Veterans For Peace

Evansville Chapter 104

Statement accompanying “No War with Iran” Petitions

Delivered to Representative Brad Ellsworth

Evansville, IN

December 13, 2007

“We call upon you: we urge you to speak out firmly in the halls of Congress for the purpose of stopping President Bush from attacking Iran. He fooled Congress and the American people in Iraq – WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN!!”

This simply worded statement signed by over 125 8^th District constituents in a couple of hours last Saturday reflects the increasingly obvious and precipitously growing disillusionment with the White House’s current infatuation with militarism. We are all weary and increasingly impatient with the administration’s lies, changing rationales, ignoring of public opinion and convenient interpretation of reality to suit its desired endgame—military intervention.

This simple petition is being delivered to over 350 congressional offices across the country today. Citizens everywhere are demanding a change of direction. We can not countenance the President and Vice President’s ever expanding so-called justifications for war. In spite of the recent National Intelligence Estimate that confirmed that Iran IS NOT engaged in the production of nuclear weapons, President Bush says they are still an imminent threat to U.S. interests because they have the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons, ostensibly, because they are engaged in enrichment of uranium for peaceful, domestic uses as permitted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

So, this administration, having slipped the notion of preemptive war past us in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, now wants us to fight Iran because of the knowledge they have concerning enrichment of uranium. Fighting knowledge will make the daunting, ill-defined and impossible to evaluate task of fighting terrorism look like child’s play!

The administration is ignoring the good sense of the American people. This administration is cheapening the courageous and honorable service of our military personnel. This administration is on a reckless, irresponsible “war binge” that will do no good for our country or its standing in the community of nations.

Veterans For Peace, Chapter 104 organized this petition drive in your district. Veterans For Peace is a national organization of 7,000+ members founded in 1985. It is structured around a national office in Saint Louis, MO and comprised of members across the country organized in chapters or as at-large members.

The organization includes men and women veterans of all eras and duty stations. Our collective experience tells us wars are easy to start and hard to stop and that those hurt are often the innocent. Thus, other means of problem solving are necessary.

We, having dutifully served our nation, do hereby affirm our greater responsibility to serve the cause of world peace. To this end we will work, with others:

1. Toward increasing public awareness of the costs of war
2. To restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations
3. To end the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons
4. To seek justice for veterans and victims of war
5. To abolish war as an instrument of national policy

To achieve these goals, members of Veterans For Peace pledge to use non-violent means and to maintain an organization that is both democratic and open with the understanding that all members are trusted to act in the best interests of the group for the larger purpose of world peace.

We draw on our personal experiences and perspectives gained as veterans to raise public awareness of the true costs and consequences of militarism and war - and to seek peaceful, effective alternatives.

Evansville Chapter 104 was formed in 2002 by a small cadre of concerned veterans who sought to share their insights and opinions regarding the course of U.S. foreign policy, specifically the U.S. Invasion of Iraq. Since that time we have hosted public events to engage the community in thoughtful discussion and action concerning the U.S. reliance on militarism and colonialism as methods to frame and “solve” international problems.

We do not confuse our opposition to war with our support for the troops. Most of us are Vietnam veterans and several of us saw extensive combat in Vietnam. We are acutely aware of the lifelong consequences of combat. We are also acutely aware of the additional burden of serving and sacrificing in an ill-conceived war, with shifting justifications, elusive objectives and dubious merit. Now, as in Vietnam, honorable service by our military does not bring honor or merit to a meritless war. Honorable service is trivialized and devalued in a meritless war!

We want you to know that we expect you to represent our views and our interests. We DO NOT want war in Iran. We want OUT OF IRAQ. We DO NOT want the out of control amassing of power by the Executive Branch to continue. We DO WANT PEACE!!

Contact:          Gary E. May, Co-Chair Veterans For Peace Chapter 104 gmay@wowway.com  , voice 465-1694, cell 455-4750

Veterans For Peace Chapter 104 www.vfpevansville.org 

Veterans Day Remarks

Gary E. May, co-chair

Veterans For Peace, Chapter 104

Delivered at

The Unitarian Universalist Church

Evansville, IN

November 11, 2007

Veterans Day is a special day for reflection for many veterans. Increasingly, reflective pauses are hard to work into the schedule, as retailers tell us that it’s time to amp up for the Mother of all Capitalist endeavors—spending for the holidays! Political leaders essentially tell us that there is no need for reflective contemplation on the soldiers’ plight or the current military activities, for to the extent that such contemplative reflection might lead to questions about the quality of the current cause, it reflects non-support for our troops.

In spite of the pressures against critical analysis and challenging “truths”, we contemporary veterans must understand the we fall in line behind many of our brothers and sisters who preceded us and lead the way to more fully understanding our military experiences and to witnessing our “truths” to others.

One such example of truth telling and witnessing is found in “Finished with War: A Soldier’s Declaration”. Please listen to these words…

 “Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration”

I am making this statement as an act of willful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.

I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defense and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.

I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust.

I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insecurities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.

On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practiced on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize.

July, 1917.†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††S. Sassoon. (Barker, Pam. Regeneration)

British poet and writer, Siegfried Sassoon

Sassoon was a decorated officer - a 2^nd Lieutenant in the Royal Welch Fusiliers - and a member of the English upper class, who had won the respect of his men. 

His declaration of war against the war appeared in the Bradford Pioneer on July 27, 1917. In disgust with the war, he threw the ribbon of his Military Cross into the sea. Thanks to the help of his friend Robert Graves, Sassoon was declared to have shell shock instead of being court-martialed. The British army placed him in a hospital at Craiglockhart, near Edinburgh, for the duration of the war.

(The declaration explained his grounds for refusing to serve further in the army. He enlisted on 3rd August 1914, showed distinguished valor in France, was badly wounded, and would have been kept on home service if he had stayed in the army.)

Soldiers have long repudiated war. Indeed, one of the five major objectives for Veterans For Peace is “…to abolish war as an instrument of national policy.” There is an increasing number of Iraq veterans who are speaking out against the war in Iraq. Iraq Veterans Against the War is the most visible example. Other groups include Military Families Speak Out. Additionally, there have been high profile instances of active duty personnel refusing deployment or redeployment to Iraq. Probably the best known is Lt. Ehren Watada, whose refusal led to his court martial that ended in a mistrial. His legal status is unclear at this time. Within the military activists working on an initiative called “Redress of Grievances” is working to advocate for military personnel.

As you can see, veterans’ opposition to military operations lend themselves to sorting into binary fields—opposition to war (the Veterans For Peace position), and opposition to a particular war (the focus of most current protest).

For both camps, a reasonable question to ponder is whether war is ever justified. If so, what are the characteristics that connote a “just war”? My good friend and fellow VFP-er, Alan Marty recently shared some information with me that suggests a framework for making judgments about the justification or lack thereof for war.

Alan cites the work of Jimmy Carter, built on the thoughts of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. This led Carter to the conclusion that a “just war” has five components:

1.     It’s an option of last resort.

2.     Use of weaponry must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.

3.     Violence must be proportional.

4.     Aggressors must have sanction of their population.

5.     Anticipated peace must be clearly superior to current/previous conditions.

An additional distinction is between a “just war” from an aggressor’s perspective and a “necessary war” from a defendant’s perspective, although the “last resort” condition suggests that a “just war” is by definition a “necessary war”.

The proffered five components of a just war help organize an interesting intellectual activity and stimulate useful thought, but fall well short of providing an objective framework for making war/no war decisions.

At least two of the five components focus on processes or conduct of the war—discriminatory weaponry & proportional violence. Two suggest essential elements that must be present when going to war—last resort & sanction of society. And one addresses characteristics of the anticipated outcome—the post war “peace” must be clearly superior to the status quo.

These components are not easily persuaded to submit to objective definition. Does it matter that there seems to be a double standard regarding discriminatory weaponry and proportional violence in Iraq? Is it acceptable if Blackwater Security and other private contractors shoot first and duck questions later, with little or no fear of being held accountable while we court martial U.S. military personnel for lesser violations? Do detainee abuses, such as at Abu Graib, violate the proportional violence component?

The current administration insisted that invading Iraq was a last resort. They even got Colin Powell to play the role of complicit stooge before the United Nations. Furthermore, our elected representatives in Congress gave the administration a blank check to prosecute this war—last resort and societal sanction, check, check.

Finally, what about expected outcomes? Remember Chaney’s fantasy that U.S. invaders would be greeted as liberating heroes in Iraq? Or that the proceeds from the sale of oil would fund the war? Or that the Iraqi’s would quickly establish home rule? You get my point.

So, by constructing a frame for the war with Iraq, the administration and the complicit congress made it a “just war” AND a “necessary war”! We should be in awe of the adroitness with which this was accomplished. We should also be ashamed that we stood by and let this happen.

After this service, we are going to reconvene at the Four Freedoms Monument where Veterans For Peace, with your help will read the names of all U.S. casualties from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It’ll take over three hours to read the 3,860 names this year. This is the fifth year that we’ll be doing this. The list continues to grow, and our numbers are only a small fraction of the losses incurred in the country of Iraq by its citizens.

Following the reading, we will walk to the Federal Building where representatives of Senators Lugar and Bayh will be given binders with all the names we would have just read. Congressman Ellsworth is expected to be there to accept his binder. We want the cost of the war to be real for our elected representatives.

We veterans, arguably more than any other group, have an obligation to convey the costs of war to our neighbors, fellow citizens and leaders.

Siegfried Sassoon said it well, “I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust.”

But Sassoon’s words focus on recovery following what he deemed to be an incorrect decision about war. Listen to the words of Benjamin Franklin in a July 27, 1783 letter to Sir Joseph Banks:

I join with you most cordially at the return of Peace. I hope it will be lasting, and that mankind will at length, as they call themselves reasonable creatures, have Reason and Sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats; for in my opinion there never was a good war or a bad peace. What vast additions to the conveniences and comforts of living might Mankind have acquired, if the money spent in wars had been employed in works of public utility!

Veterans For Peace Chapter 104

Evansville, Indiana

Statement Accompanying Presentation of 3860 Names of

U.S. Casualties in Iraq

As of Veterans Day, 2007

To Senators Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh and Representative Brad Ellsworth

At the Federal Building in Evansville, Indiana

on

November 11, 2007

Veterans For Peace is a national organization of 7,000+ members founded in 1985. It is structured around a national office in Saint Louis, MO and comprised of members across the country organized in chapters or as at-large members.

The organization includes men and women veterans of all eras and duty stations. Our collective experience tells us wars are easy to start and hard to stop and that those hurt are often the innocent. Thus, other means of problem solving are necessary.

We, having dutifully served our nation, do hereby affirm our greater responsibility to serve the cause of world peace. To this end we will work, with others:

1. Toward increasing public awareness of the costs of war
2. To restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations
3. To end the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons
4. To seek justice for veterans and victims of war
5. To abolish war as an instrument of national policy

To achieve these goals, members of Veterans For Peace pledge to use non-violent means and to maintain an organization that is both democratic and open with the understanding that all members are trusted to act in the best interests of the group for the larger purpose of world peace.

We draw on our personal experiences and perspectives gained as veterans to raise public awareness of the true costs and consequences of militarism and war - and to seek peaceful, effective alternatives.

Evansville Chapter 104 was formed in 2002 by a small cadre of concerned veterans who sought to share their insights and opinions regarding the course of U.S. foreign policy, specifically the U.S. Invasion of Iraq. Since that time we have hosted public events to engage the community in thoughtful discussion and action concerning the U.S. reliance on militarism and colonialism as methods to frame and “solve” international problems.

We have also acknowledged and expressed appreciation for the incalculable sacrifices of the area’s veterans by staging cookouts at the Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic on Walnut Street.

We have also participated in community parades, where the changing tide of public opinion has been palpable. Local resides reflect the 70% disapproval for this war.

VFP’s position is that the war in Iraq is illegal, immoral and was unnecessary. The alleged justifications for the war have been ever-changing and weak. The Administration’s ill-conceived plan for the military excursion continues to cause countless Iraqi casualties and disruption and increasingly unbearable U.S. lives and treasure.

No one in the Administration or in the Congress (including all of our local federal legislators) can give a plausible, statement of achievable outcomes that will result in the termination of this debacle.

We do not confuse our opposition to the war with our support for the troops. Most of us are Vietnam veterans and several of us saw extensive combat in Vietnam. We are acutely aware of the lifelong consequences of combat. We are also acutely aware of the additional burden of serving and sacrificing in an ill-conceived war, with shifting justifications, elusive objectives and dubious merit. Now, as in Vietnam, honorable service by our military does not bring honor or merit to a meritless war. Honorable service is trivialized and devalued in a meritless war!

We just came from the Four Freedoms Monument on the riverfront, where we, for the fifth consecutive year, read the names of EVERY U.S. casualty from the illegal, immoral and unnecessary war in Iraq. The number this year is 3,860. It took us over 3 hours to read these names. We are aware of an inestimable toll of Iraqi civilian casualties since the invasion and subsequent occupation.

We are presenting each of you with a list of the names we’ve just read. We urge you to examine this list and to understand that these were sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, grandchildren, employees, neighbors, and citizens whose lives and dreams were snuffed out in a war whose merit pales in comparison to their honorable service and sacrifices. We must stop this senseless carnage!

Veterans For Peace, Chapter 104 IMPLORES you to listen to your constituents and end this senseless war in Iraq. Previously (January 29, 2007 Statement to U.S. Representative Brad Ellsworth), we urged the Congress to declare “victory” in Iraq and to withhold appropriations or expenditures of additional funds for U.S. military activities there and to bring all U.S. troops home immediately. We now IMPLORE you to represent the wishes of your constituents and END THIS WAR!!!

INDEPENDENCE DAY REMARKS*

THE WORKINGMAN’S INSTITUTE

NEW HARMONY, IN

JULY 4, 2007

GARY E. MAY, LCSW

Co-Chair Veterans For Peace

Chapter 104

 (*as written)

“Nothing is more precious than independence and liberty.” This is a sentiment that will be stated and restated countless times today. It reflects a sentiment to which many Americans can readily relate. I want you to keep this statement in mind as I proceed this morning. Try to figure out who uttered these words. I’ll tell you later.

Please listen to the 2003 words of the U.S. Army about the Fourth of July, “on this day 227 years ago, a group of brave American colonists took a bold step: the Second Continental Congress voted to adopt Thomas Jefferson’s revolutionary document, the Declaration of Independence.

“In celebration of the freedoms set forth by the Declaration, tonight we will watch and listen with wonder as exploding fireworks illuminate the evening sky. Their loud explosions and marvelous bursts of color will cascade across the sky, symbols of the many battles our Army has fought in its efforts to protect and preserve our precious freedoms.” (Operation Tribute to Freedom, U.S. Army 2003.) Note the compatibility of the Army statement and the first quote.

Indeed, in recent times, virtually all national holidays unabashedly symbolize military sacrifice, righteousness, patriotism and civic mindedness. 2000 was deemed the year of the “values voter” in the U.S. Ironically, these so-called values voters celebrated the convoluted, precedent ignoring opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that concluded that George W. Bush won the presidency, as if through divine intervention, calling to mind Susan B. Anthony’s observation, “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” Since the court’s decision, we have seen what many assert is an all out internal attack on American values that sadly, had been taken for granted.

The popular understanding of Independence has been morphed to include a connotation of concreteness, something we can “give” to other peoples. And, of course, it goes without saying that the U.S. is the only responsible custodian of Independence and the only definer of its meaning. The popular understanding also turns on the concept of the zero sum game. In spite of efforts to give independence to others, we are told we must remain vigilant and suspicious that the recipients will take our independence away from us. Recall the West Bank elections.

These elements of the popular, socially constructed meaning of independence necessitate an extensive standing combat capability. We must have the force to give independence to others and we must have the muscle to protect our independence from being compromised by others. In today’s so-called all volunteer military environment, political elites must create incentives, both attractive and aversive, to lure citizens into the armed services.

Attractive incentives include appeals to patriotism, the affixing of hero status to anyone in uniform, endless assertions that military service protects the U.S. from bad people and their bad deeds, and the quintessential back door attractive incentive, “it’s better to fight ‘em there than here”.

Aversive pressures include poor employment prospects for young, unskilled workers, lack of direction and foreclosed educational opportunities. Arguably, for the thousands of reservists now on active duty, getting sucked up to active duty came as a surprise while the member was taking advantage of opportunities for low risk, low demand money from the government.

While proponents of the current military arrangement cite anecdotal cases that demonstrate socio economic representativeness of today’s armed forces, it is the case that members are more religiously, politically and ideologically conservative than their civilian peers—characteristics that make them more susceptible to the political elites’ framing of the incentives. Many face the harsh reality that the high quality of their individual service is not matched by the quality of the cause. Affixing the hero badge to the chests of combatants does not translate to legitimacy of the cause. True heroism, in the context of an ill conceived, poorly managed war does not give credence to the war.

So, from this perspective, we have a very stable, reciprocating system. Political elites assert that we have these values that must be extended and defended; that we need a robust military force to extend and defend them; that we must attract a sufficient number of personnel to animate this military; and that we can do so by framing the recruits’ perception of incentives. Of course, this dynamic system exists in a larger context that affirms the basic premises regarding values, their definition, extension and defense. As C. Wright Mills said, “The principal cause of war is war itself.”

Remember that quote I asked you to keep in mind? “Nothing is more precious than independence and liberty.” Who said it?

Ho Chi Mihn. His most known dicta in Vietnam. (Freedom, Hope, and Fear: The Paradox of Vietnam, Part 3 by Rosalind Lacy MacLennan, September 17, 2004). Sound familiar? As you can see, the sentiment expresses an important value for the nation state of Vietnam. Political elites frame values to achieve desired outcomes. No one has cornered the market on defining values.

So, how might we think about Independence? What does it mean? As we’ve just heard, for the framers it meant escape from the oppressive hand of the British and strong declarations about the essence of human nature and divine inspiration. It signaled a watershed moment in U.S. history and quite literally the birth of a nation.

It’s unfortunate that “independence” is inappropriately applied when describing our country. It’s quite obvious to me that selection of the term “independence” for the declaration of the new country was not the work of a Social Worker. Social Workers—and my bias is that thoughtful people—recognize that human systems are incredibly complex and interconnected. The dictionary definition of “independence” is “the quality or state of being independent”. Dependent is defined as being defined or controlled by something else.

Of course, the concept of independence is deeply ingrained in U.S. mythology. We all have the image of rugged individualism as it pertains to exploration and settling the Western frontier. What we don’t readily acknowledge is that these images are almost exclusively of white males, recalling the observation by Susan B. Anthony, “…, that the women of this nation in 1876 have greater cause for discontent, rebellion and revolution than the men of 1776.” Furthermore, in the case of westward expansion, rugged individualism and its accomplice, manifest destiny, resulted in the annihilation of indigenous peoples and their cultures.

Today’s annihilation takes a more subtle, but no less deadly form. According to the Network of Spiritual Progressives,  “Despite the persistence of this individualist mindset, our impact on others and theirs on us is huge, and manifests not only in personal and cultural terms but also in relationship to economic and political conditions. Today, close to 3 billion people (half the people in the world) live on less than $2 a day, and close to half of that number live on one dollar a day. Huge numbers of people are starving or very very hungry even as we are reading this and preparing for a good meal and playful celebration. Is it any wonder that some of these people, and those who care about them (even if they themselves are not poor), are very angry at the way the world's politics and economics get set up? We don't think it is good or legitimate when their anger gets expressed in violent ways. But we also have to take some responsibility for benefiting from a world order that is so unfair and so cruel. According to United Nations figures, somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 children under the age of five will die today, and again tomorrow, and again the next day, because they don't have the food, and basic medical supplies, that could have kept them alive. That's over 11 million children a year. The equivalent of two Holocausts per year!” (Interdependence Day Celebration, Network of Spiritual Progressives, 2007).

A better, more accurate and descriptive term is interdependent meaning mutually dependent; depending on each other. I submit that our country is more appropriately characterized as interdependent rather than independent in the world community. We depend on other countries for commerce, culture, workers, collaboration and leadership.

From this interdependent perspective, then, one would expect a collaborative relationship with ourselves—how we define ourselves--and with other countries. The independent perspective favors political elites who assume responsibility for making judgments on behalf of all of us—a corporate model of leadership.

I submit that the latter model, in vogue today, has led to the deadly policy blunders in the Middle East, the erosion of rights here at home and the shrill discourse about authority, justice, and war and peace. These missteps and deadly blunders remind me of popular historian Howard Zinn’s observation, “In the United States today, the Declaration of Independence hangs on schoolroom walls, but foreign policy follows Machiavelli.” Furthermore, it seems to me that the current condition obtains because citizens have not been sufficiently and thoughtfully involved in our affairs.

Complacency abounds! We don’t vote. We don’t drill down into complex issues. We have been all too willing to submit to the simplistic assertions and outright lies of our leaders. We have accepted as our obligation to give American values to other, carefully selected areas of the world as our current manifest destiny.

But there are alternatives. Thoughtful, engaged people don’t have to acquiesce to the self serving framing of values and responsibilities. We don’t have to assume that military might is the only way to settle disagreements. We don’t have to disengage from political discourse because we find our opponents energetic, but wrong. Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America”, while exasperating, cannot be an excuse for disengagement.

For me, this engagement is very important for very personal reasons. Having submitted to the conventional wisdom of the day in 1968, I enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. I quickly found myself in combat in Vietnam with a growing realization that I had been sold a bogus bill of goods. The exclamation point was placed on this epiphany moment on April 12, 1968 when I lost my legs in a landmine explosion. Obviously my life was changed forever. The physical changes were and remain obvious.

My standing in the herd changed also. I was acutely aware of the costs of military combat and all too troubled by the realization that the cost was extracted for a bankrupt cause. That promised services were sporadically available, of poor quality and hard to get did not help. The recent revelations about deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center were not shocking to many disabled Vietnam veterans. Poor health care, assembly line medical practice and short staffing were the subjects of a powerful expose by “Life” magazine in May, 1970. (A member of my Vietnam battalion, Matt Raible, was one of the patients whose experiences led to the investigation.) Neither did the benign neglect nor outright derision of the general public, as they struggled to sort out the distinction between the war and the warrior, help. I withdrew for awhile, concentrating on my studies and on trying to have fun.

I was locked in to the coverage of the 1968 Democratic National Convention from Chicago. I strongly identified with the protestors. Ultimately, I became very interested in the political process, the manipulation of values and the reinvention of history. This led to increasing involvement as an activist and advocate.

I make no pretense that my life so far serves as a useful example of anything, but I am grateful and enriched by some of the experiences I have had. A recent involvement is with Veterans For Peace, a national veteran’s organization based in St. Louis, MO. I had the pleasure a few years ago of being a part of the formation of Evansville VFP Chapter 104.

This summer, I have had the pleasure of being involved with planning the VFP national convention to be held in St. Louis next month. This experience has invigorated me and bolstered my optimism about our future and the contributions to social betterment that citizens—and especially veterans—can make.

For example, I am impressed with the Veterans For Peace Chapter 54 in Santa Barbara, California. According to a chapter representative, “in the past year Chapter 54 worked with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to initiate the Peace Academy in Santa Barbara High School as JROTC was terminated.  Peace Academy is taught through the Physical Education Department (like JROTC).  VFP does not wish to claim responsibility for ending JROTC in Santa Barbara, credit for that goes to George W. Bush for starting an unnecessary and unpopular war and mismanaging it.  Having the Peace Academy in place in Santa Barbara makes it unlikely that JROTC will ever return given that it teaches the same skills that JROTC professes to teach, leadership, service and citizenship, while having a fitness component.”

Or the “Peace Poetry Contest and Reading Event” of Samantha Smith VFP Chapter 45 which can be adapted to any school or school district. Over the last eight years, this chapter has conducted a highly successful program which has been replicated at the State University of New York (SUNY) system and other post secondary institutions. The project’s purpose is to establish partnership “peace poetry contests” nationally in public and private (K-12) schools, and to encourage student publication and performance at public readings. The Project’s goal is to nourish students’ creative capacities through poetry and art as they reflect on peace as a source of human strength and enrichment.

Efforts such as these initiated and guided by legitimate veterans of U.S. military combat, AKA HEROES, speak volumes against militarism, and inept leadership. By their very existence, programs such as these force a more thorough and thoughtful consideration of “veteranness”. In the current context of military toughness, rugged individualism and self sufficiency, these programs are counter intuitive to many observers. How is it that vets can be doing this?

What are our choices? As Naom Chomsky commented, “If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.” My hope for us all on this July 4, 2007 is that we will all commit to thoughtful engagement in our communities; that we will recognize that we can make a difference; that we recognize the shortsightedness of our current infatuation with military “solutions”; and that we strive for peace. There is too much at stake to live in the “comforting illusion”.

Kenneth Kays Memorial Dedication

Fairfield, Illinois

May 5, 2007

Today we gather to honor Kenneth Michael Kays and his extraordinary service in Vietnam on May 7, 1970 at Fire Support Base Maureen. Kay’s exemplary service saved several lives and cost Kenneth his leg. In spite of his serious injuries, he tended to his wounded comrades and refused to be medevaced off the mountain until his patients were safely removed. His actions warranted the Congressional Medal of Honor—a reality memorialized here today.

When viewed as detached facts, stripped of their context, these feats are awe inspiring. Kenneth’s acts typify G.K. Chesterton’s definition of courage: "Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die." G. K. Chesterton. But, when viewed in the socio-political context and within the personal convictions of Kenneth, the events become even more significant.

According to Randy Mills’ book about Kenneth’s life, there was nothing about his upbringing that would have predicted his heroism in Vietnam. Indeed, we know that Kenneth struggled mightily with reconciling his sense of duty to family, community and country with his misgivings about war in general and the war in Vietnam in particular. His struggles are well chronicled in, Troubled Hero: A Medal of Honor, Vietnam, and the War at Home.

Ultimately, Kenneth submitted to military service as a non-combatant and unarmed medic. He returned to his community following his service to the resumption of strife, conflict, and angst that had characterized his life before his service.

Sadly, his struggle ended on November 29, 1991 with his death by suicide. How might we interpret and grow from Kenneth’s life? What lessons might we learn from him? What does his life say about our community and our country?

I submit that Kenneth’s life and struggles are symptomatic of the broader struggles, debate and misgivings about U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Our involvement in Vietnam never enjoyed broad support and this thin, erratic support eroded precipitously after the Tet Offensive of 1968. Most of us who served during the Vietnam era did so voluntarily—just as Kenneth did. However, most of us were largely oblivious to the possibility that our involvement there was a mistake. Kenneth was acutely aware of this possibility. Misgivings notwithstanding, he did what her perceived to be the right thing to do.

Kenneth was living President Kennedy’s definition of morality: “A man does what he must—in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures —and that is the basis of all human morality.” John F. Kennedy

Ironically, Kenneth’s judgments about the war were vindicated in books by Leslie Gelb, The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked and much later in Robert McNamara’s, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. The fact that the lessons from Vietnam have not been fully embraced is found in contemporary works by my friend, Ray Scurfield who asserts that there are many lessons as yet unlearned.

Not surprisingly, many of his neighbors did not interpret his behaviors so generously. He was seen as an aberration and marginalized. His position did not validate the accepted wisdom about our involvement in Vietnam.

So, what would Kenneth have us do? What’s his message for veterans? I think his messages would be messages of tolerance and peace. We veterans should honor the dead on all sides by leading the charge for tolerance, for the preservation of the freedoms for which we fought and died, for equality. We have seen the consequences of intolerance, denied freedom, and inequality. We recognize our passion for life. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his insightful wisdom, spoke to this sentiment in a Memorial Day speech in 1895 to the graduating class at Harvard. Listen to his words.

As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top.

Our challenge, on this Memorial Dedication Day is to use this passion of life to continue to improve our country and the lives of all its citizens—to make a better life for our children. I think Kenneth would have us heed Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing.”

Statement of Gary E. May

Co-Chair Veterans For Peace

Evansville Chapter 104

January 29, 2007

Delivered to U.S. Representative Brad Ellsworth

Room 124 Federal Building

Evansville, IN

The President insists that we need to achieve “victory” in Iraq. He proposes to achieve victory by sending an additional 21,000+ troops there. In the face of massive resistance to this idea, he challenges critics to suggest better ideas.

Many say that a political, not a military solution is what’s needed in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group suggested many strategies for “moving forward” in Iraq. The President has rejected or ignored virtually all these suggestions.

The reasons for invading Iraq have changed frequently since the beginning of the war. The administration can’t define “victory”. The administration insists that impressive progress is being made, but can’t cite examples.

While all this is happening, the lives of American military personnel are being lost---3,080 by today’s count---and many thousands have been permanently disabled---over 47,000 by today’s count (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/). There have been tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties---over 60,000 by some estimates (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/). The U.S. cost of prosecuting the war exceeds $362 billion (www.costofwar.com). Observers say the war in Iraq is fueling terrorism. Yet the President and his administration follow the failed course of the past.

Last November’s election was a referendum on the war in Iraq. The American people said, “enough is enough”. The 110^th Congress must examine the administration’s war policy. They must listen to the people who elected them. They must use their Constitutional authority to withhold funding for the continuation of this illegal, unjust war and bring U.S. troops home.

Senators Warner and Hagel, both veterans, have been sharply critical of the President’s war policy in Iraq. Senator Hagel, a combat wounded Vietnam veteran is particularly critical of the cost to U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq and the administration’s apparent lack of understanding of the sacrifices. In a statement in the Senate last week, he chided his party and the President for treating the troops like ping pong balls. Decades ago, future senator John Kerry asked in Senate testimony about the Vietnam War, “How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?” This question begs for an answer today concerning Iraq.

Veterans For Peace, Evansville Chapter 104 joins with other chapters in our organization and with our many allies to demand the withdrawal of funding for the war with Iraq and the return of U.S. forces from Iraq. Most of our members are veterans, many from the U.S. war in Vietnam. Many of us have left body parts or blood on the battlefield. Our position is informed by these experiences. Our effort is fueled by a passion to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Our mission is:

To increase public awareness of the costs of war

To restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations

To end the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons

To seek justice for veterans and victims of war

To abolish war as an instrument of national policy

We urge Representative Ellsworth and the 110^th Congress to declare “victory” in Iraq. To withhold the appropriation or expenditure of further funds for U.S. military activities there and to bring all U.S. troops home immediately.

Thank you.

Reconnecting with Social Work’s Roots:

The Case for the New Social Activism in the Twenty First Century

Keynote Address

Social Work Festival

University of Southern Indiana

March 3, 2006

Gary E. May, Associate Professor

Department of Social Work

The views expressed here are not necessarily the views of the Bush administration, the Daniels administration, the Social Work Department, the College of Education and Human Services, the University of Southern Indiana or any of its donors or supporters, my wife, my children, my mother, or any of my family, my two cats, or my species. The views also don’t necessarily represent any group of which I am now a member, a former member, or a future member. Each of you has my pre-emptive apology if I say or do anything that you find offensive, disconcerting, intellectually dull, anxiety provoking or excessively boring.

Now, with all the disclaimers aside, I’d like you to listen and think with me about some issues that I think are of great importance to our profession—but that’s just my opinion and it doesn’t necessarily reflect the positions of the aforementioned groups, individuals, or animals.

Social welfare, as we currently know it, traces its roots to the early days of the republic. Borrowing heavily from European experiences and practices, early settlers supported informal arrangements to care for the worthy poor. Later, as colonial life became more complicated, we constructed formal structures to care for deserving down and outers. Concepts such as nobles oblige and manifest destiny ruled. The practices of settlement, aka colonialization, and attendant “racial cleansing” and xenophobic slaughter were commonplace and have been niftily reframed in our official history.

Social Work and Social Workers came on the scene much later as an outgrowth of these informal and formal social welfare structures. The interest as the profession emerged was in providing training for charity workers both to improve the quality of service (read to “cure” the deviants) and to promote more effective administration. Effective administration emphasized defining eligibility and safeguarding resources more than promoting quality service.

Jane Addams (1860 – 1935), widely regarded as the mother of our profession began her work in Chicago and founded Hull House, patterned after Toynbee Hall in London in 1889. Motivated by compassion, empowerment, a beneficent spirit and guided by a sense of social responsibility, including her conceptualization of compassionate knowledge, she sought to affect changes in systems while providing services to those oppressed by wider system deficiencies and nefarious motives.

An early occurrence of Social Work in an institutional setting was in 1905 when Dr. Richard Cabot at Massachusetts General Hospital, hired Ida Maude Cannon, an admirer of Jane Addams, to organize the nation’s first hospital-based social work program. Ms. Cannon set about hiring Social Workers to work within the hospital “…to represent the patient’s view”--a view frequently at odds with the medical establishment’s. Thus began the frequently conflicted alliance between our profession and large host organizations dominated by and socialized in professions other than social work. The landscape is replete with evidence of this conflicted alliance and the inherent power inequities.

In 1915, Abraham Flexner (1866 – 1959), an educator, philosopher and social thinker, issued a challenge at the National Conference on Charities and Corrections. Flexner’s paper, “Is Social Work a Profession?”, presented at this conference raised questions as to whether the nascent profession, “Social Work” met the tests for professional standing, to wit., “professions involve essentially intellectual operations with large individual responsibility; they derive their raw material from science and learning; this material they work up to a practical and definite end; they possess an educationally communicable technique; they tend to self-organization; they are becoming increasingly altruistic in motivation. . . .” Flexner’s analysis of the profession produced mixed, often patronizing results. Among his more acerbic observations however was that there is no “…doubt on the score of the rapid evolution of a professional self-consciousness”.

Flexner’s challenge, in part, provoked Mary Richmond to write Social Diagnosis, in 1917. This was a seminal work in social casework. This work was predicated on the medical model, as the title suggests. Richmond’s work in response to Flexner’s challenge provided “cover” for Social Work and Social Workers to retreat confidently to the realm of micro practice. The professional vestiges of Addams’ commitment to social and economic justice, empowerment and social activism withered as Social Workers pursued aspirations to legitimacy, validation and efficacy in the micro clinical practice in the comfortable medical terrain.

I will posit that our profession has suffered under this scheme. We remain in hot pursuit of “working ourselves out of a job” one case at a time, having largely abandoned our early history and commitment to social justice and activism.

Of course, we continue to delude ourselves as a profession by insisting that social workers “do both”—casework or micro practice and cause activism or macro practice. We entertain the Council on Social Work Education during those annoying reaccreditation site visits with the assertion that we teach students micro practice skills in the context of an informed macro practice systems based framework. We argue that we teach students to do both.

I submit that it’s time for us to look beyond the appointment schedule and the people in our waiting rooms. We need to commit to more than clinical competence. We need to recommit to social activism. We will never “work ourselves out of a job” if we don’t look beyond individuals and families as target systems.

A Social Work colleague at Marshall University in West Virginia recently related a story on this point that she uses in her HBSE classes. The story goes as follows: It seems that a passerby saw a baby drowning in the middle of a river. The passerby jumped in and pulled the baby to shore only to notice another baby, then another, and another drowning in the middle of the river. By this time, other passersby joined in the rescue effort, forming a human chain that stretched from the river’s bank to the middle where the babies kept appearing. They were rescuing babies right and left. Suddenly, one of the links in the human chain broke the chain and began to depart. “What are you doing? Where are you going? We need you!!” the other chain links pled. The departing link of the chain responded, “I’m going to the other side to stop whoever’s throwing all these babies in the river!”

Rescuing babies is absolutely essential, but the chain breaker above had the intuitive wisdom, or maybe what Addams would have thought of as compassionate knowledge, to stem the creation and flow of at risk babies.

Our nation and its communities continue to countenance throwing babies in the river. We haven’t had an increase in the minimum wage in over 20 years. TANF creams the easy to place into poverty level, dead end jobs with no benefits and squeezes those most at risk. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act—remember the Act to “end welfare as we know it” as President Clinton put it--is predicated on a lie about a linkage of poverty and personal responsibility of the poor. And speaking of personal responsibility, what about our Vice President who hunkers down in his “undisclosed location” for days after shooting a fellow hunter and then has the victim apologize for stepping in front of his birdshot!  The Patriot Act, to be renewed soon, would make most of our country’s patriots apoplectic with its far reaching intrusions on civil liberties and privacy. The flag amendment would stifle First Amendment guaranteed speech to protect the very symbol of this free speech. The “Clean Air Act” isn’t. The pending Immigration Bill mandates that churches and religious organizations verify citizenship before giving ANY assistance to clients. Warrantless wiretaps are marketed as “terrorist surveillance”. Governor Daniels wants to contract out state government, then charge us to use State servives. And don’t even get me started with the so-called world wide war on terrorism!! What is our profession’s stance on these issues?

I don’t hear much outcry from our profession. There is little activism. We seem to be willing to settle for “playing nice” and working assiduously to “make the system work” for our clients. Our critics may conclude that we have been compromised and become complicit in a larger effort to serve the interest of the moneyed and the powerful.

In 1960, American political scientist, E.E. Schattschnieder wrote:

Political conflict is not like an intercollegiate debate in which the opponents agree in advance on a definition of the issues. As a matter of fact, the definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power; the antagonists can rarely agree on what the issues are because power is involved in the definition. He who determines what politics is about runs the country, because the definition of the alternatives is the choice of the conflicts, and the choice of the conflicts allocates power.

We seem to have capitulated to the power brokers, spinmeisters and political elites who define problems and frame issues in such manner that they gain sufficient support to become public policy. What are we to do? We know better. How do we animate what Addams called compassionate knowledge?

Unfortunately, many Social Workers hold contemptuous views and disdain for public policy involvement. To the extent that these views foreclose participation in public policy discourse, they are wedges between contemporary Social Workers and our historical heritage. Assuming a myopic, constricted professional vision is disloyal to our profession, of no service to our clients and duplicitous. If we are to be agents of change and fulfill our commitment to social and economic justice, we must gird ourselves for social activism in the 21^st Century. I’m advocating a new advocacy with a sharper focus on understanding and managing the process of change. I once heard it said that history doesn’t necessarily repeat itself, but it sure rhymes. We’re far removed from repetition of the salad days of our early history—in many ways, so far removed, we can’t even detect the rhymes. We have a lot of work to do.

First, I think we need to get smarter about the insidious political processes that have accelerated the marginalization of our historic client groups and professional interests. In his influential—at least in Democratic circles—book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, UC Berkeley linguist, Dr. George Lakoff asserts that “facts” about an issue are far less important than its framing. The battle is about how problems get conceptualized and defined, not over the facts about problems. For example, was the presence of the Westboro Baptist Church followers at PFC Jonathan Pfender’s funeral in January an indefensible expression of contempt for a grieving family or should it be viewed as an example of speech rights? Was it an insult to the American military effort in a time of war, or should it have been viewed as an over the top expression of reprehensible anti-gay bigotry? In any case, there is a palpable urgency to “do something”.

The “facts” about the Westboro demonstrations are that they’ve occurred at at least two military funerals in Indiana, the other being in the Mooresville area several months ago. Neither in Mooresville, nor in Evansville were there any arrests of demonstrators or counter demonstrators. The Indiana General Assembly passed and the Governor signed the “Disorderly Conduct at Funerals Bill (SEA5)” that adds a more expansive definition to “funeral” and ups disorderly conduct at funerals to a felony. The legislators understandably felt compelled to “do something”, the facts be damned. The measure does not redefine Disorderly Conduct. Its impact on its intended target, Westboro, seems minimal. But at least we have a new felony in Indiana. A solution in search of a problem!! Enforcement could be a nightmare…at the Pfender funeral, there were Vietnam Veteran motorcyclists as “counter demonstrators”. They revved their bikes to drown out the Westboro zanies. Whose conduct, the Westboro bigots or the Vietnam Veterans motorcyclists, might be disorderly? The bill extends “protections” to grieving families along the entire funeral processional route. Does this mean that Veterans For Peace, a group of which I am a proud member, could be arrested for having an approved demonstration against the war at the Four Freedoms Monument if a funeral procession happens to pass by us?

In his provocative paper, “Heresthetics and the Art of Political Manipulation: The Use and Abuse of Public Opinion in Modern American Democracy”, delivered at the Andiron Lecture Series at the University of Evansville last month, political science professor, Dr. Robert Dion argues persuasively that naked political manipulation results in an electorate’s support for an issue depending on the way the issue is interpreted and not necessarily by thoughtful, factual persuasion. The U.S. electorate, especially in recent elections, has avoided the messy confusion over the facts in favor of the comfortable cover of interpretation, which seems to be impervious to the facts. William Riker calls this process “heresthetics”—thus the title for Dr. Dion’s paper.

Since all political issues are inherently multidimensional and complicated, fact based persuasive appeals are frequently seen as out of reach or unimportant. In the last presidential election, John Kerry’s military record, previously embraced as true and commendable became the target of reframing as politically calculated, disingenuous, traitorous and contemptible. It became a liability. The facts didn’t change, their framing and interpretation did.

I do not assert that facts don’t matter in political discourse or in Social Work advocacy and policy practice, but I do understand that facts are not the only coin of the realm—and perhaps not even the most valuable coin of the realm.

Closer to our professional lives, where’s the evidence that the “problem” of welfare is in any way linked to the irresponsible behavior of the poor? There isn’t any. Yet we have the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The accepted “frame” to use Lakoff’s paradigm, is that welfare recipients are nefarious cheats, with intractable characterological flaws who are stealing from the rest of us and we MUST do something about it. Thank YOU Ronald Reagan!!!

Second, we’ve got to become more engaged in the public discourse about issues about which we are experts. We must engage in the public policy process. We must accept our responsibility to organize and help give voice to those “drowning babies in the river” and mobilize to stop people from throwing them in the river in the first place. Can we say “PREVENTION”?

Finally, we must understand and believe that our broad, dynamic systems perspective on problems, their definition, their recognition, their elimination and their prevention has merit. We shouldn’t be shy about sharing it. We have a unique perspective on the human costs of social ills—broadly defined—and an explicit responsibility to use this perspective to shape the discourse about who we are and what we stand for. We cannot continue to allow ourselves and our work to be defined and framed by others. We must step up and accept our responsibilities as citizens and as professionals. Our collective futures depend on it. We should have no reason to feel or act self conscious. We must have convictions and live the courage of our convictions.

Thank you.

Ending Disability Discrimination

(Elaborated remarks)

LifeStream Annual Luncheon

Muncie, IN

June 23, 2004

Gary E. May

 Associate Professor of Social Work

University of Southern Indiana

Background

Approximately 54 million Americans have a disability according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1996 data. This represents approximately 20% of the U.S. population. As people age, they face a risk for adventitious disability that is roughly proportional to their ageing. For example, by age 85, 84% of Americans have at least one disability.

In a 1998 survey of U.S. households commissioned by the National Organization on Disability (NOD) conducted by Harris and Associates, the pattern and magnitude of poor quality of life indicators was again substantiated. This survey has been conducted periodically over the past several years. In the 1998 survey, the unemployment rate among persons with disabilities was 61%. Secondary students with disabilities were twice as likely to drop out of high school as students without disabilities. Furthermore, the NOD/Harris survey found that persons with disabilities were 1/3 less likely to socialize with friends, less than ½ as likely to go to a restaurant at least one time weekly, significantly less likely to be registered to vote when compared with persons with no disabilities. Households with a disabled member had a 33% higher exposure to poverty than non-disabled households. One third of respondents said that transportation was a major problem in their lives. Finally, persons with disabilities were significantly less likely to report being satisfied with their lives when compared with their non-disabled peers.

This abysmal state of affairs persists, substantial expenditures of money and effort directed toward “helping” persons with disabilities notwithstanding. When asked, most respondents report a very favorable attitude toward persons with disabilities. Public discourse that seems to reflect this overall favorable attitude seems to betray powerful, insidious limiting and pejorative attitudes toward this population however. There seem to be powerful forces that largely go unchallenged that perpetuate second class citizenship for persons with disabilities.

Assumptions That Support the Status Quo

In their 2000 article, “Disability Beyond Stigma: Social Interaction and Activism”, Fine and Asch assert that 5 pervasive assumptions conspire to perpetuate ongoing marginalization of

people with disabilities. The first of these is the assumption that disability (and disability-related impairment) is located solely in biology, and is therefore immutable. A second assumption is that when a disabled person faces problems, it is the impairment (disability) that causes them. Third, it is assumed that the disabled person is a “victim”. Fourth, disability is thought to be central to the disabled person’s self-concept, self-definition, social comparison, and reference groups. Finally, it is assumed that disability is synonymous with needing help and social support.

These assumptions provide a durable framework and suggest a familiar perspective for understanding persons with disabilities—all without the holder of such assumptions having to identify or claim any animus toward persons with disabilities. The assumptions, if unchallenged, help to “explain” and “understand” the experience of disability. In effect, the assumptions provide all the necessary answers. They also direct behavior.

If the assumption that disability and impairment are immutably linked is accepted, then why look any further than individual mitigation to reduce impairment? If all problems are viewed as consequences of the disability, why focus interventions beyond the owner of the disability? Because of the rather sympathetic orientation toward victims, and an expectation for their engagement as passive recipients of the helpful beneficence of others, we tend to have low expectations. Furthermore, if a disabled person has the audacity to express dissatisfaction with the well intentioned, but misguided “helpful” assistance of others, they are deemed overly demanding, unappreciative and the ultimate defense proffered by Samaritans is, “I was only trying to help”. Good intentions are expected to trump ineffectiveness, a condition I’ve previously referred to as “beneficent incompetence”.

The power and pervasiveness of these assumptions and the predictability of behavior they drive is found broadly in popular culture. Most notably, the assumptions shape and predict the discourse about disability in America.

The Inspiration Quotient

An example from the June 22, 2004 edition of the Evansville Courier and Press serves to illustrate the circular, pejorative, limiting, stereotypic views about persons with disabilities. The article—a full front page story with predictable color photographs—concerned a 22 year old man who uses a wheelchair. The photos and text depicted this young man engaging in activities that most of us would consider being rather routine, and certainly unremarkable. Activities such as greeting worshipers at church, bowling, visiting with benefactors (folks who had “befriended” this young man through their involvement in the community integration program in which he is enrolled), and similar “normal”, “routine” activities were highlighted. The text was replete with references to the young man’s persistence, sense of humor, aspirations, and pleasantness. Again, none of these characteristics would be deemed noteworthy—and certainly not newsworthy—if exhibited by any other person. The editorial bias, to wit; these things are remarkable—and newsworthy—because this man has a disability and uses a wheelchair. The low expectations for persons with disabilities betrayed by the newspapers judgment about the interest and value of this man’s story both reify and nurture the assumptions discussed in the Fine and Asch article. Such stories highlighting “accomplishments” and implicitly unexpected “normal” behaviors are all too commonplace.

Such articles have prompted me to consider how we might understand their appeal. I’m developing the concept of The Inspiration Quotient (In. Q.). The In. Q. can be understood as the relationship between expectations for and achievements of persons with disabilities. Given the chronic, widespread condition of low expectations, even nominal “achievements”, such as depicted in the Courier and Press article, are “extraordinary”. Their appeal includes an affirmation that people with disabilities—for whom we have no animus—actually can do “normal” things. They are deemed “inspirational”. It makes the non-disabled viewer feel better.

The “average” In. Q. is 100 (a perfect match between expectations and achievement), where the subject does as expected. In. Q. s in excess of 100 occur either because expectations are incredibly low (the usual condition) and achievements are average (such as in the case above), or because achievements exceed the typical low (v. “incredibly low”) expectations. Below average In. Q. values occur when the achievements are substantially lower than expectations. Such condition seems most common in educational settings where expectation have to do with compliant school behavior rather than academic performance.

In the absence of “noteworthy” achievements, effort counts in the In. Q. computation. This is reflected in accounts of the “achievements” of Special Olympics participants, where medals are awarded for skills that are of little or no functional value. (For example, the softball toss is scored on distance rather than accuracy or reciprocity. Most folks who throw a softball throw it to another person, not just randomly on the field.), and every participant is a “winner” just for trying. (Effort counts!) Media accounts of these events are replete with effusive, evocative accounts by the dispensers of copious hugs who attest to the affirming effect of dispensing hugs to such “deserving” recipients. (Beneficence rewarded!) No one questions the paradigm that victimizes Olympians thereby creating opportunities for “normals” to express their generosity and love.

Obviously, the In. Q. is very susceptible to the biases and interpretation of the observer. For some, that we disabled folks are able to get out of bed and go to the supermarket is “inspirational”, warranting a high In. Q. for us—we should feel good, right? Who knows, the newspaper may even want to do a story about our shopping, deeming it newsworthy!

Using us and our lives as inspirational icons that reinforce the very limiting judgments and behaviors that serve to perpetuate our marginalization is duplicitous at best, and cruelly exploitative, at worst. This conspiracy of low expectations, ascribing inspirational value and failure to understand the experience of disability as a dynamic, socially constructed phenomenon, where the quality of our lives is predicted more by what happens around us than by what our disabilities are, continues to relegate us to second class citizenship.

Assumptions That Challenge the Status Quo

In our textbook, Ending Disability Discrimination: Strategies for Social Workers, my co-editor, Martha Raske, and I argue that disability is only reasonably understood in this dynamic framework where the quality of interaction is a more important predictor of achievement and satisfaction than the disability itself. Disability-related impairment is viewed as a consequence of discrimination, not as a consequence of the disability itself. Our book is based on the assumption that disability and impairment are not immutably linked. As a wheelchair user, I’m not usually impaired, but in an environment that has architectural barriers such as steps, I am impaired even though my disability is exactly the same in both circumstances. So, impairment is not predicted by my disability but by the receptiveness of the environments in which I operate.

A second assumption is that disability-related impairment is socially constructed. It’s all about the capacity in communities for all citizens to access opportunities to participate, to achieve, to fail and to be held accountable. This suggests a much broader target system for intervention on behalf of people with disabilities. Continuing to focus interventions on mitigation, restoration, and rehabilitation, while continuing to ignore broader systems, prejudices and marginalizing forces, is short sighted and of very limited positive consequence for people with disabilities.

Raske and I contend that “disability” is a nominal state that is accompanied by limiting assumptions, prejudices, and stereotypes only if it suits the observer. In this sense, disability is a name only. It does not in itself suggest inferiority, superiority or anything else. To the degree that such judgments accompany the conceptualization and discourse about disability, they reflect the biases of the holder of such judgments. Clearly, we have made impressive improvements—even though we have much work to do—in understanding race and gender relations. We must work to further this understanding of disability.

Disability and pride can coexist. This assumption casts a different light on the perceptions of and about persons with disabilities than is consistent with rash conclusions about our value as icons of inspiration. Pride is an important confounding variable in the In. Q. calculation. How does one assess the influence of pride as a motivator in our living rich, productive lives—not in spite of or because of our disabilities—but with our disabilities? Most folks think disability is anathema to pride. The concept of “Disability Pride” is an oxymoron to them.

Finally, Raske and I assert that helpers/advocates/activists must assume a “working with” rather than a “working on” orientation when interacting with persons with disabilities. This collaborative, consultative role is contrary to the usual stereotypes and expectations concerning persons with disabilities. The evidence that little is at risk if we change our orientation is abundant. It was again validated in the NOD/Harris survey.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision was June 22, 1999. These seminal changes in the glacial movement of legislation and litigation involving people with disabilities have not resulted in radical or even significant granular changes in American culture. People with disabilities may well be the last discovered minority group in the U.S. It’s up to all of us who are willing to challenge and question the assumptions that support the status quo to insist that changes be made. We need to challenge In. Q. assumptions. We need to challenge popular portrayals of people with disabilities. We need to challenge low expectations. We need to challenge patronizing treatment of and second class citizenship of persons with disabilities. It’s imperative that we each make the changes that we can. The stakes are high. The need is great. LET’S GO DO IT! LET’S END DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION!!!