Ia:

l. -_—

“J, r I'm/1P?

I‘Jiicnigan 5mm

  

rHFq-L"

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Effects of Short-term Contact
and Persuasive Speech
on Special Education Students'
Attitudes Toward Handicappers

presented by

Mary Frances Gray Rodriguez

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Education

degree in

 

 

(i till/~21: Z (Card/(é c’mr\

professor
/

/

Dag June 9, 1978

0-7639

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

©Copyright by
MARY FRANCES GRAY RODRIGUEZ
1978

THE EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM CONTACT
AND PERSUASIVE SPEECH
ON SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS'
ATTITUDES TOWARD HANDICAPPERS

By

Mary Frances Gray Rodriguez

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services,
and Educational Psychology

College of Education

1978

 

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM CONTACT
AND PERSUASIVE SPEECH

ON SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS'
ATTITUDES TOWARD HANDICAPPERS

By

Mary Frances Gray Rodriguez

Purpose of researgh

This study was designed to measure the effects of
handicapper and nonhandicapper Speakers on the attitudes
of special education students toward persons with

distinct physical characteristics.

ingtrumentation

An attitude survey was developed as a battery
consisting of the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons
Scale (Form 0), levels two and four of the Guttman scales
(dealing with societal interactive norms and personal
hypothetical behavior, reSpectively), and a scale
designed to measure willingness to parent handicapper
children.

Subjects were students enrolled in an introductory
course in special education at Michigan State University
during Fall term, 1977. These subjects were randomly
assigned to one of four experimental groups: pretest,

handicapper speaker; pretest. nonhandicapper speaker;

Mary Frances Gray Rodriguez

no pretest, handicapper speaker; no pretest, nonhandicapper

speaker.

Treatment

Treatment for the subjects consisted of the
following: once a week for four weeks, a handicapper
speaker addressed half the group, while a nonhandicapper
speaker addressed the other half. Topics, chosen by
the handicapper speakers, dealt with current problems
faced by handicappers, and each pair of speakers was
instructed to consult with each other to ensure that
their speeches were parallel. Subjects were asked to
rate the Speakers at each session. At the end of the
experimental period, the same attitude battery was
administered to all 80 subjects as a posttest. In order
to measure behavioral concomitants of attitude change,
subjects' willingness to perform volunteer work at a

local handicapper center was assessed.

Results

No significant differences were found when comparing
the posttest scores of the handicapper group and the
nonhandicapper group on three of the measures. However,
an analysis of covariance showed that when attitudes
were measured by the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons
Scale, the group who had listened to the nonhandicapper

speakers possessed significantly more positive attitudes

Mary Frances Gray Rodriguez

(p<:.05) at the end of the research period than did the
group who had listened to the handicapper speakers.
Since this difference occurred on only one of three
intercorrelated measures, conclusions must be made with
caution. -

No significant difference between groups was found

in the behavioral assessment.

Recgmmendations

One of the primary goals of educating rehabilitation
and special education students is to enable them to
understand and work effectively with handicappers. In
order to accomplish this goal, it is not enough to deal
only with cognitive input: the affective dimension.
must also be an important concern. Students should be
able to explore their own feelings and understand the
handicapper's point of view, so that negative attitudes
which impair interaction may be eliminated. It has
been shown in this study that the current educational
technique of bringing in guest speakers to address a
class in an attempt to foster more positive, empathic
attitudes may not have any success. Rather than rely
on such minimal contact which is likely to be perceived
as superficial, a more promising technique would seem
to be extended, intimate contact with handicappers as a

part of the curriculum.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following persons for
their contributions to this research project:

--Dr. Robert C. Craig, Department Chairperson, for
administrative assistance;

--Dr. William S. Davidson, committee member, for
his encouragement and valuable suggestions regarding
research design;

--Handicapper and nonhandicapper speakers;

--Ms. Barbara Hollembaek, for her aid in conducting
the nonhandicapper sessions;

--Dr. Richard G. Johnson, committee member;

--Dr. John E. Jordan, committee chairperson and
advocate;

--Dr. Charles V. Mange, for providing the population
sample without which this research could not have been
carried out;

--Dr. Louise M. Sause, committee member;

--Dr. Leonard Sawisch, for his assistance in the
development of the concept of this research project;

--Mr. David Solomon, Office of Research Consultation;

--Students enrolled in ED 424A at Michigan State

University during Fall term, 1977, and students enrolled

iii

in PSY 200 at Lansing Community College during Summer
(when a pilot survey was conducted) and Fall terms, 1977.

I am especially grateful to Dr. John E. Jordan,
committee chairperson, who has provided continuing
support and encouragement throughout my entire academic
program.

A special thanks is also extended to my family: to
my parents, William and Genevieve Gray, who have always
encouraged me, and especially to my husband Chemo for

his constant support, understanding, and inspiration.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Differentness As Abnormality . . . 1
Labels and Stereotypes . . . . 2
"Handicappers" . . 3
The Role of Handicappers in Attitude
Change 0 O O O O G Ll’
Purpose of this Study . . . . . 5
Educational process . . . . 5
Attitude change research . . . 6
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Attitudes Toward Handicappers . . 7
The existence of negative attitudes . 8
Causes of negative attitude formation . 9
Interaction strain . . 10
Other variables affecting attitudes 12
Attitudes of professionals . . . 15
Research studies regarding
attitudes of professionals . 18
Attitudes of students . . . 21
Summary . . . . 22
Methods of Measuring Attitudes . . . 2h
Problems of attitude measurement . 2“
Measuring attitude change toward
handicappers . . . . . 25
Summary . . . . . . 29
Testing process . . . . 29
Definition of concepts . . . 29

(Chapter Two)

Techniques of Attitude Change . .
The effects of mass media campaigns
The effects of persuasive Speech .
Characteristics of the persuader
Characteristics of the message
The effects of exposure . .
The effects of contact .
Other techniques of attitude change
Summary . . . .
Implications for this Study . . .

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Subjects . . . . . .
Research Design . . . . .
Measures . . . .

Behavioral component . . .
Treatment . . . . .
Research Hypotheses . . . .

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Written Measures .
Behavioral Measure
Speaker Evaluation
Summary . . .

CHAPTER FIVE: INTERPRETATION

Experimental Results . . . .
Critique of Research . . . .
Subjects' participation in research
Behavioral measure . . .
Choice of subjects .
Implications for Rehabilitation Education
Conclusion . . . . . .

vi

Page
APPENDICES

A. Gentile, E.A., & Taylor, J.K.
Images, words & identity.

Michigan State University, 1976 . 75
B. Attitude Survey . . . . . 80
C. Speech Transcriptions . . . . 91

D. Posttest Scores
(2x2 Analysis of Variance) . . 182

E. Attitude Survey Scores
(Analysis of Covariance) . . 184

F. Attitude Survey Scores
(Multivariate F) . . . . 186

G. Posttest Scores, Groups III and IV
(Analysis of Variance) . . . 187

H. Speaker Ratings and Representative
Comments . . . . . 189

I. Comparison of Special Education Students
with Introductory Psychology
Students . . . . . . 199

J. Gentile, E. Architectural affirmative
action: A university with a new

concept. Amicus, 1977, g, No. A,
31‘360 I o o o o o 205

LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . 212

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Posttest Mean Scores and
Standard Deviations
for Groups I-IV on

Four Measures . . . . 57
2 Correlation Matrix, Attitude

Survey Sections

(Posttest Scores) . . . 59
3 Correlation Matrix, Attitude

Survey Sections

(Special Education Students

and Introductory Psychology

Students) . . . . . 204

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
1 Subjects' Evaluation of
Speakers . . . .
2 Attitude Toward Disabled Persons

Scale: Distribution of Scores

ix

Page
. 63
. 203

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Differentness As Abnormality

The influence of the concept of the normal curve in
statistical methodology is well known. Less obvious is
the extent to which this concept permeates society,
especially in the way in which we assess other people.

Society frequently equates differentness with
inferiority, and this is betrayed by the language which
we use. "Average" comes to mean "normal;" being
different is deviating from the norm, hence "abnormal."
In summary, if someone is not like the rest of us, there
must be something wrong with that person.

Persons who are physically different from the
average may face many problems in coping with their
disabling condition. Too often, their position is
further complicated by those who treat physical
differentness as a Sign of inferiority, and who
consequently hold negative attitudes toward persons whom

society regards as "handicapped."

Labels and Stereotypes

Persons who possess any of a number of minority
characteristics are frequently met with stereotyping,
labeling, and prejudice. For example, persons who score
low on IQ tests are too often given derogatory labels
and treated as if their whole capacity and worth
depended solely on the fact of their inability to
perform well at educational tasks. (In addition,
persons with extremely high IQ's are also sometimes
stereotyped.) Similarly, in a society which is
predominantly Caucasian, darker-Skinned individuals are
often treated with prejudice, both in attitudes and
behavior. Also, those individuals whose behavior does
not conform to society's current standards are often
erroneously labeled "immoral" or "mentally ill."

We tend to place peOple in social categories,
seeing categorical properties rather than focusing on
the individual person (Erlich, 1973). This can lead to
labels having negative connotations and is thus the
first step in the formation of prejudice (Brodwin

& Jordan. 1975)-

"Handicappers"

Persons who possess a physical characteristic
different from the average (e.g. lack of stature, loss
of a limb, Spasticity, lack of motor ability, etc.)
share problems met with by other minority group members,
and labeling is a salient example. In the professional
field of rehabilitation, the terms "disabled" and
"handicapped" are most frequently employed: "disabled"
is used to refer in general to persons with a physically
distinct characteristic, while "handicapped" is used to
label those individuals who find themselves unable to
function adequately because of their disability.

However, many individuals so labeled are coming to
reject these negative terms. "Handicapper" is a term
which is gaining acceptance among the physically
different in the mid-Michigan area, since it is seen as
having an active connotation rather than a passive one
(such terminology is explained further in Appendix A).
Since "handicapper" is the term preferred by the
Speakers who aided in this research, it will be used in
this paper in place of the terms "disabled" and
"handicapped." If members of a group are to be labeled,
it seems reasonable to allow them to choose their own

labels.

The Role of Handicappers in Attitude Change

Several authors have stated that handicappers can
have a positive effect on attitudes if they themselves
take an active role in attitude change.

Wright (1973) stated that attitudes can be affected
by general social changes, such as minority groups
speaking on their own behalf. Safilios-Rothschild (1970)
noted that, in the past, groups such as the war veterans
and persons with blindness have succeeded in attaining
their goals through public relations and organized
efforts. Siller (1976) stated his belief that the
disabled Should aid in the process of attitude change
by learning coping skills to use in Situations involving
curiosity, offers of help, and so on.

Ladieu, Adler, and Dembo (1948), in an article
which foreshadowed the current militant trend among
handicappers by some 20 years, stated that "when the
injured...know that they are not 'handicapped,’ it is
the noninjured who must Shift preconceived and erroneous
opinions" (p. 60). According to Downey (1975), the
disabled are now becoming aware of their own resources
and are finding strength through activism. This
militancy is evident on the campus of Michigan State
University, as outlined by Bugge and Bao (197“), who

found a growing mood of self-sufficiency and pride

among handicappers. They emphasized that "all the laws
in the world, all the programs that can be mustered,
and all the barrier-breaking innovations that can be
invented, cannot outweigh the effects of day-to-day
rapport between the handicappers and other students"

(p. 11).

Purpose of this Study

The subjects of this research were students in a
senior level course in Special education. Students
were addressed by a series of either handicapper or
nonhandicapper Speakers, who discussed topics related
to the discrimination practiced against persons who
possess different physical characteristics, with the
aim of reducing stereotypic attitudes. It was expected
that the study would serve a two-fold purpose: first,
to serve as part of the curriculum's educational process;
second, to aid in providing insight into the effects of
Short-term contact and persuasive Speech on attitude

change.

Educational process

Although students majoring in special education and
rehabilitation are most likely to find employment
working with handicappers, extensive contact with
handicappers themselves is not always part of the

curriculum. As late as the early 1970's, it was

possible to graduate with an M.A. in rehabilitation at
(Michigan State University without having had any
class-related or required contact with persons having
distinctive physical characteristics. Providing
supervised contact with handicappers seems a logical
part of the training process, so that students may
explore their own attitudes and interests as well as
gain insight into the attitudes and feelings of

handicappers.

Attitude change research
The hypotheses tested in this study deal with the

effects of minimal contact and persuasive speech on the
attitudes of students in special education. Hypotheses

do not specify directionality of expected attitude

change, since prior research has had mixed results.
However, it was expected that there would be a Significant
difference between the posttest Scores of those who
listened to the handicapper speakers and those who
listened to the nonhandicapper speakers. (Hypotheses

will be stated in testable form in Chapter Three.)

In the following chapter, research exploring the
following areas will be reviewed: attitudes toward
handicappers, attitude measurement, and techniques for

changing attitudes.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Attitudes Toward Handicappers

Reactions to individuals having distinct physical
characteristics (disabilities) have varied throughout
history and among cultures. AS Meyerson (1948) pointed
out, the status of the physically disabled person has
ranged from that of a pariah to a position of prestige,
depending on the cultural definition. Examples of bias
from the Old Testament have been discussed by von Hentig
(1948), among others. Burnette (1974) told of early
Sparta, where the physically disabled were destroyed;
in the Middle Ages, attitudes changed from believing
that the disabled were possessed by the devil to a
belief that they should be protected. We like to think,
of course, that society in general is evolving toward
more enlightened attitudes. Certainly, we believe that
attitudes and behavior toward handicappers have
progressed greatly Since earlier times. As evidenced by
numerous writers and researchers, however, the current
situation in our society leaves little room for

complacency.

The existence of negative attitudes

The existence of negative attitudes toward persons
with physical differences has been widely documented.
Wright (1960) wrote that the disabled hold an inferior
status, comparable to that of minority groups. Society
looks down upon those who are "different;" beliefs of
inferiority may be overt or covert, often manifesting
themselves through ridicule or patronizing attitudes
toward the disabled. McGowan and Porter (1967) stated
their belief that American society holds a derogatory
view toward the disabled, and that there exists
widespread prejudice against them. According to Goffman
(1963), the disabled become stigmatized, or possessed
of a deeply discrediting attribute. Hansson and
Duffield (1976), in their research concerning stereotyping
and prejudice, found that there was a significant
tendency to attribute neurological disorders to
photographs of persons rated as "unattractive."

Centers and Centers (1962) conducted an experiment
with 836 grade school students and found that children
were more likely to reject peers with amputated limbs
than they were to reject nonamputee peers. Also, the
children with amputated limbs were considered "not
nice-looking" and were regarded with pity. In an

experiment conducted by Titley and Viney (1969).

subjects were more likely to deliver a supposed electric
Shock to recipients playing the role of disabled persons
than they were to recipients playing nondisabled roles.
Safilios-Rothschild (1970) found that discrimination and
prejudice were especially practiced against individuals
with highly visible or multiple disabilities, with the

exception of disabled war veterans.

Causes ofgnegative attitude formation

Given the existence of negative attitudes toward
the disabled, various researchers have investigated
possible causes of these attitudes. Wright (1969)
found that negative attitudes often result from myths
which society holds toward the disabled: namely, that
they are generally maladjusted and live a life of
tragedy and excessive frustration. She also stated that
trauma or illness is frequently considered to be a
consequence of wrongdoing whereby the individual is
punished, therefore associating disability with evil
causes (see also Wright, 1960). Siller, Chipman,
Ferguson, and Vann (1967) also found evidence that the
nondisabled react negatively to the disabled because of
a fear of injury to themselves. This existence of a
strongly felt personal threat is a view shared by
Pinkerton and McAleer (1976), Safilios-Rothschild (1970),

and Centers and Centers (1962). The research of

10

Whiteman and Lukoff (1965) may also support this view,
since they discovered that subjects held more unfavorable
attitudes toward the disability itself than toward the
individual who possessed the disability.

Parsons (1958) has written extensively concerning
the role of the sick person as defined by society, and
he sees somatic health as "the state of optimum capacity
for the effective performance of valued tasks" (p. 168).
Using Parson's model, it can be seen how handicappers
could come to be regarded as "sick" because they could
not perform tasks seen as normal by the rest of society,
such as walking or speaking. Friedson (1966), however,
stated that Parson's concept of the sick role is not
completely applicable to handicappers because of the
usual irreversibility of their physical condition.
According to Friedson, society comes to regard any
physical difference as an undesirable difference,

leading to labeling and stereotyping.

Interaction strain Langer, Fiske, Taylor, and
Chanowitz (1976) found that what seems to be prejudice
toward the disabled is sometimes interaction strain, the
result of discomfort experienced by the nondisabled
because of the following conflict: the disabled person
is a novel stimulus which the nondisabled person has a

desire to explore, yet staring at people is not

11

acceptable in our society. The authors stressed that a
desire to stare out of curiosity is not the same as
holding a negative attitude toward the focus of
curiosity. In any event, the nondisabled person feels
conflict which most often leads to avoidance behavior.
Siller (1976) pointed out that this avoidance behavior
leads to the lack of integration of the disabled in
society, thereby compounding the problem.

Goffman (1963) has also investigated the strain
which often manifests itself in interaction between the
disabled and nondisabled. Kleck (1968) and Kleck, Ono,
and Hastorf (1966) found that, in such an interaction,
the behavior of the nondisabled person is stereotyped,
inhibited, and overcontrolled.

According to Davis (1977). all persons experience
interaction strain at times, but this strain is
intensified in experiences with physically disabled
persons because of role ambiguity. Yamamoto (1977)
stated that this strain results because the unfamiliar
aspects of the interaction tend to disrupt established
societal modes of interacting. In an experiment
conducted in an airport lobby, Worthington (1977) found
that subjects maintained a Significantly greater distance
between themselves and a visibly stigmatized experimenter

than they did for a nonstigmatized experimenter.

12

In researching the other side of the issue, Comer
and Piliavin (1972) discovered that the disabled person
experiences demonstrably more discomfort when interacting
with the nondisabled than with another disabled person.
This, of course, leads to the question of whether the
nondisabled person perceives this discomfort and is
thereby made more uncomfortable herself, and the problem
is thus compounded in a circular manner. If this is so,
attitude change might be accomplished by helping both
handicapper and nonhandicapper learn interaction and

coping skills.

Other variables affecting attitudes Specific
attitudes depend on the extent of the physical difference,
according to Farina, Sherman, and Allen (1968), who
stated that attitude formation is a complex matter
involving the stigma, the characteristics of the
nondisabled individual, and the interaction between
persons. Comer and Piliavin (1975) found that when
subjects were asked to give their first impressions of
the character traits of other peOple, nondisabled persons
irated the disabled higher than the nondisabled, while
persons who had been disabled for two years or longer
rated the nondisabled more favorably than they did the
disabled. The authors concluded that when a person

becomes disabled, his or her attitudes toward disability

13

become more negative.

In Titley and Viney's (1969) previously mentioned
experiment concerning the supposed delivery of electric
Shock, factors relating to the gender of the subject
were discovered: males were more likely to deliver a
Shock to the disabled and female confederates, while
female subjects were more likely to deliver a shock to
nondisabled and male confederates. Chesler (1965)
reported a positive correlation between individuals'
degree of ethnocentrism and their degree of rejection
of the disabled.

Richardson, Goodman, Hastorf, and Dornbush (1961)
asked children from various backgrounds to rank
pictures of other children with and without physical
disabilities. They found that the children gave those
without disabilities the highest ranking, followed by
those using crutches, then those using a wheelchair;
those with facial disfigurements and obesity were
given the lowest ranking. The authors' important
finding was that these rankings were consistent over
ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and they indicated
that the emphasis which the mass media place on
physical beauty might explain the cultural uniformity.
However, Alessi and Anthony (1969) replicated a part of
the above study and felt that the degree of cultural

14

uniformity was not as strongly supported using different
means of statistical analysis.

English and Oberle (1971) hypothesized that persons
employed as typists would have significantly more
positive attitudes toward the physically disabled than
would airline stewardesses, and this was borne out in
their research. The authors believed that the cause
of these different attitudes was the different emphasis
placed on physique in the two fields.

It has been Shown that certain conditions are seen
as being more disabling than others. McDonald and -
Hall (1969) carried out a study that indicated that the
degree of imputed disability is also affected by the
area of performance. In their study, graduate students
rated the seriousness of four disability conditions
(sensory, internal, cosmetic, and emotional) associated
with various dimensions: sensory losses and cosmetic
conditions were rated most debilitating in the personal
dimension, while internal injuries were seen most
debilitating in the vocational and emotional disorders
in the parental. Nikoloff (1962) surveyed 197 public
school principals to ascertain their willingness to hire
persons with physical disabilities as either full-time
or student teachers. They discovered that deaf persons
were most rejected for student teaching and blind

persons most rejected for full-time positions, while

15

least rejection was shown in both categories for those
persons with artificial limbs.

Jordan and Friesen (1968) conducted a study which
provided evidence that the disabled were viewed more
favorably in the United States than in Colombia, more
favorably in Colombia than in Peru. These results were
seen to support the hypothesis that a physical disability
is more handicapping in a traditional, agrarian society
than in a modern society. If that is true, it would seem
likely that attitudes would be more amenable to positive
change in industrialized societies such as ours, where

physical prowess is not a requisite for all occupations.

Attitudes of professionals

It is reasonable to assume that, as a whole,
professionals in the field of rehabilitation and Special
education would have a more enlightened understanding of
the area of physical disability, and we would expect the
degree of prejudice manifested by this group to be much
lower than that of the general population. While this
may indeed be true, research findings are not concluSive.

A few examples from professional journals and
textbooks illustrate that it is quite difficult to
eliminate totally all stereotypes against the physically
disabled. At the very least, several authors in the

field have expressed ideas which would be disputed by

16

many of today's more militant handicappers. The first
two examples sample the literature of two or three
decades ago, while the last three are of recent origin.

Barker (1948) stated, in Opposition to other
authors, that the status of the disabled cannot truly
parallel that of a minority group, since the disabled
cannot blame any external agent for their problems
(architectural barriers?). Barker wrote that "the fact
which the disabled has to face is that in some respects
he is an inferior person" (p. 32), which would seem, if
nothing else, to be a poor choice of words. He also
discussed the (at that time) growing movement to legal
safeguards but stated that these cannot be totally
effective, Since the world is made for the physically
normal and "the ultimate adjustment must involve
changes in the value systems of the physically disabled
person" (p. 38)-

At a later date, Cruickshank (1958) discussed the
need for vocational counseling for physically disabled
children. He stated that the intellectually normal
but physically disabled child should not necessarily
go on to college or a professional school because of
the danger that s/he would become overtrained and hence
unemployable in a suitable occupation. He advised that

the physically disabled Should have only liberal arts

17

training so that their leisure time would be enriched.
(In other words, fit the client to the environment,
not vice-versa.)

Other examples can be found which are more recent.
Solomon (1977) stated his belief that the disabled form
a unique minority, because "they can never hOpe to...
rise up and combat their oppressors" (p. 7). The author
also wrote that "these people...will always be handicapped"
(p. 8), and that the normal majority have a rSSponsibility
to provide for them. While the overall tone of the
'article is progressive, against segregation and in favor
of mainstreaming, certain comments such as these could
be construed as patronizing and not crediting
handicappers with much capacity for autonomy.

Park (1977) wrote a generally thoughtful article
in which he deplores the fact that the disabled are
frequently thought of as contributing members of
society only if their contribution is financial,
equating achievement with employment. Toward the end
of the article, however, he stressed the role of the
disabled in changing society's attitudes by saying,

"the embittered, cranky, poorly kept, and untidy
handicapped person is unquestionably making it more
difficult for the next generation of disabled people
to be accepted" (p. 579). Although this could be seen

as paralleling the "Be Clean for Gene" McCarthy campaign

18

of 1968, it might also be seen as setting relatively
discriminatory standards for handicappers.

Rikard, Triandis, and Patterson (1977). in a study
which revealed reluctance on the part of school
administrators to hire persons with perceived physical
or mental disabilities, commented, "However, to the
extent that school administrators are concerned with the
psychological adjustment of teachers the ratings of
ex-mental patients may not represent prejudice" (p. 528).
Such an attitude clearly betrays the prejudiced belief
that one is never totally cured of a mental disorder.

It is disturbing to find such negative attitudes
being expressed in professional literature, because we
would hOpe that those trained in rehabilitation and
Special education would know better. Also, articles in
professional journals might seem to have an air of
authority and thus be accepted too uncritically by some
readers, thus contributing to the perpetuation of

negative attitudes.

Research studies regardipg attitudes of professionals
Bell (1962) conducted attitude research with 110 hospital
employees as subjects. Forty subjects worked in the
rehabilitation field, 30 had no contact with handicappers
in the hospital but did have a friend or relative who

was disabled, and 40 had no contact with disabled persons

19

at all. Using the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons
Scale, he found that the second group (those with no
hospital contact but with a friend or relative who was
disabled) had Significantly higher scores, indicating
that they may have had more positive attitudes toward
handicappers than did the professionals working in the
field of rehabilitation. Bell explained the data
accordingly: he stated that, although the Attitude
Toward Disabled Persons Scale measures the extent to
which people see the disabled as being different from
the nondisabled, this perception of difference does not
necessarily imply lack of acceptance of the disabled.
Bell pointed out that perhaps a good therapist needs to
realize that the disabled are, to some extent,
different from the rest of the population. This
suggestion runs counter to the beliefs of most other
authors (e.g. Friedson, 1966; Wright, 1960; Goffman, 1963;
Brodwin & Jordan, 1975), who see the perception of
difference as the first step in the formation of
prejudice.

Dickie (1967) conducted research comparing the
attitudes of Special education teachers, elementary and
secondary teachers, managers, and laborers toward the
disabled: he found no Significant differences among
the four groups. Research was conducted in Japan by

Jordan and Cessna (1974) using similar groups, but

20

again no significant differences were found regarding
attitudes toward the disabled.

Palmerton and Frumkin (1969) hypothesized that
college counselors with traditional educational attitudes
would have less favorable attitudes toward handicappers
than would counselors with progressive attitudes;
however, the statistical results of their study were
nonsignificant.

According to Gellman (1977), the typical
rehabilitation worker may feel him or herself free from
discriminatory attitudes and prejudice. However, he
stated that the handicapper who is a patient in a
rehabilitation facility may feel discrimination as a
result of the therapist-patient role distinctions:
the handicapper is confronted with an unfamiliar
system, low level status, lack of control, and therapists
who may unconsciously try to fit him or her into
middle class molds.

Even though the professional worker in the field
of special education or rehabilitation may have a
Special interest in working with handicappers and may
be quite dedicated to her profession, it would seem
difficult to eliminate totally all discrimination,
both because it is hard to examine one's own attitudes
with complete objectivity and also because the

professional most often has a role which places him

21

in a position of power over the handicapper. This
authority and lack of equal status contact can
accentuate the perceived differences between therapist
and client and thus lead to increased unconscious

discrimination.

Attitudes of students The issue has been raised
as to Whether students in rehabilitation and Special
education might automatically, because of their
vocational choice, have more positive attitudes toward
handicappers than would students in other curricula.
Semmel and Dickson (1966) compared the attitudes of
special education and elementary education majors, and
they found that the Special education majors did
possess more positive connotative reactions to disability
levels than did the elementary education majors. One
interesting aspect of this study is that there were no
significant differences between the freshmen and
seniors, indicating that perhaps the years of college
training had no effect on attitudes. Similarly, Efron
and Efron (1967) discovered that students in special
education had more favorable attitudes toward the

mentally retarded than did students in general education.

22

Summgpy

The majority of authors who deal with the subject of
disabling conditions report the existence of prejudice
toward persons with distinct physical characteristics
(e.g. deafness, blindness, lack of stature, Spasticity,
loss of a limb, loss of motor function). Authors have
used a variety of methods, both subjective and objective,
to document the existence of prejudice toward handicappers.
At the subjective end of the continuum are writers who
rely on narrative and personal Opinion (e.g. Meyerson,
1948; von Hentig, 1948), sometimes accompanied by
anecdotal observations (e.g. Ladieu, Adler, & Dembo,
1948): the most comprehensive and credible narrative is
found in the work of Goffman (1963). Authors in the
last decade or so have turned to more objective
quantification of the degree of existing prejudice,
using both written measures such as ratings (Comer &
Piliavin, 1975; Hansson & Duffield, 1976) and
sociometric techniques (Centers & Centers, 1962), and
also indices of actual behavior toward handicappers
(Kleck, 1968; Titley & Viney, 1969; Worthington, 1977).

No one study taken by itself adequately substantiates
the extent of prejudice that exists toward handicappers;
however, when the body of literature is considered as a

whole, a distinct pattern of prejudice emerges.

23

Handicappers share the experience of ethnic and other
minority groups: attention is focused on the
characteristic which makes a person "different" from
the majority of society, and the person's whole identity
becomes dependent on the existence of this difference.
Persons who share these minority characteristics are
perceived as a separate social group, and stereotyping
inevitably follows.

Various researchers have clarified the definition
of prejudice as it exists toward the disabled. What
are perceived to be negative attitudes toward handicappers
are sometimes the result not of intolerance of
individual differences but rather the result of
interaction strain and the nondisabled person's fear
of possible injury to self. For example, the seeing
person may feel threat in the presence of a blind
person, realizing that his own sight could be lost
through accident or illness.

If we are to change negative attitudes, one way
might be to focus on these causes delineated in this
section. Two methods which might be inferred from the
research might be: first, minimizing the perceived
differentness of the handicapper; second, helping the
handicapper and nonhandicapper feel comfortable in
interacting with each other. Since negative attitudes

occur even among professionals working in the field of

24

rehabilitation, such efforts should benefit them as
well as the rest of society.

In order to investigate methods of eliminating
prejudice, of improving attitudes toward handicappers,
we must obtain an objective means of measuring our
progress and the success of various techniques of
attitude change. Conclusions will be strengthened in
data can be scientifically quantified. In the next
section of this chapter, currently available means for
measuring attitudes and attitude change will be

examined.

Methods of Measuring Attitudes
In this section, a brief overview of the problems
of measuring attitudes will be presented, followed by a
.review of the literature describing scales used in the

past eight years to measure attitudes toward handicappers.

Problems of attitude measurement

As Zimbardo and Ebbesen (1969) pointed out,
assessment of attitude and attitude change is complicated,
due to problems in defining attitudes and a lack of
common methodology for assessment. Rokeach (1968)
stated that one opinion questionnaire frequently
cannot measure attitude adequately; rather, a person's
attitude should be assessed over different situations.

Although attitude changes produced in a laboratory

25

setting can be valid, Hendrick and Seyfried (1974)
discovered that such change is frequently temporary;
also, demand characteristics may enter into the
situation so that the subject's responses are not
completely indicative of her true feelings. A Similar
position was taken by Dawes (1972), who stated that
responses on rating scales should not be taken literally
since they can be influenced by other factors besides
attitude.

Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall (1965) added that
there is another problem when there exists a time
interval between pretest and posttest. The authors
believed this to be eSpecially true in cases of issues
which arouse personal involvement and subjects have

the opportunity to talk to others about their feelings.

Measuring attitude chgpge toward handicappers

Feinberg (1967) has noted that research findings
regarding attitudes toward the disabled have generally
been contradictory or inconsistent, due to the possible
biasing effects of social desirability. He reported an
experiment in which persons with high social desirability
needs expressed more positive attitudes toward the
disabled. In another experiment, varying the test
instructions succeeded in modifying the reSponses of

subjects with high social desirability needs. Golin

26

(1970) stated his observation that attitudes toward
handicappers expressed on paper are not necessarily
negative. However, whether these paper and pencil results
accurately represent behavior is an issue which has

not yet been satisfactorily resolved.

Yuker, Block, and Younng (1970) devised a tool
called the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP),
a Likert scale which was designed for use with both the
disabled and the nondisabled. (Likert scales are
internally consistent lists of items in which the
subject chooses one of five item responses which are
scaled from one to five, e.g., strongly agree, agree,
undecided, disagree, strongly disagree. The total score
is the sum of the weights for each response to the
Statements [Secord & Backman, 1964]). The emphasis of
the ATDP is on the differences perceived between the
disabled and nondisabled, and the assumption is that the
concept of "disability" connotes inadequacy. The
authors stated that social desirability did not seem to
have a Significant effect when measured on Form 0 of the
ATDP, where social desirability accounted for less than
Six per cent of the variance. They also reported
stability coefficients from +.66 to +.89, and Split
half reliability coefficients from +.73 to +.89.

According to Kutner (1971), the ATDP is the most

widely used and accepted tool for measuring attitudes

27

toward the disabled. Bolton (1974) stated support for
the construct validity of the ATDP.

’Smits, Conine, and Edwards (1971) conducted
research with the ATDP, Form 0, to try and determine
what peOple define as being "disability." They found
a lack of uniformity between the concepts held by
teachers and students in their sample. Although the
ATDP, according to these researchers, treats disability
as being strictly physical, the students included
concepts of mental disability as well as physical, and
teachers also included emotional, Social, and cultural
factors.

Jordan (see Block, 1974) has carried out a number
of cross-cultural studies, in which the ATDP was
translated into other languages in order to administer
the scale to those who do not Speak English. Frequently,
a measure of intensity of feeling was also added to
the ATDP responses in these studies.

Although satisfied with the reliability of the ATDP,
Siller and Chipman (1974) felt that a fuller, more
adequate measure was needed to assess what were felt to
be multidimensional attitudes toward the disabled.
Research was carried out on several disability factor
scales. In 1970, Siller reported his belief that
attitudes were structured by attitudinal dimension

rather than by type of condition, necessitating the

28

formulation of a multidimensional instrument, the
General Form of Disability Factor Scales. Elsberry
'(1975) reported correlations between the ATDP and,
Siller's Disability Factor Scale G ranging from +.10 to
+.64 and hypothesized that this variability occurs
because the scales may sample different portions of the
attitude domain.

Guttman scales (see Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner,
& Bent. 1975) are gaining wider use in measuring attitudes
toward handicappers. These scales are comprised so that
on every item a person with a more positive attitude
gives a response which is more favorable or equally
favorable to the response of a perSon with a less
positive attitude. The Guttman scales are based on
facet theory, which is seen as being more valuable than
factor analysis as a means of quantifying data (Castro
& Jordan, 1977). Through facet theory, one can "examine
the profiles of individual subjects or groups of
subjects who have the same profile" (Jordan, 1968, p. 72).
A considerable amount of research using the Guttman
scales to measure attitudes toward handicappers has been
carried out at Michigan State University (see Castro &
Jordan, 1977). Attitudinal levels range from the
stereotypic to those dealing with personal action, and
Jordan (1970) has reported reliability coefficients

from +.60 to +.90 for subscales when considered separately.

29

Summgpy

As can be seen from the research which has been
done in this area, there is no one tool which is
universally accepted as an unbiased, accurate measure
of attitudes toward handicappers. Problems which
have been encountered fall into two general categories:
problems with the process of testing, and problems

with defining the concepts being measured.

Testing process Responses may be influenced
by social desirability and the subjects' expectations
of what the research demands. Also, attitudes which
are expressed on paper may not always accurately

predict how a subject will behave in a given situation.

Definition of concepts When we use language,
we are dealing not only with dictionary-defined aspects
of a concept but also with the connotations that
concept will have for the individuals being tested.
Studies reviewed here have shown that people vary in
their interpretation of the word "disability," and
this lack of consensus weakens the validity of written

me asure S o

The three written measures of attitudes toward
handicappers which are reviewed in this section vary in

their degree of current availability. Siller's

30

Disability Factor Scales and the Attitude Toward
Disabled Persons scale are both out of print. However,
the ATDP is available in The Measurement of Attitudes
Toward Disabled Pepsong (Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1970).
Guttman scales are easily obtainable at Michigan State
University because of their widespread use in attitude
research carried out there.

The ATDP has been the most widely used tool for
measuring attitudes toward handicappers; however, its
validity has been questioned by several authors. In any
case, it is unwise to depend solely on any one tool to
measure attitudes. Also, because of the semantic
problems encountered in written tests, conclusions must
be made with care: this should be borne in mind while
reading the following section, in which techniques used

in attitude change research are presented.

Techniques of Attitude Change

The question of how best to change people's
attitudes in an important issue in the field of social
psychology, and much research has been carried out in
this area. No attempt at a comprehensive review of all ‘
attitude change research will be presented here. Rather,
in this section, attention will be focused on a
comprehensive review of attempts to change attitudes

toward handicappers within the last five years,

31

accompanied by salient studies of less recent origin
and background.information on the general dynamics of
attitude change.

It has been suggested in an earlier section that
negative attitudes toward handicappers result from a
variety of causes, i.e., the perception of the
handicapper as being "different," leading to stereotyping
and prejudice; fear on the part of the nonhandicapper
of a possible injury to self; and interaction strain,
the discomfort and lack of ease which the handicapper
and nonhandicapper may feel in each other's presence.
If we attempt to change attitudes by modifying causes,
we would logically focus on the following: eliminating
misinformation regarding disabling conditions,
convincing the nonhandicapper that handicappers are
more alike than different from the rest of society, and
helping nonhandicappers to feel more comfortable in
their interaction with handicappers. Each of these
techniques has been tried, using various methods, and

will now be examined in turn.

The effects of_pass media campaigns

Many attempts have been made to change society's
attitudes through broad campaigns and mass media
advertising. McGuire (1969) has found that such mass

media campaigns actually have little effectiveness;

32

face-to-face contact seems to be more effective.
Staffieri and Klappersack (1960) found that showing
films favorable to handicappers did not produce
significant attitude change, perhaps because the focus
was on the cognitive level rather than on the emotional
level.

Sands and Zalkind (1972) reported no meaningful
attitude change when mass media methods were used in an
intensive campaign to lower employer resistance to
hiring workers with epilepsy. According to Safilios-
Rothschild (1970, 1976), educational campaigns may
actually compound the problem of social segregation of
the disabled, since media campaigns may reinforce
people's stereotypes of the disabled as being basically
different. She stated that a more promising vehicle
for attitude change is through regular entertainment
features, television programs, and movies. When a
disabled person plays a role in which the disability is
taken as a matter of fact rather than as a handicap
or object of curiosity, conditions are more conducive

to positive attitude change.

The effects of persuasive speech

In order to examine the efficacy of persuasive
speech, McGuire (1969) stated that we must analyze

factors having to do with both the communicator and

33

the message.

Characteristics of the persuader Factors which
influence the effectiveness of the communicator include
speaker credibility (consisting of perceived knowledge
and objectivity), attractiveness, and power (McGuire,
1969). Zimbardo and Ebbesen (1969) agreed that there
will be a greater degree of opinion change if the
communicator possesses high credibility; also, the more
extreme change that is asked for by the Speaker, the
more change is likely. According to Miller, Maruyama,
Beaber, and Valone (1976), the high-Speed speaker is
generally perceived to be more knowledgeable by the
audience, as long as the Speed is in the normal range
so as not to interfere with comprehension.

Eagly and Chaiken (1975) found that attractive
communicators are more persuasive than unattractive
communicators if the advocated position is undesirable.
They indicated that this is perhaps due to the
resultant perceived objectivity of the communicator.

A Similar position was taken by Kohn and Snook (1976),
who discovered that a communicator is more effective
if the expectancies of the audience are violated: a
persuader becomes more credible when taking an
unexpected position, for S/he is seen as being more

sincere.

34

Cohen (1964) advanced the idea that when a
persuader is respected by an individual, that person
becomes motivated to accept the attitude of the
persuader because of a desire for social approval.
According to Kiesler, Pallak, and Archer (1974), an
interaction exists between self-commitment and
legitimacy of the Speaker: committed subjects tend
to change their opinions in the direction Of more
committed legitimate speakers and away from illegitimate
speakers, while uncommitted subjects are more likely to

agree with illegitimate Speakers.

Chapacteristics of the message McGuire (1960)
noted that a persuasive message may have remote effects,
that is, a message that changes opinions on a certain
issue Should also change Opinions on related issues due
to people's need to avoid dissonance, to maintain
consistency between their feelings, thoughts, and
actions. Steele and Ostrom (1974) Observed that this
indirect change is sometimes greater than the direct
attitude change.

Allport (1954) stated that we don't yet know the
effects of exhortation, but it probably "helps
strengthen the good intentions of the already
converted" (p. 459). and without it the Situation

could conceivably become worse. He stressed that

35

persuasive Speech, in order to be effective, should
allay anxiety on the part Of the subject rather than
create resistance in the subject.

In an experiment regarding communication modality,
Chaiken and Eagly (1976) compared the effects of written
messages, audiotapes, and videotapes. They found that
messages which are hard to understand possess the
greatest persuasion and comprehension when expressed in
writing, while easy messages possess the greatest
persuasion when videotaped. McGuire (1969) emphasized
that the general skill of the speaker has not been
found to be a powerful determinant; rather, persuasion
depends on the type of appeal that is used.

Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall (1965) noted that
it is easier to change attitudes in a laboratory
setting than in a natural setting. They also stressed
that more research needs to be carried out regarding the

(fundamental question of "who says what to whom."

The effects of egposure

Zajonc (1968) found that a novel stimulus
presented for the first time produces uncertainty in an
individual, which leads to conflict, fear, and
avoidance. If no negative consequences occur during
this first Situation, the avoidance reaction tends to

be weaker during each successive presentation. The

36

author concluded that repeated exposure to a stimulus
will enhance an individual's attitude toward it.
Miller (1976) concurred with this finding. Langer,
Fiske, Taylor, and Chanowitz (1976) stated their
support for prior exposure to the disabled for this
same reason: that since the novelty of the stimulus
is decreased, the nondisabled should feel less
uncomfortable in the presence of a physically distinctive
person, and the interaction strain will be thereby
lessened.

Kutner (1971) wrote that the most promising
technique for positive attitude change may be extended,
favorable exposure to the disabled, combined with mass

media media methods and personal experience.

The effects of contgpp

Numerous authors (Chesler, 1965; Jaffe, 1967;
Gaier, Linkowski, & Jaques, 1968) have reported the
positive effects of contact on attitudes toward the
mentally and physically disabled. Indeed, contact with
outgroups has frequently been recommended as a vehicle
for positive attitude change, especially with respect
to eliminating racial prejudice. However, contact has
not always improved attitudes toward outgroups. Cleland

and Chambers (1959) noted that, although attitude shifts

may occur after brief contact, the shift may not

37

necessarily be positive. Strauch (1970) and McGuire (1969)
stressed that contact per se does not automatically
promote positive attitudes, for the contact may merely
serve to reinforce the subject's already held negative
stereotypes. Robinson and Preston (1976) and Cowen,
Underberg, and Verillo (1976) stressed that the nature Of
the contact must be considered, for the situation can be
either positive or negative. Jordan (1968, 1971a) has
also noted that the nature Of the contact is more
important than the amount of contact: to produce
positive attitudes, the contact must be perceived as
voluntary and enjoyable. This view was supported in
research carried out by Dickie (1967) and Vurdelja-
Maglajlic and Jordan (1974). Allport (1954) and
English (1977) agreed that if the contact is artificial,
the situation is likely to have ill effects: contact is
more likely to improve attitudes when it provides
intimate acquaintance and enhances mutual reSpect.

The remaining studies which will be reviewed in
this section have demonstrated positive effects Of
contact on attitude change. However, each is possessed
of at least one methodological flaw which weakens the
conclusions which may be drawn.

Hicks and Spaner (1962) found that, over a period
of 12 weeks, student nurses working in a mental hospital

gained more favorable attitudes toward mental patients.

38

Since the authors were unable to assign the students
randomly to control and experimental groups, a quasi-
experimental design was used. This lack of random
assignment considerably weakens the study since it is
quite possible that the student nurses in the experimental
group already had a different attitude set than did

those in the control group.

The following three studies employed designs whidh
involved a pretest and a posttest: Gordon and Hallauer
(1976) carried out a study in which undergraduate
students in human development engaged in a visiting
program in a home for the aged, and the authors reported
a significant positive change in students' attitudes
toward the aged at the conclusion Of the program.
Altrocchi and Eisdorfer (1969) reported that increased
information regarding mental disability did not lead to
positive attitude change for a sample of abnormal
psychology students, while information combined with
contact did lead to Significant positive attitude change
for nursing students. Keith-Speigel and Speigel (1970)
discovered that junior college psychology Students who
performed volunteer services in a psychiatric institution
for five months, three hours a week, moved from
attitudes of apprehension to more humanitarian viewpoints.
However, this reliance on a pretest-posttest design means

that the positive findings Of these studies may be

39

overstated, due to possible test-retest effects.

The following experiments, involving attitudes
toward handicappers, also used a pretest-posttest design;
in addition, all relied solely on one written measure to
indicate the extent Of attitude change: Anthony (1969)
conducted an experiment in which summer camp staff took
part in a 10 week program of contact with disabled staff
members and children. He reported significantly
improved attitudes, as measured by the Attitude Toward
Disabled Persons Scale, from pretest to posttest.
(However, in another summer camp experiment conducted
by Anthony and Cannon [1969] for a period of two weeks,
where the variable was race, there were no Significantly
changed attitudes as a result of the study, as measured
by the Children's Picture Sociometric Attitude Scale.
The authors concluded that short-term contact is
probably not effective, while long-term contact can be
effective.) Lazar, Gensley, and Orpet (1971) reported
of an instructional program presented by a teacher to
young mentally gifted children: along with the
dispensing of information, disabled and nondisabled
guests were invited to visit the class. At the end Of
four weeks, a statistically Significant improvement in
attitudes was recorded on the part Of the experimental
group, as measured by the ATDP. Research Of a Shorter

duration was described by Evans (1976): nondisabled

40

persons were administered a pretest, then spent one
session with a disabled individual who tried to ease
tension and discuss feelings. The author reported
Significantly more positive attitudes on the part of the
nondisabled persons at the time Of posttest. It was
mentioned in the previous section that paper-and-pencil
tests do not always accurately measure attitudes due to
factors such as social desirability, nor do written
measures always accurately predict how a person will
behave. This dependence on one written test, combined
with possibly biasing test-retest effects, seriously

weakens the impact Of these studies.

Qphgp techniques of attitude changg

Daniels (1976) has reported Significantly more
positive attitudes toward the disabled after the use Of
covert reinforcement and hypnosis. Siller (1976) noted
that methods directed to the affective states of the
nondisabled, including behavior analysis and
desensitization, may be promising techniques. Allport
(1954) stated his belief in the efficacy Of psychotherapy
in improving attitudes, for prejudice often reflects
other underlying personality problems.

Miel (1967) recommended holding discussions with
minority group members to ascertain how they would like

the process of attitude change tO be handled. She also

 

41

stressed the need for schools to become involved in a
systematic way in helping students learn about human
differences.

In an experiment conducted by Wilson and Alcorn
(1969), students in a Special education foundation
course were required to simulate a disability condition
for eight hours, in an effort to see what impact this
experience would have on the students' attitudes toward
handicappers. Although ATDP scores rose on the posttest,
the increase was not significant. However, mindful that
the ATDP may not be sensitive enough to detect attitude
change accurately, the authors also required the students
to keep a narrative account of their experiences.
Unfortunately, these narratives did not lend themselves
sufficiently to statistical manipulation, although the
authors felt them to be valuable as an instructional

tool.

Summar

Unfortunately, no researcher has yet discovered
the optimum method for reducing negative attitudes ‘
' toward handicappers or toward minority groups in
general. Researchers agree that mass media campaigns
and the mere dispensing Of information are generally
ineffectual. 0n the other hand, persuasive speech,

exposure, and contact have met with a limited degree of

42

success in changing attitudes. Anthony (1972) suggested
that a combination of contact and information can have a
favorable impact.

In order for persuasive Speech to be effective,
the persuader Should be perceived as credible and
attractive. The persuasive Speech should allay anxiety
rather than create resistance on the part of the subject.
As yet, no studies have been reported using persuasive
speech as a technique for changing attitudes toward
handicappers, at least on a face-tO-face basis: mass
media campaigns have been largely unsuccessful.

Exposure and contact seem to have been the techniques
most frequently used and recommended, although the results
Of the research to date have not been uniformly positive.
A weakness shared by all of the studies involving contact
is the dependence on a pretest-posttest design, which
can lead to test-retest biasing effects. Also, all
studies reviewed involving contact with handicappers as a
technique have relied on the Attitude Toward Disabled
Persons Scale as the sole measure of attitude change, in
Spite of the fact that no one written measure will

probably accurately detect attitude change.

43

Implications for this Study

It has been shown that negative attitudes toward
handicappers result from a variety Of factors: perception
Of the handicapper as being basically "different;" fear
on the part of the nonhandicapper of a possible threat
to self; interaction strain between handicapper and
nonhandicapper. Negative attitudes are prevalent in
our society, occurring even among professionals working
in the field of rehabilitation. In trying to reduce
negative attitudes, it seems logical that those who
actually work with handicappers must be a high priority
group. For this reason, Special education students were
chosen as a sample group for this study. Also, since
the research is relevant to the Curriculum, the entire
class could participate, which was seen to be superior
methodologically to asking for volunteers from more
general classes in education.

A weakness shared by the studies involving attitude
change toward handicappers was their use Of pretest-
posttest designs. In this study, a Solomon Four-Group
Design was used (see Campbell & Stanley, 1963) in order
to control for test-retest effects. Also, studies to
date have relied almost exclusively on the Attitude
Toward Disabled Persons Scale, which has not been shown

to be a completely accurate measure of attitudes toward

44

handicappers. Guttman scales have been widely used in
measuring attitudes, but they have not as yet been used
extensively to measure attitude change. In this study,
a battery of scales, including the ATDP and two Guttman
levels, was developed in order to compare the results
obtained. Also, since written tests may be influenced
by social desirability and thus not accurately predict
behavior, a method to measure attitude change through
behavioral responses was also developed.

Since negative attitudes result from a variety of
causes, it was thought that it would be most effective to
use a combination Of attitude change techniques.
Persuasive speech and information were used in an attempt
to eliminate misconceptions of handicappers as being
basically different, thus decreasing the practice of
labeling and stereotyping. Speakers were employed who
were thought to be credible and Who possessed speaking
ability. Through exposure to, and contact with, these
handicappers it was hoped that students would feel
_comfortable and ask questions, thus lessening interaction
strain. With the decreasing Of stereotyping and
interaction strain, it was hypothesized that attitudes
of the students toward handicappers would undergo

positive change.

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

Subjects

Subjects were 80 Michigan State University
students enrolled Fall term, 1977. in Education 424A,
an introductory course in special education.
Approximately two-thirds Of the students listed their
major as Special education or a related field, while
most Of the remaining students held majors in
elementary or secondary education. Average age of the
students fell in the 21-25 year range, and most Of the
students (86%) were female. (McGuire [i969] found that
female subjects were more likely than male subjects to
be influenced by persuasive speech, so the large
percentage of female students in the class must be
remembered When interpreting the data.) Over half the
class were upper level undergraduates, while 26% were
graduate students. All but five Of the students
reported having had prior contact with handicappers;
72% reported having personally worked with handicappers,
and the average frequency of contact fell in the range

Of 21-100 occasions.

1+5

46

Research Design
The Special education students were randomly
assigned, on the basis of the last digit of their
student number, to one of the following groups, using
a Solomon Four-Group Design (see Campbell & Stanley,
1963):

 

 

Handicapper Nonhandicapper
Speaker Speaker
Group I Group II
Pretest n=20 n=20
Group III Group IV
NO Pretest n=20 n=20

 

 

 

 

In order to control for test—retest effects,
the experiment was designed so that half the subjects
were to receive no pretest. However, since the pretest
was given during class time where it was not feasible
to separate subjects into groups, those in the "no
pretest" groups were given an alternate questionnaire,
containing 16 questions dealing with information about
mental retardation. Pretests and alternate
questionnaires were placed individually into enveIOpes
and distributed accordingly to students so that they
were not aware of the varying forms. In this way, it

was hoped that initial design differences would not be

47

perceived by the subjects.

Before they filled out the pretest (or alternate),
subjects were informed that all responses were to be
anonymous, and that they would have an opportunity
to request a copy of the results of the study at the

end Of the research period.

Measures
The pretest, administered to Groups I and II,
consisted of the following assessment battery (see

Appendix B for complete format):

Measure One: Guttman type scale, based on level 2
(societal interactive norms)

Questions in Measure One were prefaced
accordingly: "When comparing physically disabled
persons with nondisabled persons, pppgp peOple
believe the following things:"

Sample item: "Physically disabled persons
have less energy and vitality."

Foils: strongly agree, agree, disagree,
strongly disagree

Measure Two: Guttman type scale, based on level 4
(personal hypothetical behavior)
Sample item: "In respect to a physically

disabled person, would you share a seat for a

48

long trip?"
Foils: no, probably not, probably, yes

Questions for Measures One and Two were adapted
from a Guttman scale used to measure attitudes toward
the mentally retarded (Jordan, 1971b). Reliability
coefficients (alpha) ranged from .59 (Measure One)
to .84 (Measure Two). Jordan (1970) has reported
reliability coefficients of .60 to .90 for comparable
subscales measuring attitudes toward mental retardation.
Construct, content, and face validity are also
supported (Jordan, 1970) for the scales from which

these two measures were adapted.

Measure Three: Attitude Toward Disabled Persons
Scale, Form 0
Reliability coefficients for this measure have
been established to range from .86 to .89 (Yuker,
Block, & Younng, 1970). The authors reported evidence
of construct validity, which was also supported by

Bolton (1974).

Measure Foup: Parenthood survey, from battery
develOped by Leonard Sawisch,
at that time a graduate assistant
at Michigan State University
In this scale, subjects were asked to consider

children with physical disabilities such as

49

deafness, dwarfism, loss of a limb, etc., and to
choose a reSponse on a nine-point scale ranging
from "I definitely would avoid conception of such
a child" to "I definitely would not avoid conception
of such a child."
This measure was originally used Only with persons
who intended to be parents in the future but who were
not already parents, and was designed to measure

willingness to parent handicapper children.

Measure Five: Demographic data (grade level,

major, age, gender)

It was hoped that by using both the Guttman scales
and the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale (a
Likert scale) the strong points Of each could be
utilized and the results compared. Measure Four was
included mainly for the purposes of comparison: this
particular measure (concerning willingness to avoid
conception) was chosen because it correlated most
highly with the other sections of the parenting scale
battery (Sawisch, 1978).

Bearing in mind the fact that Measures One, Two,
and Four have been constructed only recently and have
not therefore acquired as much supporting evidence of
validity as has the ATDP, we might expect Measure Three

to provide the most acceptable measure of attitude

50

change if it occurs.

Although it has been previously stated that the
term "handicapper" is preferred to "disabled" in this
study, the traditional terminology in the ATDP was
left unchanged so as not to interfere with validity
and standardization. The Guttman scales also retained
the term "disabled" for purposes of uniformity.

Out of 40 persons assigned to Groups I and III, 36
(18 in each group) took the pretest.

At the end of the experimental period (five weeks
after the pretest), subjects were administered the
posttest, which for all 80 subjects consisted of the
pretest assessment battery plus two research-related
questions and two questions regarding contact with
handicappers (see Appendix B). Seventy-six subjects

(19 from each group) completed the posttest.

Behavioral cppponent Because attitude changes
are often short-lived, and also because attitudes as
expressed on paper may not accurately represent attitudes
as demonstrated through behavior, an additional measure
was made a part Of the research: two weeks after the
posttest, a staff member from the Center Of Handicapper
Affairs, Lansing, came to the class and asked for persons
to volunteer to help at the center in various capacities.

In no way did the staff member identify herself with

51

the research project. Since winter vacation was soon to
occur, it was felt that the volunteer program should ,
begin after the break, and this would also allow for
investigating constancy of interest.

At the beginning of the following term (five weeks
after the request for volunteers had been made), follow-up
letters were sent to all who had volunteered. Four weeks
following this, a count was made to determine how many
of these persons still indicated interest in performing

volunteer services with handicappers.

Treatment

As stated in the review of the literature, various
techniques have been used in attempts to change attitudes.
Techniques of dispensing information and the use of
persuasion have had little effect by themselves, while
the techniques Of exposure and contact have had greater
success. In this experiment, involving a combination.
of the above-mentioned techniques, the question was how
to combine and incorporate these into a classroom
setting with 80 students. It was decided to implement
the research through employing guest speakers, a
traditional educational practice used especially in
large lecture classes.

Once a week for four weeks, half the class (Groups

I and III) listened to a presentation, lasting

 

52

approximately 30 minutes, given by a handicapper Speaker.
All handicapper speakers possessed a highly visible
distinct physical characteristic. During the same time,
the other half Of the class (Groups II and IV) recessed
to a room in another part of the building and listened
to a similar presentation given by a nonhandicapper
speaker. (See page 53 for a list Of the guest speakers.)

Topics were chosen by the handicapper speakers,
and included the following: handicappers as a minority
group, the medical deficit model of disability, barriers
to employment, empathy toward handicappers, activism,
service delivery, legislation, and architectural
barriers. The point which was brought out by all
speakers was this: handicappers are discriminated
against in our society, but this discrimination Should
cease Since handicappers are no different from anyone
else regarding fundamental human rights, feelings, and
capabilities. Nonhandicapper Speakers modeled their
lectures in a Similar manner, and each pair of Speakers
consulted beforehand to ensure parallel structure of
presentation.

With the consent of the Speakers, presentations
were tape recorded and transcribed (see Appendix C for
speech transcriptions).

At the end of each session, subjects were asked to

fill out a form commenting on the Speaker's perceived

53

Guest Speakers

(listed alphabetically)

Ellen Arvilla, M.D.

Alan Drake

Gary Gearhart

Eric Gentile

Janet Rhinard

Anselmo "Chemo" Rodriguez

Leonard Sawisch

Judy Taylor

Director, Quality of Life
program, Michigan Health
Council

Counselor, Vocational
Rehabilitation Services,
Lansing

Founder/leader, REMS
(Recreation and Education,
Multiple Sclerosis)

Consultant to the community
coordinator, Clinton
County, Michigan

Assistant Director, Office of
Programs for Handicappers

Coordinator, Environmental
Design section, Michigan
State University

Counselor, Vocational
Rehabilitation Services,
Lansing

Bilingual counselor/teacher,
Lansing School District

Executive Director, Center
of Handicapper Affairs,
Lansing

Director, Office of Programs
for Handicappers, Michigan
State University

54

credibility and attractiveness in order to aid in

subjective evaluation Of the results:

 

Speaker Evaluation

Please describe briefly your impression
of the Speaker. The following questions may
be answered:
--DO you think the speaker is a person
you might like to know better?
--Was s/he knowledgeable about the subject?
-—What attitudes did S/he express?

Include any other comments you wish.
Thank you.

 

 

 

All subjects were urged not to discuss the program
with other class members until after the end Of the
research period.

Attendance at each session was as follows:

Handicapper Nonhandicapper
Speaker Speaker
(40 assigned) (40 assigned)
Session 1 29 32
Session 2 24 22
Session 3 14 12
Session 4 37 32

Fluctuations in attendance were due to several
factors. Although the research was conducted during
regularly scheduled class time and so participation was
not strictly voluntary, attendance was not made
mandatory, so that students sometimes Opted not to

attend. The low attendance for the third session was

55

seen to result from the fact that an exam was given
before the research session, and most students decided
to leave immediately after the exam rather than wait for
the research session. This was remedied in the fourth
session by having the Speakers give their presentations

at the beginning of the class period.

Research Hypotheses

Due to the mixed results obtained in prior attitude
change research, hypotheses will be stated in the null
form rather than Specifying directionality of attitude
change.

I. There will be no difference between posttest
attitude scores of those in the handicapper group and
those in the nonhandicapper group.

II. There will be no difference between they
behavioral responses of those in the handicapper group

and those in the nonhandicapper group.

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

Written Measures

Hypothesis I stated that there would be no
difference between posttest attitude scores of subjects
in the handicapper group and subjects in the
nonhandicapper group.

Out of 80 subjects, 76 (19 from each of the four
groups) completed the posttest. Of these, five
subjects (two from Group I, one from each of the
other three groups) reSponded to Question 58 (see
Appendix B) that they had attended none Of the
Speaker sessions: the reSponses Of these five subjects
were therefOre disregarded, Since they had received
no treatment. Mean pOsttest scores and standard
deviations for subjects in the four groups are
presented in Table 1, page 57.

Campbell and Stanley (1963) Offer several
suggested statistical procedures for analyzing data
collected through a Solomon Four-Group Design as used
in this study. The first recommendation involves
treating the posttest scores only, with a two-way

analysis of variance. When this procedure was carried

56

57

Table 1
Posttest Mean Scores and Standard Deviations
for Groups I-IV on Four Measures

 

 

 

 

Speaker
Handicapper Nonhandicapper
Survey Section Mean SD Mean SD
Measure One
(societal inter-
active norms)
Pretest 25.38 2.24 26.78 4.22
NO pretest 26.35 2.00 25.53 3.36
Measure Two .
(personal hypo-
thetical action)
Pretest 32.25 5.59 34.00 4.43
NO pretest 34.21 4.42 32.94 4.60
Measure Three
(Attitude Toward
Disabled Persons Scale)
Pretest* 84.82 10.42 90.28 10.60
No pretest 84.94 13.08 82.65 13.11
Measure Four
(parenting scale)
Pretest 51.41 27.28 53.94 21.78
NO pretest 54.44 27.19 44.50 26.18

 

 

 

 

 

*Difference between handicapper and
nonhandicapper groups significant
at .05 level, using analysis Of
covariance

58

out using the data collected in this study, no
Significant differences were found for the following:
main effect of speakers, main effect of testing,
interaction of Speakers and testing (see Appendix D
for complete results).

Since the main and interactive effects of
pretesting were found to be nonsignificant. an analysis
of covariance was then performed, as the authors
recommend, between the posttest scores of Group I
(pretest, handicapper Speaker) and Group II (pretest,
nonhandicapper Speaker), with pretest scores serving as
the covariate. Complete results Of this analysis of
covariance may be found in Appendix E. Nonsignificant
differences were again found with reference to
Measures One, Two, and Four Of the attitude survey.
However, analysis of Measure Three (Attitude Toward
Disabled Persons Scale) showed that the scores Of the
group listening to the nonhandicapper speakers were
Significantly more positive than the scores of the
group listening to the handicapper Speakers, as shown
in Table 1.

Correlations among the four attitude survey
sections were determined (see Table 2, page 59). The
pattern Of correlations shown in Table 2 is to be
expected, since Measure One deals with a different

aspect of attitudes than do the other three measures.

59

Table 2
Correlation Matrix, Attitude Survey Sections
(Posttest Scores)

 

Measure Measure Measure Measure
Survey Division One Two Three Four

 

Measure One
(societal inter— -- .09 .11 -.16
active norms)

Measure Two
(personal hypo- -- .49* .51*
thetical behavior)

Measure Three
(Attitude Toward . -_ .37*
Disabled Persons Scale)

Measure Four
(parenting scale) --

 

*p <.001

Although Measures Two, Three, and Four all deal with
the same aspect (i.e. personal attitudes) and were
Significantly correlated among themselves, they were
not at first combined or analyzed on a multivariate basis
for the following reasons: first Of all, although the
measures were significantly correlated, the correlations
are not strikingly high (.37, .49, .51); so that we
could not expect them to vary together with any great
degree of confidence. .Secondly, as stated previously,
Measure Three (Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale)

may have the greatest validity Of any of the measures,

60

and to combine it with the other sections Of the
survey might tend to Obscure its contribution to the
results as they are measured.

In order to see whether the difference was maintained
when all three intercorrelated sections were considered
together and thereby strengthen the conclusions drawn,

a multivariate analysis was made including the

following attitude survey sections;.

Univariate
F Prob.
Measure Two (personal hypo-
thetical behavior) .28
Measure Three (ATDP) .05
Measure Four (parenting scale) . .39

NO significant differences between attitudes of
subjects in the handicapper and nonhandicapper groups
were found using the multivariate analysis (see
Appendix F).

Since there were three intercorrelated sections
of the attitude survey which deal with personal
.attitudes and behavior, and significant differences
were found in only one of these sections, conclusions
regarding Hypothesis I must necessarily be guarded.

As a final check, an analysis of variance was
carried out using the Posttest-Only Control Group

Design (see Campbell & Stanley, 1963). comparing the

61

posttest scores of Group III (no pretest, handicapper
speaker) and Group IV (no pretest, nonhandicapper
speaker). NO Significant differences were found
between the two groups on any section of the attitude

survey (see Appendix G).

Behavioral Measure

Hypothesis II stated that there would be no
differences between behavioral reSponses of those in
the handicapper group and those in the nonhandicapper
group.

Out of a total of 80 subjects, only 12 indicated
interest in performing volunteer services at the
Center of Handicapper Affairs: Of these 12, three were
from the handicapper group and nine from the
nonhandicapper group. A Chi-square analysis of the
data yielded nonsignificant results. (Using an alpha
level of .05 and one degree of freedom, the critical
value was 3.8: the test statistic was 3.6).

At the five—week follow-up, only one subject
(from the handicapper group) was still actively

interested.

62

Speaker Evaluation
The Speaker evaluation forms, collected from

each session, were each subjectively rated on a scale
from one to five:

5: strongly positive comments

4: mildly positive comments

3: mixed or neutral comments

2: mildly negative comments

1: strongly negative comments

Comments rated either 1 or 5 were differentiated
on the basis of emphasis, inclusion of superlative or
extreme adjectives, use of exclamation marks and
capital letters, and so on. See Appendix H for
complete speaker ratings and selected subject comments.

As can be seen from Figure 1, page 63,
handicapper speakers were rated slightly more favorably
than were nonhandicapper Speakers, although the
difference was nonsignificant. (Comparing means Of
4.14 for the handicapper Speakers and 3.95 for the
nonhandicapper Speakers by means of an F test, the
critical value at the .05 level was approximately 1.44:
the test statistic was 1.36.)

favorable

neutral

-——————— unfavorable

63

      

4.75 ““2,"‘“‘""*“ .Hamdicalpper Speaker

E Nonhandicapper Speaker

I

3.75
3.50——
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00

1.75

1.50

1.25__

1.00 , .
First Second Third Fourth Combined
Session Session Session Session Totals
n=58 n=43 n=26 n=65

Figure 1. Subjects' Evaluation of Speakers

64

Summary

For the most part, nonsignificant differences in
attitude were found to result from a four week program
involving handicapper and nonhandicapper Speakers as
an independent variable, with one exception: using an
analysis of covariance, scores reported on Measure
Three (Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale) of the
attitude survey were found to be significantly higher
(p<:.05) for the subjects who had listened to the
nonhandicapper Speakers. However, this significance
was not maintained when the three intercorrelated
sections (Measures Two, Three, and Four) were reanalyzed
on a multivariate basis.

Results from an attempt to measure behavioral
concomitants of attitude change were nonsignificant.

Speakers were, on the average, rated favorably
by the subjects, with handicapper Speakers receiving
slightly higher (but nonsignificant) mean ratings than

nonhandicapper speakers.

CHAPTER FIVE
INTERPRETATION

Experimental Results

Although hypotheses were stated in null form, it
was hOped that any attitude change would be in a
positive direction: that persuasive Speech delivered
by handicappers would have a positive effect on
subjects' attitudes. However, change actually occurred
in the Opposite direction, at least as measured by the
Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale: in Group I
(pretest, handicapper Speaker), ATDP scores declined
from a group mean of 86.44 to 84.82, while in Group II
(pretest, nonhandicapper speaker), ATDP group mean
scores increased from 82.39 to 90.28. The difference
in.posttest scores was Significant using an analysis Of
covariance. When the data were reanalyzed on a
multivariate basis, though, this significance was not
maintained, so the degree of negative effect is not
certain; what is certain is that the handicapper
Speakers did not have a positive effect on students'
attitudes.

However, we are then faced with the problem of

how to construe the subjects' evaluation of the Speakers:

65

66

handicapper Speakers were consistently rated higher
than nonhandicapper Speakers (see Figure 1, page 63),
although the difference was nonsignificant. Since
evaluations were purposely left anonymous, it was not
possible to match comments with individual attitude
changes. It is possible that subjects rated handicapper
speakers highly because of the handicappers' knowledge
and speaking skill; however, these reasons would not
necessarily lead to positive attitude change, at least
as measured by the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons
Scale, for that scale defines negative attitude as the
attribution of "differentness" to handicappers as a
group (Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1970). 'Even though the
subjects in the handicapper group were impressed by
the handicapper speakers' expertise, the subjects
could still have maintained and strengthened their
original attitudes toward handicappers as a whole.
Several subjects reacted negatively toward the
various degrees of militancy expressed by the
handicapper speakers, and subjects also reacted against
what they perceived as hostility on the part of the
speakers. One student commented after one Of the
sessions that She had always been taught to look on
the bright side of things, and She didn't see why the

handicappers should complain--an attitude which

67

certainly seems judgemental and devoid of empathy.

An explanation for this defensive reaction on the
part of certain subjects could perhaps be found in
what might be termed the "caretaker syndrome." For
those of us who are employed in (or in training for)
what are called the "helping professions," it is a not
uncommon pitfall. It is easiest to be "helpful," to
feel beneficent, if one has a client who is respectful,
compliant, and who believes the professional helper
to be omniscient. When the client becomes active and
questioning, professionals tOO Often can see it as a
threat to their own authority and competence, instead

of applauding the client's healthy self-sufficiency.

Critique of Research
The following issues, along with their possible
effect on the outcome of this study, will be discussed
in this section: the subjects' perception of their
participation in the research, the behavioral assessment
tool that was chosen, and the choice of special
education students as subjects for attitude change

research.

 

Subjects' participation in research

Unfortunately, the status of this research was

ambiguous to many of the students. On the one hand,

68

they were told by the instructor that participation

was voluntary: although they were strongly urged to
participate, participation was not made a condition for
grading purposes. On the other hand, research was
carried out during regularly scheduled class time. Most
of the class members did participate in the research,
but it became clear at the end that several subjects
felt that they had been coerced into helping provide
data for someone's graduate thesis when they had paid
their money for a three credit course and thus felt
cheated. This complaint may have fostered negative
attitudes which would be a confounding variable in the

research.

Behavioral measqu

Problems were also encountered in the extremely
low response to the behavioral component of the research.
Since volunteer activity at the Center of Handicapper
Affairs had already been mentioned by the first
speaker, it was felt that that would be an apprOpriate
assessment tool to measure behavior-related aspects of
attitude change. However, it is difficult to know
whether the lack of reSponse was due to the lack of
attitude change, or the fact that the task required
too much effort on the part of the subjects. A greater

rate of response might have been Obtained had the

69

behavioral assessment tool involved less time and
travel, for example, Spending one hour reading to a

blind student on campus.

Qppice of subjects

One foreseen source of difficulty was the
possibility that the results of this research might be
nonsignificant if the Special education students
already possessed attitudes toward handicappers that were
so positive that there would be little or no room for
statistically significant improvement. This possible
ceiling effect did not seem to be a factor, though.
Pretest mean scores were well below the highest
possible score, especially on Measure Three (Attitude
Toward Disabled Persons Scale), where the ceiling
score occurred at or near the third standard deviation.
This trend is also noted in the posttest scores,
page 57-

In the review of the literature, two studies
(Semmel & Dickson, 1966; Efron & Efron, 1967) were
reported concerning the attitudes of special education
students. In both studies, it was found that the
special education students had more positive attitudes
toward handicappers than did students in other
curricula. In order to investigate this issue further,

the pretest was also given to a group of introductory

7O

psychology students and the results compared. (See
Appendix I for description of the study and data
obtained.) The results of this comparison showed that,
in fact, no significant differences in personal
attitudes existed between the two groups. The common-
sense belief that special education students will have
more positive attitudes toward handicappers than do
other students is thus not borne out, at least in this
comparison. Significant differences were found to
exist, though, between the two groups regarding their
perceptiOn of others' attitudes toward handicappers:
Special education students saw the public's attitudes
as being significantly less positive than did the
introductory psychology students. Two interpretations
of this phenomenon seem possible: either this reflects
a more accurate perception on the part of Special
education students of society's prejudice toward
handicappers, or else it may Show that Special education
students believe that there is a greater gap between
their own attitudes and society's attitudes than in
reality has been shown to exist. This latter
interpretation is given credence by comments made by

a number of the subjects, both verbally and in writing,
which could be summed up accordingly: "There's no

need to talk to us about prejudice toward handicappers.

71

We are special education students. We are not prejudiced."
That assumption would seem to be at best erroneous and
at worst arrogant. Prejudice can be very subtle and

take many forms.

Implications for Rehabilitation Education

As has been mentioned earlier, the purpose of this
study was to provide students with Short-term contact
with handicappers, through the oft-used educational
method of employing guest Speakers, in an attempt to
foster positive attitude change. If the purpose of
having handicapper guest lecturers is solely to provide
a brief introduction to topics and attitudes which
will be covered more fully at a later date, then an
argument could be made for the heuristic value of the
experience for the students. If this contact with
handicappers produces negative reactions on the part
of the students, it is undoubtedly better to deal with
such phenomena while still in training than to confront
such attitudes when already working in the field.
Although a number of reactions were strongly negative
(one student said it made her "uncomfortable" to
listen to the handicappers), many students expressed
appreciation at having the opportunity to listen to the
handicapper Speakers, stating that they had gained

valuable insights into problems they had never before

72

considered.

However, if the purpose of bringing in gueat
lecturers is to foster increased awareness, a reduction
in stereotyping, and more positive attitudes on the part
of students who will be working with handicappers in
the future, then this instructional method is clearly
missing its goal: such short-term measures may
actually be more harmful than helpful.

In the review of the literature it was noted that
persuasive Speech should be nonthreatening to be
effective. In this case, the militancy of the
handicappers almost inevitably resulted in a perceived
threat on the part of the students. Rather than
deprive the students of such a reality-based experience
by finding only compliant speakers, it would seem
better to counteract negative reactions through
improving on the contact aspect.

Most studies that have used contact effectively
have provided that the contact be either long-term or
intimate, or both. At least two applications for
Special education and rehabilitation curricula could be
made: first, contact with Speakers could be coordinated
through several courses to last throughout at least a
year of the student's training. Second, and perhaps a

more effective technique, would be in-class small

73

group rap sessions with handicappers. Preferably, of
course, both methods would be utilized.

At Michigan State University, it is now required
of all students entering into Special education or
rehabilitation that they have had prior experience
working with handicappers. According to the literature,
such previous contact should have resulted in the
students demonstrating positive attitudes toward
handicappers. However, such was not the case in this
study, or, if the students did have positive attitudes,
they were rather short-lived. This would seem to point
out the need for supervised contact with handicappers
as a part of the curriculum. It is not enough to
expect students to gain unsupervised experience outside
the classroom, fOr, as has been seen, the effects Of
contact can be either positive or negative, depending

on several factors.

Conclusion
One of the primary goals of educating rehabilitation
and Special education students is to enable them to
understand and work effectively with handicappers. In
order to accomplish this goal, it is not enough to deal
only with cognitive input: the affective dimension
must also be an important concern. Students should be

able to explore their own feelings and understand the

74

handicapper's point of view, so that negative attitudes
which impair interaction may be eliminated. It has

been Shown in this study that the current educational
technique of bringing in guest Speakers to address a
class in an attempt to foster more positive, empathic
attitudes may not have any success. Rather than rely on
such minimal contact which is likely to be perceived

as superficial, a more promising technique would seem to
be extended, intimate contact with handicappers as a part

of the curriculum.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Gentile, E.A., & Taylor, J.K. Images, words
& igentity. Michigan State University,
197 .

(used with permission)

 

c» 6’» d;

#24 71076.47’P5 2

HANDICAPPER, N.1.0ne who

DISABLED

DIS, N., 1. The Roman God of the
‘Underworld, the dead, identified
with the Greek God Pluto.

2. The lower world; Hades.

dis- Prefix indicatingzl. negation,
lack, invalidation, or depriva-
tion; as distrust, dishonor.
2. Reversal; as disintegrate,
disunite. 3. Removal or rejec-
tion; as disbar, dismiss.
4. Intensification or comple-
tion of nggative action; as
disable, dismember. (Old French
IDes, Latin Dis- Apart, asunder).

dilsabled, adj. deprived of ability
or power, incapacitated
(see impptence).

impotence, N., Without strength or
power; helplessness meaLézing
w impotence, the mppze cow-
e/Led befiolie MA amalgam/t in
pitabze emigration.
SYNal. Inability, disability,
impuissance, incapacity, inapt-
mess, ineptitude, enefficiency,
incompetence, disqualification.
2. Inefficacy (see uselessnese),
failure, helplessness, prostra-
tion, exhaustion, enervation,
emasculation, castration.

A B 5 S

WORDS
5
IDENTITY

HANDICAPPED

HANDICAP, N.1. A race or

other competition in
which difficulties are
imposed on the superior
contestants, or advan-
tages given to the poorer
ones, so that all have

an equal chance at win-
ning. 2. The disadvan-
tage or advantage that

is given. 3. The effects
of general social or
cultural stigmatizing

of an individual be-
cause of certain physical
or mental characteristics
which are not recognized
or accepted by one's
society or cultures as
normal, natural, or
optimal aspects of
humanity. (see hinder/
hindrance).

handicapped, Adj., 1. Oper-

ating with a handicap,
as in a contest. 2. The
state of being in which
one experiences a social
or cultural stigma or
devaluation because of a
physical or mental
characteristic

not recognized by one's
culture or society as a
normal, natural or

Optimal aspect of humanity.

FALL 1976

 

determines or assigns
handicaps. Usually an
official who assigns
handicaps to contes-
tants, as in a tournament.
2. A person who tries

to predict the winner

of a horse race on the
basis of past records,
track conditions, etc.

 

Handicapped, N. 1. One

who determines the

degree to and manner

in which one's own
definable physical

or mental characteristic(§
might direct life's
activities. 2. One who
may experience a handi-
cap in some specific
situation, but who, in

a specific competition

or other activities
Operates on a par with,

or superior to, one who
does not experience said
handicap. 3. One who
rejects the stigma or
inactive role in life
usually associated with
his/her characteristic(s).

"OTQAGES, WORDS & IDENTITY" is one of a series of articles researched and published by

Eric A” Gentile-and Judy R. Taylor (copyright pending) Michigan State University/
Handicapper Programs W 402 Library Building, M.S.U., East Lansing, Michigan

75

Ph.(517)
48824 353-9642

76
International Symbolo
Access for "the disabled, "
those who are

"confined to a wheelchair"

NEGATIVE TERMS/PHRASES/IMAGES

disability
defect
chronic illness
affliction
problem
tragedy

cripple
deaf mute
retard
victim

the disabled
the handicapped, crippled
the impaired, infirm, sick, ill
invalid, inflicted, deformed

the deaf and dumb

those living in darkness
those suffering from...
...something wrong with...

confined to a wheelchair
wheelchair-bound
wheelchair victim
blanket over legs

walks on crutches

Tiny Tim/Tina
passive poster-child
home-baund, bed-ridden
invalid "in" a wheelchair
The Abled-Bodied (AB 3)

Normal, regular/abnormal, special
(transportation, education, facilities)

Barrier-Free Design/special facilities
separate back-door ramps

sidewalk, curb cuts (for bicycles)

"WALK" "DON'T WALK" street crossing signals
"WALK IN" door or window welcome signs

Handicappers'
International
Symbol of Access
for Wheelchair-Users
2:;:?
Symbol of an
Accessible Future
thru
_D_es_iseBal_ance
for all the Public
"ERGONOMICS"

l ' I, I

POSITIVE TERMINOLOGY

characteristic (physical, mental, etc.)
handicap (one does not have a handicap

one experiences a handicap

only in certain situations or as

result of social stigma regarding
challenge their characteristics)

 

Handicapper (only appropriate for those who
reject social stigma re: their char—
acteristics}those who judge for them—
selves or direct their abilities.)

Handicappers
A generic group or class of people ex-
periencing, but rejecting, social stigma
and unjust discrimination regarding their
characteristics.

. wheelchair user /rider
uses(using) a wheelchair rides (riding)a 'chair
works or operates from a 'chair
chairioteer

uses crutches/crutch user

Tiger Toni (Tony) Terry (Teer Terrific
Speedie(Speedo) "Gettin it on"

. Temporarily or Perceived to be Able-
Bodied (TAB, PAB or currently Regarded
as AB)
PUBLIC (for all) transport, education,
facilities, services, etc.

Environmental Design
Ergonomics/Design for ALL
Equal design consideration/all grade-
level exits and entrances
public way,path ramps (for wheelchair users
baby carriers, seniors, etc.
"STOP" "GO”—-"CROSS" "DON'T CROSS."-—"co"'wfirr"

"COME IN," "ENTER", "WELCOME"

77

IDENTITY is an important factor in how peeple relate to themselves
and others. The identity associated with, or projected of, a person as an
individual or as a member of a culturally defined group is to a great degree
reflected, reinforced, and quite often shaped by the language and graphics we
use in daily communication. Imagery(terminology & graphics) ttlen, is of
critical import to all who seek to understand the basic nature of, much less
eliminate, negative stereotypes and who seek to build positive group and indi-
vidual identities.

In order to correct, update, or to positize the American language regarding
this issue, we need to recognize and reject those negative or inaccurate terms
presently used in generic reference to the elements of the population we wish
to address. This process is very similar to what other minority groups, such
as, Jews, Blacks, Chicanos, Native Americans, and Women have experienced over
the years.

To understand the implications of terminology and graphics in shaping iden-
tity we begin with an analysis of the two most frequently used generic terms,
"disabled" and "handicapped." It is important to note that by definition the
words handicap and disability are no; synonomous. Dictionaries define "Dis”
as the Roman and Greek god of the lower world, the kingdom of the dead. When
the Romans made dis into a prefix it was to denote something rendered apart
or asunder, totally negated. From this historical perspective we can begin
to understand the totally negative nature, and the cultural, societal and
attitudinal implications, of the terms "disabled" and "disability." Even to
_ this day "dis" as a prefix is defined and used as: a simple intensive with
a totally negative word-meaning: not; un; lack of; invalid; deprived; caused
to be the opposite of; fail; cease; refuse to; the reverse of; the undoing of;
the total absence of quality, ability, power, rank, etc.; completely, thoroughly

negated.

When the prefix "dis" is placed in front of the root word "able," the result
is a total negation of the meaning of that root word. To disable is to deprive
«of ability or power; to make useless. cripple thoroughly, to disqualify legally.
(The terrorist's grenade exploded near enough to disable the aircraft and thus
'prevented its take off") "Disability,” likewise, is defined as: inability, total
lack.of ability;-a legal disqualification or incapacity. To have or experience
.a disability is to be considered completely; crippled, unable, unfit, incapable,
‘useless, ineffective, legally or totally incapacitated. As negative as it is to
label someone as having a "disability," it compounds the degradation to label that
jperson as "disabled." Whereas using 23 disability" may be intended to reference
the effects of a specific and total dysfunction of a specific organ, part, member,
appendage, limb or sector of a person's body; "disabled" labels the total person
and.it.does so with extremely negative implications as to the employability, and
‘the personal and social substance or worth of that individual.

 

' Medical/Rehabilitation professionals and government agencies such as the
Social Security Administration as well as the legal and court systems have used
the word "disabled" as an adjective description of an individual (or group)
itith a "chronic physical condition which renders them totally and permanently
unemployable" and completely without ability to be a participating, much less
.a productive element of society. The history of court experience has been
In: stress the tragedy of physical injury in pleading for huge cash compensation
for accident "v i c t 1 ms," rather than for comprehensive treatment and re-
training. The fund raising "tin cup" activities and "Tiny Tim poster-child"
approaches of most "goodwill" agencies and "charitable" organizations have also
played heavily on the "tragedy" theme without the slightest regard for the
dehumanizing effect such propaganda has on society's attitudes towards those
being "served." Such approaches have raised huge sums of money. They have also

9
Page 2 7 . '
raised negative attitudes of guilt, pity, and fear and continue to reinforce the

totally negative association which the public has with the words CRIPPLED, and
DISABLED, and to a lesser degree Handicappgg,

Today such degrading terminology and oppressive attitudes neither accurately
define nor recognize the fact that individuals experiencing handicaps are
emerging as employable, responsible and productive citizens who have positive
personal and group identities rather than negative and/or medically defined
identities. The value judgment of negative terminology reinforces negative
attitudes and behavior. This is wholly inapprOpriate for contemporary society
in general and eSpecially modern legislative and court eXperience wherein citizens
experiencing handicaps, rather than beggmugfor meager handouts, are securing their
God-given, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

Current dictionaries define the root word "handicap" in a much more positive
‘vein than they do "disability." Handicap is defined as: a game in which forfeits
'were drawn from a cap or hat (hand in cap); a race or other competition in which
difficulties are imposed on the superior contestant; advantages or disadvantages -
given to individuals so that each has an equal chance of winning; a disadvantage
that makes achievement or success difficult (note: difficult, a hindrance but
not an impossibility as it is in "disabled"). Any particular characteristic
labeled or stigmatized as a "handicap" can be either an advantage or disadvantage
in a specific situation, given the circumstances therein, but it is rarely, if
ever, a disadvantage or advantage in every situation. Obviously, then, a
"handicap" is not, and should not be assumed to be, disabling. Also it should
not be assumed that to experience a handicap is to have a,or to be the, handicap.

 

The word "handicapped" is less negative than the word "disabled" in that
"handicapped" defines a partial limitation of ability in a given situation,
rather than the total absence of ability as defined in all situations by the
word "disabled." However, the word "handicapped" does have some of the same
negative or inaccurate connotations as the word "disabled." Both are adjective
descriptions of a condition which causes a person or group of people to be
labeled with assumed inability or limitations of ability regardless of the sit-
uation. Such adjective phrases as "the disabled," "persons w/disabilities,"
"the handicapped," or "persons w/handicaps" are inaccurately used as nouns
‘which.project an image of the person as a devahuuh passive object rather than
an active human participant in life.

The traditional definition of a handicapper is "one who determines or
assigns handicaps, one who sets the odds, as in a tournament; a person who tries
to predict the winner of a contest on the basis of past records, present conditions,
I
etc.

HANDICAPPER is a term increasingly used by persons experiencing handicaps
to assign to themselves the decision-making power as to how their characteristics
are to affect their lives. It is an attempt to provide society with the means to
positively describe or refer to an individual who happens to be born with, or Who
acquires at some point in life, a definable physical or mental characteristic
which varies from the Greco-Romano obsession with the Adonis/Venus models of
physical perfection.

 

The modern use of the term Handicapper establishes a positive relationship
'between this term and human liberty, freedom and self-determination. This
generic term is in no way intended to eliminate the use of category terms when
such labels are appropriate-such as blind, deaf, paraplegic, wheelchair user,
etc. The term Handicapper(s) is simply the only noun currently in existence

79
Page 3 .

which refers to the entire minoripy group spectrum of individuals experiencigg
handicaps-—which experience is due solely to the stigmatizing of particular
personal characteristics by our society/culture. These individuals are fully
able and determined to define for themselves the degree to and manner in which
their particular characteristics might enhance,direct, or limit their active
"pursuit of happiness." This, rather than allowing a hostile physical en-
vironment, or the prejudicial attitudes of others, to continue to assign them
some totally dependent role in life. Individuals experiencing handicaps then,
especially in America and the free nations of the world, are in reality
Handicappers. In the final analysis, and by right, theygare the only ones to
determine the direction for,,and extent of, their creativegpotential and
destiny! Experiencing a handicap for any individual then is not a tragedy,

it's a CHALLENGE! The manner in which the rest of society responds or reacts to
(regards) the individuafs characteristic(s) may well in fact govern the quality
of life they themselves shall be afforded when it comes their turn to experience
the same. The manner in which the individual responds to that challenge will
largely determine whether that individual is identified as, responded to or.
regarded as, a condition or a person; a negative adjective or a positive noun;

a handicap, a handicapped, a disabled or a Handicapper!!

('jx

DISABLED HANDIBAPPED 74,472276/4192982

 

REFERENCES INCLUDE:
‘The Second College Edition 1970 Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language.
FunkLand Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary 1973
.mmerican Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1973.
Blackfs Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition.

The New American Roget's College Thesaurus.
And others.

APPENDIX B

Attitude Survey

80

This questionnaire contains statements and questions regarding
attitudes which people hold towards persons with physical disabilities.
In some instances you will be asked how you believe other peOple
react to the physically disabled, and in other instances you will be
asked how ygp yourself feel toward the physically disabled.

You may mark your responses directly on this booklet.

In order to preserve your anonymity and to assure confidentiality
of your answers, please DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON THIS BOOKLET.

PART ONE

This section contains statements about beliefs which other
people have about persons with physical disabilities. Circle the
response that indicates how other peOple would compare the physically
disabled with the non-disabled.

When comparing physically disabled persons with non-disabled persons,
other people believe the following things:

1. Physically disabled persons have less energy and vitality.
1. strongly agree
2. agree
3. disagree
h. strongly disagree

2. Physically disabled persons have less ability to do schoolwork.
1. strongly agree
2. agree
3. disagree
4. strongly disagree

3. Physically disabled persons have a greater interest in
unusual sex practices.
1. strongly agree
2. agree
3. disagree
4. strongly disagree

81

When comparing physically disabled persons with non-disabled persons,
other people believe the following things:

4. Physically disabled persons are less able to maintain a
good marriage.
1. strongly agree
2. agree
3. disagree
4. strongly disagree

5. A physically disabled person will be more faithful to
his/her spouse.
1. strongly disagree
2. disagree
3. agree
h. strongly agree

6. Physically disabled persons are more likely to obey the law.
1. strongly disagree'
2 . disagree
3. agree
4. strongly agree

7. Physically disabled persons are more likely to do steady
and dependable work.
1. strongly disagree
2. disagree
3. agree
h. strongly agree

8. Physically disabled persons are more likely to make plans
for the future.
1. strongly disagree
2. disagree
3. agree
h. strongly agree

82

When comparing physically disabled persons with non-disabled persons,
.2£§§§,pggplg believe the following things:

9. Physically disabled persons are less likely to be cruel
to others.
1. strongly disagree
2. disagree
3 . agree
4. strongly agree

10. Physically disabled persons have less initiative.
1. strongly agree
2. agree
3. disagree
4. strongly disagree

PART TWO

This section contains questions about how you expect you
would act toward persons with physical disabilities.
Circle the response that indicates how you think you would act.

In respect to a physically disabled person,

11. Would you share a seat for a long trip?
1. no
2. probably not
3. probably
4. yes

12. Would you like to have a physically disabled person as
a fellow worker? '
1. no
2. probably not
3. probably

4. yes

83

In respect to a physically disabled person,

13.

14.

150

16.

17,

Would you extend an invitation to a party at your house?
1. no

2. probably not

3. probably

4. yes

Would you go to the movies together?
1. no

2. probably not

3. probably

4. yes

Would you date a physically disabled person?
1. no

2. probably not

3. probably

4. yes

Would you feel sexually comfortable with a physically
disabled person?

1. no

2. probably not

3. probably

4. yes

\

Would you want your son or daughter to marry a physically
disabled person?

1. no

2. probably not

3. probably

4. yes

84
In respect to a physically disabled person,

18. Would you hire the physically disabled if you were an
employer?
1. no
2. probably not
3. probably

4. yes

19. Would you want to have the physically disabled in class
if you were a teacher?
1. no
2. probably not
3. probably
4. yes

20. Would you provide special materials for the physically
disabled but in the regular school (mainstream)?
1. no
2. probably not
3. probably

4. yes

PART THREE

In this section, mark each statement in the left margin
according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark
every one. write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on app ypp
ggpl_in each case.

+3: I agree very much . -1: I disagree a little
+2: I agree pretty much -2: I disagree pretty much
+1: I agree a little ~3: I disagree very much

21. Parents of disabled children should be less strict
than other parents.

22. Physically disabled persons are just as intelligent
as non—disabled ones.

+3: I agree very much -1: I disagree a little
+2: I agree pretty much -2: I disagree pretty much
+1: I agree a little -3: I disagree very much

23. Disabled people are usually easier to get along with
than other peeple.

24. Most disabled people feel sorry for themselves.
25. Disabled peOple are the same as anyone else.

26. There shouldn't be special schools for disabled
children.

27. It would be best for disabled persons to live and
work in special communities.

28. It is up to the government to take care of
disabled persons.

29. Most disabled people worry a great deal.

30. Disabled people should not be expected to meet the
same standards as non-disabled people.

31. Disabled peOple are as happy as non-disabled ones.

32. Severely disabled people are no harder to get
along with than those with minor disabilities.

33. It is almost impossible for a disabled person to
lead a normal life.

34. You should not expect too much from disabled people.

86

+3: I agree very much -1: I disagree a little
+2: I agree pretty much -2: I disagree pretty much
+1: I agree a little -3: I disagree very much

35. Disabled people tend to keep to themselves much
of the time.

36. Disabled peOple are more easily upset than
non-disabled people.

37. Disabled persons cannot have a normal social life.

38. Most disabled people feel that they are not as good
as other peOple.

39. You have to be careful of what you say when you
are with disabled people.

40. Disabled people are often grouchy.

PART FOUR

This section is a survey about parenthood, and you are asked
to respond according to how you pgpsonally feel.

Imagine that there is a method of determining physical
characteristics of a child before the child is conceived. On the
following page is a list of descriptions of different children
detectable by this method. For each description, please indicate
how'you personally feel about gyoiding conception of such a child.
Use the nine P0111t scale given, and Write the number corresponding
to your decision in the space provided in the left margin. Please
rate all the descriptions given.

Scale:

_. n)\u #-\n ox~o OD\O
#114 #114 e414 4414 r4

87

definitely would not avoid conception of such a child.
probably would not avoid conception of such a child.
possibly would not avoid conception of such a child.
might not avoid conception of such a child.

am undecided.
might avoid conCeption of such a child.

possibly would avoid conception of such a child.
probably would avoid conception of such a child.
definitely would avoid conception of such a child.

 

41. A child who will

42-

43.

44.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

A child who will
differentness.

A

A

A

child

child

child

child

child

child

child

child

who

Who will

who

who

who

who

who

who

be confined to a wheelchair.

have no apparent physical

be a hunChback.

be deaf.

be a dwarf.

be missing a leg.

be blind.

have a facial disfigurement.
be crippled.

be missing an arm.

88
PART FIVE

The following questions are to be used in interpreting the data.
jPlease circle your response.

51. Your major
1. Special education
2. Elementary education
3. Secondary education
4. Counseling
5. No preference

6. Other

 

52. Your sex
1 . Female
2. Male

53. Your age
1. under 21
2. 21-25
3. 26-29
4. 30-35
5. 36-40
6. over 40

89

54. Your level

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Graduate program:
Non-degree

Masters

Educational Specialist

Doctoral .
*(Questions 55 through 58 were

Other used on the posttest only.)

55. The following question has to do with the kinds of
experiences you have had with disabled persons prior pp
enrolling ip this course. Circle each experience which

56.

applies.

1. No experience.

2. I have read or studied about disabled persons through
books, movies, lectures, or observations.

3. A friend or relative is disabled.

4. I have personally worked with disabled persons as a
teacher, counselor, volunteer, etc.

5. My spouse or child has a fairly serious disability.

6. I, myself, have a fairly serious disability.

Considering all the times you have talked, worked, or in
some other capacity had personal contact with disabled
persons prior pp enrolling ;p_3p;§ course, about how many
times has it been altogether?

1. No experience.

2. Up to 20 occasions.

3. Between 21 and 100 occasions.

4. Between 101 and 500 occasions.
5. More than 500 occasions.

9O

57. Did you fill out a pretest questionnaire at the second class
meeting (Wednesday, October 12)?
1. Yes
2. No

58. How many of the four guest speaker sessions (October 19
and 26, November 2 and 9) were you able to attend?
x. None
1. One session
2. Two sessions
3. Three sessions
4. All four sessions

Do you have any comments?

Thank you very much.

APPENDIX C

Speech Transcriptions

91

Note: Some sections of the tapes were inaudible.
Whenever a word or phrase was omitted from the transcription,
the following notation was made: (.....)

Comments from subjects are placed in quotes within

(11 n)

parentheses:

Other subject participation is noted within brackets:

[-3

92

Session 1: Handicapper Speaker
(Leonard Sawisch)

Tonight I have the distinct pleasure to talk to you
about an area that I hape you're already familiar with,
and that‘s the area of handicapper concerns and the
handicapper movement as currently being experienced in
Michigan, and I'll attempt to say a few things about how
that relates to other parts of the country.

I suppose it would be appropriate to start off with
something I generally like to start off with, and as I
look around the room I feel this is the place to begin.
As I look over you people tonight, just everybody in
this room is a T.A.B., temporarily able-bodied. Now,
you can't help that, I appreciate that fact. Your
situation you must just learn to accept, that you are a
T.A.B. Now there's a good possibility in the future that
you'll become a handicapper, and I think that's something
for you to look forward to.‘ But for now, you must resign
yourselves to the fact that you're just T.A.B.'s. we
know that's difficult, and we have cadres of trained
professionals to assist you in dealing with the problems
that naturally occur, being a T.A.B. Of course, many of
you have been exposed to that terminology before, and
probably have been exposed to that little game, a little
idea of role reversal.

But actually, it's something new to us, new to

93

handicappers in the state, and that's this: that's the
idea that for a long time--and I'm talking countless years--
my people have been expected to accept all sorts of very
interesting terminology, very interesting labels. We

have been expected to accept that we are indeed "disabled,"
that we are indeed "handicapped," that we are limited,

that we are impaired, that we are deformed, defective, etc.
And they're not very pleasing labels. More importantly,
the connotations are not very pleasing connotations.
Interestingly enough, when I call you "T.A.B.'s" and I
present a rap in the fashion that I did, I notice from

some of you that you were saying, "Who is this turkey
anyway? What is this (expletive deleted)? I don't have to
listen to that. I‘don't have to listen to that kind of
name-calling." And indeed you don't. Indeed, as T.A.B.'s
you are allowed the option to be Opposed to that kind of
labeling and terminology. But as handicappers, we have not
been allowed to oppose that kind of labeling, that kind

of terminology. More importantly, we have not been able

to oppose openly that kind of value judgement on ourselves
and on people like us. We have been told that we must
learn to realistically accept the fact that we are "less
than," that we must learn to live with the fact that we

are "less than"--based on what? Based on what is a

- handicapper child supposed to grow up and develop a

positive sense of self-esteem while at the same time

94

openly accepting that that child is inferior? Based on
what? It's something we don't often think about. What
is the justification for calling me and people like me
inferior, defective, etc.?

It's very simple: it's called the medical deficit
model. ,The medical deficit model that says there is
biological justification for saying there is a normal
biological functioning unit and then there are forms of
humanity that are "less than" normal, that are less than
they are supposed to be, which is very interesting. It's
very interesting when you think in the context of Darwin's
theories and the biggest criticisms of the uses of
Darwin's theories. Essentially, when Darwin's theories
first came out, people were using that theory to justify
prejudice and discrimination towards a whole range of
minority groups, and in fact, a whole range of other
animal species, by saying, "This particular animal--in
this case, this particular animal being an Asian, or this
particular animal being a Negroid, or this particular
animal being a dog or a cat--is evolutionarily behind
humans, and we are somehow farther ahead. And for a long
time that was a very accepted theory. Interestingly
enough, it was pointed out that, if that were the case,
then all species, all organisms, would be evolving
towards humankind. Which means, given enough time, a

horse turns into a human. Given enough time, a mouse

95

turns into a human. Heaven forbid that horses and mice
have that kind of future in store for them. It's not
true. It is a fallacy for us to assume that 1) there is
biological perfection, and 2) if there is, that we know
what it is. '

Who justifies labeling handicappers as inferior?
Who ultimately determines who is "handicapped" and who
is not? Of course, it's inappropriate to place blame,
but we will, for the sake of discussion--the American
Medical Association. Who does the "disability determination?"
The most powerful wing of the scientific community in
this country: the AMA. Now think about that for a
minute, and let's switch to a different context. Let's
talk about some other minority groups. Of course, just
for perspective, you do know that handicappers represent
the second largest minority in the country; numerically,
the largest minority in this country, second only to
women as a minority. Just to give you a feeling for
numbers: 25% of the adult population in this country,
15%lof the child population in this country.

What was one of the things that were allowed to use
15 years ago to justify that women were inferior to men?
What is one of the things that just recently has been
refuted that was used to indicate that homosexuals were
inferior to straights? What, until recently, was used to
justify that Black individuals were inferior to white

 

96

individuals? What social institution? The good old
sciences. For every minority group you can think of,
we can find a time in our history, or a time in the
history of humankind, when the scientific communities
justified the attribution of inferiority towards those
minority members.

How many know 15 years ago we had all these wonderful
things that say that women were biologically inferior to
man? You're familiar with Jensen's work and--was it
Cyrus Byrd in England that recently died-~the whole IQ
stuff that indicated (scientifically, of course) that
Black individuals were inferior intellectually to white
individuals. Oh, but you're also aware that, right after
Cyrus's death, they found'out that, indeed, his data was
forged, that indeed the other two contributors to all of
his research never existed.

("Then it's not really science, is it?")

OK.

("I mean, if that's the definition you're going to
use, you have to make that distinction.")

That's a fair point. And then we could say that the
documentation used to indicate that women were inferior to
men is not really science.

(It's within the scientific institutions, the so-called
scientific institutions...")

well, then we come to that paradox that every student

97

approaches in school, and that's the fact that perhaps the
facts that you've been taught are not facts at all, and
you never know until someone generates some new facts.

Not so much an attack on the credibility of science,
but a criticism of the uses of science, that's what I'm
talking about now. The fact that every minority group has
been exposed to that kind of discrimination and biases,
justified by existing scientific communities. The
immigration laws: what was the basis of the immigration
laws? The famous psychologists like (.....), famous
individuals in our own state, like Kellogg, who had the
race improvement center in Battle Creek, the purpose of
which was to say, we need to purify our race, we need to
keep out inferior European stocks, etc., because we can
document, scientifically, that these people are inferior.
And of course we look back historically and see those
kinds of things and go "Oh wow--how did that happen?"

Handicappers are coming to a point that other minority
groups have come to, or are currently (.....), and that's
this: the majority has noted some criteria for seeing us
as "different from" the majority. The majority has, on
the basis of those characteristics, labeled us and
considered us to be "inferior." For our own self-esteem,
perhaps more importantly for our own preservation in many
cases, we must do two things: we must number one say,

yes, that difference is there, and we must say, no, that

98

difference does not make us inferior, that difference
goes both ways. If I am different from you, you are
different from me, to the same degree that I am different
from you, and so I say "So what?" Difference does not
mean "less than," though historically it's been used that
way. Difference does not mean "less than" (.....); if
difference does not mean less than, than I can talk about
a concept of Black pride and Black power, and I can

talk about gay pride, and I can be proud of the fact that
I,am a woman, etc. Now of course we see that in the
context of any social movement. we see that that's not
quite appropriate. We have peOple who are feeling
inferior because of a particular characteristic, and,

of course, taught to feel inferior, as you have been

to a degree indoctrinated to make handicappers feel
inferior. What do you do when you've been indoctrinated
to feel inferior? You look to the other end of the
continuum and you say (expletive deleted), I'm not
inferior because of that characteristic; if anything, I'm
better for it. And we develop those senses of pride,

and those senses of comradeship, and of course all those
free thinking pseudoliberals realize that the ideal is
somewhere in the middle, that the ideal is neither to
feel ashamed nor to feel pride. But more importantly,

to allow ourselves some flexibility, when the situation

is appropriate, to feel ashamed, and when the situation

99

is appropriate, to feel pride, and when the situation
does not call a particular characteristic into question,
not feel anything about that particular characteristic.

Now, every other minority group has come to that
point somewhere along the line, somewhere in their
literature. And we are coming to that point. We are
coming to the point of saying, "I am not handicapped.

I am not disabled." Those characteristics that I have
that the scientific community insists on labeling
imperfections, etc., are, in and of themselves,
characteristics; not in and of themselves had, not in and
of themselves good, but simply there, to allow me the
flexibility of deciding when the characteristic is good
for me, when that characteristic is bad for me, right
now, as a handicapper.

OK, let's digress for a minute and I'll present my
credentials. This is really interesting because when you
get within the movement, you talk about being "wise" to
the movement, like you do for any other movement; you
talk about outside ranking and ingroup ranking. Within
the movement, then, I have my credentials: medically, I
am documented to be legally blind in one eye. I have
a fused back. I have minimal brain damage. I am. flat-
footed. I have three pins holding my left hip in place.
I have medically induced arthritis, and I am a dwarf.

100

Legitimate as hell, within the movement. Each one of
those characteristics I can use to my advantage in
situations, right? Now you all know, from your background
hopefully in rehabilitation or just from what you've
heard growing up, that if I have a characteristic that

is labeled a handicap or a disability, and I use that
characteristic to my advantage, what is it called? It is
called a secondary gain. I am not allowed to have anything
positive accrue due to that characteristic, because that
characteristic is given the value judgement, not the
factual documentation but the value judgement, of being
"wrong." And that's very interesting. Again I come to
the question, what about the handicapper child attempting
to develop a sense of positive self-esteem? How can you
feel good about yourself if you must accept that part of
you as "bad9~all the time, irregardless? What you end

up with is people into the trip of saying, "I may be
inferior, but--that's no reason to treat me nasty."

And if you're familiar with the movement in California
and the D.C. area, that's essentially the kinds of things
that are being said.

Now, let's go back to that T.A.B. rap. If society
feels justified in labeling me, and puts me in a situation
where I must function in those kinds of classifications,
then the least I can do, if I must have a label, is to
label myself. Agree? If someone's going to call you

101

something, then the least you can have is some input

into what they call you. In Michigan, more importantly
in the radical fringes of the movement, we have decided
to call ourselves "handicappers" as opposed to "handicapped"
or "disabled," the two most current forms of terminology,
right? If you're on the West Coast or the East Coast

and you're a handicapper, you call yourself disabled.

If you're in the middle of the United States, you call
yourself, in general, handicapped, or more importantly,

an individual with a handicap. And if you're in Michigan,
you call yourself a handicapper. What does handicapper
mean? A handicapper is one who determines, and that
should be sufficient in and of itself. One who determines,
one who takes direction for self. A handicapper is one
who determines the advantages and disadvantages in a
situation or competition. If you must put us into a
classification, then that's our classification. We are
handicappers. We are individuals who have seen that now
is the time for self-determination. We decide for our-
selves what are advantages and disadvantages relative to
our own characteristics. Now think about that: think
about what that term allows you to do. Number one, of
course, it's a noun, and not a value-laden adjective,

as the "-ed" ones are, and that's interesting. It also
limits you in this way: you cannot talk about a child

who is a "multiple handicapper"--it doesn't make sense.

102

The terminology "handicapper" refers to individuals
who share a common social class. Given all the different
subgroups of handicappers, the one thing that we share in
common--the only thing that we share in common at this
point in time--is a shared social experience. That's it:
we are members of a shared social class. As adults, we
can expect to be in the lower socioeconomic class in this
country. You are aware of that, right? That most
handicapper adults are poor, are denied jobs, are denied
access to education, access to housing, access to the
judicial systems, and civil rights, etc. That's what we
share in common.

And of course you've heard the stories where you can
take one individual who has X characteristic and find
another individual with the same characteristic, and one
is very dynamic and involved and "successful" in middle
class grading criterias, and the other individual is a
complete washout. The same defining characteristics,
entirely different approaches to life, different adapta-
tions, and that's interesting. We go around classifying
people according to that characteristic, when in reality
what we need to do is classify people according to their
common experiences, not their common characteristics.

It makes much more sense.
OK, let's trace what we've talked about. I came in

very quickly, played role reversal, exposed you to T.A.B.,

103

temporary able-bodied, which is really kind of--it's a
fun game. It's a fun game to play on people, because
it's not often that we're in a position to reverse those
roles. It's not often that we're in a position to see
those roles reversed. In reality, what temporary able-
bodied means, it means that everybody, relative to their
current lifestyle, is temporarily able-bodied, because
that can change. So, I too am a T.A.B. in that sense,
if you want to be logical about terminology, and to the
degree in which you decide for yourself whether your
characteristics are good or bad, you are a handicapper.
So you can all be honorary dwarves with overactive
pituitaries or however you wish to see yourself (.....),
so you can appreciate this: the.labeling and the value
judgements placed on handicappers have been "justified"
by the use of the medical deficit model, that there
really exists biological inferiority in some true sense,
and that that same kind of logic has been used against
any other minority group you want to think of. And that,
in the course of developing positive group identity,
positive self identity, there comes a point at which
those people say "different from" does not mean "less
than," that the data used to document our inferiority

is merely data to Justify a value judgement, and it is
not real. It is only as real as you let it be. The

movement, now, in Michigan has developed its own

104

terminology, and of course, as any good (.....) I have my
pamphlets of terminology, that I pass out at this point.1
Guidelines, things for you to think about, like why
you never talk about an individual who is "confined" to
a wheelchair. How many of you know somebody who is
"confined" to a wheelchair, or have seen somebody who is
"confined" to a wheelchair? Then I would say the chances
are you don't know someone confined to a wheelchair and
you probably haven't seen anybody confined to a wheelchair.
Very interesting. A long time ago we found an individual
who did not walk, and somebody gets the bright idea of
putting wheels on a chair, and what does it do for this
individual? It expands all sorts of life options. It
allows you to do things that you couldn't do before or
that you wouldn't do before. A wonderful adaptive device,
like an automobile, and what do we say about individuals
who use those kinds of devices? we say they're "confined"
to it? Something that liberates them, we say they're
"confined" to it? Where do we come off, saying that
individual is confined to it? It's a very interesting
value judgement, if you think about it. And I would say
to you that in recent history the only person I've seen
confined to a chair is Bobby Seele during the Chicago
Seven trials. It's some interesting things we do with
the terminology relative to handicappers. Hopefully,
this will point some of that out. I'll run through,

1See Appendix A.

105

things quickly (.....).

I'd like to paint a little picture that I think I've
built the groundwork for. My interest, of course, is in
children, and developing self-esteem in children. We
live in a time where society has spent acclaiming, "We are
concerned for the handicapped." We are about the business
of improving the life of the disabled. We have all sorts
of funding and various projects to increase positive
attitudes toward the impaired. And, at the same time,
we condone the March of Dimes. We allow them to use
national media to raise funds--to do what? To wipe out
birth defects in your lifetime. Now think about that.
we socially condone that eugenics program. Wipe out
birth defects in your lifetime. One of the easiest ways
for the March of Dimes to wipe out birth defects in my
lifetime is to kill me--because I am a birth defect; is to
kill Lynette, my wife, because she is a birth defect.
That's interesting. It is not unrealistic to expect in
five years (knock) a rap on the door and say, "Mr. Sawisch,"
(and I'll correct them hopefully by then and say, "No,
it's Dr. Sawisch") "we have come to confirm your sterili-
zation appointment." And I of course respond, "Why--
what's up?" "Well, we have good reason to believe that
your children will be like you." And that's very

frightening, and we never think about it that way. What
does that really mean? What does it mean to grow up in

106

a society that says it likes you and at the same time
says you shouldn't be born? You should not have been
born. And now that you are born, we'd appreciate it if
you didn't reproduce. Think about that, and think about
how you develop a sense of positive self-esteem, a sense
of self-actualization, given that kind of value structure.

Now, at this point, hopefully I've been able to
impress some of you, and I would like to entertain
questions if you have any. '

("Have you done any research, knowledge of studies
on the treatment of--I don't know what word you want to
use--people not socially accepted, or however you want to
say it, in other countries, in other kinds of societies
that are set up differently from our own?")

There has been a fair amount of that research.

("Would you say that other societies might be
friendlier or there wouldn't be that paradoxical,
contradictory kind of treatment?")

In some places, they do what some of us would like
to see here in America, where they decide either you are
fit for living or you're not, and we'll kill you right
off the bat. Many of us wish that this country would
take that kind of stand. (Expletive deleted) or get off
the pot. Decide either we're going to live as full
human beings or you're going to kill us. Now, we'd

107

appreciate that kind of clarity. Because if we're going
to live as human beings, let's get on with it, and if
you're going to kill us at least we know who the hell
we're fighting, and it's not all this covert prejudice.
Some cultures do do that. What's very interesting, and
this was something pointed out in a study by Hands and
Hands in 1948, which was the first time there was a
conglomerate of rehabilitation studies concerned with
handicappers in general, where they attempted to do a
wide range cross-cultural study, they came up with this:
every culture has its handicappers. Well, for each of
those places, it's different people who are the handi-
cappers, and it's not necessarily the same characteristics
that are considered handicaps or defects in each culture,
which makes it difficult to make those kinds of comparisons.
I assume that most of you are in rehabilitation?
Special education? Etc.? Then let me make this offer,
given that my formal presentation is over, and that is,
we are a new resource in town. I'm only like this when
I give guest lectures, and we are looking for people
who need to do volunteer and placement work, and want to
be involved with a group of handicappers that are about
the business of helping other handicappers. So if it's
time to do placement or volunteer work, stOp down and see

us: 1026 East Michigan, corner of Bingham.

108

Session 1: Nonhandicapper Speaker

I think that, before we talk about handicappers, we
should talk about T.A.B.'s. Does anyone here know what a
T.A.B. is? 1Commenté] OK, that's right. It's also an
abbreviation for "totally able bodied people." And, as a.
totally able bodied person, I think that we should all be
aware of the specific characteristics that make certain
situations very uncomfortable for us. I think.that it has
been scientifically proven, (.....), that because of the
ability to concentrate being affected by visual
distraction, we should be aware of it whenever we try to
do any kind of job, we should think about that. (.....)
and not taking a position that required as much concentration.

In addition, because of the hearing that we have, it's
very important to realize that the noise pollution of
today is going to affect the way we work and the job we
choose. So it's very important, therefore, to choose a
career which does not have very much noise. And I think
that when we go to school and think about the different
possibilities we have to work with, that we choose a (.....)
environment, and also, try to keep our horizons acceptable
(.....), less complications.

Now, since the medical evidence and scientific
research has proven that these characteristics which we as

totally able bodied individuals have makes it very

109

uncomfortable and unsatisfactory, even detrimental to us
to experience such environments as I've just explained, we
should remember that when we try to find a spouse--which is
in the near or far future--that we choose a spouse which
will remember thses specific characteristics and keep them
in mind to make sure that they do not become a problem for
him or her, especially if that spouse is a handicapper
because, of course, handicappers might not be able to
understand the problem that we have as T.A.B.'s. So, when
we choose spouses I think it's probably better to stick with
other T.A.B.'s as spouses, and definitely remember--
remember--that if you do choose to marry, it's very
important not to have children. Be ready for someone to
come in and say to you such as, "Well, you know that you're
”OK“and you know that there are certain positions for which
you can be hired, but remember that to prOpagate others
such as yourself is not really going to be very good for
the society (.....)." So, do remember those particular
facts about being a T.A.B. I think it's important before
we go on and talk about handicappers.

As far as the possibility of becoming a handicapper,
I think it's within our realm, at least for a few of us.
I know that I've thought about it and I'm hoping some day
to be able to be one. But, considering the facts, and the
future that is a (.....), and I'm afraid that I'm going to
have to stick with all that I have right now and do what I

110

can with myself as I am. So I suggest that we all accept it.
Now, did you have any questions? [Laughter]

("I've heard of T.A.B.'s as being 'temporarily able
bodied.' Is that the same thing?")

Yes, it is the same thing.

("Totally able bodied?")

Yeah, there are several different terminologies. In
fact, now that I've said what I've said, (.....) that I've
done a role reversal. In essence, I've probably made some
of you aware of, maybe, some discomfort, maybe some discomfort
that came out as laughing, or just in joke.

But the fact is that a lot of people do say exactly
what I just said to others who have specific characteristics,
such as the handicappers, and practically every minority
that you can think of, just because the characteristics are
"different." The fact is, however, that we try to make these
different characteristics make the person who embodies them
inferior, and that's not true. And yet we see the
handicappers-and we say, well, you're disabled, or well,
you're handicapped, or well, you're deformed--or any number
of labels that we give them. Well, it's OK--you shouldn't
feel bad about that, just because you're disabled. That's
your lot, accept it. Don't feel bad about it. All this
prejudice is really OK.

Well, it really isn't OK, and I think that as far as I'm

concerned , these labels affect each and every one of our

111

identities, and identity is very important. I'm going to
pass these out now, and I'd like for each of us to look
to them.1 There are some particular points about labels.

We talk about the disfigured, the deformed, the disabled,

the handicapped, and (.....) terms. Chronic illness,
affliction, defect, cripple, deaf-mute, deaf and dumb,
retarded, victim. All of these, if they were applied to

each and every one of us, would probably not make us feel too
good about ourselves. Our self-concept would not be "so
neat." If you notice at the beginning they talk about "dis"
and what the dictionary definition is: "the Roman god of the
underworld, the dead, the lower world, Hades," then "dis."
They talk about the disabled. That's an adjective: "deprived
of ability, or power." Powerless. How would any of you

like to be called--powerless. To be dead. They go on to
talk about "handicapper." In number 3 it says, "the effects
of general social or cultural stigmatizing of an individual
because of certain physical or mental characteristics which
are not recognized or accepted by one's society or cultures
as normal, natural, or optimal aspects of humanity."
Handicapped: "the state of being in which one experiences

a social or cultural stigma or devaluation because of a
physical or mental characteristic not recognized by one's
culture or society as a normal, natural, or Optimal aspect

of humanity."

If any of you were told that you weren't "normal"

1See Appendix A.

 

 

112

because of the specific characteristics such as blue eyes
or a beard or seeing or hearing--what about identity? If
you look on page two, you'll notice at the top it talks
about identity: "an important factor in how people.relate
to themselves and others. The identity associated with,
or projected of, a person as an individual or as a member
of a culturally defined group is to a great degree
reflected, reinforced, and quite often shaped by the
language and graphics we use in daily communication."

How many peOple here use the word "handicapper"?
How many usually use the words "handicapped," "disabled,"
"crippled," "deformed"? Imagery is of critical import to
all who seek to understand the basic nature of, much less
eliminate, negative stereotypes. A sterebtype of completely
and thoroughly being negated. How would you like to have
that stereotype attached to you: to be negated. Disabled
means to be negated. Not to be. Not good. And it
disables the entire person: not the limbs that might not
be present, not the hands, not the face, not the ears, not
the arms, but that term disables the entire, total person.

Then why so we have these labels? How can you support
the use of such derogatory, disabling labels? Well, the
medical professions, of course. Scientific research has
indicated in the past that Blacks are inferior to whites,
Jews are inferior to Gentiles, women are inferior to men,

gays are inferior to straights. Oh, I take that back: in

 

113

1972 they actually"came out”and said that gays were not
inferior as far as sickness is concerned. The American
Academy of Psychiatry has now acclaimed that gays are no
longer"sick2 So, it's“OK”now.

Of course, in World War II, Jews were killed because
they were inferior. Certainly. There was a good reason.
I wonder how good, and I wonder what's happening now when
I see the Blacks choose to say, "Wait. Maybe the things
that everyone else has said are bad about me aren't bad.‘
Maybe they're good. Maybe I'm good." And so we hear
"Black is beautiful." In other words they're changing;
they're swinging the balance from a completely negative
viewpoint to a completely positive one, so that maybe
in the end a good balance can be obtained.

As far as the handicapper movement, I think the same
thing will happen, I hope. People can then decide for
themselves what is good, what isn't good, and not allow
their environment (and that includes the people around
them) to dictate by use of terminology, labels, (.....),
that's a word that (.....), OK? And each person, whether
they be short, tall, thin, fat, without a leg, without
sight, without (.....), can decide whether that's meat
for him or her in whatever particular situation he or she
might find him or herself.

I think that at this present time what we see in this

society is a lot of ambivalence-~ambivalence such as "Oh

 

114

yeah, we can give handicappers specific jobs just for them
so that they can do what they can do. Nothing more than."
"Sure, we'll be happy to make special arrangements for
handicappers, but I think they need to be sterilized."
"You're OK, but there's a lot of people who think that you
shouldn't have any children." It's something I think we
all need to think about.

Thank you.

115

Session 2: Handicapper Speaker

If I offend anybody in here, don't take it personally,
take it to heart, for the simple reason (.....). I

The situation I'm talking about, I'm going to start
out with a joke, and it's probably the oldest joke in the
world, but I think it explains what's happening right now
(.....) out there because of a new law being put out:
A little boy loves his dog, loves him very much, comes
running home one day from school, comes in the door.
His dad's sitting in the big easy chair reading the sports
pages, the comic section, or something in the paper, and
he says, "Daddy, daddy, can you answer a question?" And
the father says, "Yes, son, I can answer any question
you've got for me." And he says, "What's the difference
between ignorance and apathy?" And the father takes a few
seconds looking at his newspaper.. Finally he closes it,
lays it down beside the chair and says, "Son, I don't
know and I don't give a damn." Think of it, OK? Worse
than that--that's supposed to be a joke, but when you
really consider it, it's not a joke, because a lot of us
don't know the difference between ignorance and apathy.
Now, what I'd like to do right now is get all of you in
a little bit closer, and I'll tell you why. Legally, I'm
‘blind, and I don't know if you're getting ready to throw a
Iknife or what. At least, if you're closer, I'll be (.....).

116

So, could you move in just a little bit closer. [Subjects
complyz] All right. Thank you very much.

What I'm here to talk about tonight is apathy. Now,
correct me if I'm wrong, and I more than likely will be,
because I have so many numbers floating in my head it's
pathetic, (.....) there's been a new House bill passed--
it's #05? A

("I believe so; either that or 507.")1

She doesn't know either, but it sounds good. Anyway,
that House bill says if you have a position open for
hiring somebody, handicappers cannot be discriminated
against. Well, this bill has caused a lot of trouble,
and I truthfully can now explain the reason why in just
a minute. It's caused trouble not only between, say,
you and I getting a job, but it's caused trouble between
myself and the person who is a quadriplegic who needs a
job. Now, maybe some of you don't know what a quadri-
plegic or a paraplegic is. A paraplegic is what I am,
almost, and I've got to throw an "almost" in there
because I have multiple sclerosis. This is taking my
eyesight away, but it's taking something a little bit
dearer to me away: (.....) it's taking the inner ear
functions away from my body. For those of you who have
had chemistry or physics or some part of anatomy, the

inner ear is where your balance is. I don't have it.

1It's 50h.

117

And that's why I'm in a wheelchair, so I don't hurt
myself and mainly so I don't fall on somebody else and
kill them because I tend to have a weight problem. (.....)
Anyway, getting back to paraplegics. A paraplegic has
use of two limbs of his or her body. Some cases, it's
both arms; other cases, maybe the legs; some cases,
maybe an arm and a leg. OK, here, two of the limbs are
knocked out. Quadriplegic, all four limbs, both arms,
both legs, are out cold. Don't think they're helpless.
They aren't. In either case. Because they still have
something going for them that you have going for you:
it's what's between your ears.

Let's think of that for just a moment. If you had
one of your arms bound and you had to hop on one leg
all the time, you know, you'd get tired, some of you
would probably have a leg cramp. But, would that take
something away from your ability to think? Think about
that carefully: do you have to have arms, do you have to
have legs, to think? No, you don't.

A reply from somewhere?

("No.")

Just shout out,

("No, you don't have to have arms or legs.")

because I might not be able to hit

hands.

118

OK. You don't really need them, right? OK. I was
a schoolteacher. Now, I don't know if she's told you this
or not, but I had a little problem. My problem was not
communiCating with the kids. My problem was communicating
with other teachers, with parents. They automatically
thought: "handicapped, so must be a dud," you know.
There's someone sitting there who can't do anything, but
they can't fire him, because of the union. OK. I don't
believe I was. I had, in the course of the time that I
was in the wheelchair, I started teaching almost normal,
and I'll say "almost" normal because I'm not what you
would call a normal teacher. I believe in your reaction
more than in the paperwork. Paperwork doesn't tell me a
thing. Doesn't now, especially, because I can't see it,
but at that time a lot of kids couldn't write, so I
couldn't see it either. You know, when you have a piece
of paper, 8% by 11, and you have 50 problems and they
crowd it into a space one inch by one inch, and they've
got all 50 problems in there, you've got to use a
microscope, that's just about it.

Anyway, those kids, as far as I'm concerned, grew
up a lot better because I was in a wheelchair. I'm
saying this for one reason: they were able to c0pe with
their own problems instead of coping with mine. Now,
that sounds like an oddball way of putting it. There
were a lot of things I couldn't do. A lot of the kids in

119

elementary school love to have me race them. Well,
believe it or not I did race them, but it was on my own
terms. Downhill. [gaughtei] Going uphill was a real
struggle. And I have to admit at one time it took 18 of
them--I taught third grade--it took 18 of them to wheel
me up over a hill, at once. And all the other teachers
could say when we finally got up to the playground was,
"Oh my God, here come Gearhart's Marauders." (.....)
because they were thoroughly independent. Third grade.
And they were doing a lot of things, figuring out the
answers to a lot of problems that I would say maybe some
of you could not figure out.

Now, can I ask a question: how many of you are
undergraduates? OK, how many are graduate students,
doctoral students? How many are just taking the course
for the hell of it? OK, we've got an honest person.

OK. Is there anyone here who's dealt with math, has a
math background, (.....)? If you can multiply and add,
I want you up here. Come on. El volunteer comes up:._']

OK, I'd like you to get a piece of chalk over there.
I want you to print the letters "A," "B," and "C." OK,
,underneath "B," about four or five inches, put the letter
"0." Now, go to the left of the "O" and write the word
"Zed." (.....) we as peOple, and I'm not talking about
me as a handicapper, how we title everybody. You know,

gimpy, slow, dumb, Polak, don't get me started on those

120

(.....). Anyway, OK, A, B, and C are traveling salesmen,
O is now a farmhouse. A, B, and C are salesmen, and they've
gone hunting for the weekend. 0 is a motel-hotel they had
to stOp at because they're all dead tired. So will you
put a dotted line from A to O, B to O, C to 0. OK. Zed,
the country bumpkin of the joke, does not know what the
price of a room is for the night. So he says, "(.....)

I think it's 30 bucks." A, B, and C said, "Great," and
each coughed up a $10 bill. Put a 310 above A, B, and C.
[Dialogue with volunteer] Now, A, B, and C pay their

10 bucks, they go and they sleep the night away. Next
morning Zed's (.....) and he said, "Here's 30 bucks,

I've rented a cabin," and the guy says, "But a cabin
only costs 25 bucks." write a 25 over here. OK, now,
Zed is told: give back the money to the three guys.

He scratches his head because the manager of the place
has given him a $5 bill. He says, "Well, I think I'll
change it into 31 bills and maybe that will work out."

So he gets five 31 bills. He gives A one dollar, B one
dollar, C one dollar. OK? Am I going too fast?

Anyway, so that means each of them paid 39. Right?

He has 32 left over. Zed is net the most honest guy in
the world, so he shoves the 82 down in his pocket.

Here's my question: A, B, and C paid nine dollars.

Three times nine is 27, plus the $2 Zed kept. What
happened to the other buck?

121

(.....) OK, whenever it's time to leave, those that
are interested in that--that's a good game to win money
by. Now, would you consider yourself handicapped because
you cannot answer that problem? (.....) Any of you? OK.
Don't. Because I've only had two people answer that
question in seven years with the right answer. And I can
see some smoke coming out of some ears, and somebody in
here's going to try to prove that it would be a third
person. Anyway, that does not prove that you're incompetent,
that you don't know math, OK?

("I have a question. Is Zed the owner? You never
made it clear who really owned it.")

OK, the owner doesn't matter. You can be the owner.
The owner just kept the 25 bucks. Let me tell you some-
thing, you're getting close right now. Sometimes I'll
tell things that confuse peOple. What Mary didn't tell
you was I am also what they call in St. John's a
professional agitator. I stir up people. Stupid little
problems like this are what I use to stir up people with.
Only I can turn this type problem into a humanistic
problem.

Will you volunteer (.....)? It won't be for math,
so don't worry. Anyone else (.....)? [Subject comes upl]

("Shall I sit down?")

No, just stand there [Speaker moves to another chain;

122

(.....) You're going to become a paraplegic. Have
a seat. [Subject sits in wheelchair]

Now, I would like-these are the brakes--whenever
you use a wheelchair, always pull (.....), you're always
supposed to lock it (.....) you move to another area
(.....).

What I want you to do with this group of diehards, as
they stay the extra half hour, is arrange them so you
can get to every one.

("To every one?")

Yeah, I want you to be able to go up and touch
everyone's desk.

(..."Straight line?")

Whatever you want to do. [Dialogue with subject,
interaction with otheré}

I'm going to say "StOp" right now. Were her
instructions, from where you're standing, complete?
were they explicit? Did they tell you who was to be on
this side? Who was to be on this side? (.....)

A lot of times a person who is handicapped has to
give directions a little more explicitly. OK? Go on
with your instructions.

("So that there's one single line, so I can go
down front and have contact with each person, so if one
continuous line from the wall to this wall...")

Eiovemenfl

123

Touch his desk, without falling over and breaking
your nose. OK, fine. You can walk it back.

Do I have another volunteer, for the (.....)?

This is a splendid wheelchair; it's different from the
average wheelchair.

("It's not as wide.")

No. (.....) Will someone else please come up and
be a guinea pig for a second? Mary, could you get my
tape? OK, I'll hold it (.....).

I want you to wrap the tape around your fingers and
thumb, just a little. Both hands. ESubject complies]
What am I doing to her?

[Comments]

I'm making her a (.....), that's exactly it. ‘I
haven't got the leg rests on this because I don't use
them, I hate them, they get in a lot of trouble. Meantime,
you see a wheelchair, what I call the nubs, the little
rubber things on the bottom (.....).

Now, what I want you to do is filialoguefl.

And if it means you've got to pull somebody out of
your way, do it. [Dialogue]

But--we just ran into another problem: my first
volunteer was able to use her thumbs. Quadriplegic is
the same as not having thumbs. They use their hands
just to push the nubs, that's how they get around.

Has anybody here been in the service, the Army or

124

Marines? OK, I'm safe-~I don't want to insult anybody's
integrity. When I was in the service, and it wasn't too
long ago, only seven years ago, I was in tank corps. Now,
in tank corps, I learned how to use one of those things
before I ever (.....). How do you make a turn in a
wheelchair?

("I don't know"..."Hold on steady to one while you're
turning the other.“)

OK, good answer. Now, do a complete circle right
where you are.

(“I really don't have enough room--if they move?")

No, you have enough room (.....).

Subject complie s3 .

OK, it can be a little frustrating at times. This
is one of the things a person in a wheelchair goes
through. It's frustrating. You moved in the same space,
didn't you. You can take the tape off--have that as a
souvenir, if you want (.....).

Now, she said that she couldn't. What did she just
prove?

("She could. ")

OK. There's an old saying, "Never say die." And
never say "don't," because you can be proved wrong. You
proved yourself wrong. A handicapper has to look at
everything and say, "well, I can do it, but maybe I'm

not gonna do it the same way you would," and the way

125

you would, or anybody else.

"Who is a handicapper?" is my next question. What
distinguishes a handicapped person?

Eomments]

OK, now, you've heard the T.A.B. speech [Tuaughtelj ,

I can tell: temporarily able-bodied. OK, I have to admit
when Mary was out at my house, it was the first time I
ever heard that word, but I told her one that older people
told me: T.Y.P.E., T--Y--P--E, temporary young person
entity. We're all T.Y.P.E.'s. OK. A handicapped person,
the way I see it, and I hope all of you see it this way,
because you're going to have to deal with each other, is
everyone. All of us are handicappers for some reason.

How many of us here have claustrophobia?--besides me?

OK. How many have hydrOphobia--fear of the water?
Aerophobia--fear of flying? How many of you have a phobia
of some kind?

OK, is that a handicap? Does that exclude you from
some things that other people can do? Does this problem
make you a handicapped person?

I have to tell you (.....) I've got several degrees
from here. I like to say B.A., M.A., and M.S., and that's
both a joke to laugh at, and a reality. I have a Masters
in science from State--you know, they pass anybody--I
have (.....) I think they were just trying to get rid of
me, and I have a B.A. by the skin of my teeth because I

126

think I graduated with the lowest grade point this school
has ever seen: 2.012. I don't know if you can graduate
now with that low an average.

("How did you get to graduate?")

I was a veteran. OK? That's how I got into grad
school. <.....) I've got to tell you (.....) in my M.A.
I had a 3.98. So, I partied a lot when I was going to
undergrad school--I think I majored in it.

When you are dealing with anyone, always consider
both their handicap and your handicap.

Now, I want to get back to what I told Mary I was
going to talk on. That's what my wife says, once I get
wound up you can't stop me (.....).

When a handicapped person goes to apply for a job,
and I'll tell you this from personal experience, it
happened to me: I applied for a job with the VA. Now,
(.....) I applied for the job, I was interviewed for the
job and they told me the job was mine. Right up to the
point where the guy says, "Do you have to stay in the
wheelchair?" I said, "Yes," he said "We can't accept you
then." (.....)

Eomments]

OK, I was going to be a counselor, for veterans. It's
an important job. They needed somebody who was (.....),
OK? I fitted that. They turned me down because they did
not have insurance to give me. Get this: I'm 100% insured

127

by the VA. But they turned me down because they couldn't
insure me. Makes sense. OK, there is a guy working now,
a very nice guy, but he cannot speak any language except
English. I guess what I'm saying is, don't turn anybody
down for anything until you get to know what's up here--
and then you can turn him down. But know what's up here,
don't use hands or legs or something like that for an
excuse. The Blacks had the same problem I'm going through
now: discrimination. OK, there is a House bill now that
is being fought right now by handicappers, for the simple
reason that it discriminates against other handicappers.
Quadriplegic against paraplegic. Quadriplegic can't

even get in to ride one of the buses they have for the
handicapped people, because they can't get out of their
houses most of the time. Where's the justice? That law
was meant for all handicappers, but it settled down to
the paraplegic.

Last word on the whole subject--anybody want to
know the answer?

("No"..."Yeah.")

OK, I'll be here (.....). I have to tell you, it
was a nine year old and a Ph.D. who got the answer to.
that problem, in seven years.

(.....) That wheelchair doesn't mean anything
except an inconvenience. Things have to be arranged

differently. I had to arrange my room at school differently,

128

so I could get to every kid. And you've got 30 kids in a
room smaller than this. With 30 desks. It's tough in a
wheelchair. (.....)

("Any other teacher would probably take the same
freedom to arrange their classroom.")

Sure.

("You just had to fix it to fit your needs, just as
any other teacher would.")

That's right. (.....) I had to meet a standard in
the school system.

May I have my chair back, or do I have to send out
the (.....)? That's not (.....), because I am a veteran,
he supplies all this stuff. (.....) If you're curious,
a little model like this, a 197k Everest-Jennings, is
3729. Being handicapped is not the cheapest thing to be.
(.....) _

Mary, could you get that pencil (.....). OK, in a
hospital where I went through rehabilitation (.....), I
had a little thing called a dexterity program where you
had to take a peg and put it in a hole, and they timed
you, to see how many you could do. I was going to have
somebody do this in here, and I was going to tell you
(.....). There was a guy in the hospital who was
recovering from a stroke, with me. He was from Hungary,
and his name was Peter. And Peter looked at what I was

doing, and he saw I was having trouble, being I have no

129

feeling in my fingertips. And he said, "Stupid, use a
hammer." Think of that--why not use a hammer to put pegs

in a circle? (.....)
Now I've come at everything tonight "handicapper."

That can go for the aged, the young, the handicapped,
anybody. Than can go if you're bald, (.....).
Thank you.

 

130

Session 2: Nonhandicapper Speaker
(Anselmo Rodriguez)

I'd like to know the distribution of students. Are
you undergraduates, graduates, doctoral students, or what-
ever? How many are undergraduates? Graduates? Doctoral?
Any special programs? Did I miss any? Visitors? OK.

One of the things that we always tend to do, and
which I'm here to (.....) a little bit on, is that we tend
to label, and I've just done that to you. I've labeled
undergraduates, graduates, and doctoral candidates, and
so forth. And this kind of labeling is not necessarily
negative. It could lead toward that, depending on the
situation you found yourself in. There are a number of
things that affect all us us when it comes to handicappers
and T.A.B.'s which we, like myself, I'm a T.A.B.,
temporarily able bodied, I hope I'm always
temporarily able bodied. But nevertheless, we don't
always train ourselves to prepare for what might be
different in our lives. We never consider the possibility
of accidents that could disable us totally or partially.
We don't realize what illness can do to us at times. We
take life for granted, that we're always going to be able
to do whatever that is which we want to do. Unfortunately,
this isn't always true in many, many cases.

I'd like to start first by getting a volunteer, one
person. Would you like to? OK. Great. Would you take

131

that chair over here, wheelchair? And I'll join you, and
I want you to sit and--that's good--and I want you to

put your hands together, like this. Now observe, this
will come off, eventually. [laughter. Speaker puts tape
around subject's hands;} And your name is?

("S___")

S_. May I call you S__?

("Certainly.")

OK, thank you. Now, S___, one of the things I want
you to know is that you are a wheeler, and I want you to
mauenver around the place right'now. [Subject compliesg
OK, anyone want to make any comments? Did you observe
anything?

("She.....")

OK, let's say that she's going to do something else.
All.right? Would you go out the door there?

("No," laughing.)

Oh, by the way, there's a drOp there too, did you know
that? [Laughter—J Stop. Not bad for not actually--have
you ever been in a chair before, a wheeler before?

("No.")

Friends or relatives? No? OK, I'm going to take
this off, because you don't want to stay tied up all the
time. OK, one of the things, the first thing, is that this
wheeler is not geared for a quadriplegic, OK? Now, what I
should have done is taken her feet and propped them up and

 

132

said, "Hey, your feet are immobile." So, one of the things
is, being a paraplegic with the hands only, she is able to
use the feet. But for a quadriplegic, he doesn't walk on
the chair.

OK, the advantages and disadvantages of a handicapper
in a chair: I don't know of any handicapper that says it's
an advantage of any sort. The disadvantage is this: can
anyone tell me of one disadvantage you can think of?

("Entering public buildings.")

Entering public buildings. OK. Something else?

("Maneuvering a car?")

0K. One very obvious one, which, if I show you this--
my wallet-~what does that tell you?

[Comments , laughter]

(.....) because, money. These are very expensive.
This one, I'm not sure of the cost of this, but it's very
expensive. Now, for a quadriplegic it's even more,
because you have to maneuver differently. Now there are
those that are electrical, or some kind of instrument where
you push a button, it moves. Now, those are extremely
expensive and unless you have special insurance or covered
under VA or some other kind of plan, Crippled Children's
Association or whatever, then you're able to get one, or
rent one (.....) very expensiwe. But these are disadvan-
tages that we don't always think ahead of time for.

Another disadvantage is that, although public places

133

are now providing entranceways for chairs, those entrance-
ways are very, very dangerous, especially when the rains
come and the ice forms and so forth. You know, some of the
streetways, although a person can use a chair, in the
wintertime, wow. You hit that ice and you're going out

in the middle of the street, and that's a very delicate
thing. Did you have a question?

("Did you know, many times in a ramp, such as is
being built around campus, they cannot go up by themselves.
Somebody has to push them.")

Very good. This is also--of course, a person really
has to work their arms to get up where they're going, and
if they're quadriplegics, then (.....) problems.

I'd like to tell you about a couple of people that I
personally know who happen to be in chairs and who applied
for jobs, and some of the negative attitudes towards very
well-trained peOple in administrative positions. One
particular person who is a manager in a bank was given a
job away from the public eye, ao the public would not see
him in his handicapped situation. And so they put him
way out in the back--he's a manager, a bank manager. Which
of course hurt the person personally, and I'm sure there's ‘
psychological problems that affected this individual. And
mainly because these are kind of taboos in some societies.
We can go back in history where peOple with crutches, you

know, superstitions which said, "That's a bad omen," you

 

13Q'

know, don't let a person like that--we used to call them
"cripples"--don't let a cripple cross in front of you
because that's a bad omen. You've got to be in front of
him before he crosses you, or else something bad is going
to happen to you. Those things are still existing in
different societies currently. Another friend who applied
for a job with the VA, very capable, trained, was turned
down because the company said, "We cannot insure you."

And that is constitutionally against the law because you
may not use that against an individual because of that
insurance. The man had insurance: 100% total coverage of
anything that ever happened to him, anywhere. He had proof
of this when he (.....) getting the job. That's still
under investigation.

And another experience I'd like to discuss in the
attitudes of young peOple, grade school youngsters. I'm
recalling a third grade class that I happened to know
very well with a very good friend of mine who's a wheeler.
And this gentleman slowly lost his eyesight because M.S.
took effect on him, and of course he also had a balance
problem. (.....) were affected, and little by little
his eyesight was getting away, and presently he's considered
totally blind, although he can barely see this way. But
(.....) he had some problems. He had-~the attitudes of the
third graders in his class were ones of kindness, of "You

are you, and I am me, and it's great." And the attitudes

135

that they displayed, not only was evident in the classroom,
it carried out beyond the classroom into other classrooms,
into the staff, and into the community. The love that
these people were showing in that one room was really
projecting out, and you just felt it when you come into
the building; it felt good. When you went into this one
room, you felt tremendous. And I counseled in that room,
doing affective education, and they gave me counseling,
they gave me lots of warmth (.....) mainly because they
accepted each other as they were, knowing that they had
weaknesses and strengths, and in fact even made a song
of it--just a beautiful, beautiful class.

I'd like to (.....) another volunteer? Would you
like to come up here? Or maybe I'll come over to you, OK?
This is a mask. Now, don't go (.....). Now, by the way,
(.....). Can you see anything? I would like for you to
stand, and I'm going to remove the chair away from you.
Just stand there (.....). Now, your name please?

("L___.")

D___, I understand that you can't see a thing. Well,
I would like for you to come and help me remove this chair,
this green chair,but I would like for you to go away from
my voice, around the table, and back to me please. [Subject
complies] Do you need some help, L___?

("No.")

UMuffled instructions to other subjects] D___, B

136

just helped me take care of the chair, but thanks for
coming anyway, and I do thank you for your effort, but
B was very close and he's a pretty strong looking man

there, and it is hard on you being a woman, you know.

("Yeah.") [Laughter]

And you might have drOpped something and maybe out
yourself, (.....) OK? So do you want to take your thing,
and--thank you--would you like to sit down? (.....)

What is your feeling about my comments?

("Anger.")

OK, how did some of you feel when I was talking that
way?

("That you were very rude.")

Very rude? OK. Eomments, laughtela

(.....) isn't it. It's, you know, we do belittle and
sometimes unconsciously do throw whatever gibes we can to
make a person feel a little bit lower.

How about some of you people that L___ bumped into--
how did you feel? Anything?

("...she needed to feel her way around. I didn't
avoid her or anything.")

Are you missing your wallet, by the way? Liaughtefl

("I'm not carrying one.") [Laughtefl

(.....) your real feelings now, not just something
because you want to react. But, did any of you feel that

you wanted to go and help L move around? OK, why?

137

("Because it was difficult.")

You thought it was difficult for her. What was your
feeling?

Eiuffled commentfl

How many of you did not look at L___? Did not? How
many of you really looked at her, really looked at her?
Some of you kind of looked and (.....) were unsure, right?
Now, handicappers are the main focal point of most people,
because they are different and in most situations are in
the minority. And it's so easy to spot a handicapper and,
you know, stare, even without wanting to. But sometimes
one feels really bad because they think, "What am I doing,"
you know? So they move closer to them, a person with
crutches, or a blind person with a cane. And then, when
we do attempt to help, I think most generally we are very
sincere in trying to help, but it's a dilemma. It's a
dilemma, a stigma, of trying to help a handicapper,
because immediately there's always people observing a
would-be helper and there's another label, a "goody-goody"
person, you know. And like, I think you (.....).

L___ did something for us, with the blindfold, of
course. She did it without hesitation, OK? A true person,
we do things without hesitation. We don't do it because
we want to be a nice person or whatever; we do it because

we sincerely feel we can handle it. L volunteered,

she could handle it, she wanted to experience, and there's

138

some true feelings in there of trying to do something good.
Secondly, she went through the action, and thirdly she

gave me feedback, her feeling. Even though she wasn't

blind herself, she put herself in the situation, which says
to me, "Hey, you're hurting my feelings. I'm a real person,
you know, there's no need for you to do that to me," OK?

This happens all the time to people. We sometimes
are guilty of it without even knowing it. We could cite
many examples. Perhaps yourself, have encountered an
experience that you also could tell about.

("Yeah...just about two weeks ago, and I noticed a
girl, that was, I think she was probably almost totally
blind,...she was also somewhat physically disabled, or
handicapped, too...way she walked. And I saw her walking
and I...exposure to problems of handicappers...letting go...
and I thought...didn't want to start being condescending to
them. I thought, well, heck, I think I'll just go up
there and say, 'How are you doing?' And I did that, and I
think she really responded to me favorably,...I just
talked to her like I would a regular person, and I think

she really appreciated that, so I think that sometimes
you shouldn't avoid people like that just because they
are handicapped...little bit different attitudes...It
wasn't so much that she needed help but...it came to me
as quite a revelation...it's mainly a mental thing.")

(.....) How many of us have handicappers in our

family?

 

139

[Comments]

All right. Now, we don't look at our own families as
handicappers. Your name is?

("J___.")

You know, all my life, while my grandfather was living,
I never considered him a handicapper. At that time, the
terms were "disabled," "crippled," or whatever, you know,
"hunchback," or whatever. Those were negative terms and
yet they're still in use, but at the time those were really
under (.....) use. My grandfather was a very able bodied
person also when he was quite young. Of course, he never.
prepared himself, or he never thought that someday he
wasn't going to be able to move about as freely. And he
was one of these gentlemen that used to jump a train. And
he happened to board a train, and while the train was moving
there were some bandits that jumped onthe train and held
up the train. He jumped off a moving coach, and he caught
a slug in his knee, and he gashed his ankle, and unfor-
tunately it went right through that nerve and made his
leg just like this, and after that he couldn't walk. And
he walked the rest of his life with a cane, because we
didn't have crutches in those days, didn't know about
crutches (.....). He died a hundred years later, with
that slug in his knee.

But one of the things I'm trying to say is that as
temporarily able bodied people we do not think ahead of the

140

possibilities, with all the dangers around us, yet we're
very critical of handicappers. And we do it very
unconsciously. And some people do do it consciously.
And it really hurts us when we're confronted by it, or
when we're confronted about it, because we love those
people, we know them well, and they love us, and there's
no difference between them and ourselves. But when it's
a total stranger, all right, you know, bingo--we really
jerk, take a double look, say, "Wow, you'know, poor guy,
poor guy." No one likes to be felt poor, nothing. We
like to feel that we do our best, and that we have some
problems, and we're going to try to correct those problems.

I'm sure there are many examples that peOple can cite,
but these four examples I gave you are because they are
very meaningful to me personally, because I do know all
these people, and (.....) affected by the attitudes
peOple have (.....). They can still work, they have their
mind, they have their friends, their relatives, and their
ideas of being shared, and their ideas are being developed
even more so by other peOple (.....).

You saw the example with the chair. There's many
more problems with a wheel. If a person is not only a
paraplegic or a quadriplegic, there's a chance that the
person in a chair (.....). Something like that happens,
and the person is moving, wow. Not only is that person

going to have damage to themselves more, but there is

' 141

going to be other danger of damaging someone else too.

You know, it's hard to talk about one's thoughts
being temporarily able bodied and a handicapper, because
there is emotional strain, and it touches all of us.

And you want to reach out and help every single person
(.....) but you can not do that. You can only reach out
as far as you can see or feel. But, if we do it 100% with
sincere effort, the attitudes will change.. The attitudes
will change, the values that people have in their own
minds about different peOple who are "different." It's
one that we constantly have to fight, to eliminate that.
We should do everything that we can in our power, through
legislation, through legal means, through fair ways to

any power that we can to eliminate negative attitudes

that are had toward handicappers. And (.....) because
we're all involved in the same problems, we associate
together and something could happen to us, today, tomorrow,
or next month. Are we ready for that? If something were
ever to happen to us (.....), are we ready? Most of us
are not. I think until recently, several years ago, I
wasn't, myself. And each time I read more, I check it

out more, I talk to my friends, and in fact, with the
chair, being that my grandfather did have one, I'm able to
use one rather well, but most of us can't.

One thing I'd like to leave you with, this thought,
is remember if anything at all: love the unlovable,

 

142

because the unlovable could be ourselves. Are there any
questions?

(".....?")

Respect for the other person, yes.

("When you were talking about, you know, not going
up and trying to help somebody, I don't know if I agree with
that or not, because, under certain, quite a few, circum-
stances, you just feel like, you know, peOple ask me, and
I'm perfectly able, if they can help me do something, if
something's too hard or if I can't particularly...somebody
will say, 'Well, can I help you with that,' and I don't
take offense. I have an aunt who has a hunchback; she had
polio when she was little and they had to put bone from
her leg in her back, and a lot of time she just can't do
something and I don't think she takes offense when, if
I'm over there spending the weekend or the week or some-
thing and I say, 'Well, do you need some help with that,'
or 'Can I put that away for you?' and I think there are
many times when you can ask somebody if they need help.

If they don't want the help, they can always say, 'No, I
don't need the help,' or 'I can do it myself,' or, 'I'd
like to try,' or something.")

You're right. There are situations that lead to that,
and frequently, and not only in our own families but with
friends, and sometimes with strangers. However, sometimes

the reception isn't there, (.....) other than that I agree

143

with you, definitely. Any other questions?

("...I just can't see that you can...really, totally
prepare yourself.")

Perhaps you are right in that respect that to prepare
yourself (.....). I guess I'm saying, we need to accept
the fact that there are things that are happening to
people, and we should do whatever we can to eliminate
any negative that makes peOple's way of life even more
difficult, because they're projecting what they know what
they can do, as much as we are in the present condition
which we find ourselves in. And we don't ask people to
be extra special to us, we just want to be accepted as
we are. And handicappers are no different than that: they
want to be accepted as they are. But it is doubly diffi-
cult for them to project other wants, because (.....) to
the situation they find themselves in, or, let's say they
were born in a situation being handicappers. It's a very
difficult life for all of them, and I think what I'm
saying more than anything is that we need to recognize
that there are many, many negatives that are not necessary.
And if we can help eliminate those negatives, we're not
doing it just for the handicappers--we're doing it for
ourselves, for people in general, for persons. And this
is a very difficult thing to do, because society, from
the onset, from way back, has always had a negative attitude

towards people who are different, other than physically

 

144

able bodied people. And this is one of the biggest ills
prevalent presently, and it's going to take a long time

to change it, but I think it can change, like a lot of

other things that have changed. But we need the goodness

of peOple to project, that's going to (.....) through
whatever efforts we have, through the power and legislation
and whatever. Many things have changed because of legis-
lation and by the people, by both able bodied and handi-
cappers, not by one single (.....). You had something else?

("Well, I was just going to say, I think a lot of this
is called sensitivity for other people, that you can prepare
yourself for a catastrophic event...this is not the end of
the world...well adjusted peOple...I'm thinking of a para-
plegic man...I hadn't thought of him as a handicapper
either, until someone said something about a chair, and
'chair' makes him a handicapper, I guess. But he is in
every other way a well-rounded, very healthy, well-
adjusted individual.")

That's good. And, you know, temporarily able bodied
people, we fear certain things. We fear to--myself, I fear
falling off a ski slope because I love to dance and I don't
want anything to happen to my legs. Eisughtei] But you
know, I'm being selfish too, but like I said, is (.....)
love the unlovable, because it could be us, being unlovable.
That's not to say that handicappers are unlovable. It's
that if we feel ourselves, you know, as being shortchanged,

you know, imagine what other people might feel like. So,

145

we need to respect ourselves; we need to respect ourselves
in every respect, in every (.....), to respect other
individuals.

I thank you very much.

146

Session 3: Handicapper Speaker

(.....) the topic of rehabilitation in relation to
the mainstreaming of handicappers throughout the community
and throughout the utilization of community services.

And another of the subtopics that I'd like to deal with
(.....) overall topic is the issue of rehab mainstreaming
within education, within employment, within transportation,
and architecture, within recreation, within social services,
in general. From the issues that I identify as being
relevant in the education area, both from my experience

as director of a program which is attempting to facilitate
the mainstreaming of handicapper adult students within

the university setting, as well as my own personal
experience in the educational system, elementary to
secondary to post-secondary education, my position based
upon that combination of experience is that mainstreaming
is the most important thing that is happening--or should
be happening--in the educational scene right now.

You may have more of an idea, based on your own
academic work so far as well as your survey of what is
really happening out in the community as far as whether
mainstreaming is actually occurring out there. I suspect
that it's not occurring to the degree that I want to see
it. I want to qualify what my interpretation of main-
streaming is. Mainstreaming to me is not simply dumping

 

 

147

handicappers into a classroom and expecting them to
survive physically, academically, and socially. I think
inherent in my concept of mainstreaming is the supportive
services necessary for the individual (.....) to achieve
equal educational opportunity within a mainstreamed
setting. I think, however, one of the most necessary
things that has to occur, which I think we can bring right
close to home, is that before you're going to have quality
mainstreaming in the community, we have to eliminate the
distinction, or the line, or the separation, or the
segregation, of teacher training within the university,
colleges of education. In other words, as far as I'm
concerned, here at MSU and throughout the country there
should not be a department of special ed training. There
should not be teachers who are trained to teach handicapper
children over here, and teachers over here that are trained
to teach regular kids--whatever they are. Until special
ed is mainstreamed into regular ed, or regular ed is
mainstreamed into special ed, whichever way it goes, I
don't believe you're going to actually have mainstreaming
occurring out in the community, at least to the degree
that I'd like to see it happen. At the university,
(.....) education for handicapper students here, I realize
the results of the elementary and secondary education
systems, and that some of our students have experienced

segregational education and some of them have experienced

148

mainstreamed education in various forms, and even to the
limit, to the extent that mainstreaming has occurred, I
definitely witnessed the negative aspects of segregated
elementary and secondary education in relation to the
potential of the handicapper to succeed at a university
level. The fact is that segregated or separate school
systems for handicappers are inherently inferior as far
as the academic quality of the school as well as the
social interaction, education that takes place in the
educational setting.

The second issue I'd like to deal with is, as far as
rehab and mainstreaming, is in the employment area. The
traditional Options of employment for many handicappers
have been, in the past, quite limited to segregated,
sheltered workshop type employment options unless somehow,
someway you'd broken through that barrier or somehow
escaped that channeling Of your employment potential.

Within most rehabilitation agencies, the caseload
that a typical rehab counselor has as far as having to
deal with maybe several hundred cases with very limited
budget, they fall into--whether it's intentional or not--
they fall into having to play the statistical game of
placing people somewhere and the local sheltered workshop
just happens to become the easiest way to do that. Trying
to track down more equitable employment Options calls for

a lot more innovation, a lot more resources as far as

149

contacting employers and really being assertive in dealing
with the attitudes that you have to deal with, and seeking
employment rights. Ironically, sheltered workshops in

the first place--I've read up on the history of how they
evolved or were initiated--ironically, they were initiated
by the handicapper who got the idea that if a workshop

or a setting was developed as a showcase for employers,

to prove to employers that handicappers did have abilities,
could perform work activity, that then employers could be
brought to this showcase, shown the example of handicappers
working, and then hire those individuals back into the
factory or the work environment that the employer operated.
Unfortunately, that didn't Occur. The employers came and
witnessed a cheap labor force--what ended up is that they
started contracting with these local workshops, sending

to the workshop a lot of nuts and bolts type work that
would have cost them a lot of money had they had to hire
individuals full time under union wages to come in and

do the work at the shop. It became economical for them to
ship a lot of this work to the local workshop, just as
they do on some occasions, shipping on to prisons and
other sources of cheap labor. SO, workshOps started
springing up all over as far as providing a resource for
employers or factories or whetever source to not only
acquire cheap labor but to acquire a lot of positive PR

in the meantime, because of course this was helping

 

150

handicappers, supposedly. In very few of those sheltered
workshops were the handicappers actually receiving anywhere
near the minimum wages. In fact, due to Federal legislation
that exists, most workshops can apply for exemptions from
paying the minimum wage, supposedly under the guise Of it
being a work training center rather than an actual
employment center, and also again with the assumption that
many of the individuals working there would probably not

be able to compete equally as far as production is
concerned in most factories, although there is never any
requirement that evidence be shown that that be true in
every individual situation. The other aspect of that is
that most sheltered workshops were connected with factory
type work, which tends to be primarily physical in nature,
and at least for handicappers with physical characteristics,
that was playing upon what was not their most positive
characteristic, depending upon what their total character-
istics are. In other words, it was forcing them to

compete physically when that was not necessarily their
greatest asset. In any case, more and more now, hopefully
with civil rights legislation both at the state level

and the federal level, equal employment opportunity is
Opening up, and with more handicappers being assertive

and defining their own abilities and pursuing their own
potential, the need for, and the support for, sheltered
workshops hopefully will fall Off, and greater Options

151

will Open up.

The third issue dealing with rehabilitation and
mainstreaming is transportation and architecture, and of
course this relates to any other issue I relate to.
Without means of getting to an employment setting, getting
to an educational setting, getting to recreational oppor-
tunities, all other efforts fail. Without the means of
having an accessible environment once you get to it, and
once the opportunity is opened up, at least for handicappers
with physical characteristics, all efforts are of no
avail if you cannot get to the places of employment, etc.
But in the transportation area, many of you hopefully
know that we, over the last couple of years and it's
getting down to the wire now, on an extremely tense
battle with the state legislature and the state highway
department, as well as the federal level, on the trans-
portation issue of whether handicappers have a right to
access to public transportation. Since 1964, that right
has been established in law at the federal level, and
yet you still have administrators Of public transportation
avoiding that law or somehow dodging it, such that you
don't actually see accessible transportation out there to
be used.

On the mainstreaming concept, the active handicapper
population is pursuing a combination of transportation

services which includes accessible line haul systems as

152

well as accessible dial-a-ride or demand-response. We
identify the fact that handicappers have a variety Of
transportation needs and need access to the same variety
of transportation modes that everyone else has to use Or
requests. Therefore, such services as Spec-tran in the
Lansing area, Operated by CATA, is far from adequate in
meeting the transportation needs that we have, a small
minority of the handicapper population in the Lansing area.
We are seeking access to the routed line haul system in
addition to having a smaller system of demand-response
available for those individuals or those situations that
call for it.

Within architecture, and I know you will be hearing
more detail on that next week I believe, I'll just mention
that the same mainstreaming issue relates there,
that we are seeking not the back door garbage-route
entrance to buildings. We are seeking access to the same
public entrances that everyone else uses. I'm currently
living in a situation, supposedly a barrier-free apartment
unit, which I moved into in February but which violates
the state building code. The issue there being, what is
a primary entrance. The state building code calls for
at least one primary entrance to all public buildings,
the buildings used by the public, to be accessible. To
get into my "accessible" apartment unit, I have to enter

a door that enters into a water boiler and meter room,

 

153

which would get me to my back door, which Opens into bath
and bedroom area and a hall, which then will get me into
my apartment. I have a front door which is really
beautiful, carpeted, and it's got the doorbell system
where if anybody comes to the door they have to ring that
and you have to let them in. It has access to the mail-
boxes, for anyone who can get up and down the steps to
deal with that. I don't have access to my front door,
and none of my handicapper friends have access to even
let me know that they're out there, because they don't
have access to the call buttons, they don't have access
to my mailboxes, plus the fact that I am segregated from
everyone else using the apartment building. I'm segregated
from my neighbors in the apartment complex. This is just
one example Of the concept of a builder, as far as
accomodating handicappers, is not in the context of main-
streaming, but is in the context of keeping, of protecting
the rest of the world from my presence. Again, I filed a
complaint with the state Building Division, I'm also in
the process of filing a complaint using Public Act 220,
. the Civil Rights Act, because I don't see any difference
in that and those signs saying, "Niggers, use the drinking
fountain to the rear," or go to the back of the bus, or
use the side door, or whatever.

Dealing with the issue of recreation, again, we've .
had a history of separate and segregated recreation

154

systems that they usually set up in a corner of the
hospital or in a rehab center or in an Easter Seal center,
which is a totally for handicapped only say, swim program,
or chess and checkers program, or whatever rather passive
activity, is programmed for individuals--more and more
we're moving toward getting the cities, the communities,
the counties, parks and recreation department to being
responsible for making sure that any recreation that's
programmed for the public in the community, that it
become accessible and usable for handicappers, and they
in fact set up an affirmative action program to encourage
handicappers to utilize these programs that are set up
for everybody, or the parks or whatever is available in
the community.

Again, within social services or agencies that are
set up to provide services to the general public or any
segment of the public, they should be making sure that
those services are accessible-~in fact, by federal law
now that's mandated, but again whether it's on paper or
not as law, I don't necessarily see it happening in the
community. I think there are a number of people who will
have to play a more responsible role in making sure that
mainstreaming does occur and that true "rehabilitation"
can occur, and those include handicappers themselves,
who have to, and who are, taking more and more Of the

responsibility and asserting their rights and making

155

sure that they assist the community in implementing laws
and programs according to the mainstreaming process.

We have a new Center of Handicapper Affairs in the
Lansing area, which if you all get home in time to watch
Channel 6, on the 11 o'clock news, there will be a news
spot about that center on the news. Again, its role is
not to be a center or a shelter for handicappers to
escape from the community, but it's to be a center to
assist the community in providing services that are
relevant to everybody, including handicappers. 80 their
role is not to provide transportation for handicappers,
but to make sure CATA is doing its job in relation to
handicappers, etc. along the lines of every other issue
I've dealt with.

- Again, I perceive the need for rehabbing the rehabbers.
As far as I think, you know, rehabbing the handicappers
excellent to the degree that that is necessary, but with
an elaborate system set up to do that, with all kinds of
programs, money, systems set up to special ed the
handicapper, to rehab the handicapper, but I don't see
any mechanisms set up, or any resources set up, to

rehab the rest of the world. And I think that's inevi-
tably what the handicapper runs up against. I've
experienced a handicapper's kind of experience, an
excellent rehab counselor and counseling program or

rehab restoration program, whatever, that supposedly,

 

156

if you follow the "I'm OK--you're OK" theory, will carry
the handicapper through a process of where they initially,
usually, feel very negative about themselves and are
feeling, you know, I'm not OK; the rest of the world's OK
but there's something wrong with me. And the counselor
supposedly carries him to next phase where they say, "I'm
0K, everybody else is screwed up. You're not OK." It's
a bitter phase which you should identify, once you get
somebody really feeling positive about themselves and then
they start feeling angry about why they ever felt negative
about themselves in the first place, and so they go through
that process. And then eventually, supposedly, you get
them to a point where they get past that phase and they
can say, "I'm OK, you're OK, everybody's OK," and we go on
and deal positively with my situation. In rehab, I'm
going to gO out and get a job ready or get that job,
whatever. But then what happens, you release them from
the rehab system, they go out into the community, and they
come face to face with a world that's still saying, "Hey,
I'm OK, but you're not OK." They come up against an
educator who doesn't want to deal with them in the class-
room. They come up against an employer who says, "Sure,
you can do the job, But we just don't have an opening
today." Or, that was filled yesterday, or whatever. And,
gradually, in some cases a handicapper can go through just
so much Of that before they start reverting back to the

 

157

bitterness or the feeling that they're not OK again.
So what I'm saying is there's nobody Out there, there's
no cadre that's out rehabbing the rest of the world, which
is going to be necessary for the rehabbing of the handi-
capper not to have been wasted.

At this point, I would like to say--if there's
questions or comments--

("When you were talking about rehabbing the world--
do you have any concrete suggestions?")

Well, I think every individual, there are things we
can do. If you are a rehab professional, you're going
to have to be really committed to attitude change. The
job is going to have to be more than 8 to 5. You're
going to have to talk to your neighbors, even your fellow
professionals. I know many rehab counselors that are not
committed to the concept that handicappers have a right
to public transportation. They need to get involved in
the issues. They need to live with us. Many rehab peOple
are special ed people, and not really been even close to
what we've experienced. Frequently we get special ed
students or rehab students coming to our Office who went
through their whole academic program never having the
Opportunity to meet or relate to a handicapper, formally
or informally.

Again, I think something that this whole class could
do is deal right here with the special ed curriculum, to

158

start mainstreaming happening right here. Again, I think
that's vital. I think the Center of Handicapper Affairs
is something that in Lansing is going to move us farther,
at least in the local area, at least on the state level,
because they're going to have some resources, again, out
of a grant from Voc Rehab and out of a grant from the city
Of Lansing, especially to do some things in the media. The
media has been one thing that has worked against us for

so long, because it projects the tragedy image, especially
with your fund raising campaigns, because Of they concept
that, the assumption that, in order to raise money you
have to play upon the guilt, the fears, the tragedy Of the
situation, therefore (.....) with the public mind.
Hopefully they're going to do some media things that will
change that. I don't know if any of you watch much
television or watch the news much, but I have noticed in
the last couple of months, probably because of some of

the activism that's happening, a number of factors across
the country, that there have been some programs here and
there, on television at least, that have taken a dramatic
shift as far as what it presents. Through the movie
called "Just a Little Inconvenience" a couple of weeks
ago, which happened to star James Stacy, which in itself
is something you need: here's a famous star who becomes

a handicapper, and suddenly he becomes sensitized, and a

section of the media becomes sensitized so that you have,

 

159

for one of the first times, a handicapper portrayed by a
real handicapper, who is also a real actor, rather than
a handicapper who they've tried to put into an acting role
but really is not that good at acting, or the reverse of
getting some actor to try and portray a handicapper. And,
I have some problems with what the movie was projecting,
but overall it was so much more positive and more real
than anything that had gone on before, and I've seen a
number of things like that happening recently.

("In organizational terms, do you think you're still
in, say, the infancy stages, or have you gone beyond that?")

In comparison to the job we have yet to do, yeah,
I think so. And especially as far as recruiting more than
just handicappers to get involved and to be aware of the
issues, because it's not going to be successful if it's
just us working on it alone.

Thank you.

160

Session 3: Nonhandicapper Speaker

(Entire tape inaudible)

161

Session A: Handicapper Speaker

What a change--I've just come from a meeting of
engineers and architects--a pleasant change.

0K, how many are familiar with the term "barrier-free
design?" Well, then the majority of you should take this
in a relatively sound state of open-mindedness. Basically,
there's two philosOphies on design as per changes regarding
handicappers: there's the medical philOSOphy and there's
the civil philosophy. I happen to represent the civil
philosophy, which deals with environmental design rather
than barrier-free design. Barrier-free design is Often
seen as, quite frankly, counterproductive because it's
mostly based on the needs of wheelchair users to circulate.
That may sound funny, me being a wheelchair user, but my
best interests don't lie in just purely self-interest, if
you can understand what I mean. There are a lot Of people
in the same boat, and you row together, you get farther.

How many have ever seen this international symbol
of the personage (myself? right side profile?)? We call
that the toilet seat model. How many have seen Speedy,
on the other hand? (.....) person leaning forward, right,
(.....). That's a very graphic representation of the
difference between the medical model and the civil model.
The medical model is entirely based on disability. The
problem that we have with that is because any time anyone

 

162

is to be mobile in society you have to concentrate on
ability or you'll never get the job done, especially design-
wise.

You've all seen ramps, I'm sure, and you're aware that
ramps are usually built to get peOple into buildings.

(Why don't you pass that around, take a look at some
pictures.)1 Ramps are a death trap in Michigan, not just
for wheelchair users but for crutch users, people who are
forced to walk, all kinds of peOple. Ramps are a definite
drag, especially in the wintertime. 80, under the civil
model we do not concentrate on ramps, we build grade level
entrances. DO you know what I mean by grade level entrances?
Such as the main entrance to this building, where you
simply come in, it's relatively level, no ramp, no hand-
rails, right? That's a grade level entrance. Also, grade
level entrances don't focus in on difference: everybody
goes through essentially the same entrance, the same door,
in relatively the same manner, depending on their sober
condition, whereas with ramps that's a very clear and
distinct "this is for you" type of architecture.

How many have ever used crutches or an appliance of
some kind to get around with, maybe temporarily, right?
Well, speaking of temporarily, by the way, I'm sorry, you
know, that your situation is only temporary, but one of
these days you'll make it, you'll probably become a

handicapper; either permanently or temporarily, you'll

1See Appendix J .

163

have the honor of experiencing that challenge. Hopefully,
this will go some distance towards helping you deal with
that when it comes.

How many people run under water? Not a whole lot,
right? Although some egotists claim to be able to walk
on water, I don't know of any mortal that can, so what I'd
like you to do is perceive that as just a way of perceiving
the very simple fact that we're all subject to our environ-
ment. Your abilities are in direct proportion to the
environment in which you live. Suppose, in this age of
energy consumption, we decide that it takes an awful lot
Of energy to heat all this space. What have we got here,
a 12 foot ceiling? Let's cut that (.....) down to four
feet, bring it right down to the bottom here, maybe four
and a half feet, right? Save energy. Well, who's going
to be one of the "them?" Who's handicapped? All Of you
folks that are forced to walk, except for those who are
fortunate enough to be short, puny, runts, whatever.

You could deal with a hi foot tall ceiling, right?
So we can build a livable environment, or we can build a
very restrictive environment. I wish that I hadn't had
a mixup in communication and would have been able to
present to you the slide show I had anticipated.

You all know what this.is here? This little thing
here, round thing? It's a doorknob. Americans are hung

up on knobs, not just on doors, but particularly on doors--

164

that's all you ever see, door knobs, right? What a limiting
device. That anticipates that no one ever carries anything
in their hands, that you've always got your hands free all
the time, and that you have great dexterity and strength
in your hands so that when you're sweaty or the knob's wet
or whatever, that you're still going to be able to apply
enough pressure and torque to turn the thing Open and Open
the door, right? How many have ever been in EurOpe and
seen the lever handles, or how many have seen lever handles
here in the States? Now they're a funny little thing that
come out and go this way, and you grab them, hit them with
an elbow, use your chin, your butt, whatever you've got,
and the door opens, fantastic. You can have an armful of
garbage or baggage, and you just hit it with the elbow and
the door's Open. So, the point I'm getting at is, you
design environments for people or you design environments
to meet some kind of arbitrary version of what is aesthetic.
You know, this terminology thing gives a great conflict
between the medical model and the civil model. You've all
heard the word "disabled" applied to peOple? You've also
probably heard the word "nigger," "spic," "wetback,"
right? There's a great problem in applying the word
"disabled" to people. "Disabled" has two meanings: in
the medical field, it means a person has a part, member,
appendage, limb, whatever, that does not function up to
Optimum. Unfortunately, in the civil world where most of

165

us live and work, "disabled" means permanently and totally
unemployable. I find it ironic that most peOple in
rehabilitation use the term "disabled." You're trying to
rehabilitate someone, get someone back in shape to be
employable, right? And you use the word "disabled." Fine.
I sometimes wonder why people marvel at the low success
rates of placements. But, anyhow, you do the same thing
in architecture. You can label peOple. How many have
paid any attention to street crossing signs, when you get
to the corner? What do they say? What do they actually
say? You know, the ones that are meant for the people,
not for the cars, right? What's it say? It says, "Walk--
Don't Walk," right? Well, I assume that you go when it
says "walk" and I go when it says "Don't Walk." It could
be adventuresome being a wheelchair-user at times.
[Laughteil

It's that kind of constant reinforcement through
architecture and facilities that helps to perpetuate
attitudes, Spartacist attitudes. You all know what
Spartacist is, you know what they used to do in Sparta,
with especially female babies, babies that weren't up
to Optimum, male babies that weren't up to Optimum? Put
them on a mountainside and feed them to the wolves. That
was their brand of population perfection. See, they
needed them for the army: Sparta was a very militaristic

city-state in Greece. Once upon a time, when I was younger,

166

I used to hear all about this. And they had this extremely
elitist philosophy, and only the very cream of the crOp,
by their own definition, that meant the male baby at
approximately two months old was already a jockstrap.
Anything other than that didn't qualify to be a human
being, and so was fed to the wolves.

We have today, although a somewhat more sophisticated
and subtle attitude, it's much the same value in perceiving
people. And that certainly is not dispelled or countered
to any great degree by this perpetual architectural
segregation.

How many here know that there's a ramp in front Of
the Admin Building? How many have ever seen the Admin
Building? (.....) Well, you probably, if you went by the
Administration Building and you didn't readily perceive
a ramp, it's probably because the university spent about
$8000 to make sure that you didn't see it. It's perfectly
camouflaged. They built a stone wall in front of it about
10 feet high. And, of course, the reason for that is
because ramps are repulsive, because they remind us of
repulsive peOple who have to use them. That's what's
taught to architects and designers. That undesirable
element of society, those facilities for them, we've
got to kind of tuck them away, 'cause that's not cool.
Never mind the fact that they don't teach then how the
hell to design a ramp. You ought to see that thing in the

167

wintertime. They've got these walls up on either side,
right? You can't shovel it. You've got to shovel snow

10 feet in the air? No way. Especially with the unions--
they'd never do that. So, the sun comes over for about
two minutes, part of the snow melts, sun's gone, snow
freezes. Ramp suddenly becomes a ski slide, and down at
the end what do we have? A cement wall. Beautiful.

I just wish some of these turkeys would have to use
some of their facilities that they design and build. But,
anyhow...so that's another example. I'm trying to think
of examples that you peOple can relate to. How many
peOple in here are left handed? One? Doesn't it bother
you that we don't make left hand desks? Except for that
one over there? [Laughter] Same thing.

Women. That would be a good question. You know, I
proposed to the State Construction Code Commission that
we build women's toilet rooms a little bit different
than we build men's, that we use just a little bit
different set of specifications and standards. Why?
Well, women are generally a little bit shorter than men,
right? They are built different, I mean outside Of the
window dressing. In the bone structure, etc., there's a
little bit of difference there. Consequently, they will
not be able to use facilities that are designed for men

with the same ease with which a male would be able to

use those facilities. So why do we take specifications,

168

develOp them for a men's room, and then build a women's
room? It doesn't seem to compute to me. Well, they went
right through the roof as usual. You know, that's a
strange idea; we can't deal with that. Doesn't conform
to standards. So the next time you have any difficulty
in a women's room, using the facilities whatever they may
be, you may wish to think about that a little bit. How
many women here are less than 5' 6"? When you're seated
on a water closet--you know what a water closet is? It's
a throne, right? (.....) How many of you have your .
feet touching the floor? [i.aughtezj Why? Do you feel
unbalanced at all (.....) Could be a reason for that,
right?

And this is another thing. Take the kitchen. These
chauvinists that design facilities for the 6 foot tall,
185 pound jockstrap--I've really got to crack up, because
if they were really true chauvinists, wouldn't they
design a kitchen for a woman? How many of you women that
are under 5' 6" can reach all the shelves on the cupboard?
Of course, because you're under 5' 6" we don't classify
you as handicapped, disabled, (.....). But you're short
persons, we can start differentiating right there. But
that's just a humorous side, maybe, of how your environ-
ment can be designed to make you look like a real turkey.
And you know what that does over time, when you go a

year or two or three or four or five or six or 10 or 20

169

and you have to deal with that same environment, you know,
after a while you start to think "something's wrong here."
And other people think, "Oh, you've got a problem."

You've got a problem, because you're limited by your
environment, that's in parentheses, but they don't realize
it. See, if you go in and you can walk and you have
trouble using the Old water closet, right, say it's 24
inches Off the flour. You know, the atmosphere's a little
thin up there, you're not used to that, right? So you
feel a little uncertain and maybe as you come out you
make a comment to somebody about how lousy that facility
was. And they say, "Yeah, who the hell ever designed
that?" But if a handicapper, someone with a perceivable
characteristic, goes in and uses a "standard" facility

and they come out and say, "Boy, what a lousy design,

what a stupid...had a hard time," they say, "Oh, you've
got a problem."

So after a while, if you're not an Obnoxious person
like myself, you start to believe that stuff. You actually
start to think, well, it's me, you know, this whole world
just can't conform to me.

SO that's how we design people into inferiority,
that's how we design them into second class citizenship
and all that. I think that's about enough examples.

I think that should definitely get the point across.

OK--questions?

170

("At this point, how many handicappers are there in
the design or building profession?")

I really don't know. (Dialogua

You know, like here tonight. LandscapeArchitecture,
totally inaccessible. Urban Planning, totally inaccessible.
Engineering Building, only accessible on the first floor.
There's a freight elevator, big steel doors that Open this
way. Unbelievable. .

Yeah, I would really love to see that, because I
think that's where a lot of awareness is going to come
from. Like coming over here, you know? Lousy half inch
lift on a path ramp down there, but it was absolutely
straight and vertical, and it was dark, I didn't really
see it. I come trucking out of the parking lot there
with complete reckless abandon, and I hit this thing,
and the chair stops, right? (.....) So there's a lot of
things that you have to be particularly careful about,
you know, like a quarter inch in a door. Well, if you're
shy a quarter of an inch in the width of a door, you're
not going through. You can get a 40 mile an hour head
start, and that may get you through, but that chair's
going to really mess up that door, all right?

So it's that kind of awareness where you're dealing
with this all of the time. You can't just expect to go
in and say to a group Of architects, "Hey, pay attention

to this," and expect them to remenber everything over the

171

next 20 years (.....).

("Have you heard any complaints about some of the
cities where they've put a ramp at an existing curb in
front of a business building and they put two railings
at each side but the whole thing is so narrow? Cincinnati's
put a lot of these in front Of the newer business
buildings, they're putting in ramps at the curb, and I
take my mother out in a wheelchair and I'm very conscious
Of that. But they're so narrow, anybody whose chair is a
little bigger than my mother's I think would have a lot
of trouble getting through, and I can't see what the point
is, when we're spending all that money to start with...")

The National Institute on Vertical Transportation--
that's a bunch of elevator manufacturers, right--to decide
what was required in the way to accomodate a wheelchair
user in an elevator, they took a wheelchair, measured it,
got very precise measurements, I mean they got the angular
measurement, they got 15 million measurements for that
thing, and they specified the width in the elevator as
A8 inches. That's all you need, because it's 48 inches
from here to the tip of the footplates. What they forgot
was that chair users have feet, usually. Which usually
protrude a little further than the footplates. Which
means that when you're sitting there it's not cool when
the elevator door goes (crunch). It's things like this,
you know, you just don't think. But it's coming, it's

172

coming. I think it's getting a lot better. And the more
we get away from that protectionist, segregated, medical
model I think, the more palatable it's going to be with the
design professions. They (.....) design hospitals out on
the street, or hospital facilities, they (.....) design
things for the general public.

("If you could instrument some changes, which would
you alter first: social attitudes or just like the
physical environment? What obstructs you the most?")

I would alter--if I were God--I would alter attitudes
first, because everything else proceeds from attitudes.
You can change all kinds of physical things, but if people
still think the same way, still have the value systems,
those physical changes are going to wear out and die away,
and new things are going to be built to replace them. So
I would change the attitude first. [Dialogue] That
would be the ideal. I don't think we‘re about to do that
right off.

("...Handicappers who drive...are parking facilities
any better? It's been atrocious, I know, the last few
years. Can you park your vehicle where you can get off
and get to a building and so forth?")

Yeah, it's getting better. The problem is it wasn't,
you know, this enforcement thing on these handicapper
slots, that wasn't mandatory until just October 1. You

all see these signs, you know, "Them only?" [Laughterj

173

Until recently, it was just your Boy Scout honor that kept
you out of that slot, and Girl Scout honor, too, thank
you, a little reminder. But now, as of October 1, it's

a misdemeanor, and the fine is left up to the local
enforcement agency, but it can't exceed 3100, because it
is a misdemeanor.

("...Open your door wide enough so you can move your
chair through.")

They're coming. See, that's part of the construction
code now. When you build buildings new. Of course, you
may want to notice the State Newg today, there's a little
blurb in there about how they're trying to dismantle the
state Barrier-Free Design Board, which is the only agency
in the state that tries to provide these things, through
the construction code. But, when you build new buildings
or when you rebuild buildings that have parking facilities
involved, you have to provide a certain ratio of slots
reserved for handicappers. And that's what this law that
took effect October 1 is intended to protect. They were
provided previously under the construction code, but there
was no enforcement. Especially on private property, a
law enforcement person from the city could not come on

board and ticket or tow. But now the law's been changed
and they-can come on private property and tow, and it's
all at the car owner's expense. If you don't have the ID

from the Secretary of State, themes appropriate identifica-
tion.

174

Any further questions? How about you, slim, what are

you thinking? How painful has this been for you?

(".....") '

You would? After all this? Well, if anybody ever
wants a brew, you want to kick this idea around a little
bit, or even without a brew [Laughter] , give me a call
over at the office, we'll be happy to chirp with you a
little bit.

("I'm sorry, I came in late. Where is your Office?")

Well, I have two offices, actually. One is in the
Library, fourth floor, Programs for Handicappers, and
the other is in the Administration Building, Human Relations.

Thank you very kindly. You're very attentive, and
'I appreciate the opportunity to lay a few things on you.

175

Session 4: Nonhandicapper Speaker

My assignment tonight is to speak about environmental
design so that the largest number of people in our
environment can Operate through it. (.....)

It's hard to get going without starting in the
terminologies (.....): "barrier free design" is becoming a
little less fashionable because it has implied a Band-Aid
approach to solving problems of free access toward built
environments. Replacing barrier free design, slowly, is
the concept of environmental design, which means that in
order to make our environment accessible to all of us
whether we are in a wheelchair or on crutches or on our
two feet, you have to start with sort of early ideas,
designing around several principles from the very beginning
(.....).

What I'd like to do is run through a very good article
that appeared in Amicus, a periodical article that deals
particularly with MSU's solution to access in environment.
You may be familiar with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
It's (.....) important ideas were finally brought to the
legislative fruition in the Rehab Act of '73.1

1(Note: the main body of this presentation consisted
of reading, with scattered paraphrasing and comments, the
following article:

Gentile Eric. "Architectural affirmative action: A
university with a new concept." Amicus, 1977, g, No. A, 31-

36.
See Appendix J.)

176

—— [Approximately 15 minutes of transcription omitted —-

I can't resist getting into the concept of "handicap."
A handicap is situation-specific. I don't think of myself
as a handicapped person except in certain situations. I
happen to have (.....) vision. A contact lens fell out
(.....), I couldn't see it out there (.....) I was kind of
helpless.. A handicap occurs, or a person appears to be
handicapped in a certain setting. A person doesn't possess
a handicap; a person experiences a handicap. You change
the setting a little bit, the handicap goes away.

(.....) at some other sort Of cornerstone on attitude
change that we need to (.....). It's not going to happen
on its own.

Curb cuts here at MSU: a curb cut is somebody coming
in with a jackhammer and blasting out six feet Of curb
and then pouring in a slope. It's fine for a bicycle.

Try it in a wheelchair: you'll wind up getting the wheels
sort of caught in that little dip there, and it's
aesthetically a second-rate way of doing it. A better
way is think of a (.....) or if you're constructing new
pathways, make a slope the whole width of the pathway,
either build it anew or reconstruct it.

The lavatories (.....) cumbersome two-knob handles
(.....) and replaced with unilever approach.

Reading rooms for the blind. They've been remodeled,

177

reequipped with the latest sort of high technology
transcription equipment, and there are some high-class
pieces of technology coming out for transcribing for the
blind.

It shows up in lots of ways at MSU. Telephones.

Pay phones. The standard height for a telephone is 60
inches. A slight concession was made that brought it

down to 54 inches. A person in a chair--again I apologize
for not having slides--a person in a wheelchair is reaching
up this far to do it.

Nobody knows what it's like unless you try it. Get
yourself a wheelchair and do it. Just handle one of your
typical days and you'll know in short order how the
environment was set up to exclude people in wheelchairs.
You'll know it in 10 minutes. You'll know it the first
time you want to get from point A to point B. You're not
going to be able to get into your car very well, because
your car is set up for people who don't have to get a
wheelchair in. You will know it when you reach for a 6"
or A" sill on a door at a store, at school, anywhere.
You'll know it when you approach (.....). You'll know it
at the supermarket, (.....) way out of your reach.

There's a good illustration here, I'd just like to
send it on, of the Band-Aid type approach, barrier free
design, with add-on ramp. This looks like the same door,
before and after. It's redesigned (.....) grade level

178

approach, and you can see that it's a lot prettier, safer,
and easier to move on.

I'm all yours. I hope I've stimulated some questions,
or some observations about how the environment where you
live could be made better if it were redesigned to include
more normal people.

("Does this law also include apartment houses and
things like that?")

It includes any new construction that is accessible
to the public. Yes, private. There's new legislation
also that provides for handicapped parking. Handicappers
now need to have identification on their cars in order
to use that parking (.....) subject to fine (.....).

("Is there any way--I work at Meijer's out in Okemos,
and I was working up at the front courtesy desk, and this
girl came in, she was driving a friend of hers who was in
a wheelchair, and they used her car. She got a 8100 ticket
on her car because she parked there. Now, she doesn't
always drive him so she doesn't have a sticker on her car
and she can't get one because she is not handicapped. So
what can she do, what can a person like that do who is
driving someone around? It's very inconvenient for her to
drOp him off, let him go into the building and everything,
and then to drive and park someplace else and then go pick
the car up.")

Very good point.

179

("And so she was going to try to fight it in court.")

That's good. I think it would be an easy case to
win. [bialogue]

You're caught between relying on peOple's good graces,
honesty, and discretion (.....). The other way seems to
be the only way to exclude peOple from handicapper parking
places. A mechanism, to my knowledge, does not exist to
alert a cop that the vehicle is being temporarily used for
a handicapper. You would get a gold star if you came up
with a workable method. There are two ways a car can be
identified as a handicapper: special license plates, or
a front windshield decal, sticker. It seems to me that
such a sign could be issued to handicappers so that it
could be used, you know, taken out of your wallet and
stuck inside your front window. That, again, does not
exist now, but I think you could make a try.

("...I'm now in the dorms, and there's some places
you cannot get served....lunchroom, because of the stairs...
there's no elevator...")

OK, I would imagine that the university would be
found in violation Of Section 504 if someone took them to
task on it. It's hard to make the changes at once,
overnight, in a facility of this size.

The initial concentration was to be on new construction
and extension of Old ones. If someone is going to add a

new wing on to the Library, they'd better make that new

180

wing accessible (.....). Existing architecture takes a
second seat, and has up to now. So, there is a concept of
legislative intent for reasonable accomodation. That gets
into affirmative action for employers in hiring handicapped
persons, and it also applies to architectural design and
redesign. In the long run, all we're asking is sensible,
reasonable approach, and there's no cause for panic,

but rather the (.....).

("Is this federal or state legislation?")

This is federal. There is, of course, state legislation
that pertains to handicappers. In Michigan, it's called
Public Act 220, the Handicapper Bill of Rights. I have it
here:

This act shall be known and may be cited as the

Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act. The

Opportunity to Obtain employment, housing, and

other real estate, and full and equal utili-

zation of public accomodations, public service,

and educational facilities, without discrimi-

nation because Of a handicap, is guaranteed by

this act, and is a civil right.

It's enforced by the Civil Rights Commission,

At Voc Rehab, I concentrate on employment (.....), so
this Public Act 220 pops up when I see someone in my
Office who's been denied employment on the basis of a
handicap. And for that kind Of legislation, the definition
of handicap is kind of interesting: it includes anyone
who has a mental or physical characteristic which limits

any Of their major life functions. Someone who has a

history of such limitations or impairment, or someone who

181

is regarded as having such a limitation. So, I'm handi-
capped, and I go seek a job, and an employer takes a back
X-ray (.....) and calls me handicapped (.....), and that
makes me protected by the civil rights legislation.

I think we're out of time.

APPENDIX D

Posttest Scores
(2x2 Analysis of Variance)

182

w—w.
sen.
arm.
mam.
.wa.
mam.

h be
MszHm

.mm.

:wo.
:wo.
mm.
mm.
m—a.

h we
thuHm

awe.—
omo.m
omo.m
mm_.
one.
mwo.

www.m—
mmm.om
po:.m

mmm.op
nwm.w_

—N:.
—po.
m—N.

mmapam
24m:

:m_.o_
o——.O—
N—o.——

osm._m
osm._m
mmm..
com.
mam.

mmepam
24m:

pm

(I. Nw-w— P'- m

.Q

.Q

mn:.m_m_
mmm.wm_—
:ON.mp

www.m—
www.m—

.ms.
FPO.
bMJ.

mamaaam
he saw

anaemia .ammammn am one amen

mP:.m—m
nwm.wmm
mmo.mn

o:~.—m
o:m..m

mmm.p
con.
man.—

essence
as new

anaemia .emmammn am mzo amen

Adaoa
A<=QHmmm
QHZqumxm

anaemia .smmammn

monBodeBZH w<3IN

mandmmm
Emmammm
meomhhm szz

chede¢> kc mumbom

umUz¢Hm<>.ho mewA<z<

44909
A¢DOHmmm
nan—”5&9

mmsdanm .ammammn
mzousosmmazH asaum

mmm¢gmm
ammammm
maomhhm 2H4:

onB<Hm<> ho Hombom

«Hoz¢Hm¢> ho mHmwndz<

183

m_n.mmw .m mm:..mamm asses

wwa.wmm mm .oa.mmnmn assmammm
are. mes. ..m.mmm m sma._oo_ stHaqaxm
Noe. we.. .cn.mm . .mn.wm amnesia .ammemma
«on. we.. .ma.mm _ .cn.mm . mchaoemmazH weatm
mom. swo._ _m_.mmn _ _m_.mmn anaemia
mmm. mmm. _m_.mm_ . _m_.mm_ ammammm
m_m. mac. awe._ms m mam.mom manages zHaz
a so a mmapam .m.n mamapam chade<> mo summon
aHzeHm 22m: mo zen

anaemia .ammammn am meow amen "mozeHms> ac mHmaaeze

mma.ms_ .m mr~.nmnm Aesop

mmn.ms_ mm www.mmnm assmHmmm
nos. .mm. omm.ms. m omm.ame mmzaeanxm
mm.. mam._ dmm.mm~ _ mmm.mmm newsman .ammammn
mm_. mam._ mmm.mwm _ mam.nmm monaoemmezH aegum
men. n... mom.c_ _ mom.m_ anaemia
men. mom. .wm.om_ . .mm.om_ newsman
dos. .om. Pmm._a m .mm.me_ manages 2H4:
a no a amends .a.s mmmsaam oneaHm<> so season
mHzeHm 24m: no 2pm

«seamen .eumemma am memes amen nmUz<Hm<>_ao mHmaqeze

APPENDIX E

Attitude Survey Scores
(Analysis Of Covariance)

184

mwwdm.

.ZHA ..mzoo
mm. mama:

enmnm.
.oooo.

h mo
.32me

mmmmm.

.EHA ..mzoo
mm . Emma:

mm_m..
moooo .

h be
thme

mwmsm.—n

.ZHA ..mzoo
mm. manH

mw—JN.—
mommm.mm

.m

Nbfw. —...

.ZHA .580
mm. mason

comm—.m
Gisela

.m

moomm. oonso.u _
mommm .mmmoo .m.m
mmamznnm
mneHmsnoo mzo mom omnmneoe
one amnm mom mmnmznnmm
_smmo.__ mmnemmm
.nwmn.oom onmmmmomm
.omsa.smm magma szan
mmmdnom onnsHmen mo momnom
mo mom

Amonnmmmm_m<onnmmnomnm mazommmmo one amam

snmnm. .ms....u
a mo momenta
.mHonm
.smmo.__ .
.mmmn.oom _
smmmn.m mm
mmsnom .m.m
mam:
om_m.. ~m_ms._u
9 mo momsnun
mHnon
mmmwm.m. _
ommmm. o. _
m mno. am
mmanom .m.o
new:

mm._m. nmwma.u .
mommm .mmmoo .m.o
mmeoznnm
mneumenoo mzo mom omnmnmod
mzo nmam mom mmnsanmm
mmwwm.m_ mmnsmmm
owmmw.wo_ onmmmmomm
amonm.mo_ mammo szan
mmmsmom onnaHman mo momnom
mo mom

Amzmoz mnnnoemmnzn mmanoomv mzo amen

185

mm—mm.:

.ZHA .hzco
mm. mmmmp

msmmm.
mmmoo.

m mo
mszHm

mwomo.

.25 .58
mm. mmmmn

sumac.
moooo.

m mo
thme

mowm~.m_u msomm. mmomm.u
.294 .mzoo a mo momenta
no. mmnom mHonm
enema. eseoo.smm _
nmoom.o_ noosm.mmom _
mmmmn.mm¢ mm
m mmenom .m.m
24mm
omomm.mu snmmo. mmomo.ms
.23 .58 m. mo mange
mm. mmnom mHonm
.mwwo.s .smmm.ss~ _
ssoon.mm mommm.msmn _
nosmm.mm mm
m mmmnom .m.o

24m:

m—wo—.: nmmmm.mu —
momma .hmmoo .m.n
mm¢mz<am

mamHm4>oo mzo mom nmsmpbnd
much amdm mom mmadzHBmm

ssooo.smm mmmsmmm
a osm.mmom onmmmmomm
o mam.mmnn_ magma szan
mmmenom onn<Hm<>.mo mommom
mo 2mm
Ammsow ozmnzmmsmv mnom nmsm
.msms._ mammm.~- _
mommm .mmmoo .m .m
mmeozenm
mnsnmsnoo mzo mom omnmneos
mmmmn nmsm mom mmnazmnmm,
.smmw.s¢m mmmammm
mmmnm.msm_ zonmmmmomm
mmmmm.mmm_ mammo szan
mmmsnom onanmen mo momnom
mo 2mm

Amndom mzcmmmm qumden nmmioa HQDBHaadv Hamma Bmdm

APPENDIX F

Attitude Survey Scores
(multivariate F)

186

mammo.s
mammH.-
oons.

.SHH .mzoo
ma. mmmmb

camom.
camom.
ommom.

m mo
.mHZUHm

Hamwo.ofiu

soomo.ou
oHooH.m-

mm. mmzoq

Hoomm. nmmmm.- smsos.m momoo.m- H moon nmmm
mmmmo. mommH.m- monom.H mmsms.m- H mmmmn nmmm
mmHmH. mmomn.H- memos. mmmnm.- H one nmmm
.nHm .mzoo mnHm>un mommm .mmmoo .m.o

.mHonm omaozmnm
mmanm<>oo m mom omnmomom monnomm mom mmnmanmm
oHoom. mnom
ooooo.om ooooo.m mnmoo.H smmmm. mmmHn
ooooo.om ooooo.n mmmco.H mmomm. mozHHHmnom
ooooo.om ooooo.m ammoo.H oHoom. mHnmmHm
.m.o .m.o m .xommmm moH<> . msmz nmmn

mommm mHmmmnomnm

Aauz .WHS .Hnmv mozmonHonm mo memma memHm¢>HaHDS
mmm<mmm .. Bommmm
AancV

APPENDIX G

Posttest Scores,
Groups III and IV
(Analysis Of Variance)

187

w.::.
.momm m

m—mm.
.momm m

m.sm.moo on meson

omne.om nom~.mmm mm mmoomo szeHn
meow. ones.m_ ones.mH H mmnomo zmmnnmm
oHnam m mmmsnom 24m: mmmamom mo mom .m.o summon

moz<Hmd> mo mHmHA4z<

HmoHnemmm HmoHnmmnomnm Hanoommmv one amen anmeHman

:mmw.m¢m mm , meson

ammo.m omHH.ss~ mm mmoomo szaHn
meme. neon.m mson.m H mmnomo zmmnamm
oHnem m mmmsnom mam: mmmemom mo 2mm .m.o momnom

moz¢Hm<> ho mHmwndzd

Hmnmon manosmmnzH maanoomo mzo ammm anmsHmnn

188

s—mm.
.momm m

:uom.
.momm m

warm.—
OHB<m h

pmmm.
OHB<m m

NN5@.NO—mm mm Adaoa

omns.m.n _ sssm.m_msm em mmnomo szan
memo.omm mamo.omm H ammomo nmmnnmm
mmmanom mam: mmmmmom mo mom .m.m momnom

m024Hm<> ha mHqu<z<

Amumum GZHBzmm<mv mach amdm “mndem<>

s.mm.somm em meson
omns..n. momm.mmom mm mmnomo szan
ore—.os ossH.os H mmnomo zmmnnmm
mmmamom mam: mmmenom mo 2mm .m.o momnom

moz<Hm<> ho mHmaA<z<

Amudom mzcmmmm nmnmden mmdaoa HQDEHsedv Hmmma Bmgm ”mum<Hmd>

APPENDIX H

Speaker Ratings and
Representative Comments

189

Session 1: Handicapper Speaker

Ratings

5 4 3 2 1
strongly mildly neutral mildly strongly (Total/n)
positive positive or mixed negative negative

11 9 5 O 1 (107/26)

Mean rating: 4.12
Positive comments

--I gained a lot from (speaker)--a feeling.

'-...it was great listening to someone who is a
handicapper.

--I was very impressed with the speaker...I think the
same talk should be given to all students and not
just students in special ed.

-—very interesting and informative.
--...very'healthy, positive (attitudes).
--...excellent sequential presentation.

--I enjoy(ed) the speaker very much.

--GREAT SPEAKER! (speaker) was captivating...
--inspiring.

Negative comments

--(speaker's) manner of speaking...made me unconmortable.
I felt like I was being corrected--like a child.

190

Session 1: Nonhandicapper Speaker

Ratings

5 4 3 2 1
strongly mildly neutral mildly strongly (Total/n)
positive positive or mixed negative negative

14 8 6 2 2 (126/32)
Mean rating: 3.94

Pogitive cgmments

--It was good to hear the mock because it was so absurd
that it helped one to realize how silly the society
acts toward handicappers.

--I feel people have to be ruffled sometimes to
initiate thought.

--Good social commentary!

' -I loved the speech--if you can call a talk that
interesting a speech.

-I was impressed with the assertiveness Of the
speaker. '

-4Excellent speaker.

-Probably the most enlightening 10 minutes I've
spent in a long long time.

-(the speaker) Opened my eyes to things I really
never thought about, as a special ed major.

Negative comments

--I felt_(thepresentation) was presented in a
condescending tone...it came across as rather guilt
inducing.

--The speaker did not appeal to me g3 all! I'm tired
Of labels. .One thing that_bugs me the most is that
labels are constantly being changed.

191

Session 2: Handicapper Speaker

Ratings

5 4 3 2 1
strongly mildly neutral mildly strongly (Total/n)
positive positive or mixed negative negative

11 9 1 1 ' o (96/22)
Mean rating: 4.36

Positive comments

--very interesting and thought provoking.

-I hOpe (the speaker) gets...known to more of the
community.

--very well presented. Good attitude. Interesting
presentation. Thank you.

--It was great to hear someone who wasn't hostile but
still got (the) point across.

-Made me think.

-This (speaker) has guts and something between the
ears. learned a lot.

Negative comment
--Slight "chip" on shoulder.

192

Session 2: Nonhandicapper Speaker

Ratings

5 4 3 2 1 '
strongly mildly neutral mildly strongly (Total/n)
positive positive or mixed negative negative '

9 , 8 1 2 1 (85/21 )
Mean rating: 4.08

Positive cOmments
--very good and caring person. Brought out a lot of
good points.
--this session was very good.
--(speaker's) examples very effective.
--what a beautiful person!
-a good all around speaker.
-GOOD PRESENTATION

--speaker was've good and seemed warm and loving...
(speaker's) atIItude was one of unusual insight and
humaneness.

Negative comments

--redundant
-(speaker) is empathetic but not very sincere.

193

Session 3: Handicapper Speaker

Ratings

. 5 4 3 2 1
strongly mildly neutral mildly strongly (Total/n)
positive positive or mixed negative negative

12 O 2 o 0 (66/14)
Mean rating: 4.71

Positive comments
-;I was made more aware of many things I wasn't aware
of before.

--I thoroughly enjoyed this tOpic--(speaker) really
seemed to be concise and clear in...thoughts.

--The speaker seems to be'a very intelligent person.
--Well done--thank you!

-(speaker) got...ideas across very effectively
without turning me Off...

-Speaker's dynamic quality is apparent and attractive.

-(speaker) has motivated me to become involved in
some activism.

--It made me feel very selfish that I haven't done
—more to help handicaps (sic)

Ne ative comments

-started off boring.
-fairly dry but interesting.

194

Session 3: Nonhandicapper Speaker

Ratings

5 4 3 2 1
strongly mildly neutral mildly strongly
positive positive or mixed negative negative

2 4 3 2 1

Mean rating: 3.83

Positive comments

--enjoyable, dedicated person.

(Total/n)

(46/12)

--speaker was a warm and comfortable person...fair in

assessment of contrasting points of view.

Negative comments
--more opinionated than knowledgeable

--wasn't realistic in...plans for some changes.

--I found the speaker rather boring. I could find

or detect no enthusiasm.

195

Session 4: Handicapper Speaker

Ratings

5 4 3 2 1
strongly mildly ,neutral mildly strongly (Total/n)
positive positive or mixed negative negative

15 8 4 3 3 (128/33)
Mean rating: 3.88
Positive comments

--(speaker) talked on a very personal and straight level.

--(speaker) was articulate and...humorous interjections
eased the possibly uncomfortable atmosphere (speaker)
might have created (i.e. guilt reaction).

-brought up a couple of things I hadn't thought of before.

--good speaker---expressed...views in a persuasive
manner--not obnoxiously.

-some positive ideas and thought-provoking ones.

--has an excellent ideafof what is needed for field/
area of "handicappers"--tremendous sense of humour.

--seemed really realistic about the prOblem and has
seemed to not EIIow It to build into a crusade which
can sometimes turn me Off...I,enjoyed this.

Negative comments

.--We aren't all at fault!

--manner of presentation, although funny, seemed quite
bitter...a bit exaggerated.

--seemed very biased.

—-shows an example of a lot of handicapped peOple--
' anti-society.

-showed as little understanding Of all people as
(speaker) was complaining of most peOple's attitudes
toward handicappers.

-a lot Of personal discontent injected in the talk.

196

Session 4: Nonhandicapper Speaker

Ratings

5 4 3 2 1
strongly mildly neutral mildly strongly (Total/n)
positive positive or mixed negative negative

11 13 5 1 2 (126/32)
Mean rating: 3.63

Positive comments
--speaker expressed (self) real well...seemed to know
material intensely.
~-informative--wish we had more time.
-truly informational.
--very favorable attitude.
--good thinking!

--well expressed...made me realize many things I
hadn't noticed.

--did a good job.

Negative comments

-I do not think (speaker) was prepared.
--I didn't really think (speaker) had an attitude.

197

General Comments: Handicapper Group

Positive comments

-In general, the speakers have all made me Open my
eyes and see what a tremendous job it it to
rehabilitate society in order to encompass all its
number.

--It has been good and somewhat enlightening.

-I thought it was very interesting and I think a
couple of individuals would be interesting, fun, and
generally nice to know better.

--It was a very good experience listening to the
speakers.

--The speakers were extremely interesting.

--Has been enlightening/learning eXperience--will help
me on a daily basis with all kinds of people. Thanks.

-I thought the guest speakers were excellent. I'm
sure they informed a lot of people about things
they never knew. It is great to get it from a
first hand source.. '

Negative comments

--The whole 4 weeks on handicappers has been very
interesting...But the whole attitude of the peOple
talking has been a little too aggressive for the
peOple they talk to. We are all planning to work
with handicappers, not people who are trying to
oppress the movement. Being attacked is not my way
of being convinced about something. I would have
been more Open and responsive if I was talked to as
another human being and not someone who has shot
down handicappers.

--I resent being part of this since I paid for a
3 credit class and time was taken from the class
time. I believe this is against university policies.

--I would like to know how you can justify our paying
money for a research or whatever program. I want to
know why.

198

General Comments: Nonhandicapper Group

Positive comments

--I very much enjoyed the guest speakers!!

-I do enjoy these speakers, their (sic) most
beneficial.

Negative comments

-I don't like being forced to attend these sessions--
I feel it's unfair. It should be an individual
decision.

--I felt the ones I attended were prepared, but only
by reading the material On the spot.

-I would like to know the purpose of this research...
I also think the attitudes of people would have been
better if the whole thing was not left such a big
secret!

--YOu made us feel very uncomfortable. I did not
enjoy it all (sic). It was worthless.

APPENDIX I

Comparison of Special Education Students
with Introductory Psychology Students

199

Comparison of Special Education Students
with Introductory Psychology Students

During the planning stage of this study, it was
suggested that the results of the proposed research might
be inconclusive, due to the belief that persons who
choose rehabilitation or special education as a major
would most likely already possess positive attitudes
toward handicappers, and so perhaps it would be more
fruitful to use a more heterogeneous sample as subjects.
This argument is certainly not without merit. However,
plans to use this specialized sample were in the end
carried out for several reasons, chief among them the
already mentioned educational value of the project to
the participants. Also, the question of how the attitudes
of special education students compare with those of
students in other curricula was seen as another issue
which could be evaluated.

In order to investigate the assumption that
students in special education would already possess
attitudes significantly more positive than those of a
more heterogeneous group, an additional sample was
obtained consisting of 36 students enrolled Fall term,
1977, in an introductory psychology course at Lansing
'Community College. The pretest (see Appendix B), along

with two questions regarding type and frequency of

 

200

contact, was administered to this comparison group, which

did not participate further in the research.

Results

No significant differences were found between the
special education students and the introductory
psychology students on Measures Two, Three, and Four,
using an analysis of variance (see pages 201-202). A
graphic comparison of The ATDP scores of both groups
is presented on page 203. In this study, special
education students were not found to have more positive
attitudes toward handicappers than did students in a
more heterogeneous group.

Measure One of the attitude survey, which deals
with opinions regarding the attitudes of other people
toward handicappers, produced a mean score of 25.03
for special education students and 26.80 for the
introductory psychology students. Using an analysis
of variance, scores of Measure One were found to differ
significantly (p4<.029), indicating that special
education students had a lower opinion of other
peOple's attitudes toward handicappers than did

students in a more heterogeneous sample.

201

8:.
momm m

mmo.
momm m

com.
0H9<m m

omm.:
0H9<m m

wn~H.NHmH no H¢Boa

mfium.mfi no:m.mmNH we mmoomo szeHz
nfimm.mfi mfism.mfl H mmsomo zmmzamm
mmm<oom z<m2 mmm<=am mo 23m .m.a momaom

moz<Hm<> mo mHmNA¢z<

AmOH><mmm AdoHemmBomMm Q<zommmmv 039 Bm<m .mqm<Hm¢>

mmmo.omm mo g<eoe
masm.ofi oomm.omm so mmoomu szeHz
Hmoo.:m Hsoo.:m H mmaomo zmmzemm
mmm<=am z<m2 mmm<=om mo 22m .m.a momsom

moz<Hm<> mo mHmwg¢z<

Amzmoz m>HBo<mmBzH A<BmHoomV mzo em¢m .mqdem¢>

202

mmsm.mmmos mo . gases

mmms.smn ommo.mooan we mmaomo szeHz

one. smH.m msHm.ommH naHm.ommH H mmaomo zmmsemm
momm m 0He<m m mmm<sam zams mmm<=om mo 25m .m.o momsom

moz¢Hm<> mo mHmMQ¢z<

Aquom quezmmdmv mDom Bm<m .mnm<Hm¢>

ooom.wmnoH mo H<eoe

mnmo.mmm ssHm.mHHwH we mmaomu szeHz

Hmm. Hoo.H ommH.smm wmmH.mnm H mmsomu zmmzamm
momm m oHe<m m mmm<=om z<m2 mmm<sam mo 29m .m.m momoom

moz<Hm<> mo mHmNA<z¢

Amfl¢om mzommmm amqm<mHD Qm¢zoa mQDBHBB¢v mmmma Bm<m Humm¢Hm<>

zl

Special education students

Introductory psychology students--—-~

203

 

60

118-120
115-11?
112-11#
109-111
106-108
103-105
100-102
97-99
94-96
91-93

' 88-90

85-87
82-84
79-81
76-78
73-75
70-72
67-69
6h-66
61-63
37-59
5k-56
51-53
48-50
h5-#7
42-44
39-41
36-38
33-35
30-32
27-29
24-26
21-23
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
3-5
0-2

ATDP Scores

Distribution of Scores

Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale:

Figure 2.

204

Correlations existing among the four measures in
the attitude survey were determined (see Table 3, below).
Significant correlations were found to exist among Measures
Two, Three, and Four, all of which deal with personal
attitudes and hypothetical behavior. Measure One, which
deals with societal interactive norms, did not correlate
significantly with any of the other measures.

Although correlations among Measures Two, Three, and
Four were significant, they were not high enough (.26, .33,
.50) to be expected to vary together and so were analyzed

on a univariate rather than a multivariate basis.

Table 3
Correlation Matrix, Attitude Survey Sections
(Special Education Students
and Introductory Psychology Students)

 

. . Measure Measure Measure Measure
Survey Division One Two Three Four

 

Measure One
(societal inter- -- .09 -.11 .05
interactive norms)

Measure Two
(personal hypo- -- .33** ,50***
thetical behavior)

Measure Three
(Attitude Toward -- .26*
Disabled Persons Scale)

Measure Four
(parenting scale) --

 

*p < . 016
**p< . 001+

APPENDIX J

Gentile, E. Architectural affirmative action:
A university with a new concept. Amicus,
1977’ _2_’ NO. ’4" 31-360

(used with permission)

 

nl Center for Law & the Handuca

   
    

Opening the
Classrooms:
Assuring

t Right to o
A t

he '
pproprio e E on

206

Architectural Affirmative Action:
A University with 0 New Concept

by Eric Gentile

 

No more graphic illustration exists of
the difference in values between the
medical/rehabilitation model, in this
case, the individual confined to a
wheelchair, and the civil model of
the wheelchair user.

 

 

By now, the Section 504 regulations to the totally effective program access ”in the most
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, mandating that educa- integrated setting appropriate. ”
tional facilities must be readily accessible to Due to the limited knowledge of most college
handicapped persons, have probably increased the and university administrators of the possible
heartbeat of college and university administrators architectural solutions to these regulations, and
several fold. the generally poor quality and high expense of
These regulations do not ”require a recipient national standards such as barrier free design,
to make each of its existing facilities or every part attention has been focused on the difficulties of
of a facility accessible to and usable by handi- compliance, rather than the benefits. This article
capped persons,” but they do mandate and require will explain how one campus has redesigned its
the development of a plan within 6 months of the facilities in order to integrate handicapped
effective date of the regulations that will provide students into the total university environment.

lllCUS/JUNE 1977 31

207

Curb cut. Path ramp. What’s the difference? Curb cuts
were originated and intended for bicyclists; path ramps are
intended for everybody. Ramps increase the safety and
mobility of the entire public and allow for winter mainte-
nance.

 

 

 

For several years, Michigan State University
(MSU) has been actively preparing its facilities for
students who are Handicappers. Considering the
implications of mainstreaming handicappers into
such a vast and complex institution, one might
reasonably expect something less than aggressive
initiative. Yet quite the contrary has been and
continues to be the case at MSU. Why? MSU's
enthusiasm on Handicapper issues surrounding
reconstruction since 1972 has been a product of:

the university's tradition of commitment to,

and innovation in responding to human rights
2) the development on campus of a cadre of
highly motivated, independent and competent

Handicapper professionals, and
3) the adoption of a civil rather than a medical

model in response to Handicappers and use

of environmental design rather than barrier
free design.

This last item is extremely important and
provides a basis for understanding the aggressive-
ness of the university on Handicapper issues —
issues which unavoidably center around changes
in the built environment.

The centerpiece of the civil model for social
response to Handicappers is the certainty that a
Handicapper is a whole person and a citizen with
rights — specifically, the right to freedom of move
ment and the full use of the built environment. '
Obviously, this model is diametrically opposed to
the medical/rehabilitation model which is based on
the notion of disability and the delivery of “special"
services to "care" for the "disabled" persons, be-
cause they cannot be mobile in, nor utilize, the
built environment. This model assumes that the
environment is designed and built for use by
"healthy," “normal" or ”whole” people.

MSU had to make a choice. It could choose
the medical model and be prepared to provide on
a continuing basis with ever rising costs, all manner
of special, supportive, and personal aid services,
and separate facilities or additions to existing
facilities. Or it could choose the civil model and
be prepared to encounter a brief period of adjust-
ment as changes in policies, programs and curricula
are implemented to accommodate Handicappers
in the mainstream. Necessary environmental design
changes are made in the built environment which

32 AMICUS/ JUNE 1977

208

 

 

On die left the old and on the right die "new” entrance to the MSU Kellogg Center.

Aces: and esthetit: mix in a pleasing way.

liberate both the individual who is or may become
a Handicapper and the University from the yoke of
programmed dependence. The choice was clear.
The civil model, with its concept of environmental
design was the winner. Over the last four years this
choice, as a rule, has allowed MSU to enhance more
of its built environment for Handicappers to a
higher level of quality and at less cost than would
ever have been possible under the medical barrier
free design model.

Unlike barrier free design, environmental
design is based on, and adheres to, the following
principles and criteria: '

ll

2)
3)
4)

5)

Does the design provide for maximum
independent and efficient use, equally, by

as many people as possible regardless of
their physical characteristics?

Does it provide greater safety for the

entire population?

Will subsequent operational and maintenance
costs be reduced?

Is the design appropriate for the age and type
of facility?

Is the design appropriate for the climate
involved?

A good example of the simple and economical improvement of toileting facilitia. Tm stalls

are made into one ”wper-stall " and equipped with handrails.

 

‘M‘CUSI JUNE 1977 33

 

Transportation has come a long way -— note the headroom.

6) Is the aesthetic appeal equal to, or greater
than, that presently in existence or of
conventional design?

As an example of how these principles and criteria

have been able to provide more and higher quality

changes than barrier free design at reduced expen-
ditures, consider the MSU approach to building.

Civil Model Considers
Total Environment

The barrier free design standards call for
ramps at entrances which are not currently
accessible. The cost of four such ramps, with
requisite handrails, was low-bid for $3,600 at four
typical sites on the MSU campus. By using
environmental design to relandscape the entire
approach at each of these short rise entrances to
make them grade level without steps or ramps, the
actual reconstruction costs were reduced a
whopping 62 percent. The actual price tag was
only $1,354! This represented a savings of $2,246
on these four sites alone, and MSU has redesigned
numerous entrances in the same manner.

In addition to the savings in reconstruction,
the university has also reaped the benefits of an
annual savings of over $1,000 in snow removal on

 

209

these four entrances alone. The separate barrier
free design ramps would have required hand
shoveling; the new environmentally designed full-
width, grade-level approaches allow for snow
removal by modern automated equipment. These
monetary savings are over and above the attitudinal
enhancements that such designs create in the mind
of the public. By mainstreaming Handicappers
through architectural design, the stigma of
"special" facilities is replaced with that of full
social acceptance.

There are other examples of the extent and
quality of environmental design changes at MSU.
Signs on doors, intended to welcome people inside,
have been changed from "walk in” to “come in;"
round door knobs have been replaced with lever
handles; difficult to operate dual knobs on
lavatories and sinks have been replaced with easily
manipulated single lever water mixers; curbs, side-
walks, and curb cuts have been ripped out by the
dozen to accommodate new path ramps; reading
rooms for the blind, once sparten indeed, have
been remodeled and re-equipped with the latest
developments in information transcription.

In fact, it seems almost everywhere at MSU
there is the unavoidable evidence of change —
physical, attitudinal and social.

The new series of smaller, or pocket buses, represent vast
improvements in the quality of special transportation.

 

 

 

34 AMICUS/ JUNE 1977

 

Eric Gentile is assistant director of Programs
for Handicappers at Michigan State University.
Programs for Handicappers originated in 1973
under the direction of Judy K. Taylor, who is
now director of the program.

 

 

“NM -4.

I!“

.
E“:
.:' Ina-ti

Not everybody can use
a 60” or even a 54”hi9‘1
coin slot, but no one has
difficulties with the use
of a 4 ” slot. The dial,
however, rather than a
touch tone, could be

a problem for some.

“'CUS I JUNE 1977 35

Emu-umomy'T -,
. Inn . ,4. .,,
fiat-7' '

n- u. c,

     

 

211

In conclusion, this MSU experience provides
solid evidence that the challenge of compliance
with the Section 504 Regulations need not be a
burden. The methods and concepts for that
compliance are here. The actual implementation
process can be effectively and economically
facilitated when based on the civil model. Any
other method of compliance is sure to be heavily
laden with special rescheduling of classes or
relocation, separate and frequently unnecessarily
individualized services, etc. Such efforts, so com-
plex and difficult to coordinate and maintain,
should be utilized only as last resorts or as
temporary stop-gap methods while other, more
permanent solutions are being "geared up.”

 

 

 

This is a fine application of a design
for use by all sorts of people under
all sets of circumstances. Try doing
this with a round doorknob!

An example of architecture projecting societal values. The

brick and mortar difference between the "mini-mentality”

of barrier free design vest die mainstreaming of environ-
Cost of segregationist ramp and handrail over $1,000. mental design. Cost of new grade level approach -— $400.

 

   

36 AMICUS/ JUNE 1977

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alessi, D.F., & Anthony, W.A. The uniformity of children's
attitudes toward physical disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 1969, 35, 5&3-545.

Allport, c.w. The natupe of prejudice. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday & Company, 1958.

Altrocchi, J., & Eisdorfer, 0. Change in attitudes toward
mental illness. Mental Hygiene, 1961, 35, 563-570.

Anthony, W.A. The effects of contact on an individual's
attitude toward disabled persons. Rehabilitation

Counseling Bulletin, 1969, lg, 168-171.

Anthony, W.A. Societal rehabilitation: Changing society's
attitudes toward the physically and mentally
disablgd. Rehabilitation Psychology, 1972, ;2,
117-12 .

Anthony, W.A., & Cannon, J.A. A pilot study on the effects
of involuntary integration on children's attitudes.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1969, gg, 239-2u0.

Barker, R.G. The social psychology of physical disability.
Journal of Social Issues, 19h8, 3, 23-38.

Bell, H.A. Attitudes of selected rehabilitation workers
and other hospital employees toward the physically
disabled. Psychological Reports, 1962, 19, 183-186.

Block, J.R. Recent research with the Attitudes Toward
Disabled Persons Scale: Some_peseapch_gbstracts.
Albertson, New York: Human Resources Center, 197%.

 

Bolton, B. Introduction to rehabilitation research.
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1974.

Brodwin, M.G., & Jordan, J.E. Racial prejudice as related
to race labeling, language, and the tripartite
classification of attitude. Psychology, 1975, 12,
NO. “'9 48-590

212

 

213

Bugge, A., & Bao, R. Handicapped students: Newest
campus militants. Michigan State Universit Alumni

Association Magazine, 197b, i2, No. 5, -11.

Burnette, W.L. Who handicaps the handicapped? American
Correctional Therapy Journal, 197#, pg, No. 3, 71-76.

Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. Eiperimental and guasi-
eiperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand
McNally College Publishing Company, 1963.

Castro, J.C., & Jordan, J.E. Facet theory attitude
research. Educational Researchep, 1977, g, No. 11,
7‘11.

Centers, L., & Centers, R. Peer group attitudes toward

the amputee child. Journal of Social Psychology,
1963. Q1, 127-132.

Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A.H. Communication modality as a
determinant of message persuasiveness and message

comprehensibility. Journal of Personalit and
Social Psychology, 1976, 35, 605-615.
Chesler, M.A. Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the

physically disabled. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1965, g, 877-882.

Cleland, C.C., & Chambers, W.R. Experimental modification
of attitudes as a function of an institutional tour.

American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, pg,
12 “1300

Cohen, A.R. Attitude chan e and social influence.
New York: Basic Books, 1965.

Comer, R.G., & Piliavin, J.A. The effects of physical
deviance upon face-to-face interaction: The other

side. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1972. 21. 33-39-

Comer, R.G., & Piliavin, J.A. As others see us: Attitudes
of physically handicapped and normals toward our own
and other groups. Rehabilitation Literature, 1975,
3Q, 206-221: 225.

Cowen, E.L., Underberg, R.P., & Verillo, R.T.
The development and testing of an attitude to

blindness scale. Journal of Social Psychology,
1958: E§I 297-304-

214

Cruickshank, W.M. The exceptional child in the elementary
and secondary schools. In W.M. Cruickshank &
G.O. Johnson (Eds.), Education of exceptional
children. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, 1958.

Daniels, L.K. Covert reinforcement and hypnosis in
modification of attitudes toward physically disabled
persons and generalization to the emotionally
disturbed. Psychological Reports, 1976, 38, 554.

Davis, F. Deviance disavowal: The management of strained
interaction by the visibly handicapped. In
J. Stubbins (Ed.), Social and psychologicaiaspecig
of disability. Baltimore: University Park Press,
1977- '

Dawes, R.M. Epndamentgis of attitude measurement.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972.

Dickie, R.F. An investigation of differential attitudes
toward the physically handicapped, blind persons,
and attitudes toward education and their determinants
among various occupational groups in Kansas. In
J.R. Block, Recent research with the Attitudes'
Toward Disabled Persons Scale: Some research
abstracts. Albertson, New York: Human Resources
Center, 1974. (Abstract)

Downey, G.W. Crip lib: The disabled fight for their own
cause. Modern Healthcare, February, 1975, 3, 21-28.

Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. Attribution analysis of the
effect of communicator characteristics on opinion
change: The case of communicator attractiveness.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,
1.2-, 13 -1 e

Efron, R.E., & Efron, H.Y. Measurements of attitudes
toward the retarded and an application with educators.
American Journai of Mentai Deficiency, 1967, 2;,

1 00-1 07 e

Ehrlich, H.J. ipe social psychology of prejudice.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973.

Elsberry, N.L. Comparison of two scales measuring
attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities.

Psychological Reports, 1975, 3Q, 473—474.

215

English, R.W. Correlates of stigma towards physically
disabled persons. In J. Stubbins (Ed.), Social
and psychoiogicaigaspects of disability. Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1977.

English, R.W., & Oberle, J.B. To the development of new
methods for examining attitudes toward disabled
persons. Rehabilitatipn Counseling Bulletin, 1971,

15. 88-96.

Evans, J.H. Changing attitudes toward disabled persons:
An experimental study. Rehabiiitation Counseling
Bulletin, 1976, i2, 572-579.

Farina, A., Sherman, M., & Allen, J.G. Role of physical
abnormalities in interpersonal perception and
behavior. Journal of Abnormai Psychology, 1968,

22! 590-5930

Feinberg, L.B. Social desirability and attitudes toward
the disabled. Personnel and Guidgnce Journal, 1967,
HQ: 375‘3810

Friedson, E. Disability as social deviance. In

M.B. Sussman (Ed.), Sociology and rehabilitation.
Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association,

1966.

Gaier, E.L., Linkowski, D.G., & Jaques, M.B. Contact as
a variable in the perception of disability. Journal

of Social Psychology, 1968, 24, 117-126.

Gellman, W. Roots of prejudice against the handicapped.
In J. Stubbins (Ed.), Social and psychological
aspects of disability. Baltimore: University Park
Press, 1977.

Gentile, E. Architectural affirmative action: A
university with a new concept. Amicus, 1977, g,

31'360

Gentile, E.A., & Taylor, J.K. Images, words & identity.
Michigan State University, 1976.

Goffman, E. Stigpa: Notes on the management of spoiled
identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall. 1963.

 

 

216

Golin, A.K. Stimulus variables in the measurement of
attitudes toward disability. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 1970, i3, 20-26.

Gordon, S.K., & Hallauer, D.S. Impact of a friendly
visiting program on attitudes of college students
toward the aged. Gerontologist, 1976, i6, 371-376.

Hansson, R.O., & Duffield, B.J. Physical attractiveness
and the attribution of epilepsy. Journal of Social

Psychology, 1976, 32, 233-240.

Hendrick, C., & Seyfried, B.A. Assessing the validity of
laboratory-produced attitude change. Journal of
Personaiityand Sociai Psychology, 1974, 2 , 865-870.

Hicks, J.M., & Spaner, F.E. Attitude change and mental
hospital exposure. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1962, g5, 112-120.

Jaffe, J. Attitudes and interpersonal contact:
Relationships between contact with the mentally
retarded and dimensions of attitude. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 1967, i4, 482-4 .

Jordan, J.E. Attitudes toward educatipn apd physically
disabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing:
Michigan State University, 1968.

Jordan, J.E. A Guttman facet theory analysis of teacher
attitudes towards the mentally retarded in Colombia,
British Honduras, and the United States. Indian
Journal of Mental Retardation, 1970, 3, 1-20.

Jordan, J.E. Attitude-behavior research on physical-
mental-social disability and racial—ethnic difference.

Psychological Aspects of Disability, 1971, i8, 5-26. (a)

Jordan, J.E. Construction of a Guttman Facet designed
cross-cultural attitude-behavior scale toward mental

retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficienc ,
1971, 1Q, 201-219. (b) ,

Jordan, J.E., & Boric, A. Attitudes toward physically
disabled persons in Yugoslavia. In J.R. Block,
Recent research with the Attitude Toward Disabled
Persons Scale: Some research abstracts. Albertson,
New York: Human Resources Center, 1974. (Abstract)

217

Jordan, J.E., & Cessna, W.C. A comparison of attitudes of
four occupational groups toward physically disabled
persons in Japan. In J.R. Block, Recent research with
the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scaie: Some
pggearch abstracts. Albertson, New York: Human
Resources Center, 1974. (Abstract)

Jordan, J.E., & Friesen, E.W. Attitudes of rehabilitation
personnel toward physically disabled persons in
Colombia, Peru, and the United States. Journal of

Social Psychology, 1968, 14, 151-161.

Keith-Spiegel, P., & Spiegel, D. Effects of mental
hospital experience on attitudes of teenage students

toward mental illness. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
1970. 39: 387-388-

Kiesler, C.A., Pallak, M.S., & Archer, R. Commitment of
audience, and legitimacy and attitudinal stance of
communicator: A test of the woodwork hy othesis.

Psychological Reports, 1974, 33, 1035-10 8.

Kleck, R. Physical stigma and non-verbal cues emitted in
face-to-face interaction. Human Relations, 1968,
2_1_, 19‘280

Kleck, R., Ono, H., & Hastorf, A.H. The effects of physical
deviance upon face-to-faoe interaction. Human
Relations, 1966, i2, 425-436.

Kohn, P.M., & Snook, S. Expectancy-violation, similarity,
and unexpected similarity as sources of credibility

and persuasiveness. Journal of Psychology, 1976,
23. 185-193. _

Kutner, B. The social psychology of disability. In
N. Neff (Ed.), Rehabilitationppsyohology.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association,
1971.

Ladieu, G., Adler, D.L., & Dembo, T. Studies in
adjustment to visible injury: Social acceptance
3f theéinjured. Journal of Social Issues, 1948,
_s 55" 1-

Ianger, E.J., Fiske, S., Taylor, S.E., & Chanowitz, B.
Stigma, staring,and discomfort: A novel-stimulus
hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
1976. 12. 451:463-

 

218

Lazar, A.L., Gensley, J.T., & Orpet, R.E. Changing
attitudes of young mentally gifted children toward
handicapped persons. Exceptional children, 1971,
32, 600-602.

MacDonald, A.P., & Hall, J. Perception of disability
by the nondisabled. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 654-660.

McGowan, J.F., & Porter, T.L. An introduction to the
vocationai rehabilitation process. Washington, D.C.:
U.§. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
19 7.

McGuire, W.J. A syllogistic analysis of co itive
relationships. In M.J. Rosenberg (Ed.§? Attitude
organization apd chang . New Haven: Yale University
Press, 19 0.

McGuire, W.J. The nature of attitudes and attitude
change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),

ihe handbook of social psychology. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

Meyerson, L. Social action for the disabled. Journal of
Social Issues, 1948,'4, 111-112.

Miel, A. The shortchanged children of suburbia. New
York, New York: Institute of Human Relations Press,

1967.

Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R.J., & Valone, K.
Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of
Personaiity and Social Psychology, 197 , 3_, 615-624.

Miller, R.L. Mere exposure, psychological reactance, and
attitude change. Public Opinion Quapteriy, 1976,
w. 229-233.

Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K.,
& Bent, D.H. Statistical package for the social
sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Nikoloff, 0.M. Attitudes of public school principals
toward employment of teachers with certain physical
dizabilities. Rehabilitation Literature, 1962, 33,
3 -3 5-

219,

Palmerton, K.E., & Frumkin, R.M. College counselors'
attitudes toward education considered a determinant
of attitudes toward disabled ersons. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 1969, 38, 4 1-442.

Park, L.D. Barriers to normality for the handicapped
adult in the United States. In J. Stubbins (Ed.),

Social and psychological agpects of disability.
Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.

Parsons, T. Definitions of health and illness in the
light of American values and social structure.
In E.G. Jaco (Ed.), Patients, physicians, and
illness. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958.

Pinkerton, S.S., & McAleer, C.A. Influence of client
diagnosis--cancer--on counselor decisions. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 1976, 33, 575-578.

Richardson, S.A., Goodman, N., Hastorf, A.H., &
Dornbush, S.M. Cultural uniformity in reaction to
physical disabilities. American Sociological
REVieW, 1961, gé, 241-2470

Rickard, T.E., Triandis, H.C., & Patterson, C.H.
Indices of employer prejudice toward disabled
applicants. In J. Stubbins (Ed.), Social and

psychological aspects of disability. Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1977.

Robinson, J.W., & Preston, J.D. Equal-status contact and
modification of racial prejudice: A re-examination
of the contact hypothesis. Social Forces, 1976,
53’ 911-92“.

Rokeach, M. Beliefs attitudes and values. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 19 9.

Safilios-Rothschild, C. The sociology and social

psychology of disability and rehabilitation.
New York: Random House, 1970.

Safilios-Rothschild, C. Prejudice against the disabled
and some means to combat it. In J. Stubbins (Ed.),

Social and psychological aspects of disability.
Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.

Sands, H., & Zalkind, 8.8. Effects of an educational
campaign to change employer attitudes toward hiring
epileptics. Epilepsia, 1972, i3, 87-96.

220

Sawisch, L. Eipressed willingness to parent handicapper
children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Michigan State University, 1978.

Secord, P.F., & Backman, C.W. Social s cholo .
New York: McGraw-Hill, l9 .

Semmel, M.I., & Dickson, S. Connotative reactions of
college students to disability levels. Exceptional
Children, 1966, 3_, 443-450.

Sherif, C.W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R.E. Attitude and
attitude change. Philadelphia: Saunders, 19 5.

Siller, J. Generality of attitudes toward the physically
disabled. Proceedings, 78th Annual Convention,
American Psychological Association, 1970.

Siller, J. Attitudes toward disability. In H. Rusalem

& D. Malikin (Eds.), Contemporary vocational
rehabilitation. New York: New York University,

1978! 87’30-

Siller, J., & Chipman, A. Factorial structure and
correlates of the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons

Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
1961+, 2_L", 831-8 00 ,‘

 

Siller, J., Chipman, A., Ferguson, L., & Vann, D.
Attitudes of the nondisabled toward the h sicall
disabled. New York: New York University, 1967.
Siller, J., Ferguson, L.T., Vann, D.H., & Holland, B.
Structure of attitudes toward the physically disabled:
The disability factor scales--amputation, blindness,

cosmetic conditions. Proceedings, 76th Annual
Convention, American Psychological Association, 1968.

 

Smits, S.J., Conine, T.A., & Edwards, L.D. Definitions
‘of disability as determinants of scores on the
Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1971, i3, 227-235.

Solomon, E.L. New York City's prototype school for
educating the handicapped. Phi Delta Kappan, 1977,
52' 7'1 0.

Staffieri, R., & Klappersack, B. An attempt to change
attitudes toward the cerebral palsied. Rehabilitation
Counseling Builetip, 1960, 3, 5-6.

221

Steele, C.M., & Ostrom, T.M. Perspective-mediated
attitude change: When is indirect persuasion more
effective than direct persuasion? Journaligi
Personality,and Social Psychology, 1974, 22, 737-741.

Strauch, J.D. Social contact as a variable in the
expressed attitudes of normal adolescents toward

EMR. Exceptional Children, 1970, 3Q, 495-500.

Titley, R.W., & Viney, W. Expression of aggression
toward the physically handicapped. Perceptual and

von Hentig, H. Physical disability, mental conflict and
social crisis. Jopgnai of Social Issues, 1948, 3,
21-27.

Vurdelja-Maglajlic, D., & Jordan, J.E. Attitude-behaviors
toward retardation of mothers of retarded and non-
retarded in four nations. American Institute for
Menpgi Studies Training SchopiiBulletin, 1974, 1i,
No. 1, 17-29.

Whiteman, M., & Lukoff, I.F. Attitudes toward blindness
and other handicaps.’ Journaiof Social Psychology,
1965. 6_6. 135-145.

Wilson, E.D., & Alcorn, P. Disability simulation and
development of attitudes toward the exceptional.

Journal of Special Education, 1969, 3, 303-307.

Worthington, M.E. Personal space as a function of the
stigma effect. In J. Stubbins (Ed.), Social and
psychological aspects of disability. Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1977.

Wright, B.A. Physical disability--a psycholo ical
approach. New York: Harper & Row, 19 0.

Wright, B.A. Some psychosocial aspects of disability.
In D. Malikin & H. Rusalem (Eds.), Vocational
rehabilitation of the disabled: An overview.
New York: New York University Press, 1969.

Wright, B.A. Changes in attitudes toward people with
handicaps. Rehabilitation Literature, 1973.133,
354-357: 368-

222

Yamamoto, K. To be different. In J. Stubbins (Ed.),

Social and psychologicai aspects of disability.
Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.

Yuker, H.E., Block, J.R., & Younng, J.H. The measurement
of attitudes towapd disabled persons. Albertson,
New York: Human Resources Center, 1970.

Zajonc, R.B. The attitudinal effects of mere exposure.

Journal of Personaiity and Social Psychology,
1968, 2, 1-27. (Monograph)

Zimbardo, P., & Ebbesen, E.B. ipfiuencing attitudes

and changing behavior. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley, 19 9.