You may have read or seen a news piece that inappropriately depicts people with disabilities. We encourage you to contact the journalist responsible to help educate them. Listed below are some of the responses that MCIL has had to news items.

The City of Memphis ADA Transition Plan Fails
Our Response to:
The City of Memphis ADA Transition Plan

Atlanta Office of Civil Rights ignores "system complaints."
Our Response to:
OCR doing nothing

MATA parks illegally
Our Response to:
Visiting the North End Terminal.

An Attitude of Inclusion
Our response to:
DIVIDED WE STAND A four day feature piece from the Commercial Appeal (Oct 12 - 16, 1997)

A memorial untainted by the bigotry and prejudice of a past era
Our response to:
VIEWPOINT, the Commercial Appeal (June 15, 1996)

Repugnant as eliminating the First Amendment
Our response to:
ABC Television, John Stossel of 20/20

If you read the June 22, METRO section of the Commercial Appeal you may have been bothered by the sensational language used to discribe the person's disability. MCIL responded by writing the editor and the writer, the letters follow along with the response from the journalist who wrote the piece.
Focus on people
Our response to:
David Waters of the Commercial Appeal (June 22, 1998)

The most difficult barrier is the attitude of the community
Our response to:
Action News 5 - Hometown Hero Dennis Gaskins

The Four day installment of DIVIDED WE STAND (Oct 12 - 16), incorrectly groups the civil rights for people with disabilities with special rights. People with disabilities are actively seeking civil rights and full inclusion into society, it is false to think of these as special rights or anything less than those extended to Americans through the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or the Bill of Rights.

The Scripps Howard Poll that accompanies the series reports that 91% of Americans felt civil protection should extend to the physically handicapped and 93% felt those protections justifiably extend to the mentally retarded. The "division,""uproar," and, "rifts," obviously do not stem from the 1990 ADA which the series said, "...opened doors to a fuller life for Americans once denied full participation in society...,"

The article attempts to separate the civil rights of people with disabilities from other civil liberties by reporting the costs involved in litigation and implementation. Even assuming American rights are passed out on a cost-benefit basis, consider the cost of not including all Americans in society. Despite the few examples high price accommodations, Tuesday's segment reported "...that the average cost of accommodating a disabled worker is $200."

None of our other civil liberties are judged on a dollar basis. Would the Commercial Appeal support the repeal of the 1st. Amendment to save on costly liable cases, or suggest repeal of the 13th. Amendment to reduce the cost of labor? The point is, the moral imperative cannot be separated from the means of protecting rights. Similarly, society, business, and the Commercial Appeal, stand to gain much more by including all Americans.

"Money drives much of the rights conflicts," announced Sunday's front page article. This should not cause people to overlook substantial not special civil rights that cost little or nothing. A basic need for our community is an attitude of inclusion. It is essential that we eliminate barriers today, and use forethought in planning for the future, not only because it is cost-beneficial, but because it is the right thing to do.

Return to the top of the page

A memorial untainted by the bigotry and prejudice of a past era

To The Commercial Appeal,

We were disappointed to learn recently that there is little chance of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, now being built in Washington D.C., depicting FDR's disability. The Memphis Center for Independent Living shares the feelings of president George Bush, biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin, and, according to a recent Harris poll, 73 percent of Americans, that the memorial should include the image of Roosevelt in a wheelchair.

History clearly shows that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the only major world leader chosen by his people even though he could not walk or stand without help. The commission's co- chair Daniel K. Inouye says that he ". . .would not want to redo history," holding that FDR publicly guarded the extent of his disability and that this public perception of the 1930s should continue to cloud history today. This assertion seems to validate the intolerance and disregard the accurate historical reality. Ironically, Leonard Baskin's bas-relief of FDR at the first Inaugural, planned for the entrance of the Memorial, inaccurately shows Roosevelt standing unassisted. Historical accuracy should demand that the memorial depict, even abstractly if necessary, FDR's disability.

The most obvious reason to show FDR in a wheelchair is to show who he was and what he meant to America. FDR was a national hero and a wheelchair user. We feel that it is essential not to alter these facts, to show that a vigorous active and successful person is not inconsistent with the use of a wheelchair. Moreover, to ignore a depiction of Franklin Roosevelt's disability in every image seems to send to message of disgrace, shame and intolerance.

Currently, people with disabilities are working for full integration into their communities and similarly "FDR was most certainly not ashamed by his condition," reports the FDR Memorial Commission. Yet, the commission fails to portray FDR's disability in any of the three planned images because, "...[E]vents of the time required a vigorous leader who inspired faith in the people he served. Unfortunately, during the 1930s and 1940s this nation was not as enlightened concerning people with disabilities as present-day America." We feel that this unjustly recognizes the prejudice of the past while ignoring the "disability pride movement" of today. We feel that a memorial absent of the powerful image of FDR leading this nation from a wheelchair would be more of a monument to the narrow-mindedness of Americans.

We hope that Americans still would like to build a quality memorial that is not only historically accurate, but is a memorial untainted by the bigotry and prejudice of a past era. Please support an accurate and proud memorial.

Return to the top of the page

Letter to 20 20

The Memphis Center for Independent Living would like to remind 20/20 that the ADA is a civil rights act. No doubt there is abuse of the law, social security funds, and other needed assistance monies. However, we feel the concept of repealing the ADA is as repugnant as eliminating the First Amendment because journalists are abusive and ignorant.

This is their response:

John Stossel pointed out one area of the law that was being manipulated, and it had to do with the definition of the word "disabled." He states in the beginning of the piece:

"The Americans With Disabilities Act would help disabled people get jobs by making it illegal to discriminate against them. The law has changed American life. Cities spent millions installing elevators in subways. Parking lots now have handicapped spots. Buildings have wheelchair ramps. Some people have definitely benefitted. Unfortunately, it's by no means clear that most have. As so often happens, this well-intended law had unintended consequences.

When I think of the disabled, I think of the blind, or people in wheelchairs, those who have lost abilities through circumstances beyond their control. I don't thinkabout lazy people, or incompetent people, or men with odd sexual compulsions. But increasingly, it is they who have come to use this law to demand special rights."

Later in the piece, he pointed out a Harris poll that suggested that the percentage of the disabled who were out of work before the law went into effect hadn't changed after the law had been in place for some time.

It would be interesting to see the percentages of the disabled working today to get a more accurate account of the law's effectiveness. While John Stossel stated his own opinion of a solution to this abuse, he did not question the benefits of the physical accommodations.

We have forwarded your message to Mr. Stossel's office. He has said that he is very interested in the feedback the story has generated.

Return to the top of the page

Letters to the Commercial Appeal

June 22, 1998
Letters to the Editor,
The Commercial Appeal
Box 334
Memphis, TN 38101

To the Commercial Appeal,

David Waters article on Monday "Her smile flashing, disabled fan radiates on-air personality," was seriously outside the scope of good taste. The piece sensationalized disability far beyond the dictates of the subject matter.

The author became so mired down in embellishing the individuals disability that the focus on the person was obscured. Clearly the explanations of "handicapped from birth, disabled for life," "paralyzed from the waist down," "born with spina bifida, a spinal defect," and "[she has] lifeless legs," were not intended to inform the readership of the outstanding accomplishments of the person.

Please direct your staff to The Associated Press STYLEBOOK entry on "handicapped, disabled, impaired." It states:

In general do not describe an individual as disabled or handicapped unless it is clearly pertinent to a story.

The AP STYLEBOOK continues,

handicap It should be avoided in describing a disability.

Beyond what is in good taste, it is tragic that the author could not report to Memphians what could be a superb story. I realize that it is more difficult for a writer to describe "...a smile made for television," than it is to report a medical diagnosis. However, I hope that the Commercial Appeal will attempt to focus on people rather than extraneous and superficial information in the future.

Sincerely,
Tim Wheat

This is the letter we directed to David Waters

Dear Mr. Waters,

I enjoyed the column "Faith Matters" on Sunday. I was pleased to read your personal story of how love, leadership and faith are not monopolized by a single gender. I was surprised, however, to read "Her smile flashing, disabled fan radiates on-air personality," was also written by you.

One article seems to show the universality and equality of the human spirit while the other sensationalizes disability. On Sunday you were the champion of those asked to summit. On Monday you championed stereotypes to whip us into a frenzy of pity.

In Monday's piece, you mentioned many aspects of the girls disability that have nothing to do with the telling the story of her dream. Not only does this reduce the importance of her accomplishment, but it devalues people with disabilities in general.

You did not say that people with disabilities are held to a lower standard, but it is clearly the message behind the story. You didn't say that Vandra's smile, or personality was in spite of her disability, but the many needless references to aspects of her disability make it clear that is what you had to say.

handicapped from birth
disabled for life
paralyzed from the waist down
born with spina bifida, a spinal defect.
[she has] lifeless legs

I think it is possible to relate the story "Her smile flashing, disabled fan radiates on- air personality" without any of these melodramatic statements.

This is the response from Mr. Waters

Subject: RE: "Her smile flashing, disabled fan radiates on-air personality "
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:30:00 -0400
From: Waters, David

Mr. Wheat,

Thanks for your note. I see your point. Sorry about that. Certainly wasn't my intent to sensationalize Vandra's disability. Not sure how I'd write about her without writing something about her disability, but a couple of those lines might have been a bit much. On the other hand, I thought that by using her own words (in this case the note and the quotes) in reference to her disability, I could accurately capture her spirit. Maybe it wasn't enough. I'll work on it. Thanks again.

David Waters.

The following is what the Commercial Appeal actually printed

Misplaced focus

A June 21 article, "Smile shines through as paralyzed listener radiates on-air personality," was seriously outside the scope of good taste. It sensationalized disability far beyond the dictates of the subject matter.

The writer became so mired in embellishing the individual's disability that the focus on the person was obscured.

It is tragic that the writer could not report to Memphians what could be a superb story. I hope the Commercial Appeal will attempt to focus on people rather than extraneous and superficial information in the future.

Return to the top of the page

The most difficult barrier is the attitude of the community

Dear Friends,

The Memphis Center for Independent Living enjoyed the story of Hometown Hero Dennis Gaskins last Monday. The struggle of millions of Americans to leave forced institutionalization and return to their own homes is critical issue facing Americans. The attendant programs that Dennis spoke of, scheduled to be introduced this legislative term, should more frequently become national news.

Although we have only praise for the segment, MCIL would like to offer some suggestions for dealing with this subject in the future. First, while we see your point with the word "handicapable," the term "handicap" originally referred to beggars holding out their hats asking for pity and change. Most of the staff at MCIL know Dennis Gaskins and feel it would be more effective and more accurate to call him "capable." Please recall that the AP Stylebook states: handicap ...should be avoided in describing a disability.

As you pointed out in the story, often the most difficult barrier is the attitude of the community. Even before the arrival of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, many people with disabilities have been attempting to accent pride over pity. Many people may find it offensive to have their lives characterized as "tragedy." It can be insulting, likewise, to elevate common tasks to the level of "courage."

Again, it was a fantastic report. Please continue the good work and feel free to contact MCIL if you have any questions.

Return to the MCIL Reacts Index