Whether you truly believe it or just feel like it's the politically correct thing to say, most people would endorse the following statement: People with disabilities are equal to their able-bodied peers.
Where I think our society fails all of us in the next leap of logic with the idea that because all people deserve equal opportunities, they are and should be treated the same. We all have different needs, strengths, weaknesses, and potential contributions to better our world. Treating any two people exactly the same is often an injustice to both. It denies the usually very obvious differences that make us who we are. We're all well-versed on the differences that might present adversity in our lives, but there are also those differences that serve as an asset. Some of these differences might give someone an advantage on a particular task. A difference might make someone well-suited for a particular role in our society.
A teenager who is very tall and athletic would have an advantage to shorter peers when they played basketball.
If I'm going to race a friend who walks (a.k.a. "a walker") on a sandy beach, I'd give the advantage to a walker any day!
Someone without my disability would be better at firefighting than me..
[Graphic caption: The sign for 'equal' is crossed out to signify 'not equal'.]
These examples aren't to say that people with disabilities can't perform well-even excel-in these activities. They just serve as seemingly basic examples that most are comfortable agreeing: There are a few tasks that people without disabilities are generally BETTER at mastering than those of us with disabilities. If we're ok with this reality though, why can't we also see that there are things that people with disabilities are BETTER at doing than able-bodied people?
A couple examples indicating the discomfort many feel with this idea:
My friend has worked this summer in an inclusive camp for kids with and without disabilities. He's uses a wheelchair and was conversing with a teenage camper who has also recently started using a wheelchair to maximize his independence. In making conversation and perhaps in an attempt to boost the camper's self-esteem, my friend remarked, "Guys in wheelchairs get all the girls." Another counselor nearby flew into a frenzy and pulled my friend aside. She said that my friend's remark suggested that people in wheelchairs were someone better. She didn't think that was fair to the other campers who walked.
Really!? As if now the able-bodied campers will have a massive identity crisis worrying that reverse oppression and discrimination will now take over the world! The statement was a simple one that recognized the developmental age of the teen (as one who is interested in girls) and reinforced his recent difficult transition. The other counselor couldn't see the potential benefits of this interaction because she disagreed that people with disabilities could ever be BETTER
at something than their typical peers.
A more recent example can be found in the controversy surrounding the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice. I'm appalled by the suggestion that Judge Sotomayor couldn't fulfill her duties due to her Type I diabetes. Not that it's anyone's business, but Sotomayor has been effectively and successfully managing her diabetes for decades. Until we also review the risk-taking behaviors, lifetime drug use, and extensive medical/genetic histories of other justices, why is it fair to consider a diagnosis that Sotomayor has readily discussed?
[Photo caption: Judge Sotomayor smiles next to a window with a city view.]
A comment made more than seven years ago has also plagued Sotomayor during her hearings. In October of 2001 Sonia Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." To me, this seems obvious! To others, it's reverse discrimination. Sotomayor didn't state that a Latina woman should be given priority over or BETTER TREATMENT than white males, she simply acknowledged an advantage that her unique life experiences provides. Can you really argue that? Experiencing the healthcare system as a patient for years has to result in a different level of understanding than someone who peruses reports. Someone who has LIVED through an act of discrimination rather than heard/read about it can provide a needed perspective in our country's highest court.
Why are we so afraid to admit that in certain instances, we are can perform BETTER than people without disabilities? It doesn't mean that we don't all deserve EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES. It's simply an acknowledgement of reality.
I know you all have examples of unique ways your disability has given you an advantage. Mine range from the silly (I can fit in extremely small spaces) to the life-changing (my disability has led to an immediate foundation on which to build rapport when I've counseled children with disabilities).
What's something you can do BETTER than someone without your disability?
For more on this topic, check out these posts on Disaboom:
One of Us on the Court by Abe Munder
When dating another person with a disability is desirable (aka BETTER) by Dr. Fulbright
Blind People Can See Better Than Me by openmindinsertfoot
