Despite the best of intentions, low expectations continue to prevail. And low expectations continue to drive public policies that sustain disability “silos” in support of youth and adults with disabilities. And direct participation in the workforce and earning competitive wages is considered an unobtainable goal for far too many.

With respect to emerging practices, we are now living in an era where integrated employment in the workforce can be developed or created around the known interests, strengths, and abilities of job seekers. It’s called customized employment. Customized employment is changing what it means to be “qualified” to hold a job in the workforce because these positions are carefully crafted and negotiated with business leaders around what people can do. We need to fund and expand customized employment practices so everyone who wants to work has the opportunity to participate in the workforce.

And so on to the central point of this post. I tend to hear a lot of unbalanced arguments about individual choice. And many of them are deployed in ways to exclude integrated employment as a viable option, or to push it away as a distant, unlikely goal for many people. Dr. Roy Grizzard, a former Assistant Secretary for the federal Department of Labor, once referred to dismissing the job potential of Americans with disabilities as “the subtle bigotry of low expectations.” Dr. Grizzard was spot on.

You can count me in this camp that believes people with disabilities are more alike than different from other Americans. And when given real opportunities to make informed choices, most would choose integration over segregation, competitive wages over sub-minimum wages, and contributing their talents in the workforce over prolonged dependency in disability service programs. With the right levels of education, encouragement, opportunity, and support, I believe most people would choose integrated employment as their first option.

Finally, when I hear shallow arguments in defense of traditional (re)habilitation programs and an individual’s right to choose them, I am reminded of the wisdom shared by author Steven Covey:

“While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions.”

2 comments:

  1. Often there is an unsaid expectation that the consumer must make a good choice. Services are limited ans expensive. So I believe there is the fear of failure. My question is-Dont people who have disabilities have the right to fail as they resume employment-like everyone else?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all website owners and bloggers will make good content as you did then internet will be a lot more useful than ever before.

    ReplyDelete