Disability in America
In 1776 the United States of America was founded on the principles of liberty and justice for all, including the right to the pursuit of happiness. People from all over the world began to immigrate to the United States, with many of them seeking to escape persecution, just as the founders of our country did during the first and longest lasting period of immigration from 1600-1775. Due to public health scares following outbreaks of several communicable diseases, including smallpox, Americans began to view immigrants with resentment and suspicion and began to search for effective means to limit their access.
First, the Naturalization Act of 1790 declared citizenship limited to “free, white persons” of good character. Then, in 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Act to Regulate Immigration, intended to prevent the entry into the United States of, among others, persons with mental disabilities, i.e., “lunatics” and those with other “undesirable” conditions. Finally, the Immigration Act of 1907 sealed the fate of those considered subnormal; it states, in part, that those refused admission shall include “all idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons”, as well as “persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease”. On average, in any given year, approximately two percent, or twenty thousand immigrants, were denied entry based on insanity or visible disabilities. For this reason, Ellis Island is also known as “Heartbreak Island” or the “Island of Tears.”
About five thousand immigrants arrived daily, sometimes more, and it was difficult for staff to process them all thoroughly. In 1910 former Quaker school principal and prominent American psychologist and eugenicist Henry Goddard was tasked with developing an expedited intelligence testing system to weed out the “undesirables” attempting to pass through the gates of Ellis Island. Goddard, known for his strong views on mental illness and eugenics, believed that the definition of democracy meant that, “people rule by selecting the wisest, most intelligent and most human to tell them what to do to be happy” (Goddard 237).
Known for using terms such as “moron”, “imbecile”, and “idiot” to describe the subjects of his research, Goddard was once quoted as saying, “If all of the slum districts of our cities were removed tomorrow and model tenements built in their places, we would still have slums in a week's time because we have these mentally defective people who can never be taught to live otherwise than as they have been living. Not until we take care of this class and see to it that their lives are guided by intelligent people, shall we remove these sores from our social life” (Goddard 237). As a result of Goddard's two step testing system and stricter standards, the number of deported immigrants in subsequent years, specifically those with disabilities, increased dramatically.
Deportation was only one of the indignities conducted against people with disabilities in America, with the government's blessing. Throughout the nineteenth century and, incredibly, continuing into the twentieth century, many so-called “feeble-minded” people with various disabilities were forcibly sterilized, as per laws permitting the practice, to prevent reproduction of the “undesirables.” Sterilization occurred primarily through castration, which meant that the individual's ovaries or testicles were removed during an operation which the patient had not authorized and was unaware had happened until much later, sometimes never.
Involuntary sterilization laws began in America in 1907, in Indiana. Other states soon followed and by 1930 the practice was legal in thirty-three states in America. In fact, more than 60,000 people underwent sterilization without their consent between 1920 and 1975. Religious organizations enthusiastically supported the practice and proponents pointed out the economic impact on society of those considered imbeciles or idiots and cited decreased welfare costs to be yet another benefit to sterilization.
The attitude of the majority was reflected in the statement made by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in affirming the state's right to perform compulsory sterilization, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...three generations of imbeciles are enough” (Buck v. Bell 2).
Persons with disabilities are often viewed as inferior at best and insane at worst. Discrimination against them has been ubiquitous as far back as America has recorded history. For example, the Thirteen Colonies forbid persons with disabilities from residing within their settlements, unless they could provide evidence of their ability to support themselves and maintain their independence. Sadly, not even family support was guaranteed as, “within families, persons with disabilities were hidden, disowned, or even allowed to die through the withholding of life-support services” (Fleischer 11).
In the religious community, the traditional explanation for those possessed of various physical and/or mental disabilities has always been that they are either to be pitied for their suffering or admired for their perseverance. In fact, as noted in Disability & Christian Theology, “When people with disabilities have been considered at all, they have historically been looked at as symbols of sin (to be avoided), images of saintliness (to be admired), signs of God’s limited power or capriciousness (to be pondered), or personifications of suffering (to be pitied)—very rarely are people with disabilities considered first as people” (Creamer 37). Indeed, in centuries past, mental, and sometimes physical conditions such as epilepsy, blindness, and deafness were linked to sins committed by those afflicted or by their parents, as well as possession by evil spirits and/or demons and this attitude persists even today in the minds of many.
Today in America, there are approximately fifty-four million Americans with disabilities, and they represent the fastest growing minority group in the country. Additionally, at one time or another, every American will experience some kind of disability. Yet discrimination against those with disabilities persists, despite the introduction of laws designed to prevent such intolerance. For example, as per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III, Sec.36.304 (a) General: A public accommodation shall remove architectural barriers in existing facilities, including communication barriers that are structural in nature, where such removal is readily achievable, i.e., easily accomplished, and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. Yet architectural barriers in churches routinely prevent participation by those with disabilities. While some churches have made modifications to allow access for physically challenged church members, such as accessible parking and entry ramps for those in wheelchairs, interpreters for the Deaf, or large print hymnals for those with limited vision, as well as other means of accessibility, many have not.
Why would religious facilities ignore the needs of their members with disabilities? Primarily because, when the ADA passed in 1990, all religious entities were exempt from complying with the requirements of accessibility therein, based on the fundamentals of separation of church and state. Church leaders have protested the cost of inclusion, which is ironic since in addition to other benefits it enjoys, churches do not pay income, sales, or property tax. Additionally, improvements may be seen as unnecessary as congregants with disabilities are encouraged to ask for help from others, as opposed to being encouraged to function as independent members of society.
In some cases, religious organizations twist the intention of separation of church and state to legally discriminate against people with disabilities. In one case when a female church employee with a physical disability was fired, she filed a discrimination suit as per the Americans with Disabilities Act. She lost her case due to the “Ministerial Exception” which effectively serves to exempt churches from adherence to requirements set in place by anti-discrimination laws.
As noted in What's in a Name? with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress attempted to “bar discrimination in a multitude of settings but made exemptions for religious employers” (Hinkle 289). This same exemption allows churches the right to refuse employment to female priests, gay people, etc., again referencing the “Ministerial Exception.” The most recent example of exploitation of the exemption is the 2014 firing of a gay music teacher after the church discovered he had become engaged to his male partner. With the state's blessing, the school administration effectively provided students and observers with a perfect example of intolerance and bigotry.
Taxpayer supported school vouchers, intended to enable lower income families to enroll their children in the school of their choice, are also a subject of contention among proponents of separation of church and state. Because public schools receive their funding from the federal government, they must accept every student, regardless of race, economic background, religion, or disability. However, private schools, provided they receive no federal funding, can select those admitted. In Zelman V. Simmons-Harris (2002), “The plaintiffs argued that the plan violated the establishment clause because fully 96 percent of those who transferred out of public schools enrolled their children in parochial religious schools” (Raskin 104). Yet, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the parents, not the government, decided where vouchers could be redeemed therefore, they claimed there was no conflict.
This becomes a problem later for students with disabilities granted admission, because private parochial schools may not provide appropriate accommodations due to their exemption from federal disability laws. So, for example, a Deaf student may not receive interpreting services, just as a student who uses a wheelchair may find their school facilities unavailable to them, due to architectural barriers. Worse yet, people with disabilities often experience responses from their peers ranging from pity to revulsion and others look right through them, not able to see or appreciate the human being behind the disability.
One of my favorite quotes about disability comes from Scott Hamilton, professional ice skater and Olympic gold medalist, who said, “The only disability in life is a bad attitude.” Until we, as a society, change our attitude about the natural condition of living with a disability and really learn to see and appreciate those individuals living with disabilities, they may never be equal in the eyes of society.