Disability Rights Movement and Its Impact on Employment

Introduction

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, disability is the state of being disabled, or the lack of something considered necessary. Disabilities may affect sight, hearing, speech, and general health, among other areas. Baron (2002, 585–599) offered a broader definition, describing disability as a complex phenomenon that reflects the interaction between the physical body of a person with a disability and the features of the society in which he or she lives. Importantly, disability may be present from birth or may occur at any point during a person's lifetime. Beiser et al. (1994, 857–863) identified several categories of disability, including physical disability, intellectual disability, developmental disability, mental health and emotional disabilities, and sensory disability — the last of which is further divided into visual impairment, balance disorder, hearing impairment, somatosensory impairment, and olfactory and gustatory impairment.

This paper examines the disability rights movement, whose principal objectives are to champion equal rights for disabled persons — the same rights afforded to able-bodied persons — in terms of equal opportunity, accessibility, basic human respect, dignity, and consideration. These movements have a history spanning more than 200 years, fighting for better accommodation and inclusion for disabled people, greater than what was reportedly available before 1800.

Historians attribute the beginning of the disability rights movement to 1817, when the American School for the Deaf commenced classes in Hartford, Connecticut, using sign language as its teaching method and generally catering to persons with disabilities. The school's objective was not merely to impart knowledge to students with disabilities, but also to develop their self-reliance. Other documented historical events marking the early stages of the movement include the opening of the New England Asylum for the Blind in 1829, the introduction of Braille three years later in 1832, the issuance of a patent for the wheelchair in 1869, and workers' compensation for physically disabled workers in 1911. All of these events mark the foundations of the vibrant disability rights movement that exists today (Marneros et al., 1992, 44–51).

Additional milestones regarded as early victories for the movement include the establishment of National Employ the Handicapped Week in 1945, the 1946 enactment of the Hill-Burton Act providing disabled persons with federal aid during rehabilitation, the creation of Social Security Disability Insurance in 1950, and the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, which prohibited the exclusion of disabled persons from air travel. All of these achievements collectively represent early progress toward the movement's core goal: guaranteeing equal rights for disabled persons.

Behind these achievements stood committed organizations. Notable among them are the National Association for the Deaf, formed in 1880; the National Center for Learning Disabilities, established in 1977; the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, formed in 1979; the American Federation for the Physically Handicapped, which operated from 1940 to 1958; and the National Council on Disability, established in 1978 as a cross-disability organization focused primarily on government policy as it related to disabled persons.

Cook and Razzano (2000, 87–113) have also acknowledged individuals who made significant contributions to the fight for equal rights for disabled persons. Among them is Paul Longmore, a history professor widely remembered for his instrumental role in establishing disability studies and for advocating changes to Social Security that led to expanded rights for disabled persons.

Statement of the Problem

Although the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 led many to believe that American society now accords disabled persons the same rights as their able-bodied counterparts, reports have challenged that view. The growing number of rights movements advocating for full and convenient access to public facilities and housing suggests that full equality has not yet been achieved. Many disability rights movements are currently focused on recruiting disability rights legal attorneys to ensure that violations of disabled persons' rights are prosecuted. According to Boardman et al. (2003, 467–468), a newer trend driven by technology has also emerged, with many movements centering their advocacy on technological advancements that could assist disabled persons with hearing, vision, speech, and general health.

A central problem, however, lies within the disability rights movements themselves. Government statistics indicate that a high percentage of registered disability rights organizations share a single primary objective: fighting for the basic civil rights of disabled persons, including equal opportunity. The difficulty is that relatively few of these organizations specifically advocate for equal employment rights, the creation of jobs suited to persons with various disabilities, or the promotion of financial self-reliance among disabled persons.

Public buildings continue to be constructed with little or no regard for accessibility by disabled persons, making it effectively impossible for a disabled person to work in many such buildings. Furthermore, many jobs are poorly suited to people with varying disabilities — marketing, for instance, is a profession whose demands make it difficult to accommodate persons with physical, sensory, intellectual, mental health, or developmental disabilities. Technological advances in the workplace have similarly limited employment prospects for disabled persons, as new technologies are frequently developed without consideration of their needs.

Interviews with disabled persons reveal that many attribute their unemployment to a lack of skills — skills that might otherwise allow them to be self-employed. While the education provided at their learning institutions deserves acknowledgment, it is evident that insufficient training is being offered to nurture their individual talents or develop the competitive skills needed in the labor market (Drake et al., 1994, 519–532).

Analysis Using Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a social change theory that places emphasis on micro-scale social interaction. It was developed by sociologists Charles Cooley, Herbert Blumer, and George Herbert Mead. The theory holds that individuals act toward things based on the meaning those things hold for them, and that these meanings arise from social interaction and are modified through individual interpretation.

Research drawing on symbolic interactionism connects unemployment among disabled persons to this theoretical framework. Researchers argue that people tend to view disabled individuals as incapable of performing the same tasks as able-bodied persons. This perception is shaped by the way disabled persons are observed to interact with society — they are frequently treated with great care and assisted in nearly everything they do. From such observations, people infer that disabled persons cannot care for themselves and will always require supervision.

Such assumptions exist in the minds of employers and, in some cases, among disabled persons themselves. This has led employers to avoid hiring disabled persons, while disabled individuals may internalize the belief that they are incapable of performing the same work as able-bodied counterparts (Beiser et al., 1994, 857–863).

Conclusion

This research has critically examined the situation of disabled persons in the community and the disability rights movements whose origins date back more than two hundred years. It put forward a proposal centered on vocational rehabilitation programs that provide supported employment as a means of improving economic outcomes for disabled persons.

This proposal has been analyzed from cultural, political, and economic perspectives, and the research concludes that it is feasible. The potential positive outcomes outweigh the potential negative ones. Accordingly, the research recommends that disability rights movements globally, together with their respective governments, advocate for such programs — not only as a cost-saving measure for public funds, but as a meaningful pathway toward self-reliance and full social inclusion for persons with disabilities.

Works Cited

Baron, R. C., and Salzer, M. S. (2002). Accounting for unemployment among people with mental illness. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 585–599.

Beiser, M., Bean, G., Erickson, D., Zhang, J., Iacono, W. G., and Rector, N. A. (1994). Biological and psychosocial predictors of job performance following a first episode of psychosis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 857–863.

Boardman, J., Grove, B., Perkins, R., and Shepherd, G. (2003). Work and employment for people with psychiatric disabilities. British Journal of Psychiatry, 467–468.

Carone, B. J., Harrow, M., and Westermeyer, J. (1991). Post-hospital course and outcome in schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 247–253.

Cook, J., and Razzano, L. (2000). Vocational rehabilitation for persons with schizophrenia: Recent research and implications for practice. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 87–113.

Crowther, R. E., Marshall, M., Bond, G. R., and Huxley, P. (2001). Helping people with severe mental illness to obtain work: Systematic review. British Medical Journal.

Drake, R. E., Becker, D. R., Biesanz, J. C., Torrey, W. C., McHugo, G. J., and Wyzik, P. F. (1994). Rehabilitative day treatment vs. supported employment: I. Vocational outcomes. Community Mental Health Journal, 519–532.

Marneros, A., Deister, A., and Rohde, A. (1992). Comparison of long-term outcome in schizophrenic, affective and schizoaffective disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 44–51.

Marneros, A., Deister, A., and Rohde, A. (1990). Psychopathological and social status of patients with affective, schizophrenic and schizoaffective disorders after long-term course, 352–358.

Marwaha, S., and Johnson, S. (2004). Schizophrenia and employment — A review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 337–349.