According to news reports, a young man from Corvallis decided it was a good idea to blow up a bunch of adults and children at the Christmas tree lighting event at Pioneer Square in Portland.  The reports say that he planned to leave the country after detonating his bomb.

The stories indicate that this was not some grand conspiracy directed from someplace like Yemen or Pakistan. It appears to be, instead, the idea of a 19 year old graduate of Westview High School and former OSU student.

The news also tells us that a father and son stand accused of deciding it was a good idea to plant a bomb at a bank in Wilsonville to protest either the bank, the federal government or both.  They are now being tried for aggravated murder in the death of a policeman who was trying to disarm the bomb.

And then there is the news story about Eliza Schaaf.  She is a 20 year old woman with intellectual disabilities who enrolled in a ceramics class at Southern Oregon University.  After regularly attending class, Eliza was thrown out of school with just three classes to go.  SOU decided that a person with intellectual disabilities could not be allowed to audit one of its classes even though Eliza was not seeking college credit.

Eliza and her family are very disappointed.  So are her fellow students who have protested the university’s actions.  So are many citizens, newspapers and elected officials who have urged SOU to change its mind.  The university is not moved by these appeals and, just yesterday, turned down Eliza’s appeal of its decision.

Eliza has not planted a bomb, except metaphorically.  For details, visit her web site at http://www.elizaschaaf.com/. 

You will see that Eliza is a direct victim of disability discrimination.  She has been treated with ignorance by a university and with disregard by a publicly-funded and supposedly accountable institution.  Her grievance is not abstract or theoretical in the slightest.  In response, she has chosen to courageously take on this institution using the tools of communication, developing community support, following appeals procedures and working to educate decision-makers.

We need to support Eliza not just because she has been the victim of an injustice but because of how she has chosen to respond.  She speaks not just for herself, but for the disability community and for all Americans who believe that we can find justice by reaching out to the hearts and minds of fellow citizens.  

I’ve sent my letter to SOU officials decrying their actions.  Please join with me with more letters and protest.

On Monday, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Portland’s local transit system, TriMet, does not have to make certain modifications for riders with disabilities.  The plaintiff, who uses TriMet’s paratransit system, LIFT, asked TriMet to accommodate her balance disorder by providing her rides only in sedans or taxis.  Her doctor had informed TriMet that riding on the LIFT bus aggravated her condition by causing her dizziness, nausea and emotional stress.

The court decision hinged on whether regulations of the US Department of Transportation (DOT) or the US Justice Department (DOJ) applied to the plaintiff’s request.  The DOJ regulations require public entities to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid disability discrimination.  The DOT’s regulations, the court found, do not have this requirement and since they govern the operation of paratransit systems, case dismissed.

Although the court set out a lengthy and detailed analysis of administrative law to support its conclusion, I sensed something else going on in the opinion.  At one point, the court says that the plaintiff “would like an enhanced level of service that would enable her to choose whatever vehicle she would like to ride.”  In concluding, the opinion says, “We recognize the importance of paratransit systems for disabled individuals… We are mindful, however, that the ADA requires only a ‘comparable’ level of service and the DOT regulations implementing the ADA ‘do not contemplate perfect service’ for the disabled.

"Like" to ride?  I can't help but sense in the use of this word an underlying bias against the notion of disability discrimination.  I've heard many comments over the years that the ADA does not level the playing field for people with disabilities but, instead, gives them special rights and benefits.  I made up a quote that I use to illustrate this view: “We’re not discriminating.  Anyone is allowed to use those steps!”

The court approvingly quotes a DOT regulation that says the ADA “is intended simply to provide to individuals with disabilities the same mass transportation service opportunities everyone else gets, whether they be good, bad, or mediocre.”  I suppose the same thing could be said about steps.

When the judges said that the plaintiff wanted to choose whatever vehicle she likes, they may have been right, but the ADA would never require that.  The ADA would only require that she have access to a vehicle she needs. 

This little choice of words reveals, to my sensitive eye, a bias against the ADA and perhaps against those who must use public transportation.  After all, if a rider is reduced to relying upon this form of transportation, “good, bad or mediocre,” she should shut up and suffer with the rest of us.  Total exclusion thus becomes a problem of personal wealth rather than equal access to a public service.

[The case is Boose v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon]

The skies opened up this weekend and Portland (aka "Puddletown") is literally awash in what's made it famous. November rains are a distinctive part of the Oregon experience. They also bring together a few salient (though little-known by outlanders) ingredients of our Northwest urban experience.

When I first came to Oregon, I expected that when autumn arrived it would be time to hop in the car and head out into the forest for some leaf peeping. That is, after all, what we did back East.  But, lo, it's mostly evergreens out there. The underbrush wasn't bad, but forests of raging color there weren't. Portland itself was a different story. This town of gardeners, where just about anything placed in the ground will happily grow, provides a wide and exciting array of color, shape and texture each fall.  So we put aside our cars and walk or roll through the dazzling urban landscape.

...Somehow we have not been able to help our motorists avoid the unsolicited thrill of blasting through our scenic autumnal street-lakes. Nor have we solved the problem of leaving pedestrians (particularly those in need of curb cuts) soaked and stranded on their shores.




Photo submitted by cyfacchini to http://photo.accuweather.com

Generally, the Portland weather in September and October is pretty darn nice. It allows us to enjoy the peak foliage in the not too hot, not too cold sunshine. But as the color fades and leaves start to drop, the skies darken and Pacific rainstorms ensue. It is now that Portland becomes the land of street-lakes.

As a general matter, rain in Portland is intermittent and moderate. Like Eskimos with snow, we have lots of words to describe the types of rain we experience. Most  are some version of "showers." Often they are interrupted by "sun-breaks." When those Pacific storms start to hit the coast in November, however, we tend to get good, old-fashioned hard rain.

You would expect that Portland would be prepared for, of all things, rain. But that's not entirely the case. The city infrastructure was designed to handle those all-too-common days and weeks and months of showers. But the sewer system was overpowered by hard rain. This caused raw sewage to dump into the Willamette River on a regular basis. Because this release-valve strategy got the attention of environmental officials, we have built two enormous underground pipes to act as overflow areas during peak demand. 

But there is something else.

Most of those beautiful leaves I mentioned earlier have headed for earth by November and the rains have helped stragglers to achieve their gravitational destiny. Many land in the streets and are pulled by rain water to storm drains, which their broad, wet masses clog. Since our city planners have carefully assured that all street water will flow toward storm drains, those leaf-jammed depressions soon become lake bottoms. The shores of these newly formed bodies of water extend well into the motoring portion of the streets, curb cuts, and sometimes up to the sidewalks, corners and the entire width of streets.

Although Portland motorists should be well-schooled in the art of puddle-dodging and general rain driving, this is not always the case. Fall rains bring the summer's accumulation of oil up out of the pavement. Wet leaves are not only clogging but amazingly slippery. Water splashing up from our new street-lakes can cause brakes to malfunction. Windows fog over with heavy rain. So the normal complex Portland routine of driving while keeping an eye out for pedestrians, bike riders, speed bumps and fancifully designed lane assignments now has its level of difficulty raised to "high."

Portland is famous for city planning and I am a big fan of what has been accomplished with public transportation, urban design, land use and livability. Comparatively speaking, we're a pretty accessible town.  But somehow we have not been able to help our motorists avoid the unsolicited thrill of blasting through our scenic autumnal street-lakes. Nor have we solved the problem of leaving pedestrians (particularly those in need of curb cuts) soaked and stranded on their shores.

We've dealt with the sewage overflow.  I say now it's time to deal with the rain drains.

Let's leave the "Land of 10,000 Lakes" moniker to Minnesota. 

I attended a "friend-raising" breakfast this morning for United Cerebral Palsy Association of Oregon & SW Washington.  I've always been impressed by UCP and their director, Bud Thoune, for their high standards and dedication to the lives of the people they serve.

This event did not change my opinion.  On the ticket for the event are listed five principles: Be Visible, Be Independent, Be Involved, Have Friends, Make a Difference.  What a clear expression of how people with disabilities, families and advocates can act to achieve inclusion!  Disability will never be accepted as a normal part of life unless people with disabilities are visible, independent and involved.

We at DRO have been doing our part to be more visible in promoting the rights of our clients and communicating a disability rights perspective to a widening community.  In that spirit, I'm letting you know that Bud reminded us breakfasters that we just marked the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision.  In Olmstead, the Court found that the ADA prohibits unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities in institutions.  That's right.  Congress said, and the Supreme Court agreed, that isolation, dependence and hopelessness must not be promoted by government policies. 

Everyone deserves the chance to lead a meaningful life.  With the love of his family and support from UCP, A.J. will have that opportunity.  But isn't it shameful that a school district would not do what it can to contribute to this simple, yet profound, goal?

Guest speaker Art Edwards brought home the message of inclusion.  Art is a new member of the UCP Board and a reporter for KOIN.  He told us about his family, including his teenage son A.J. who experiences CP and occasional seizures.  His family is about to move to Tigard because its schools have a more inclusive educational approach than their present school system in Beaverton.  Art talked about life with A.J. including A.J.'s strategic use of the horn on his power wheelchair, his love of baseball, and his delight in yelling "flugelhorn!"  The whole family -- Art, his wife and daughter -- are dedicated to A.J. and are willing to make the sacrifices required for him to thrive.  For example, Art's daughter is accepting the move to Tigard because "it will help A.J."

When DRO changed its name last year, we came up with three words that evoke our vision: Opportunity,  Access & Choice.  Above all, I think that Olmstead, the work of UCP and the hopes of A.J. and his family are about opportunity. 

Everyone deserves the chance to lead a meaningful life.  With the love of his family and support from UCP, A.J. will have that opportunity.  But isn't it shameful that a school district would not do what it can to contribute to this simple, yet profound, goal?

When Fairview Training Center was slated for closure, many parents spoke with me about their feelings of betrayal.  They had placed their child in the institution many years, sometimes decades, ago.  When they made that difficult choice, they had been assured by the state that Fairview would always be there for them.  Many parents had become very involved with the institution.  They knew the staff, the management and the residents.  They were part of a community that understood what it is like to be developmentally disabled.  Their child would be permanently protected from the ignorance, disinterest and, sometimes, hostility of the outside world.

The process of closing Fairview was slow and painstaking.  Highly detailed assessment and planning was completed for each resident.  Parents were introduced to community alternatives and were encouraged to visit sites, talk with staff and other parents and to participate in transition planning.  Parents and advocates participated in all stages of the transition including membership on a board that oversaw the process.  Over the years, trust was reconstructed in the step-by-step process of establishing new relationships and experiencing the benefits of community living.

Parents are now having similar experiences in the wake of the legislature's vote to close the Oregon School for the Blind. In his guest blog entry, "Welcome to the Real World of Special Education" Michael Bailey eloquently describes the impact.  Closing this venerable institution that promises to provide highly specialized services to children with vision impairments and co-occurring conditions feels like a betrayal.  Children who became students at OSB because their community failed to serve them adequately are now being told to go back to the scene of their neglect.  And, unlike Fairview, there will be no long, deliberate process for developing new relationships and establishing at least some tentative trust.  The school will close by September 1, 2009.  All transition plans must be completed by August 1.

My view is that people with disabilities are better served in their communities.  Institutions were created in the 19th century with the best intentions of shielding residents from the rigors of society.  But the ideal societies that were envisioned became insular dead-ends for lives that could have experienced and contributed much more.  I have seen, however, community services that fail to achieve their promise due to inadequate funding, lack of access to talented professionals, lack of experienced and well-trained personnel and lax oversight.  Just as no person is immune from failure, the same can be said for service systems.

Are we, as Michael suggests, hurting children in pursuit of a ideal that cannot be realized?  I can't adopt that viewpoint without conceding the futility of achieving a truly inclusive society. Defending both OSB students and our movement toward integration are not incompatible goals.  That is why transitioning OSB students must be provided the resources, expertise and advocacy that is necessary for their success.  Expecting them and their parents to make this abrupt change without a total commitment to success by school districts, the state Departments of Education and Human Services, and disability advocates would indeed be a betrayal.

The plan to close Oregon's School for the Blind illustrates the alternative worlds of Special Education in Oregon. One is an imaginary world populated  by the Oregon Department of Education and those advocating for closure. The other is the real world the rest of us live in.

All people with disabilities are better served and have happier lives in their own communities. No one  needs to live with institutional care. That said, it is not progress to move unwilling people from a setting deemed politically incorrect into a community setting unless real supports are in place. These are human beings we are dealing with. Not budgets, not strategic plan goals and not an empty box on a to-do list. And community education supports for hundreds of blind and visually impaired children are most definitely not in place. Nor are they going to be. To think otherwise is just wishful imaginings.

I know a young man who is blind and deaf. For years his able mother struggled with all of her considerable might to find appropriate services in a Washington County school district. That district, like all districts, could not begin to meet his complex needs. Finally he enrolled in the School for the Blind and blossomed into a healthy, happy and vigorous young man.

Tragically, his mother has since died.  Closure of Oregon's School for the Blind means he'll return to the same school district that failed him before, but without his mother to advocate for him.

It is easy to dismiss human tragedy as 'anecdotal' evidence. To me the human cost is the only cost.

I have been a volunteer advocate at literally hundreds of Individual Education Program meetings. These create written plans and placements for special education students. I can attest to the lack of classroom resources, educational assistants, related services personnel, assistive technology and vocational training. The results are stifling and restrictive placements in what my daughter with Down syndrome derisively calls "happy gatherings" -- a chaos of snacks, games and 'field trips' to the park. The only real outcome being the perpetuation of the social isolation suffered by Americans with disabilities of all ages.

In the imaginary world of politics and special education administration, there may be a belief that all of this can be somehow fixed in the short version 2010 legislative session. Or maybe the one after that. But for those families whose lives are uprooted, September looms near and large. And with that comes diminished services, overwhelmed districts with no resources or expertise and a nagging sense of loss.

A  year or two in political time may be short. In the life of a young person it is long.

To the families of the children formerly receiving good services at the School for the Blind all I can do is sadly welcome you to the real world of special education. None of us will ever know what happened to that money this closure was advertised as saving. But I assure you that it will not be available when your child actually needs a real education.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author and not of Disability Rights Oregon.

Stories circulate through the media about people who claim to need a "service animal" or "assistance animal" that paint the person as a scam artist who is trying to get around the rules.  It is somewhat like the broad public perception of the insanity defense as a means for criminals to fake their way out of going to jail.  There seems to be a natural inclination for people to feel that if they have to follow a rule, everybody should have to follow the same rule.  No exceptions.

But our disability discrimination laws recognize that some people do need to be treated differently so that they can receive the same services, benefits and opportunities as others.  This topic came up yesterday when Senate Bill 875 was heard by the Senate Consumer Protection and Pubic Affairs Committee.  The bill amends a law that presently allows landlords to charge a pet fee to blind and deaf tenants who have service animals.  Federal and state civil rights laws prohibit the charging of such a fee, and so the purpose of the bill is make the laws consistent.

At the hearing, legislators asked why these animals should be treated differently than pets.  The answer is that they are not pets.  They are an essential aid that allows a person with disabilities to function in the home and in society.  A service animal should be treated by a landlord like part of the tenant.  If the animal were to cause damage to the apartment, it would be like the tenant causing that harm.  General safety or cleaning deposits that are charged to all tenants can certainly be charged to a person with a service animal.  But the animal is not a luxury or an hobby.  It is essential to the life of the person with disabilities.

Legislators also asked about the difference between a service animal like a seeing eye dog, and an assistance animal such as a cat that provides comfort to an individual with mental illness.  There are many jokes circulating in the media about people who claim to need a "comfort ferret" or "companion horse" because of a disability.  The answer is that the law only requires "reasonable" accommodations and that if a person has a medically diagnosed disability and a clinically recognized need for a companion animal in order to remain in independent living, the law protects that need.  It should also be noted that not only the person with disabilities but society as a whole benefits when a person can remain living independently, outside of an expensive care facility.

Disability laws like the ADA and Fair Housing Act exist to allow people to share in the beneifts of society, not to let them shirk the rules.  And yes, Senate Bill 875 was passed by the committee.