Minority Persons With Disabilities:
Equal to the Challenges of the 21st Century

Sylvia Walker

Howard University

To everything, there is a season, and a time for every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

(Ecclesiastes 3:1–8)

I’m sure that many of you are familiar with this quote from Ecclesiastes 3. These ancient words of Solomon were spoken well over 2,000 years ago. The 1990s are surely the time for creative and talented Black people who are deaf. It is a time for Black people who are deaf to dream impossible dreams and to accomplish what might be perceived as unattainable goals. As many of you know, I am currently a professor in one of the leading universities in the United States, if not the world (Howard University, Washington, D.C.). At present, I serve as director of the Center for Disability and Socioeconomic Policy Studies. In this capacity, I have the unique privilege of responding to a wide array of challenges. These range from preparing leaders in the fields of special education, rehabilitation, and related services to providing assistance to parents of children with disabilities. I would like to share a few of the experiences that have brought me to this time in my existence. This unique conference provides an opportunity for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, advocates, and professionals to focus on issues that are of special interest to Black people who have a hearing loss. I would like to provide a historical view of events that have brought us to this crossroads of opportunity.

Historical Perspectives

The attitudes of a specific society at any point in its existence are a manifestation of the cumulative experiences of individuals within that society (Walker, 1978, 1984). An examination of attitudes toward individuals who are deaf, as well as toward those who have other disabilities, suggests that across cultures, down through the ages, people with disabilities have consistently been relegated to low-status positions. Greek and Roman perceptions of disability and illness are detailed in the literature. Greeks considered people with disabilities and those who were ill to be inferior (Barker, Wright, Meyerson, & Gonick, 1953). Plato recommended that the deformed offspring of both the superior and the inferior be put away in some mysterious unknown place (Goldberg & Lippman, 1974). During the 16th century, Christians such as Luther and Calvin thought that individuals with hearing impairments were possessed by evil spirits. Thus, these men and other religious leaders of the time often subjected people with disabilities to mental and/or physical pain as a means of exorcising the spirits (Thomas, 1957). During the 19th century, supporters of social Darwinism opposed state aid to the poor and otherwise disabled because preserving the “unfit” could only impede the process of natural selection and damage the system whereby the “best” or “fittest” elements of society would rise to the top and the weakest elements would perish (Hobbs, 1973).

In a comparison of the status of people with disabilities in a number of non-occidental societies, Hanks and Hanks (1948) found wide differences. Some cultures completely rejected people with disabilities and treated them as outcasts; in others, they were treated as economic liabilities and were grudgingly kept alive by their families. However, in a few cultures, individuals with disabilities were given respected status and allowed to participate to the full extent of their capacities (Walker, 1986). Lukoff and Cohen (1972) speak of the blind who were banished and/or ill-treated in some places and given special privileges in others. The degree to which individuals who are deaf are accepted within a society is not directly proportional to the financial resources and/or technical know-how of that society. Lippman (1972) observes that, in many instances, small European countries such as Denmark and Sweden are more accepting of individuals with disabilities than is the United States. In addition, these countries provide more effective rehabilitation services. The prevailing philosophy in Scandinavian countries is acceptance of social responsibility for all members of society without regard to type or degree of disability.

Although many changes have taken place in relation to the status and treatment of people with disabilities throughout the world, the residue of tradition and past beliefs continues to influence present-day practices (DuBrow, 1965; Walker, 1984, 1986; Wright, 1978). Thomas (1957) views social perception and treatment of people with disabilities within and across cultural boundaries as a kaleidoscope of varying hues reflecting tolerance, hatred, love, fear, awe, reverence, and revulsion. In most societies, the most consistent feature in the treatment of individuals who are deaf is that they are categorized. “Deviance, rather than being an innate characteristic of the individual, is an attribute defined by society” (Lippman, 1972, p. 89). As Goffman (1963) indicated, society establishes the means of categorizing people and then decides on the complement of attributes felt to be ordinary for members of these categories. Attitudes towards deafness and other disabilities are, for the most part, based upon vague, superficial, and exterior impressions on the part of the non-disabled. Wright (1958) spoke of the phenomenon of “spread.” In most instances, the initial response of the non-disabled to people who are deaf (or physically challenged) is to place them in a predetermined category based on what are assumed to be their attributes and status based on appearance. This one-dimensional approach with regard to people with disabilities has served to constrain, restrict, and propitiate negative concepts and economic dependence. For the most part, individuals with disabilities have been hidden away in attics, institutions, and “special programs.” The labor shortage, brought about during the early 1940s by World War II, provided one of the first opportunities for substantial numbers of individuals with disabilities to be gainfully employed.

A historical review by the President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped (1987) documents the fact that America’s priority in those post-war years was to return jobs to veterans, not to reward people with disabilities who had performed civilian work at home. This is the way most people felt it should be. In retrospect, perhaps more should have been done to capitalize on the performance record of people with disabilities. In 1948, a study conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor provided information about job performance by people with disabilities. This survey found that, on the average, workers with disabilities had fewer accidents, were absent no more often, and, most importantly, were as productive, and at times more so, than workers without disabilities. These facts, surprising at the time, have since become common knowledge among employers; this is in large part because of the leadership of the President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped (1987).

From a historical perspective, the evolution of legislation in the United States relative to people with disabilities reflects three distinct social attitudes. The first is the older view, which considered people with disabilities, including those with hearing impairments, to be incompetent to take care of their own needs or incapable of full participation in life’s activities; the second is the view that individuals with disabilities are capable of limited participation in some of life’s activities. The corollary of these perspectives is a limited definition of public and private responsibility to people with disabilities. The third social attitude is the perspective that individuals with disabilities are capable of full participation in some or all of life’s activities, and that a democratic society has a responsibility to establish and maintain an environment supportive of such participation (President’s Committee, 1980).

Since the early 1960s, concern has increased substantially for people with hearing, mental, and physical disabilities. The spirit of concern for the rights of minority groups has resulted in greater judicial and legislative sensitivity. In 1972, two federal district court cases, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC) (Ingalls, 1978) and Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972) had a tremendous impact upon the status of individuals with disabilities in America. These court actions created the foundation for the right of all children with disabilities to a publicly supported educational program suitable to their individual needs. A fundamental presumption of the current approach to the education of children with disabilities is that placement in a regular public school class with appropriate ancillary services is preferable to placement in isolated and/or restricted environments.

As a result of the PARC and Mills decisions, federal and state governments passed legislation that required that children with disabilities be educated; this resulted in a dramatic reversal of decades of neglect when compulsory education laws did not apply to children with disabilities. At the end of the 1960s, only 10 states had special education laws requiring special efforts to educate children with disabilities; by the end of the 1970s, all states had such laws. One year after PARC, Congress passed Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504–45 C.F.R. 84.3). This legislation established the requirement that all federally assisted programs must be accessible to people with disabilities. According to this law, no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States may be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance solely by reason of his handicap. For purposes of Title V of the act, the term handicapped individual means any person who “(1) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activity, (2) has a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment” (p. 2).

The significance of Section 504 cannot be underestimated. The results of this legislation constituted an affirmative declaration that individuals desire to be educated to the fullest of their abilities and that American society has a responsibility to integrate individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of life. Education is part of the foundation for being able to earn one’s living and to enjoy and contribute to the nation’s economic and cultural development. Therefore, opportunities for communication and accessibility are essential in order for people who are deaf or hard of hearing to enjoy full access to educational facilities and employment opportunities.

Employment and Socioeconomic Issues

The current Bureau of Census figures show that, in many urban areas, the unemployment rate for minority persons is at least twice as high as it is for whites. Thus, many minority persons become caught in the dilemma of having to rely upon public assistance. Given this bleak economic outlook and the fact that a large proportion of Black Americans and other minority groups have low incomes and are just barely able to survive, the impact on the family unit of an individual with a disability presents a formidable problem (Walker, 1988, 1989). Non-disabled Black American families are three times as likely as their white counterparts to be unemployed: the unemployment rate for Black females is 14.3%, while for white females it is only 5.2%.

The 1986 Current Population Survey reported that 13.3 million non-institutionalized people in the United States have a work disability; this constitutes 8.6% of the working age population (16 to 64 years). A higher percentage of Black males (13.7%) and females (12.3%) are work disabled compared to Hispanics (7.9% for both males and females) or whites (8.6% for males and 7.6% for females). Black males (9.5%) are more than twice as likely to have a severe work disability than white males (4.2%). A similar pattern is observed in the female population, where 8.9% of Black females and 4% of white females have a severe disability.

Of the 13.3 million people with a work disability, approximately one-third (33.6%) are in the labor force; the remainder are unemployed (President’s Committee, 1987). This is in stark contrast to the non-disabled population, where 78.5% (104.9 million) participate in the labor force and only 6.8% are unemployed. Males, with or without work disabilities, have higher rates of participation in the labor force than do females. Among people with work disabilities, Hispanic females have the lowest rate of participation (20.4%); 22.4% of Black females and 28.1% of Black males participate in the labor force. With regard to unemployment rates among the work disabled, Black males (24%) are almost twice as likely to be unemployed as white males (14.1%) (Kraus & Stoddard, 1989).

Work disability has a significant effect on a person’s annual income: the median annual income of individuals with a work disability ($6,434) is almost half that of people with no work disability ($13,403). Of the three groups—Black Americans, Hispanics, and whites—Black Americans with work disabilities have the lowest mean annual income. Whites, with or without a work disability, earn approximately $8,000 more than their Black American counterparts. The National Health Interview Survey for 1983–85 (LaPlante, 1988) reports that among people 18 to 69 years old, 6.6% (9.9 million) are unable to work, and 4.9% (7.5 million) are limited in amount and type of work activity due to chronic health conditions; in this latter group, Native Americans have the highest proportion (7%), compared to Black non-Hispanics (4.4%), Black Hispanics (4.2%), and Asian/Pacific Islanders (2.3%). These findings are consistent with research conducted at Howard University (Walker, 1986).

Jacobs (1987) makes the point that the buying power of Black Americans and many other minority individuals has diminished in real terms during the 1980s. Due to their high cost, care, medication, and/or aids (such as wheelchairs and hearing aids), which would assist the individual with a disability in gaining a degree of independence, frequently cannot be afforded. This creates the necessity for a greater degree of public assistance to the family of the minority person with a disability; the absence of supportive aids further limits the earning power of these families (Nicholls, 1986).

Black Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans who become disabled frequently find, if they are employed, that their jobs are not accessible; this is particularly true if they work in an old section of the community, where the barriers to access are the most numerous. If such a person is the head of a household, the entire economic structure of the family is destroyed. Thus, minority individuals with disabilities are frequently unable to become totally integrated into community life because their range of mobility is restricted. The community labels them as inferior and does not provide free access to education or to social and cultural development. This isolation has serious ramifications for self-concept and educational achievement (Walker, 1988).

In spite of the critical needs identified above, relatively few research activities—with the exception of work conducted by Atkins (1986, 1988); Bowe (1985); Walker, Akpati, Roberts, Palmer, & Newsome (1986); and Walker (1988)—have focused specifically on the unique characteristics and needs of culturally diverse and economically disadvantaged disabled populations during the past 10 years. Disability is disproportionately represented among minority groups and people who are economically disadvantaged.

The 1981 Bureau of the Census data showed that out of 22.6 million Americans with some significant disability (aged 16–64), 4.6 million, or one-sixth, are non-whites. Proportionately, Black and other minority individuals with disabilities outnumber their white counterparts two to one. Non-white Americans with disabilities are generally older and unemployed. They are more likely to work in service oriented occupations that demand greater health hazards and risks (Bowe, 1985).

These inequalities were found to exist throughout all regions of the country. Implications for vocational rehabilitation program remediation were suggested by Atkins (1986, 1988), Walker et al. (1986), and Walker (1988). Other inequalities included the fact that Black American applicants were less likely to be accepted than whites for vocational rehabilitation (VR) services; consequently, Black Americans received fewer VR educational services and less training and financial aid for colleges, universities, business schools, and vocational schools.

The Lawrence Johnson Associates (1984) findings suggest that even though minority clients in general agencies may experience immediate positive outcomes as a result of VR (i.e., they find a job via VR), in the long run more majority clients in both general and blind agencies seem to realize more favorable outcomes (i.e., they reported having a job when surveyed after case closure). This may be due to the barriers to assisting minorities who were reported by counselors (i.e., barriers such as discrimination and economic conditions). It should be noted that because of limited work and educational experience, minority clients may rely to a greater extent than majority clients on getting work immediately; however, after case closure, these same factors may deprive minority clients of continued employment.

Recommendations from a number of research reports and conferences have consistently cited the need to train minority and other professionals in order to equip them to respond to the unique and diverse needs of minority and economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities (Walker, Asbury, Fosu, Gear, Maholmes, & Rackley, 1989). In addition to the development and expansion of undergraduate programs that prepare professionals (both non-white and white) to respond to the needs of Black and other minority groups with disabilities, there is a dire need to implement programs at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels. Such activities will facilitate the development of leadership, including researchers and administrators who may function at the local, state, and national levels. There is also a need to develop training and service activities that will expand the role of historically and predominantly Black colleges and universities in: (a) research and training of rehabilitation personnel, and (b) responding to the needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Very few of these institutions are currently involved in the rehabilitation community.

Current and Future Challenges

In addition to the dramatic changes in the types of employment opportunities available today, there are inconsistencies between the types of college graduates available and the demands and needs of the job market (Walker, 1988). In its publication, Out of the Job Market: A National Crisis, the President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped (1987) gave examples to show that, in many instances, disability does not limit or impede functioning or job performance. It should be noted that one of the most amazing changes of the 1980s with respect to the possibility for gainful employment by people with disabilities was the emergence of high technology equipment and software that literally does what some disabilities prevent. Unfortunately, an individual who is economically disadvantaged and who may have a disability is least likely to have knowledge of or access to the benefits of these new technologies; therefore, the implementation of assessment, training, and dissemination activities is essential in order to close the gap. The expanded utilization of technology by deaf and other minority individuals with disabilities will expand their capabilities and render them more likely to be successfully employed. Scientific advances and medical research have made it possible for many thousands of individuals to survive who would not have survived in the past (both infants and the elderly). Organ transplants and expert surgery provide potential for life that was unimagined in the past. The challenges for the future must deal not only with the length of life but with the quality of life.

Research conducted by the Hudson Institute (1987) revealed several startling trends with regard to the American workforce as we approach the year 2000. In addition to the new developments in technology, international competition, demography, and other factors will change the nation’s economic and social landscape. The following trends were cited by the Hudson Institute Report:

1.The population and the workforce will grow more slowly.

2.The average age of the workforce and the population will rise, thus the pool of young workers entering the labor market will shrink.

3.More women will enter the workforce.

4.Immigrants will represent the largest share of the increase in the population and the workforce since the First World War (a projected 600,000 legal and illegal immigrants).

5.Persons with disabilities (including those with hearing impairments) and individuals from minority groups will be a larger share of new entrants into the labor force. It is projected that by the year 2000, this trend will escalate.

Many Blacks and other minority individuals are at the lower end of the educational and job skills spectrum. By contrast, the new jobs will demand much higher skill levels than the jobs of today. Very few jobs will be created for those who cannot read, follow instructions, and use mathematics. These trends will lead to both higher and lower unemployment—more joblessness among the least skilled, and less among the most educationally and economically advantaged.

Current trends and challenges of the immediate future make it necessary to improve the educational preparation of all present and future workers, including Black individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Furthermore, there is a need to fully integrate disabled, economically disadvantaged, and ethnic minority workers into the economy. Given the pressing societal and economic demands, including the shrinking number of young people, the rapid pace of industrial change, and the ever-rising skill requirements of the emerging economy, it is essential that we respond to the task of fully utilizing the potential of Black people who are deaf or hard of hearing, now and in the year 2000. These beautiful individuals are truly equal to the challenges of the 21st century. Their skills and abilities can assist America in maintaining her position as a world leader. This conference is an excellent springboard for the empowerment of Black persons who are deaf and hard of hearing.

About the Presenter

Dr. Sylvia Walker is professor of special education in the School of Education and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Howard University Center for the Study of Handicapped Children and Youth and the Howard University Research and Training Center. She received her Ed.D. in special education/administration and international education from Teachers’ College, Columbia University. In addition to serving as a classroom teacher, administrator, and teacher trainer, Dr. Walker has conducted research and training projects in South America and Africa; taught at Hunter College, New York, and the University of Cape Coast, Ghana, West Africa; and consulted for a number of organizations including the World Rehabilitation Fund and the Organization of American States.

References

Atkins, B. J. (1986). Innovative approaches and research in addressing the needs of non-white disabled persons. In S. Walker, F. Z. Belgrave, A. Banner, & R. W. Nicholls (Eds.), Equal to the challenge: Perspectives, problems and strategies in the rehabilitation of non-white disabled (pp. 11–16). Washington, DC: Bureau of Educational Research.

Atkins, B. J. (1988). Rehabilitating black Americans who are disabled. In S. Walker, J. W. Fowler, R. W. Nicholls, & K. A. Turner (Eds.), Building bridges to independence. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Employment of People With Disabilities and Center for the Study of Handicapped Children and Youth.

Barker, R. G., Wright, B. A., Meyerson, L., & Gonick, M. R. (1953). Adjustment to physical handicap and illness: A survey of the social psychology of physique and disability. New York: Social Science Research Council.

Bowe, F. (1985). Black adults with disabilities. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.

DuBrow, A. (1965). Attitude toward disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 31, 25–26.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goldberg, I. I., & Lipman, L. (1974). Plato had a word for it. Exceptional Children, 41, 325–334.

Hanks, J. R., & Hanks, L. M. (1948). The physically handicapped in certain non-occidental societies. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 11–20.

Hobbs, M. (1973). The future of children: Categories and their consequences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hudson Institute. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis: Author.

Ingalls, R. P. (1978). Mental retardation: The changing look. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Jacobs, J. E. (1987). An overview. In Black America (p. iii). Washington, DC: Urban League.

Kraus, L. E., & Stoddard, S. (1989). Charterbook on disability in the United States. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

LaPlante, M. P. (1988). Data on disability: The national health interview survey, 1983–85. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Lawrence Johnson and Associates. (1984). Evaluation of the delivery of services to select disabled people by the vocational rehabilitation services system: RSA-300 data analysis. Washington, DC: Author.

Lippman, L. (1972). Attitudes toward the handicapped. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Lukoff, I. F., & Cohen, O. (1972). Attitudes toward blind persons. New York: American Foundation for the Blind.

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).

Nicholls, R. W. (1986). New assistive technologies and the non-white disabled. In S. Walker, F. Z. Belgrave, A. Banner, & R. W. Nicholls (Eds.), Equal to the challenge: Perspectives, problems, and strategies in the rehabilitation of non-white disabled (pp. 80–90). Washington, DC: Bureau of Educational Research.

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971). 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).

President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. (1987). Out of the job market: A national crisis. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. (1980). The law and disabled people: Selected federal and state laws affecting employment and certain rights of people with disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Its Amendments, 45 C.F.R. 84.3 (1979).

Thomas, D. H. (1957). Cultural attitudes to mental subnormality. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 61, 467–473.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1986). Current population survey (CPS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Walker, S. (1978). The disabled in Ghana: Status and change in information and attitude. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.

Walker, S. (1984). Issues and trends in the education of the severely handicapped. In E. Gordon (Ed.), Annual review of research in education (Vol. 2, pp. 93–124). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.

Walker, S. (1986). Howard University model to improve rehabilitation services for minority populations with handicapping conditions. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Handicapped Children and Youth.

Walker, S. (1988). Towards economic opportunity and independence: A goal for minority persons with disabilities. In S. Walker, J. W. Fowler, R. W. Nicholls, & K. A. Turner (Eds.), Building bridges to independence: Employment successes, problems, and needs of African Americans with disabilities (pp. 184–200). Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities and Center for the Study of Handicapped Children and Youth.

Walker, S. (1989). The collaborative model: Builds bridges to employment. In Tips and trends, Vol. 1, No. 8. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Employment of People with Handicaps.

Walker, S., Akapati, E., Roberts, V., Palmer, R., & Newsome, M. (1986). Frequency distribution of disability among blacks: Preliminary findings. In S. Walker, F. Z. Belgrave, A. M. Banner, & R. W. Nicholls (Eds.), Equal to the challenge: Perspective, problems, and strategies in the rehabilitation of the non-white disabled (pp. 27–38). Washington, DC: Bureau of Educational Research, Howard University.

Walker, S., Asbury, C., Fosu, G., Gear, J., Maholmes, V., & Rackley, R. (1989). Prevalence, distribution and impact of disability among ethnic minorities: Research report phase I. Washington, DC: Howard University Research and Training Center.

Wright, B. A. (1978). Changes in attitudes toward people with handicaps. Rehabilitation Literature, 34, 354–368.