Back in the dark ages when I was a graduate student at UC Davis (okay, maybe it wasn't the dark ages, but it was the late 1980's), I worked on a project looking at the sociability of handicapped people based on whether they had a service dog present or not. Basically, we had individuals in wheelchairs move around a farmer's market setting both with and without a service dog. We recorded everything from glances to smiles to conversations. The conclusion of our research was that having a service dog meant meant more interactions with strangers; extended eye contact, smiles, greetings, and conversations. The same people in wheelchairs without the service dog were engaged less and, frankly, often blatantly ignored.
Why am I bringing this up now? I was asked about my thoughts on the recent U.S. Supreme Court case where the family of a young girl denied access to schooling because of her service dog sued the school district and won. You can see the case details here:
http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2017/02/u-s-supreme-court-sides-with-family-in-case-of-girl-with-service-dog-being-denied-access-to-school/
The school felt that having a human aide should be sufficient; she didn't "need" the dog. What this school failed to realize is that this child's service dog provided much more than help with dropped items, opening doors, etc. This dog was her social bridge--this dog did all of these tasks and more. Having a service dog means this child will be socially engaged by other children and adults. She will be spoken to. She will be acknowledged. She will be incorporated in their interactions that do not directly relate to school work and classroom curriculum. She will be judged less by her disability. And the bottom line? Discriminating against her and prohibiting her from attending school with her service dog violated her rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
So, how do I feel about the Supreme Court's decision? I feel relieved. For me, this case was a no-brainer.
No comments:
Post a Comment