[NAGDU] Opinion on SEGD Mental Illness Policy

[Ash Foster]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Hello. I rarely post to the list although I very much enjoy it! I do hope it is OK I post this here. It is truly a draft I just wrote, but wanted to express something thaf has bothered me for a while, now. I mean no offense.
*
Coming into a community of individuals who all are, by social standards, disabled, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that this group of people will inherently be more accepting and understanding of other types of disabilities, illnesses, and conditions. It's equally as easy to fall victim to thinking that organizations serving this particular population will be less likely to target and discriminate against those among that populations who have co-existing conditions. It's easy to believe this surely must be a group of individuals among which certain stigmas and ignorance will be less prevalent.
And when reality hits, you quickly realize that simply because this community is made up of individuals sharing a common condition and those whose work it is to provide services to them, this means little when it comes to the understanding and education about anything other than their own affairs. People are people, so they say.
To make this a bit more relatable: please imagine if you will a guide dog training program which states in its paperwork and on its website that anyone with diabetes was not welcome to apply or a school which refuses communication with all individuals ever having suffered a stroke. This would be questioned and sincerely concerning for many, would it not? Imagine, then, the same school refused to engage in dialogue with a sincerely concerned, polite, respectful potential client or consumer of its services? Would this be offensive? 
I am this person. I have been gaslighted and ignored and have remained silent long enough. I can imagine few places, few non-profits which would be so broadly supported in blatant discriminatory behavior while hanging a virtual sign stating,  "you may qualify for our services, but because you are blind, we deem you incapable of responsible behavior." This would not be accepted, tacitly accepted and meekly complied with because individuals so feared being cast out by that organization they were willing to remain complicit in this behavior by their silence?
Why, then, is it acceptable for a prominent guide dog school to publicly and blatantly refuse to even consider admitting applicants who have a particular mental illness? In this case, that condition is Bipolar Disorder. Bipolar Disorder, as most conditions do, has varying degrees and varying presentations. Some are wholly disabled by it, while a far greater number of individuals with it are upstanding, capable members of society. So what is the justification for the reluctance to speak of, let alone address head-on, the ban imposed by Southeastern Guide Dogs on individuals with this disorder? 
As a former lawyer, I underwent quite a bit of background examination and ethical interviews during law school to establish whether I was capable of upholding the mores and ethics to which attorneys are required, ideally, to adhere. I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder after the conclusion of my first semester of law school, but was not met with a blanket proscription on the practice of law; instead, I remained an equal to my classmates, a peer. Thus, as I underwent the same scrutiny as did my fellow students, questions of the severity and impact of Bipolar Disorder arose during an interview with a routine, pre-graduation panel of senior attorneys arose. Those questions were answered and I was deemed ethically capable of the practice of law. 
My question, then, is: how is it possible that the same person who was deemed fit to practice law, potentially to go on to personally handle the futures and fates of individuals and corporations alike, is automatically deemed unfit to even potentially handle a guide dog trained by SEGD?
I have written the school itself twice, and twice -- presumably because I have a condition which, despite being controlled and well-managed, instantly means I am unfit, unwell, unsound, and unwanted by that school -- my queries have gone unanswered. They can, of course, continue to ignore me. But unless this opinion is widely held, why is mine the sole voice expressing concern with this policy?  

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone