[NAGDU] Opinion on SEGD Mental Illness Policy

[Cindy Ray]

Hi, Ash,

I have thought of these things, too, but in all fairness, people know what they know and are ignorant about other conditions, illnesses, and the like. That makes sense, too, if you think about it, but it is certainly a hard pill to swallow. I believe that the whole thing is based on ignorance. It is also extremely discriminatory. People still tend to look at people who have mental illness the way they did in the 1800s and before. Just as blind people who have socially unacceptable behaviors because no one trained them properly create a problem for the rest, so those people who have not fared well with a bipolar condition color life for those of you who are successful in society. Bipolar conditions are lumped in with all other mental illnesses, and I am sure they have differing characteristics. As soon as someone goes out there shooting people or whatever violent crime they do, people immediately believe them to be mentally ill. It is so wrong and shouldn't be that way, but people do that. I believe that you should be welcomed into the school; then if you do something that isn't acceptable, which you would not do, you could be sent home. That's what would be done with someone else. If a man came to the school and was sexually inappropriate with a woman and she complained, he would be going home. He had the benefit of the doubt when he came there though. The same should be true for you and for other people with a bipolar condition. Certainly, if there is a policy against your coming there, they owe you the response to your queries, but you ought to be able to go there. Have you had this experience with other guide dog programs? I think it is shocking the lack of compassion we all have for people who have other disabilities from our own, and I suspect that we should begin working on it. Maybe others will weigh in on this and have ideas.
Cindy Lou Ray
cindyray at gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ash Foster via NAGDU
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 1:49 PM
To: nagdu at nfbnet.org
Cc: Ash Foster <lake_fos at yahoo.com>
Subject: [NAGDU] Opinion on SEGD Mental Illness Policy

 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
_______________________________________________
NAGDU mailing list
NAGDU at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NAGDU:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/cindyray%40gmail.com