WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

What is wrong with the picture Josie Byzek paints of ADAPT is how such a naive personal viewpoint can be mistaken as real criticism of "the part of our movement I care most about." Ms. Byzek makes three clumsy criticisms of ADAPT in the January/February MOUTH MAGAZINE that she attempts to pass off as deep soul searching. 

Photo of MOUTH MAGAZINE

In fact, it is easy to see that Josie is not making valid criticisms of ADAPT. Although she invokes the big names of Gandhi and King, She starts off by telling us that she is writing about "what I see," then apologizes to the reader, "sorry guys, I truly am." One can only read her regret and being "terrified" as recognition that her analysis is unconvincing. Like the lonesome family pet crying out just to get attention, Josie feebly jabs at ADAPT "hoping I'm wrong." What is really bothersome is that Ms Byzek's uneasy musings may be picked up by people that are unfamiliar with a national direct action organization and some may get a distorted view of ADAPT.

The first of the three criticisms is that "our movement" is based on anger. One must really twist the long history of the civil rights movement away from the values of human dignity, equality and justice to claim that a human emotion is the root of the disability rights movement. 

Josie Byzek asks the question "what value exactly is our movement based on?" and leads the reader to the answer "anger." But few, if any, would respond "anger." The answer to her question is that our movement is based on the same "values" as the civil rights movement has always been based on. 

Although it is not a value, anger does play a role in the civil rights movement. Not only showing anger at injustice, but also controlling anger in adversity. Anger is only one tool, however, it helps to organize and motivate; it is a superficial measure of dedication and an obvious tool, to disability rights advocates, to counter patronization. MOUTH more than any other publication recognizes the harmful impact of patronizing people with disabilities. When a person with a disability getting angry no longer shocks the general public, then anger will diminish as a tool. 

Although it is difficult to quantify, one may claim that contrary to what Ms. Byzek states, anger is becoming less of an essential tool of ADAPT. As opposed to the days when ADAPT vilified the bus lobby, ADAPT is working to build coalitions and support for MiCASSA. Less anger is directed at ADAPT's objectives and more resolve for agencies and organizations to strengthen their own positions on critical topics. The widespread strength ADAPT commands in the movement were evident in the Rolling Freedom Express and the March for Justice that included Rev. Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King III and Dick Gregory.

Don't get me wrong I am not suggesting that today's ADAPT is "kindler and gentler," on the contrary, ADAPT now finds many of its targets are not a single villain - like the bus lobby. Many of ADAPT's action objectives are potential allies like the AARP, Home Health Providers and federal agencies. ADAPT's role is not only more difficult but it is more essential, and people struggling for human dignity depend on ADAPT to keep reminding our community to "keep our eyes on the prize," to not give in, or sell short of equality. ADAPT must continue to square off against the enemies of justice and to stiffen the spines of our allies in this struggle.

The second criticism that Josie Byzek attempts to make is that ADAPT's version of direct action is violent, while the classic examples of non-disabled civil disobedience are legitimate. She ponders if "we truly believe that the ends of our actions justify our means?"

Please put into perspective what Josie is questioning. Ask yourself "how many Americans need to die in institutions because of a disability?" Most ADAPT activists will answer "no more!" and are determined to make a difference and stop the inhumane devaluation of people with disabilities.

Although ADAPT members are highly motivated by this desire for justice and equality - they are also disciplined by the principles of nonviolence and civil noncompliance. ADAPT is, however, a direct action organization. ADAPT is determined to put the injustice of the system "in your face." ADAPT is not the group that will sit on their hands and purpose that the good old boys will get it right someday. ADAPT believes that action is called for in this county and Americans, in times of peace and in times of war have not dimmed their demand for liberty and equality.

Ms. Byzek sets a ridiculous standard of what is violent. "Following Gandhi and King," said Josie, "also means we'd have to give up forcing cops to strain their backs pushing and dragging us out of streets, doorways and so on." But this is not true, state and local public safety orders banning marches thankfully did not keep King out of the streets and Gandhi knew some salt marchers may be killed for their beliefs. The convictions of activists make Josie Byzek's "strained backs" laughable as some kind of "unintended violence."

Josie makes her view on violence even more puzzling however by suggesting, "two cops lifting one ambulatory person probably doesn't cause pain." No one, even the editor of this piece in MOUTH MAGAZINE # 69, can follow Josie's reasoning. She most likely means to say that lifting one ambulatory individual CAN CAUSE pain. Either way you want to read that, Ms. Byzek has clearly set a standard where nonviolent civil disobedience is the exclusive instrument of the non-disabled. 

Finally, Josie questions if "we are truly empowering people who come to actions?" She asserts that a "fruit of empowerment would be everyone having a say in strategy, goals and actions." Josie Byzek again has distorted a simple idea to take a dig at ADAPT. In this example she claims that the result: "fruit," is the process: "having a say in strategy…" This reasoning is similar to caseworkers, who equate closing a person's  file with success.

Whatever her point is with the misaligned "fruits of empowerment," Ms. Byzek states clearly that "ADAPT is not a democracy; it's not designed to be." Following that statement she explains a management structure of leaders, a second tier, contact people and locals. Ms. Byzek herself illustrates more of a democratic construction of ADAPT than most grassroots associations have.

The fact is, ADAPT is a fiercely democratic group. For example, Freedom Day 2001, Memphis ADAPT choose to participate in the national action. The leaders in the "inner sanctum" dictated a strike against various state Medicaid offices. Memphis ADAPT closed down a BLOCKBUSTER Video Store, (nonviolently) demanding a reasonable ramp (fruit of empowerment?). ADAPT's collective action makes the encounter stronger, and clearly Memphis' direction was not in line with the rest of the country. Never did any "inner sanctum" leader suggest pulling Memphis ADAPT's charter or even suggest discipline, because the real power of our group is at the grassroots.

This is where Josie seemingly reveals the real reason for the stab at ADAPT. Without any evidence or reasoning she alleges that the leadership structure "leaves no room for fresh ideas, creative strategies." Josie Byzek, however, was not in San Francisco to see National ADAPT shut down the four intersections around the City Hall. State police reported that it marked the first time a demonstration had closed down Van Ness.

Possibly the writer really wants to point out that ADAPT has not accepted her ideas and strategies. "And there is absolutely no room for honest questions or criticism to be taken seriously," writes Josie Byzek, "when they come from outside the inner sanctum." Maybe she feels slighted that someone has not taken her comments seriously?

Finally, Josie concludes, "if I'm right, then our movement is in trouble." And she asks the question: "Who would remain to fight?" Of course, national ADAPT has only grown since Josie has been doing her soul searching. ADAPT will continue to grow because of the dedication and love of justice of the individuals that make up the group. ADAPT will continue to get stronger because of the constructive participation and criticism of the membership. The answer to Josie's questions are that she is wrong, and ADAPT will remain to fight (nonviolently).

- Tim Wheat