Thoughts on Inclusion

We recently went to a disabilities conference as a family (Emily, Stella, and me). It's technically called a "leadership conference" because they're training us to be advocates and leaders in the field. When someone is being discriminated against and excluded by a system (school, workplace, etc), we should be prepared to help.

Much of the discussion revolved around the term "inclusion", defining what it is, seeing how we can make it happen, etc. Perhaps the simplest way to describe "inclusion" is as the opposite of what we see in many of today's systems.

• Today we tend to automatically place people with disabilities in a different stream of life. Special classroom, special bus service, special workplace, etc. This is mostly done under the belief that it is better for the people with disabilities. They get access to more specialist support services. It also has the side-effect of making our systems simpler to manage, more predictable, etc.
• 'Inclusion' is the idea of broadening/stretching existing services to accommodate people with disabilities. Same classroom, same bus service, same workplace, etc. This is mostly done because we believe that social interaction provides a greater benefit to people with disabilities, even if it sacrifices things like 1-on-1 time.

While it may seem a pretty clear concept, there are a lot of subtleties and differing opinions around 'inclusion'. Imagine a child with a disability who is seated at the back of the class, with their own 1-on-1 support aide, never interacting with the other students. Is that 'inclusion'? Well, it's a step in the right direction but is failing in many other aspects. Why are they at the back of the room and not randomly placed like other children? Why do the other children not interact with them (there can be many reasons, often tied to the skill of the support aide and the nature of the disability)? Should we just get rid of the support aide and ask the children in the class to work as a group and help each other, including the child with a disability? There are many, many opinions and just as many corner cases where there are no good answers.

Similarly, we know that there are going to be times when 'inclusion' is just not possible. Some people may need additional supports simply due to the nature of their disability. People who are blind cannot drive a regular car. People in a wheelchair require a toilet stall with more space and lower sinks. Some of these things are unavoidable, and we have to accept that. But is there some kind of a rule we can use to decide what we will accept.

I wrote up these three questions during the conference. Try answering them in order. I think they fairly capture when we should accept 'exclusion' or 'segregation' of any group of people:

1. Is it by choice? If yes, then it's okay. It's a special case, but someone may choose to be segregated from others. The elderly who want to spend time with others of their generation. The blind who find they can only really connect with other blind people. The developmentally delayed who are overly-anxious when outside their home environment. We have to allow choice for these people. That said, it must be a clear personal choice on their part - not something forced on them by a society that does not accept them.
2. Is it unnecessary? If yes, then it's not okay. This is by far the hardest question to answer, and there will always be varying opinions on what is necessary. I cannot provide an answer to that, except to say that 'unnecessary' exclusion or segregation is just not okay. Excluding by default because that's how it's always been done is not okay. Every time we feel that someone should be excluded, pushed to the back table at a fancy dinner, placed in a separate room during church, we need to ask ourselves why and whether it is truly necessary.
3. Is it temporary? If no, then it's not okay. This is by far the most important criteria. Assuming the segregation is not by choice, then it must be very temporary (eg. a trip to the toilet, an extra class to help catch-up, etc) or there must be an actively-pursued plan to end it (eg. aiming to get a job in a regular workplace). Planning to segregate someone indefinitely is not okay. Also note that a special bus, special toilet, special classes, special workplace, etc may be temporary and okay on their own, but the combination is a problem. From an outside perspective, this can result in seemingly irrational demands like "my child must ride the regular school bus". If the child's life is otherwise segregated, then that bus ride may be their only chance to really socialise. This is the rationale for such demands.

One curious thing is that the above rules can be applied to other situations. I hinted that it can work for the elderly, but it also applies to prisons, male/female toilets, and the legal drinking age. Are these segregations or exclusions by choice/necessary/temporary? It's a pretty universal set of questions.

Anyway, I've run out of time and things to write at the moment. I am sure I will have more in a week or so.