|
CARRYING ON THE GOOD FIGHT: SUMMARY PAPER
FROM THINK TANK 2000--
ADVANCING THE CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FROM
DIVERSE CULTURES
August 23, 2000
National Council on Disability
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The National Council on Disability (NCD) wishes to
express appreciation to the following people on the special Think
Tank 2000 workgroup. Their work involved setting parameters and
providing feedback on the design and general structure for Think
Tank 2000, developing and reviewing the theme, vision, and goals,
and the background documents:
Ethel Briggs, NCD Executive Director
Alo Dutta, Southern University *
LaDonna Fowler, National Congress of American Indians
Glenn Fujiura, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago
Gerrie Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., NCD Policy Team Staff
William Holley, Executive Director, The National Family for the
Advancement of Minorities with Disabilities
Dana Jackson, Division of Civil Rights, DOJ
Madan Kundu, Ph.D., Southern University *
Paul Leung, Ph.D., University of Houston
Audrey McCrimon, NCD Member
Leon Nuvayestwa, Manager, DHS The Hopi Tribe
Lilliam Rangel-Diaz, NCD Member
Tracy K. Rice, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
Debra Robinson, NCD Member
Robert Shuckahosee, Association of American Indian Rehabilitation
Rights of Warriors (AIRROW)
Hughey Walker, NCD Vice Chairperson
Ela Yazzie-King, NCD Member
* They conducted the initial review of NCD documents,
previous recommendations, and related research for a synthesis of
information provided to participants.
For their exceptional work in the
facilitation of Think Tank 2000, NCD recognizes: Andrew Imparato,
President/CEO, American Association of People with Disabilities
Elizabeth Vasquez, Consultant (MCA, Maryland) Alice J. Palmer, Ph.D.
(Lead Facilitator)
The general oversight, including development of background
materials and planning, as well as the onsite coordination of Think
Tank 2000 activities were the responsibilities of Gerrie Drake Hawkins,
NCD staff liaison for cultural diversity issues.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction
Not Another Dusty Report
Background for Think Tank 2000
Turning Talk into Actions: Work Group
Deliberations
Identifying Common Ground/Causes
Leadership Task Force
Advocacy Tool Kit
Building Coalitions from Bottom to Top
Understanding which Laws Apply to Indian Reservations
Work Group Reporting on Priorities
Red Group: Challenges, Respect and Worldview
Green Group: Role of Respect, Trust and Coalition Building
Blue Group: Defining Leadership
Actions! Actions! Actions!
Conclusion
Appendix: Think Tank 2000 Actions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 18-20, 2000, in Arlington, Virginia, the National
Council on Disability (NCD) hosted Think Tank 2000 to bring people
with disabilities from diverse cultures together with members of
national civil rights organizations in order that they might find
common ground and generate action plans that could advance disability
rights and civil rights reciprocally. Concerned about the overwhelming
evidence that benefits won for the disability community under the
historic Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) were not reaching
everyone equally, Hughey Walker, NCD vice chairperson and chair
of the Subcommittee on Minority Issues, called for the two advocacy
communities to meet.
In full support of such a meeting, Marca Bristo, NCD
chairperson and a primary mover behind passage of the ADA, also
saw the meeting as an opportunity to re-affirm the broad base of
support for disability rights. During the two days that Think Tank
2000 met, national disability rights supporters such as Congressman
James Clyburn (South Carolina), chair of the Congressional Black
Caucus; Congressman Major Owens (New York), who helped steer the
ADA through the House; acting assistant U.S. attorney general for
civil rights Bill Lann Lee; Milton Little, vice president of the
National Urban League; and Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
executive director Wade Henderson, underscored their appreciation
for the meeting's goals. Mr. Henderson commended the NCD and the
participants for "participating in something that I think is really
potentially historic...." He described the current civil rights
movement, which includes the disability rights movement, as the
"second generation" of civil rights advocacy.
Judge Walker emphasized the need for all who attended
Think Tank 2000 to leave their personal agendas at home and to come
ready to build bridges and develop an advocacy plan. He repeated
these goals frequently during the conference and added that he did
not want another "dusty report that sits on a shelf." So this report
respects the mandate and spirit of Think Tank 2000. It is not a
comprehensive report of the proceedings. Rather, it memorializes
the event and what was accomplished by letting the voices of the
participants speak through this document. The people who attended
Think Tank 2000 represented a cross section of America: Native Americans,
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Caucasians, African Americans,
and Hispanic/Latinos. Their energetic, intense debates and discussions,
as they grappled with issues and with forming coalitions and pro-active
agendas among people with different disabilities and from different
cultures, are captured in the give-and-take exchanges in parts of
this document.
Beginning with a fourteen-point list of barriers to
full participation in ADA benefits that was pulled from testimonies
NCD heard at numerous public hearings they held across the U.S.,
Think Tank 2000 participants ranked and prioritized the barriers
when they met in three work groups. They selected five hindrances
they thought should be addressed using the following criteria. The
issue to be taken up:
- needed attention now;
- was the most pressing, the most urgent to the largest
number of people with disabilities from diverse cultures;
- could have the most impact on the lives of a cross
section of people with disabilities from diverse cultures;
- could be acted on at the national level starting
in the year 2000-2001;
- could attract allies [such as civil rights organization
and advocates].
At general sessions, the groups compared their priority
lists, and, by the end of Think Tank 2000, settled on the following
five priorities they thought could be addressed in collaboration
with civil rights advocates. They were:
- Cultivating leadership development
- Removing educational barriers
- Providing equal opportunity and access to employment
- Upholding human rights and civil rights
- Expanding voter registration and voter participation
Reaching consensus about which problems to tackle
is one thing, but developing a collaborative action plan is complex.
The people at Think Tank 2000 met the challenge and devised actions
that spoke to the issues and to the need to strengthen their capacity
to advocate for disability and civil rights. Indeed, their push
for next steps resulted in formation of an action organization to
be called Leadership Coalition Unlimited and in a list of short
and long term actions that fit into four categories. They are: leadership
development and capacity building, outreach, coalition and constituency
building, and monitoring and evaluation. Each category called for
actions that are individually and organizationally enabling. For
example, one action calls for the development of an advocacy tool
kit that includes, among other materials, boilerplate letters to
opinion leaders for individuals or groups to adapt to their issues.
Another action, one that has already been implemented, established
a listserv for Think Tank 2000 participants. A third action item
recommended that disability rights supporters become active in local
chapters of national civil rights organizations as a direct way
to form alliances that can lead to mutual advocacy. The complete
list of actions is in the Appendix of this document.
Think Tank 2000 set out to meet four outcome goals.
They were to:
- reach consensus on the top three to five issues
from a list of previously stated concerns;
- reach consensus on the primary barriers to addressing
the top issues and decide what changes/actions were needed;
- propose consensus actions that could advance the
priorities at the national/federal level, collectively and individually,
in collaboration with stakeholders and allies from the disability
and civil rights communities; and
- recommend a process for monitoring the progress
of actions that are taken.
On the whole, Think Tank 2000 met and perhaps even
exceeded its four outcome goals. Not only is there a list of actions,
but there is also an infrastructure for carrying out the actions
and involving more and more people in the process of confronting
barriers to full disability and civil rights. The action agenda
is ambitious, and its success will depend upon the extent to which
Think Tank 2000 participants commit to carrying out their agenda.
NCD will continue its part by integrating the work of Think Tank
2000 into its other programs, by providing consultation and research,
and by enabling grassroots organizations and a broad range of stakeholders
to make their voices heard in the ongoing effort to help people
with disabilities from diverse cultures take full advantage of disability
and civil rights.
CARRYING ON THE GOOD FIGHT: SUMMARY PAPER FROM
THINK TANK 2000-COALITIONS
ADVANCING THE CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
FROM DIVERSE CULTURES
Introduction
Think Tank 2000, hosted by the National Council on
Disability (NCD), brought together more than 70 people with disabilities
from diverse cultures, their supporters, and several members of
national civil rights organizations to formulate an action plan
for working collaboratively on rights issues that are of mutual
concern to the disability and civil rights communities. There were
four outcome goals set for the people who attended Think Tank 2000.
They were:
- reach consensus on the top three to five issues
from a list of previously stated concerns that should be addressed
at the national/federal level beginning in the year 2000-2001;
- reach consensus on the primary barriers to addressing
the top issues and decide what changes/actions are needed, appropriate
and achievable at the national/federal level;
- propose consensus actions that can advance the
priorities at the national/federal level, collectively and individually,
in collaboration with stakeholders and allies from the disability
and civil rights communities; and
- recommend a process for monitoring the progress
of actions that are taken.
By the end of the dynamic two and one half day meeting,
participants had formed an organization, Leadership Coalition Unlimited;
decided on their first action, to create a list serv to provide
a means for continued communication among participants and other
interested parties; and agreed to other prioritized actions that
could create a critical mass of advocates for disability rights,
civil rights and human rights.
Participants came from all areas of the country and
represented a spectrum of cultures including Native Americans, African-Americans,
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Hispanic/Latinos, and Caucasians.
Most attendees came from the disability community, but several civil
rights organizations such as the National Indian Council on Aging,
the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
(NAFEO), the National Congress of American Indians and the Rainbow/PUSH
Coalition were represented throughout the proceedings. Spokesmen
from the National Urban League, Congressional Black Caucus, U.S.
Department of Justice, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
provided remarks during the opening general session. Invitees from
other civil rights organizations who could not attend Think Tank
2000 expressed interest and will remain on the contact list.
Held in Washington, DC, May 18(20 2000, the event
grew out of numerous reports prepared for NCD and testimony that
members of the National Council on Disability heard from citizens
during stakeholder hearings at Jackson State University (Jackson,
Mississippi), in San Francisco, Atlanta, and New Orleans. The results
disclosed that despite the real progress against discriminatory
practices realized by the larger population of people with disabilities
throughout the United States because of recent progressive federal
and state legislation, people with disabilities from diverse racial
and ethnic groups are not benefiting equally from these successes.
People with disabilities from diverse cultures in general cannot
benefit fully from the educational, economic and social opportunities
in this country when race, ethnicity and socio-economic status are
still issues in some quarters, when civil rights laws, which were
hard won in the 1950s and 1960s, are being challenged in the courts
and in legislatures, and when social support systems that had been
in place since the 1940s have been sharply reduced.
Recognizing this deepening racial, ethnic and economic
divide within the disability community as well as within diverse
cultural communities in general, Judge Hughey Walker, NCD vice chairperson
and chairperson of the Subcommittee on Minority Issues, urged NCD
to convene a national meeting of advocates from the disability and
civil rights communities. The challenge to Think Tank 2000, as stated
in the briefing document sent to all invitees, was "to solidify
our advocacy coalition and name the specific actions that NCD will
request of those involved in civil, human, and disability rights
policy, that will aid in closing legal gaps and in breaking through
the glass ceiling." Marca Bristo, NCD chairperson, members and staff
supported the initiative and moved quickly to facilitate the gathering.
Judge Walker was clear about his goal for the meeting.
He did not want another "dusty report that sits on a shelf." At
Think Tank 2000's first general session on May 18th, he said:
"The one thing that I want to ask everybody here
today--the next two and one half days--is to suspend your own
personal agenda and to concentrate on what we have at hand.
"I know we all want to tell our stories. We all
have a particular pet peeve, but for the next two and one half
days, I want you to concentrate on the effort of developing an
action plan so that we can make a difference not only for us,
but for our children and grandchildren in the future."
The themes "make a difference" and "come together"
were evident in earlier presentations at the same general session.
By their presence, the panelists who spoke at the opening general
session--Members of Congress, civil rights leaders, disability activists--denoted
respect for the NCD and its leaders and support for bringing about
an alliance between the two rights movements.
Marca Bristo spoke about the group's "opportunity
... to sing with one voice and send a message to Capitol Hill carried
by the Urban League, La Raza, the National Council on Disability,
[etc.] that our rights at threat ... are a threat to all of our
rights." Speaking to the audience about their task for the next
several days, Ms. Bristo said:
"So I ask you to roll up your sleeves and remember
the great challenge before us and remember the words of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. who said ... A vigorous enforcement of civil
rights laws will bring an end to segregated public facilities,
which are barriers to a truly desegregated society, but it cannot
bring an end to fears, prejudice, pride and irrationality. Those
dark and demonic responses will be removed only as men are possessed
of the invisible inner law which etches on their hearts the conviction
that all men are brothers and that love is mankind's most potent
weapon for personal and social transformation."
After speaking extensively about the civil rights
enforcement work being carried out by the U.S. Civil Rights Division
and the U.S. Department of Justice, Bill Lann Lee, acting assistant
U.S. attorney general for Civil Rights, made the point that "the
disability rights movement is not going to have legitimacy without
the active participation of those in minority communities." Congressman
James Clyburn (South Carolina), Chair of the Congressional Black
Caucus, who has a distinguished record in civil and human rights
advocacy, related personal experiences that helped him and others
put a human face on disability. He closed his remarks by saying,
"You can depend upon the members of the Congressional Black Caucus
to be there with you on your issues because we know them in more
ways than one."
Congressman Major Owens (New York), who supported
the Americans with Disabilities Act from its inception and played
a major role in seeing to its passage, stressed the need for "permanent
mobilization" of a kind that helped pass the Americans with Disabilities
Act ten years before "in order to allow or guarantee that the legislation
will fulfill its potential, in order to guarantee that our enemies
will not keep raising their heads again and again." Milton Little,
vice president of the National Urban League, said the League was
already acting on the call to work collaboratively by publishing
a brochure, The Guide to Disability Rights, in partnership
with NCD, which his organization will distribute through 115 Urban
Leagues throughout the country.
Lilliam Rangel-Diaz, an NCD member and parent coordinator/mediation
specialist at Florida's Center for Education Advocacy, implored
the audience to remember "we belong in America. This is our country,
a beautiful land, a wonderful place where civil rights and human
rights are valued, and the message is we have a common agenda."
Another NCD member, Ela Yazzie-King, coordinator for a community-based
services collaboration in Gallup, NM, reminded all that many Native
Americans do not yet have the benefits of the ADA since disability
is "not on the table" for some tribal governments, and her people
are "at the very end in regard to services." She hoped that when
the door opened, as someone mentioned earlier, "the door is wide
enough so that not just a few minority or ethnic groups come through,
but all people are able to come through."
Capturing the gist of the meeting, Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights executive director Wade Henderson commended NCD
and the gathering for "participating in something that I think is
really potentially historic...." He underscored the profound impact
that people in the civil and human rights movement had on "reshaping
the face of the world," described the current civil rights movement
as "second generation," and added that
"there is a complexity to the problems of achieving
meaningful equality that are going to require a level of sophistication
and interaction in ways that we have never been able to do previously
and that are now much more important than every before. So this
meeting comes at a time when we are wrestling with these questions,
and your participation is of fundamental importance."
Rounding out the first general session, moderator
and NCD member Audrey McCrimon, who is also chief EEO/AA officer,
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action, Illinois
Department of Human Services, laid down three ground rules for Think
Tank 2000: mutual respect, full involvement, and constructive ideas.
Not Another Dusty Report: Developing
a Format for Action
Think Tank 2000 had an ambitious agenda for participants
to tackle in a short time. They were challenged to think collaboratively
across disabilities, cultures and varied interests to find common
ground for action though many had never worked together before and
individuals and organizations had largely focused on their particular
issues. Therefore, it was essential to structure the two and one
half-day process in a way that allowed for creative thinking without
muddle.
Background for Think Tank 2000
NCD has a rich body of literature that documents the
issues, the barriers that people with disabilities face, the reform
measures that have been won through struggle, and the gaps that
still need closing, particularly when it comes to people with disabilities
from diverse cultures. It made sense to sift through these materials
to identify recurring issues, to find themes that people with disabilities
from diverse cultures identified as important to them.
Fourteen topics/issues recurred in eight papers produced
by NCD since the 1992 Jackson State University public hearing. Of
special interest were the October 1998 report on the testimonies
culturally diverse people with disabilities gave at public hearings
in New Orleans and in San Francisco, and the December 1999 report
Lift Every Voice. The topics/issues that most concerned people
from diverse cultures with disabilities, and which they repeatedly
mentioned in the NCD documents are:
- Cultivating leadership development
- Providing equal opportunity and access to employment
- Guaranteeing equitable resource allocation
- Reducing poverty among people with disability from
diverse cultures
- Identifying policy relevant research on disability
issues
- Removing barriers to educating children with disabilities
from diverse cultures
- Improving outreach to people with disability from
diverse cultures
- Improving operation of the juvenile justice system
for children with disabilities from diverse cultures
- Providing greater access to quality health care
for people with disability from diverse cultures
- Establishing and maintaining the voice of people
with disability from diverse cultures
- Raising expectations of the service delivery system
- Providing information in a culturally competent
manner
- Making better connections between civil rights
laws and disability laws
- Generating more discussion about the economics
of disability
The list of recurring themes and issues served two
purposes with regard to developing a plan for facilitating Think
Tank 2000.
1) It was source material for a survey that asked
Think Tank 2000 participants to rank topic areas and policy recommendations
in order of importance to them. The survey provided aggregate
data about their preferences and priorities with regard to topic/issue
areas; and it gauged the importance, desirability, feasibility
and potential impact of particular courses of action. Individual
responses were confidential and not shared with others. The survey
is also one means of memorializing the event.
2) It was a starting point that facilitators used
to enable Think Tank 2000 participants to reach timely agreements
so that they could move on to the requisite task of formulating
strategies and actions for dealing with their most pressing concerns.
To clarify even more so what participants were being
asked to do, the facilitators described priority issues as ones
that
a) need attention now;
b) are the most pressing, the most urgent to the
largest number of people with disabilities from diverse cultures;
c) could have the most impact on the lives of a
cross section of people with disabilities from diverse cultures;
d) can be acted on at the national level starting
in the year 2000(2001; and
e) could attract allies.
Participants were assigned to one of three groups:
Red, Green or Blue. Every effort was made to diversify the groups
so that each included a cross section of organizations, disabilities,
races and cultures. To keep things moving and, at the same time,
to encourage reflective discussions and elicit everyone's views,
facilitators were given a general framework for guiding the work
groups through a process of naming, sorting, and narrowing until
they reached consensus at each of their small group meetings and
subsequently at the general sessions. Mindful of Judge Walker's
call for action, not rhetoric, the work process needed to be understandable,
simply executed, and respectful of the diverse cultures and disability
groups in attendance. Facilitators used familiar terms--who, what,
when, how--to help the groups proceed, e.g.
- What are the priority issues, the primary barriers,
the demands, and the principal recommendations? What are the categories
of actions that can be taken? Do we want legislation enacted or
amended, funds allocated or re-allocated, hearings held, agency
responsibilities clarified, timetables set for compliance, data
collected, delivery systems re-organized, culturally appropriate
information disseminated to targeted populations, policies evaluated
or revised?
- How can actions be carried out? What are the steps
to taking effective actions?
- Who should act on the issues? Who are the stakeholders,
the allies, and what do they have in common?
- When should actions be carried out? Timing is crucial.
- How do we monitor progress, measure success, know
when to revise the action plan?
By the second day, the three Think Tank 2000 work
groups had agreed on five essential issues after vigorously discussing
the topics the day before. The priority issues they decided on were:
- Cultivating leadership development
- Removing educational barriers to educating children
with disabilities from diverse cultures;
- Providing equal opportunity and access to employment
- Upholding human rights
- Expanding voter registration
Although a number of issues mentioned in the original
list do not appear in the second list, it is clear from the transcripts
of each group meeting that they are folded into the five priority
issues. For example, establishing and maintaining the voice of people
from diverse cultures with disability is a matter of leadership
development. People thought that addressing other issues on the
original list also required leadership as well as coalition building
and political know-how, e.g. having a fair share of the resources
and greater access to quality health care and to other service delivery
systems cannot be accomplished without these capacities.
Turning Talk into Actions
Reaching consensus about which problems to tackle
first is not easy, but deciding on a course of action is particularly
complex. Successful social justice movements have many of these
action-related features in common:
- a committed core group of people who understand
the issues, think strategically, make the demands for change,
and are consistent, tenacious, and dedicated to carrying out the
fight for meaningful change, even if it takes a long time;
- influential supporters in key positions who are
willing to speak out and use their influence to facilitate change,
e.g., through legislatures, the courts, and the business and civic
sectors;
- the ability to attract diverse allies and broad
public support;
- the ability to mobilize an informed, broad, diverse,
cross section of the public who can become the critical mass,
the engaged constituency, whose raised voices can help convince
policy makers to make the changes that social justice demands;
- adequate resources to support the movement for
the duration;
- the ability to keep the core group, allies, supporters
and the public informed;
- the ability to use opportunities to advantage and
to keep a finger on the pulse of political, social and economic
trends;
- alliances with like-minded groups and individuals;
and
- representative leadership that is informed, democratic,
receptive, continues to develop, and is connected to the base
of supporters and to the people who suffer the most from injustices.
Think Tank Deliberations
Action ideas abounded in the work groups, but the
challenge was to turn these good ideas into operations. Some exchanges
that took place during work group meetings exemplify how the groups
moved from generalities about issues to specifics about actions.
Identifying Common Ground/Causes
During the discussion about formulating an action
plan, a member of one group suggested that it would be useful to
identify civil and human rights organizations that could collaborate
with disability rights organizations on leadership development.
In response, another member of the group said identifying groups
was not the objective. Think Tank 2000 needed to know how to bring
the groups to the table, how to connect the dots to make other groups
understand and act together for their common good. For example,
if a young Black man is shot and does not die, he becomes disabled,
which should be just as much an issue for the disability community
as it is for the civil rights community that is trying to prevent
violence and criminality in communities.
Leadership Task Force
After several minutes of discussion, it was suggested
in one group that holding a national meeting seemed to be a good
idea. Or, perhaps forming a task force on leadership development
would be more to the point, someone else said. "Yes," another group
member agreed, but what organizations should be approached? Who
would ask them to come, and what leverage did the group have to
get organizations to appear and then to take part in the task force?
People in the group named some organizations. Then
they sifted through their list, choosing the organizations that
fit their purposes and the ones somebody in the group could take
responsibility for bringing to the table. "We want credible organizations
that are concerned with multiple issues and have broad-based memberships,"
one group member declared. The work group trimmed the list again.
Someone questioned whether traditional disability
rights organizations were ready to embrace civil rights organizations.
"Maybe some of the leading civil rights organizations haven't put
disability on their agenda yet," a group member asserted. "Not true
about one of the leading civil rights organizations," replied a
different group member. In fact, this member continued, it is just
as important for people in the disability community to become members
of civil rights organizations as it is to ask civil rights organizations
to advocate for people with disabilities.
Among several questions, someone asked "What about
the size of the task force?" A successful task force shouldn't have
more than five to seven members. After more discussion, the work
group agreed on a final list of organizations that should be invited
and which group members would approach the organizations. "Let's
not move too fast," urged a member. "The first meeting of the task
force should be exploratory. Should we hold it in August? No, someone
replied . . . Too many people on vacation. What about July? Better.
Having settled on the details of this action, the group moved on
to consider other ideas that members of the group suggested.
Advocacy Tool Kit
The give-and-take in another group led them to decide
that developing an advocacy kit would be a worthwhile action. Their
decision followed a long discussion about how to develop leadership
that makes a difference. "Too often," said one group member, "people
are thrust into positions of leadership and have to learn through
on-the-job training. Sometimes they don't say anything for fear
of making a mistake." Leadership development should include teaching
people how to use their authority, their influence, when they are
in leadership positions. An advocacy kit would include tools for
leadership. For example, the kit could contain sample advocacy letters
that groups could adapt to fit their issues and send to policy makers
and elected officials. Another insert could be instructions for
how to interest media in the issues.
Building Coalitions from Bottom to Top
A third group pondered the complications of forming
effective working relationships with civil rights organizations.
A number of national civil rights and government leaders spoke at
the Think Tank 2000 opening panel, but what happens next? Where
were the worker bees from these organizations? What does the disability
community need to do to form partnerships with civil rights groups
that are, as one participant said, doing work that is an inch away
from disability rights? Do you go to their national conventions?
Why not start with the local chapters of the national organizations,
another group member said. Help them see what we have in common.
When the local civil rights organizations are won over, or the local
agencies, they'll carry the message to their superiors and bring
in your group to educate the national organization.
Understanding Which Laws Apply to Indian Reservations
"Yes," voiced another member of the third group, continuing
their discussion on building coalitions, "but we need to keep in
mind the diversity within the diverse group." There is a vast difference
altogether when you're talking about people with disabilities from
the African-American, from the Hispanic and from the Native Americans.
There is not just one big law that applies to everybody. The Americans
with Disabilities Act does not apply to all Indian reservations.
"Indian reservations have their own government laws," the participant
continued. "So when you get people to come to the table and start
talking about civil rights, you've got to know what you're talking
about. And we have a different way of looking at who will talk for
the Indian country."
For two days, the work groups grappled with knotty
subjects, and they sorted through countless far-ranging ideas on
the way to deciding what actions made sense. Group members prodded
each other to clarify, to be specific, to reach out beyond the disability
community, to find a larger constituency and educate them so disability
groups and civil rights and human rights groups could form partnerships
for their mutual advantage. Through their interchanges, participants
in Think Tank 2000 work groups could see the complexities, the barriers
that had to be overcome and the enabling mechanisms that had to
be constructed if they wanted to work in coalition across disabilities,
across cultures, races and issue orientations.
Work Group Reporting on Priorities
The two general sessions furthered the process by
bringing the small groups together to report on their work, compare
their results, question each other, and refine their products. Each
group had two primary reporters and other members of the groups
were free to contribute to the reporting process, as well. At the
first general session, one reporter's task was to summarize the
group's work, and the other reporter's was to put forth questions
that the small groups had considered.
When the first general session convened, the three
groups had already agreed to the five priority issues mentioned
before. The reports highlighted the barriers each group thought
kept people with disabilities from diverse cultures from speaking
with one voice and joining in coalition with civil and human rights
groups to advocate for common cause.
Red Group: Challenges, Respect and Worldview
Dr. Bobbie Atkins from San Diego State University
reported first for the Red Group. She began by praising the group.
"It was such a pleasure," she said, "to have such focus on being
positive, on identifying some of the challenges but [staying] optimistic
about the potential for collaboration and solutions."
Dr. Atkins reported that the Red Group had identified
numerous barriers that stand in the way of realizing the five priorities
the groups agreed upon earlier. Essentially, they are poor self-esteem;
lack of resources--money, for example, which, if you have it, gets
you power; lack of basic knowledge about each other and the groups
they want to reach. What does power mean, and how can it be used
to bring individuals together rather than divide them? What strengths
do we bring to the table? We don't fully understand what our individual
and collective assets are. These as well as institutional barriers
hinder leadership development and access to employment and to employers.
Continuing with her report, Dr. Atkins said, with
regard to upholding human rights, the Red Group "looked at the various
ways in which conflicting world views have been presented." Sovereign
nations need to be recognized, for example. [There are] "individualized
world views and there are family and group world views and ... all
have a place." The group had questioned why, when world history
is taught, there is no mention of oppression, which should be included
so "that we better understand how we got to the place where we are
and, within that ... lie some solutions on how we can move forward."
The "major message," Dr. Atkins said "is that we really wanted to
promote a win-win situation for all ...."
Dr. Madan Kundu from Southern University in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, the Red Group's second reporter, said that the
group raised questions about how communities could move from consuming
taxes to paying taxes. And they deliberated about defining civil
rights and human rights and how to put human rights on the front
burner in America.
Green Group: Role of Respect, Trust, and Coalition
Building
Dr. Glenn Fujiura from the University of Illinois
at Chicago, Mrs. Elizabeth Pollard, president of the National Association
of the Deaf (NAD), Mr. Robert Shuckahosee, co-founder of American
Indian Rehabilitation Rights Organization of Warriors (AIRROW),
and Ms. La Donna Fowler of the National Congress of American Indians
(NCAI) summarized the work the Green Group had completed. Dr. Fujiura
reported that although his group was urged to work on voter registration
and voting issues, there was a more prominent concern with leadership
as an overarching issue. This group requested NCD to revisit the
notion of coalition building and agreed that it is a good concept
that needs broader civil and human rights representation at the
table. They also underscored for all participants the importance
of "attitudinal adjustments and the need to look outside of what
we traditionally do." One recommendation was the development of
a handbook on promising practices for coalition building.
Mrs. Pollard summarized the outcome from the group's
discussion of voting issues and strategies that included working
collaboratively with existing organizations such as the League of
Women Voters and making use of listservs. She reported that the
group reached consensus on leadership development and greater visibility
as important concepts for people with disabilities to address for
coalition building. For example, encourage civil and human rights
organizations to set up question-and-answer forums that feature
panelists with disabilities. Help the larger population to learn
more about disability rights. In addition, ensure that information
is disseminated in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways
and reach out to more organizations representing tribal communities,
the elderly, college boards, and so forth. Use the radio, newspapers,
other printed media, and personal contacts.
Mr. Shuckahosee recounted that his group, after some
discussion, defined civil rights as rights that are created by legislative
actions while human rights are endowed rights. "It is just how we,
as people are endowed with such things like dignity, self respect,
those kinds of things--respecting another, respecting our races,
those kinds of things." He added that the various languages that
people speak, which may be the only ones they know how to speak,
need to be interpreted so that everyone can understand each other
across the board, whether we are talking about civil rights, funding,
education or other issues.
Ms. Fowler made the point that "when you bring diverse
cultures together, one thing is that we don't know each other...We
don't know exactly where you are coming from." She added, "There
needs to be a way to get to know each other ... that removes a lot
of suspicions, doubts.... The ability to collaborate is the ability
to trust."
Blue Group: Defining Leadership
Frank Chee Willetto from New Mexico, a Navajo who
had been a Marine Code Talker in World War II, followed with his
report from the Blue Group. He summarized the process the group
used to reduce and prioritize the fourteen points, and, to illustrate
his point that the fourteen points the group began with were unwieldy,
he recapped what one Congressman had said at the opening plenary:
"You can't push fourteen things on an agenda. Put the fourteen together
and come up with one which is the best thing that happened." Mr.
Willetto ended his comments about the Blue Group's output with the
remark that "You are not born with leadership. You have to learn
to be a leader. And it takes a lot of education and it takes a lot
of experience to be a leader."
Ms. Karen Clay from The Arc's national headquarters
in Silver Spring, MD, continued the Blue Group's report. She remarked
that the group "came up with something that was workable in terms
of the priority-setting mechanism.... We looked at those priorities
based on that which needs attention now, that which is beneficial
to a cross section of people and that which would be attractive
to our allies." Ms. Clay concluded her remarks by saying, "So we
actually came up with doable, viable, workable solutions."
John Sanford, leader for the National Family for the
Advancement of Minorities with Disabilities, who had questioned
his group earlier about what alliances the disability community
had made with civil rights groups, felt that he had heard nothing
new in the reports that were presented at the general session. His
understanding was that Think Tank 2000 would come up with ways to
partner with outside groups, especially civil rights groups, but
what the reporters presented did not seem to him to be about a mutual
agenda.
Mr. Sanford was assured that the goal for Think Tank
2000 had not changed, and the groups would be challenged to agree
on actions, including partnerships, but that there were steps that
had to be taken first. Indeed, James Billy, Executive Director for
the Harlem Independent Living Center in New York, noted that integrating
what had been talked about into a performable work plan was, to
his way of thinking, the expectation for the rest of the day's group
meetings. He observed that "we were running unbridled yesterday.
So I think we are getting to that. It is a good point...."
Actions! Actions! Actions!
In the late 1950s, Dr. Martin Luther King asked the
question "Where do we go from here: chaos or community?" Dr. King
admonished that "What we need is a restless determination to make
the ideal of brotherhood a reality in this nation and all over the
world. Our nettlesome task is to discover how to organize our strength
into compelling power so that government cannot elude our demands.
We must develop, from strength, a situation in which the government
finds it wise and prudent to collaborate with us."
More than forty years later, there is still a need
for "restless determination." Seventy people with disabilities from
diverse cultures and their supporters came together at Think Tank
2000 to meet the challenge of developing an action plan for positive
change that would strengthen their capacity to advocate for social
justice across disabilities, ethnic groups, cultures, and races,
and to do so hand-in-hand with civil rights and human rights groups.
Think Tank 2000 can be the start of a dynamic push
forward because the participants committed to deeds, not just words.
In fact, some participants adopted as their tag line "We're fired
up!"--a rallying cry that a Chicago civil rights activist coined
in the 1980's. The participants' determined willingness to confront
the tough issues about language, race, and culture that create tensions
in their own ranks bodes well for their ability to carry the lessons
they are learning about respect, tolerance and partnership to a
wider public. And their growing appreciation of the benefits they
will bring to partnerships outside the disability community can
only strengthen the movement for equitable and fair treatment of
all groups--economically, socially, and politically.
The vitality of Think Tank 2000 is captured in the
list of actions that the participants agreed to carry out and in
the name they gave themselves at the conclusion of the event: Leadership
Coalition Unlimited.
The list of actions is divided into categories, referenced
to the five priorities agreed upon the first day. A few words have
been changed in the priorities list to reflect the group's feeling
that everyone, not just people with disabilities from diverse cultures,
would benefit from their actions. The revised priorities list is
as follows:
- Cultivating leadership development
- Removing educational barriers
- Providing equal opportunity and access to employment
- Upholding human rights and civil rights
- Expanding voter registration and voter participation
There are four categories under which actions are
listed. They are leadership development and capacity building, outreach,
coalition and constituency building, and monitoring and evaluation.
[See Appendix for the list of Think Tank 2000 actions].
Conclusion
On the whole, Think Tank 2000 met its four outcome
objectives as stated at the beginning of this report. Additionally
there is now a foundation in place on which to build and a process
for doing so. This can be replicated at regional and local levels
in order to broaden the base of advocates, constituents and stakeholders.
The action agenda that participants devised is an
ambitious one, and if it is to be implemented, Think Tank 2000 participants
must commit to time-on-task. Because there are long and short-term
action agenda items, participant commitment will also need to be
sustained. It is in this regard that leadership development and
capacity building are critical elements of success. NCD, which hosted
Think Tank 2000, will continue to be facilitative by enabling grassroots
organizations and a range of other stakeholders to make their voices
heard. And NCD's ongoing work to broaden and strengthen coalitions
and carry out research on policies and practices that affect the
disability community, stakeholders and allies, will be of service
in the aftermath of Think Thank 2000. NCD can be a very important
partner with the fledgling Leadership Coalition Unlimited, particularly
at the federal level, and by being the wind at the back of this
new organization as it takes flight.
When Judge Hughey Walker spearheaded the call--along
with the support of Marca Bristo and other NCD member--for a national
meeting between people from diverse cultures with disabilities and
their supporters and civil and human rights advocates, he had in
mind organizing a broad advocacy base to confront the dual injustices
people face who are both disabled and people from diverse cultures,
and, too often, poor as well. Through Think Tank 2000, NCD took
a major step in the direction of bringing these two advocacy centers
together.
The remarks made by two people at the closing general
session capture the spirit and accomplishments of Think Tank 2000.
Georgia Thrower from Maryland said:
"I don't know everyone. I was invited to this conference--Gerrie
invited me at another conference where we were...there was no
diversity [among conference leaders and principle participants],
and I wasn't exactly sure what was coming or what to expect.
But I want to tell you that this conference not
only met any aspirations or expectations I had, but far exceeded
it. When you can spend two and one half days with people and can
walk into a room and make direct eye contact with people who are
genuine and who express their real concern with you as a person
[it's] remarkable. Even within our community.
And I am very happy because I am a new person to
the disability community. Of course, as you can see, I have been
a `minority' [racial/cultural group member] for years. But coming
into the disability community was not an easy thing for me as
an adult. And I see open arms. I see people who understand, and
I am so happy and so appreciative."
Marca Bristo, NCD chairperson, closed Think Tank 2000
with these words:
"I just want to give Hughey a collective hug from
all of you. And I want to thank you so much. You guys were absolutely
incredible.
[Y]ou didn't let me down. You didn't write a report
that would gather dust. And Hughey knows I was worried about that.
And you really exemplified everything Justin [Dart] said yesterday....
That a revolution starts with one person, each person stepping
up. Each time somebody raised their hand and said, "I'll do that,
" it was honoring the words you heard from him yesterday.... On
behalf of everybody from NCD, thank you very much and Godspeed."
APPENDIX
THINK TANK 2000 ACTIONS
Leadership development and capacity building
- Establish a listserv for the people who attended
Think Tank 2000 (went on line in June 2000)
- Form a task force, with a smaller steering committee,
made up of opinion leaders from the disability and civil and human
rights communities, legislative offices, et al., to identify common
interests among disability, civil and human rights organizations
with the goal of developing joint actions.
- Assemble an advocacy tool kit to include "how to"
instruments for advocacy organizations such as sample press releases,
boilerplate letters to opinion leaders that can be adapted as
necessary, etc. Such a kit could be an attractive contribution
from disability rights groups to civil rights groups.
- Submit the resumes of people qualified for federal
positions to Judge Hughey Walker before the new national administration
is in place. Routinely send him the resumes of qualified people.
- Establish a mentoring program within the disability
rights community and in concert with the civil and human rights
communities to train emerging leaders from diverse cultures.
- Develop internships for young people at disability
and civil rights organizations. Look at Americorps, college work-study
programs and graduate schools as possible conduits.
- Train to be an organizer with one of the organizer
training schools, e.g., the Midwest Academy has been holding training
sessions around the country for the last 25 years.
- Provide voter registration in every rehabilitation
center, agency, independent living center and at all other sites
that people with disability from diverse cultures frequent.
- Join with organizations that are conducting voter
registration drives, e.g., Rainbow/PUSH and the League of Women
Voters.
- Establish a clearing house for information about
disability rights and civil and human rights.
- Join with educational rights organizations to support
adequate and equitable schooling for all children, e.g., funding,
appropriate student achievement measures, safe and well-equipped
schools, enlightened teachers and principals.
- Partner with universities and/or computer companies
to get funding to design distance learning programs that can be
housed in independent living centers, libraries, community centers,
and other sites accessible to disability and diverse cultural
communities.
- Host a business and labor roundtable in partnership
with a university and/or a mainstream civil rights organization
to discuss employment, welfare-to-work and training issues that
concern diverse cultures, people with disabilities, youth, and
the poor.
- Replicate Think Tank 2000 at the regional and local
levels to expand the stakeholder and constituency base for the
action agenda.
Outreach
- Become a regular contributor to the "letters to
the editor" page in newspapers.
- Contribute op-ed pieces on matters that affect
people with disabilities from diverse cultures in general.
- Periodically meet with the editorial boards of
newspapers to brief them on federal legislation and federal practices
that affect disability and culturally diverse communities.
- Devise innovative ways to keep opinion leaders
informed, e.g., with audio and videotapes and on-line information
about matters of interest to diverse cultures and disability communities.
Coalition and constituency building
- Form relationships with staff members in congressional
offices to keep them informed and involved
- Establish an exchange program among people from
diverse cultures with disabilities so that they can get to know
each other by spending time together. Work through organizations
that represent each of the diverse cultures, subgroups, and races
that are present in the disability and civil and human rights
communities.
- Join with local civil and human rights organizations
that have a national presence to work on issues of common interest,
not just issues that deal exclusively with disability rights.
- Work on issue and political campaigns.
- Develop relationships with newspaper columnists
and talk show hosts with the idea of becoming the go-to person
on certain issues
- Network at every meeting (i.e., conferences, workshops,
etc.) by exchanging cards and information about organizations
and individuals in attendance at the meeting.
- Send follow-up letters with information about issues
and organizations to key people who attend meetings, presentations,
etc.,
Monitoring and evaluation
- Prepare a report card that can be used to evaluate
service delivery, agencies and organizations. Publish the report
card when the results are available and do a media event when
it is released. The goal is to encourage the media and opinion
leaders to anticipate release of the report card and routinely
make public reference to the results.
- Hold candidate forums during election periods.
- Monitor off-site voter registration laws, e.g.,
motor voter, to make sure they are fully operative and accessible
to people with disabilities and people from culturally diverse
communities. Look at recently passed voting laws in states such
as California and Oregon, which are experimenting with electronic
and mail-in voting, to see if these new means of voting could
improve voter accessibility for people from diverse cultures and
disability communities.
- Develop candidate questionnaires on rights issues
of concern to diverse cultures, including people with disabilities.
- Evaluate organizations that represent the disability
community to see if they have people from diverse cultures in
decision-making roles.
|