Children’s television shows have a big influence on how young children learn and behave in a time when digital media permeates every aspect of daily life. Both positive and negative consequences can result from the content children consume, ranging from social skills and cognitive development to emotional regulation and moral development. It is crucial to look at how these shows affect young audiences in both positive and possibly negative ways as programming keeps changing to include new themes and methods of education.
Image 1: Young boy watching television. Source: Yahoo! Images
The Evolution of Children’s Programming
Over the past few decades, children’s television has undergone substantial changes. The foundation for media aimed at teaching literacy, social skills, and emotional intelligence was established by conventional educational shows such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. These programs’ emphasis on realistic relationships, slow-paced storytelling, and likable characters made it possible for young viewers to learn things in an entertaining yet developmentally appropriate way.
Children’s shows often cover concepts like cooperation, empathy, and conflict resolution. While Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood specifically teaches emotional regulation techniques through songs and relevant scenarios, Paw Patrol and Doc McStuffins are examples of programs that show teamwork and problem-solving. Children may benefit from these components as they learn to manage their own emotions and social situations.
Image 2: Child looking at a laptop. Source: Yahoo! Images
Potential Negative Effects of Children’s Shows
Screen Time and Passive Consumption
Excessive screen time is one of the biggest issues with children’s television. Children between the ages of two and five should not spend more than an hour a day on high-quality screens. Long-term use of screens can lead to problems regulating concentration, sleep issues, and decreased physical activity. The advantages of educational programs may also be limited by passive consumption, in which kids watch without actively participating or absorbing the content.
Even though they are entertaining, certain children’s television showscould encourage irrational expectations about relationships, achievement, and life. Certain programs may subtly reinforce preconceptions through gender-specific roles, idealized character depictions, or overstated problem resolutions. When it comes to helping kids think critically about what they watch and promoting conversations about the implications for real life, parents and other adults play an important part.
The Role of Parents and Caregivers
Given the possible advantages and disadvantages of children’s programming, parental participation is still crucial to maximizing the beneficial effects and reducing the negative ones. Sometips forconsuming media responsibly are:
Setting Limits on Screen Time. Establishing boundaries for television and digital device use ensures that children engage in a balanced mix of activities, including physical play, reading, and social interactions.
Selecting High-Quality Content.Choosing age-appropriate, educationally enriching programs can enhance learning experiences. Platforms like PBS Kids and Sesame Workshop offer well-researched content that aligns with developmental needs.
Encouraging Active Engagement.Rather than passive viewing, caregivers can promote active engagement by asking children about what they watched, encouraging them to reenact stories, or relating on-screen lessons to real-life situations.
Conclusion
Children’s television shows continue to significantly impact the behavior and development of young viewers. Excessive screen time and exposure to inappropriate content can be problematic, while well-designed programs can promote learning, creativity, and social-emotional development. Parents who actively participate and establish a balance between education and fun can help children benefit from media use in a constructive and developmentally appropriate way. Supporting the upcoming generation of young viewers will require constant research and careful content creation as technology and storytelling continue to advance.
The Austin, Texas-based Tesla Gigafactory is regarded as a pillar of innovation, pushing the boundaries in sustainable production and economic expansion. However, serious human rights issues have emerged behind the news of economic revival and technical advancement. These problems, which range from claims of discrimination and labor exploitation to infractions of workplace safety, expose a concerning aspect of Tesla’s operations. As a leader in renewable energy and technology, Tesla needs to maintain ethical business standards in its establishments, particularly as public scrutiny increases.
Image 1: Red Tesla vehicle fob supercharger. Source: Yahoo! Images
Workplace Safety Concerns
Workplace safety is one of the Gigafactory’s most urgent human rights issues. After discovering that four employees at the Austin site had been exposed to dangerous chemicals without the appropriate training or safety precautions, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) penalized Tesla close to $7,000 in November 2024. Hexavalent chromium, an extremely hazardous material that can cause cancer, damage to the kidneys, and serious respiratory problems, was being handled by the workers. OSHA claims that workers in the Cybertruck body area were exposed to significant health hazards because they lacked the necessary training to handle hazardous materials.
Apart from this offense, Tesla is also being investigated for the August 2024 worker death that was recorded at the facility. Even though the incident’s specifics are unknown until OSHA’s investigation is finished, it raises more concerns about the factory’s safety procedures and supervision. This is not an isolated problem for Tesla; the firm has been repeatedly criticized for its record on workplace safety in several locations, which suggests a systemicissue.
Employee reports present a worrisome image. Workers have complained that safety instruction is either hurried or superficial, with little focus on long-term precautions. Some believe that speed and output are given precedence over worker safety due to Tesla’s focus on increasing production for vehicles such as the Cybertruck. This conflict between safety and efficiency draws attention to a crucial area where Tesla’s company operations deviate from ethical standards.
Wage Theft and Exploitation
Widespread criticism has also been directed at labor violations that occurred during the Texas Gigafactorydevelopment. A Texas-based nonprofit group called the Workers Defense Project complained to the U.S. Department of Labor in November 2022 on behalf of construction workers employedat the facility. According to the allegations, employees were sometimes not paid at all and were not paid for overtime. Contractors are also accused of giving employees phony safety training certifications, which essentially left them unprepared for the dangers they encountered on the job site.
These labor violations reflect a larger problem with supply chain management at Tesla. Tesla indirectly supports exploitative activities by using subcontractors who compromise workers’ protections. Under the possibility of losing their jobs, construction workers, many of whom are immigrants, said they felt pressured into dangerous working conditions. In addition to breaking labor regulations, such actions also go against fundamental human rights values, which place an emphasis on treating employees fairly and with dignity.
The problem is made worse by the contractors’ lack of responsibility. Employees who tried to report dangerous working conditions or wage fraud frequently faced retaliation or disregard. This cycle of exploitation shows how urgently Tesla must strengthen its oversight of its contractors to guarantee compliance with ethical standards and labor laws.
Additionally, Tesla was accused by a whistleblower of manipulating furnace operations to pass emissions tests. This manipulation prompted wider environmental concerns in addition to putting workers at risk of exposure to dangerous pollutants. Tesla’s public pledge to sustainability and environmental responsibility is compromised when it uses unethical means to satisfy regulatory requirements.
These environmental risks exacerbate an already difficult and, at times, dangerous work environment for employees. Reports of excessive temperatures, chemical fume exposure, and insufficient ventilation reveal a pattern of carelessness that endangers workers. In addition to harming employees, these circumstances damage Tesla’s standing as a leader in environmentally friendly technology.
Image 2: Tesla car production factory. Source: Yahoo! Images
Allegations of (Potential) Racial Discrimination
Claims of racial discrimination have also sparked criticism of Tesla’s workplace culture. Although its facility in Fremont, California, has received a lot of attention, its challenges are representative of largerissues that could affect its operations in Texas. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Tesla in September 2023, claiming that Black workers at the Fremont facility experienced widespread racial harassment. The lawsuit described instances of graffiti, racial epithets, and a toxic workplace where complaints were frequently disregarded. Workers who reported such instances were subject to retribution, which included negative employment changes and terminations.
Even though these claims are specific to Tesla’s California plant, they raise important concerns about the company’s work environment and whether the Texas Gigafactory is engaging in similar activities. According to reports from former workers, Tesla’s leadership has had difficulty addressing concerns of equity and inclusivity within the company. Such claims reveal a stark discrepancy between a company’s internal procedures and public image, which is concerning for a forward-thinking business.
Broader Implications for Human Rights
The human rights violations at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Texas are not isolated events; rather, they are a part of a wider trend of unethical behavior by the business. Communities like Austin have benefited economically from Tesla’s quick growth and innovation-focused approach, but worker safety, ethical labor standards, and environmental responsibility shouldn’t be sacrificed for these advantages.
Furthermore, the significance of Tesla’s actionsis increased by itsinfluence. Being one of the most well-known businesses in the world, Tesla sets the standard for how big businesses can balance innovation and morality. Tesla runs the danger of damaging its reputation and alienating both staff and customers if it doesn’t sufficiently address thesehuman rights issues.
Steps Toward Ethical Practices
Tesla must take swift action to change the way it operates and address theseconcerns. First and foremost, the business needs to make a stronger commitment to workplace safety by putting in place comprehensive training programs and making sure that all workers, whether they are contracted or directly employed, have enough protection. Regular audits are part of this to find and fix safety hazards before they cancause harm.
Labor practices also need to see substantial reform. Tesla needs to hold contractors accountable for wage theft and other violations by implementing stricter oversight mechanisms. Ensuring that workers are paid fairly and on time is not just a legal obligation, but a moral imperative.
Environmental responsibility must be prioritized as well. Tesla’s innovative reputation relies on its commitment to sustainability, and this should extend to its factory operations. Adhering to environmental regulations and maintaining transparency in emissions testing are important steps toward rebuilding trust.
Finally, fostering an inclusive workplace culture is essential for addressing allegations of discrimination. Tesla would benefit from establishing clear channels for employees to report harassment and discrimination without fear of retaliation. Regular training on diversity and inclusion can also help create a more equitable environment for all workers.
Conclusion
These major concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory are a sobering reminder of the ethical challenges accompanying rapid industrial growth. From workplace safety violations to wage theft and allegations of discrimination, these issues stress the gaps in Tesla’s operations that demand immediate attention. Given its influence, Tesla has a unique opportunity to set an example for ethical corporate practices.
By addressing these concerns head-on, Tesla can ensure that its growth benefits its bottom line and the workers and communities contributing to its success. Ultimately, the true measure of Tesla’s impact will be its technological achievements and its commitment to upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of its workforce.
Griefbots are an emerging technological phenomenon designed to mimic deceased individuals’ speech, behaviors, and even personalities. These digital entities are often powered by artificial intelligence, trained on data such as text messages, social media posts, and recorded conversations of the deceased. The concept of griefbots gained traction in the popular imagination through portrayals in television and film, such as the episode “Be Right Back” from the TV series Black Mirror. As advancements in AI continue to accelerate, griefbots have shifted from speculative fiction to a budding reality, raising profound ethical and human rights questions.
Griefbots are marketed as tools to comfort the grieving, offering an opportunity to maintain a sense of connection with lost loved ones. However, their implementation brings complex challenges that transcend technology and delve into the realms of morality, autonomy, and exploitation. While the intentions behind griefbots might seem compassionate, their broader implications require careful consideration. With the rising intricacy of the morality of AI, I want to explore some of the ethical aspects of griefbots and ask questions to push the conversation along. My goal is not to strongly advocate for or against their usage but to engage in philosophical debate.
Image 1: An image of a human face-to-face with an AI robot. Source: Yahoo Images
Ethical and Human Rights Ramifications of Grief Bots
Commercial Exploitation of Grief
The commercialization of griefbots raises significant concerns about exploitation. Grieving individuals, in their emotional vulnerability, may be susceptible to expensive services marketed as tools for solace. This commodification of mourning could be seen as taking advantage of grief for profit. Additionally, if griefbots are exploitative, it prompts us to reconsider the ethicality of other death-related industries, such as funeral services and memorialization practices, which also operate within a profit-driven framework.
However, the difference between how companies currently capitalize on griefbots and how the death industry generates profit is easier to tackle than the other implications of this service. Most companies producing and selling griefbots charge for their services through subscriptions or minute-by-minute payments, distinguishing them from other death-related industries. Companies may have financial incentives to keep grieving individuals engaged with their services. To achieve this, algorithms could be designed to optimize interactions, maximizing the time a grieving person spends with the chatbot and ensuring long-term subscriptions. These algorithms might even subtly adjust the bot’s personality to make it more appealing over time, creating a pleasing caricature rather than an accurate reflection of the deceased.
As these interactions become increasingly tailored to highlight what users most liked about their loved ones, the griefbot may unintentionally alter or oversimplify memories of the deceased, fostering emotional dependency. This optimization could transform genuine mourning into a form of addiction. In contrast, if companies opted to charge a one-time activation fee rather than ongoing payments, would this shift the ethical implications? In such a case, could griefbots be equated to services like cremation—a one-time fee for closure—or would the potential for misuse still pose moral concerns?
Image 2: A robot version of Michelangelo’s painting “the Creation of Adam” Source: Yahoo Images
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Because griefbots are supposed to represent a deceased person, they have the potential to disrespect people’s dignity by falsifying that person’s reason and consciousness. By creating an artificial version of someone’s reasoning or personality that may not align with their true self, griefbots risk distorting their essence and reducing the person’s memory to a fabrication.
But imagine a case in which an expert programmer develops a chatbot to represent himself. He perfectly understands every line of coding and can predict how the griefbot will honor his legacy. If there is no risk to the harm of his dignity, is there still an ethical issue at hand?
Consent and Autonomy
Various companies allow people to commission an AI ghost before their death by answering a set of questions and uploading their information. If individuals consent to create a griefbot during their lifetime, it might seem to address questions of autonomy. However, consent provided before death cannot account for unforeseen uses or misuse of the technology. How informed can consent truly be when the long-term implications and potential misuse of the technology are not fully understood when consent is given? Someone agreeing to create a griefbot may envision it as a comforting tool for loved ones. Yet, they cannot anticipate future technological advancements that could repurpose their digital likeness in ways they never intended.
This issue also intersects with questions of autonomy after death. While living individuals are afforded the right to make decisions about their posthumous digital presence, their inability to adapt or revoke these decisions as circumstances change raises ethical concerns. In HI-PHI Nation’s Podcast, The Wishes of the Dead, they explore how the wishes of deceased individuals, particularly wealthy ones, continue to shape the world long after their death. The episode uses Milton Hershey, founder of Hershey Chocolate, as a case study. Hershey created a charitable trust to fund a school for orphaned boys and endowed it with his company’s profits. Despite changes in societal norms and the needs of the community, the trust still operates according to Hershey’s original stipulations. Critics questioned whether continuing to operate according to Hershey’s 20th-century ideals was still relevant in the modern era, where gender equality and broader educational access have become more central concerns.
Chatbots do not have the ability to evolve and grow the way that humans do. Barry explains the foundation of this concept by saying, “One problem with executing deeds in perpetuity is that dead people are products of their own times. They don’t change what they want when the world changes.” And even if growth was implemented into the algorithm, there is no guarantee it would be reflective of how a person changes. Griefbots might preserve a deceased person’s digital presence in ways that could become problematic or irrelevant over time. Although griefbots do not have the legal status of an estate or will, they still preserve a person’s legacy in a similar fashion. If Hershey was alive today, would he modify his estate to reflect his legacy?
It could be argued that the difference between Hershey’s case and Chatbots is that wills and estates are designed to execute a person’s final wishes, but they are inherently limited in scope and duration. Griefbots, by contrast, have the potential to persist indefinitely, amplifying the damage to one’s reputation. Does this difference encompass the true scope of the issue at hand, or would it be viable to argue that if chatbots are unethical, then persisting estates would be equally unethical as well?
Image 3: A person having a conversation with a chatbot. Source: Yahoo Images
Impact on Mourning and Healing
Griefbots have the potential to fundamentally alter the mourning process by offering an illusion of continued presence. Traditionally, grieving involves accepting the absence of a loved one, allowing individuals to process their emotions and move toward healing. However, interacting with a griefbot may disrupt or delay this natural progression. By creating a sense of ongoing connection with the deceased, these digital avatars could prevent individuals from fully confronting the reality of the loss, potentially prolonging the pain of bereavement.
At the same time, griefbots could serve as a therapeutic tool for some individuals, providing comfort during difficult times. Grief is a deeply personal experience and for certain people, using chatbots as a means of processing loss might offer a temporary coping mechanism. In some cases, they might help people navigate the early, overwhelming stages of grief by allowing them to “speak” with a version of their loved one, helping them feel less isolated. Given the personal nature of mourning, it is essential to acknowledge that each individual has the right to determine the most effective way for them to manage their grief, including whether or not they choose to use this technology.
However, the decision to engage with griefbots is not always straightforward. It is unclear whether individuals in the throes of grief can make fully autonomous decisions, as emotions can cloud judgment during such a vulnerable time. Grief may impair an individual’s ability to think clearly, and thus, the use of griefbots might not always be a conscious, rational choice but rather one driven by overwhelming emotion.
Nora Freya Lindemann, a doctoral student researching the ethics of AI, proposes that griefbots could be classified as medical devices designed to assist in managing prolonged grief disorder (PGD). PGD is characterized by intense, persistent sorrow and difficulty accepting the death of a loved one. Symptoms of this disorder could potentially be alleviated with the use of griefbots, provided they are carefully regulated. Lindemann suggests that in this context, griefbots would require stringent guidelines to ensure their safety and effectiveness. This would involve rigorous testing to prove that these digital companions are genuinely beneficial and do not cause harm. Moreover, they should only be made available to individuals diagnosed with PGD rather than to anyone newly bereaved to prevent unhealthy attachments and over-reliance.
Despite the potential benefits, the psychological impact of griefbots remains largely unexplored. It is crucial to consider how these technologies affect emotional healing in the long term. While they may offer short-term comfort, the risk remains that they could hinder the natural grieving process, leading individuals to avoid the painful yet necessary work of acceptance and moving forward. As the technology develops, further research will be essential to determine the full implications of griefbots on the grieving process and to ensure that they are used responsibly and effectively.
Conclusion
Griefbots are at the intersection of cutting-edge technology and age-old human concerns about mortality, memory, and ethics. While they hold potential for comfort and connection, their implementation poses significant ethical and human rights challenges. The concepts I explored only scratch the surface of the iceberg. As society navigates this uncharted territory, we must critically examine its implications and find ways to use AI responsibly. The questions it raises are complex, but they offer an opportunity to redefine how we approach death and the digital legacies we leave behind.
In Brazil, thousands of children and adults with disabilities are confined toinstitutions for people with disabilities, facing widespread neglect, abuse, and isolation. Designed ostensibly to provide care, many of these institutions have instead devolved into detention centers where individuals are deprived of their autonomy and dignity. Reports from Human Rights Watch reveal the harrowing conditions experienced by people with disabilities in these facilities, underscoring the urgent need for systemic reform to safeguard their basic rights.
One relevant case is that of Leonardo, a 25-year-old man with muscular dystrophy who has lived in a residential institution since he was 15. His mother, unable to care for him due to a lack of adequate support, was left with little to no choice. Like many others, Leonardo shares cramped quarters with multiple residents, with minimal privacy or control over his daily life. There are very few meaningful activities available for him to partake in, and he has seemingly no apparent opportunity to participate in society as an autonomous individual, mirroring the experiences of countless other residents across Brazil’s institutions.
Causes of Institutionalization of the Care for People with Disabilities
The institutionalization of the care for individuals with disabilities in Brazil is shown through several interrelated systemic issues. First, the lack of adequate support for families plays a significant role. The government offers limited resources, and financial assistance programs, such as the Benefício de Prestação Continuada (BPC), often fail to fully meet the comprehensive needs of individuals with disabilities, which include therapy, assistive devices, and accessible housing. Without meaningful support systems, families may feel they have no alternative but to rely on institutional care.
Brazil’s legal and systemic framework also plays a crucial role. Guardianship laws that remove legal capacity from individuals with disabilities mean that many residents in institutions cannot consent to their placement. This lack of autonomy, combined with the stigma of ableism, creates an environment where people with disabilities are treated as passive recipients of care rather than individuals who should have rights and preferences. Public perception remains rooted in ableist attitudes, which continue to limit access to inclusive services and resources.
The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these disparities, intensifying existing challenges for people with disabilities in Brazil’s institutional care settings. This revealed vulnerabilities in both healthcare access and living conditions. Individuals with disabilities were disproportionately affected by the virus due to several factors, including pre-existing health conditions, limited access to adequate healthcare, and cramped, unsanitary living environments within institutions. These conditions not only increased infection rates but also made it difficult to implement preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper sanitation.
Image 2: Hospital Beds. Source: Yahoo! Images
Problems Within Institutions for People with Disabilities
The institutional care setting for People with Disabilities in Brazil fails to meet even the most basic standards of dignity and human rights. Living conditions in many of these institutions are deplorable. Reports from Human Rights Watch describe facilities that resemble prisons more than care centers. Physical restraints, such as tying residents to beds or sedating them, are surprisingly common. Such practices not only prevent individuals from engaging in any form of meaningful activity, but also contribute to a host of physical and psychological traumas.
Isolation is another significant, impactful issue. Many residents are confined to their beds or rooms for extended periods, with little to no engagement in social interaction or personal development. Children, specifically, suffer due to the lack of educational and recreational activities, which then stunts their intellectual and emotional growth. This isolation leads to further stigmatization and marginalization, unfortunately reinforcing the perception that people with disabilities are separate from society and should be hidden from view, whether intentionally or not.
The lack of oversight and enforcement of existing laws allows for egregious human rights abuses to go unchecked. In many cases, individuals are institutionalized unlawfully, deprived of family connections, and subjected to a lifetime of neglect. Children who enter these institutions often lose contact with their families permanently, which can lead to long-term emotional trauma and a deep sense of abandonment.
Access to healthcare for people with disabilities in Brazil also remains alarmingly inadequate. Despite the legal frameworks designed to protect their rights, physical and financial barriers to healthcare still exist, compounded by a lack of training among healthcare providers to address the specific needs of people with disabilities. These gaps contribute to a high incidence of preventable health complications and reduced life expectancy.
Efforts Toward Reform
While Brazil has established a strong legal framework for the rights of people with disabilities, including the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the enactment of the 2016 Law on Inclusion, the enforcement and practical implementation of these laws remain lacking in change. Legal rights exist on paper, but without mechanisms to enforce them, individuals with disabilities continue to suffer abuse, neglect, and loss of their freedoms.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiesand many advocacy organizations have called on the Brazilian government to transition from institutional care to community-based services that prioritize individual autonomy and family support. These efforts encourage the development of small, inclusive residences and group homes to reduce the dependence on large-scale institutions. Although some of these programs have been started up, they fall short of ensuring true independence and often lack the necessary resources to fully support residents in their transition to independent living.
Efforts to improve healthcare access are underway, focusing on providing disability-specific training to healthcare providers and addressing financial and physical accessibility challenges. These interventions are essential to improving the health outcomes of individuals with disabilities and to fostering an inclusive healthcare environment that treats people with disabilities as valued members of society.
Looking Ahead
The treatment of people with disabilities in institutional care settings in Brazil reveals a profound humanitarian crisis that requires focused attention. The combination of insufficient support systems, societal stigma, and legal challenges results in an environment where individuals with disabilities are denied their rights, autonomy, and dignity. While Brazil has made some strides toward recognizing and enshrining the rights of individuals with disabilities, significant gaps remain in the enforcement of these rights and in the availability of community-based alternatives to institutionalization.
Addressing these issues calls for a multifaceted approach, including policy reform, enhanced support for families, and the development of inclusive, community-based care. By prioritizing the rights and voices of individuals with disabilities, Brazil can move toward a more just and humane society where all individuals are treated with respect, dignity, and equal opportunity.
Content warning: this blog will include mentions of child abuse, child self-harm, child suicide, and child sexual abuse.
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTFs) are in-patient institutions that provide inpatient psychiatric care to people under the age of 21. They are a common form of short-term psychiatric care for young people. Children do not choose to be committed to these facilities, and they do not want to be. Two children said they were being treated like animals. Many said, “I don’t feel safe.”
Physical Abuse
Children in PRTFs are extremely vulnerable due to both psychiatric issues and the nature of living in institutionalized care. Facilities are often understaffed, leading to minimal supervision and increased opportunities for abuse – by staff and other children.
Image 1: A former child group home resident and his mother. Source: Yahoo Images
Further, due to apathy and unawareness from staff, children are also able to abuse other children in PRTFs. At Riverside Hospital in Virginia, a child was “repeatedly stabbed by another child.” At North Star Behavioral Health in Alaska, after two children were accidentally placed in seclusion together, one child gave the other a bloody nose. At the same Alaska facility, a child was “punched, slapped in the eye, and kicked by other children.”
None of these instances of abuse were reported to the children’s guardians in a timely manner. Some parents were never notified.
Staff members also allow sexual abuse to occur between children. At Devereux Brandywine in Pennsylvania, a 13-year-old boy asked not to be placed in a room with an older boy he was afraid of. They were placed as roommates, and “the older boy forced the younger child to perform oral sex on him on three successive nights in a walk-in closet.” This is one of many equally disturbing instances of staff enabling sexual abuse at facilities. One facility in New Mexico closed partially due to “the unchecked spread of HIV among patients” – something that brings to mind the hepatitis experiments of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s at Willowbrook State School, an infamous institution in New York.
Image 2: A postcard from Willowbrook State School. Source: Yahoo Images
Neglect and Unsafe Environments
Staff at PRTFs are often unable or unwilling to prevent children from harming themselves. Disability Rights Arkansas, the Protection & Advocacy Agency for Arkansas, reported that one girl “still had access to items to cut her arms. There were numerous new scars over her old scars.” The staff did not care. Another child at the same facility said that she had “used the second stall [with cracked and sharp shower tiles] to self-harm.” The staff did not care. If they had, the children in their care would be safe. A child at Palmetto Pines Behavioral Health in South Carolina “barricaded themselves inside of his suicide watch room…[and] used the plastics piece to cut his neck in an attempt to kill himself, but it was not sharp enough.” The staff did not care. A child at Provo Canyon School in Utah “caused personal injury during self-harm, with wounds that were one and two inches in length… through the fatty tissue.” At Oak Plains Academy in Tennessee, two 15-year-olds overdosed on Benadryl. The mother of one of them said, “I’ll never see her again; I just want justice for her; I just want her story told. And I want – I never want this to happen again to anyone.”
Image 3: A box of Benadryl. Source: Yahoo Images
Minority Children
Children who are also members of minoritized groups, especially children of color and LGBTQIA+ children, have even greater difficulties in PRTFs.
According to a Senate report, “[T]he longer an RTF stay, the longer a child is at risk of exposure to harms, including the use of restraints and seclusion, physical and sexual abuse, insufficient education, and substandard living conditions. This risk is heightened for children of color, LGBTQIA+ youth, and children with I/DD (intellectual/developmental disabilities) who are most likely to live in these settings.” Black children are 35% more likely than white children to be placed in institutionalized care facilities.
Cornelius Frederick, a 16-year-old Black boy from Michigan, was killed at a facility in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in April 2020. Seven male staff members restrained Frederick for 12 minutes. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide – asphyxiation.
In 2018, a gay 16-year-old was attacked while residing at St. John’s Academy, a Sequel facility in Florida. His attacker told him that he “didn’t want a fa***t in the pod.” Disability Rights Washington reported that two “crisis plans” for children residing at PRTFs used incorrect gendered pronouns when referring to the child. In 2020, two transgender girls resided at Sequel Courtland in Courtland, Alabama – a boys’ facility. One girl was being stalked by other residents. She did not feel safe.
Further Information
For further reading about the kinds of abuses that go on in these facilities, consider reading a blog I wrote in April about group homes. You can also reach out to local representatives about ending or reducing out-of-state institutionalizations, which are harder to investigate than in-state institutions.
In the 1840s, people with mental illnesses were generally imprisoned. That was due to the criminalization of many symptoms and a lack of societal acceptance. Although mental disability has not been a legitimate excuse for imprisonment, mental health problems are still significant in today’s prisons.
National Problems
Nationally, estimates for the percentage of inmates with a severe mental illness range from 15% to 20%. As previously mentioned, the Los Angeles County Jail was described by its sheriff in 2005 as the largest mental hospital in the country. At the Cook County Jail in Illinois, about 1/3 of the incarcerated population has a mental illness. According to the mental healthcare supervisor at the Gwinett County Detention Center in Georgia, the closure of a nearby psychiatric hospital caused the number of mentally ill inmates to skyrocket. In Polk County, Florida, the jail has a mental health unit based on psychiatric hospitals and “immediately put[s] them back on medication because the vast majority of them – the overwhelming majority of them — have decompensated.” In the U.S. Virgin Islands, individuals who were found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity – that is, who committed a crime but were determined not to be culpable due to a mental illness – are kept in the general prison population rather than being hospitalized. For that reason, the U.S. Virgin Islands has been involved in a class-action lawsuit, Carty v. Mapp, since 1994, one which shows no signs of being resolved.
These situations are exacerbated by the criminalization of symptoms and coping mechanisms of people with mental illnesses. Some people use illegal substances as a means of self-medication. Others steal food or break into buildings to find a place to sleep. Rather than investigating the reasons behind these crimes, people are incarcerated, sometimes medicated, and only occasionally given true mental health treatment. They are then released with no outside support or ways to continue accessing medications.
That is still entirely ignoring that prisons can cause mental health issues on their own. Solitary confinement, something that is widely used in American prisons, can cause or worsen symptoms of mental illness. Incarcerated people kept in solitary confinement are almost seven times as likely to harm themselves and more than six times as likely to “commit acts of potentially fatal self-harm” when compared to the general prison population.
Failures in the South
In 2017, a federal district court found that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) was providing “significantly inadequate care.” This decision came after years of litigation. The case, Braggs v. Dunn, is still ongoing almost ten years after it was first filed in 2014. Since then, little has changed in ADOC’s prisons.
An opinion given in the case mentioned Jamie Wallace and his testimony 36 times over 300 pages. Wallace was incarcerated in 2014 for the murder of his mother. He had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. He testified in December of 2016. He died of suicide ten days later while in a unit dedicated to severely mentally ill inmates. Five days prior to his suicide, a healthcare worker at the prison wrote that he was “using crisis cell/threats to get what he wants.”
Wallace was mentally ill. For that, he was punished by prison guards. He was disciplined twelve times for harming himself, six of which involved being subjected to solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is regularly criticized for being inhumane, and it is especially so for those with preexisting mental health issues. According to Solitary Watch, a non-profit dedicated to ending the overuse of solitary confinement, citing a 2014 study on the topic, “individuals placed in solitary confinement were 6.9 times more likely to commit acts of self-harm and 6.3 times more likely to commit acts of potentially fatal self-harm than people in the general population.” Adding that people with mental illnesses are more likely to harm themselves than people without paints a grim picture of what happens inside these walls.
After Wallace’s suicide, the court ordered an emergency plan to be made to prevent future suicides. That plan was too late for James David Johnson, who hung himself only a few days after Wallace.
The court also accused correctional workers of being ambivalent or actively encouraging suicide. “ADOC officers essentially called a prisoner’s bluff, and then that person attempted suicide.” During his testimony, Wallace said that a correctional officer handed him a razor blade and told him, “You want to kill yourself? Here you go. Use this.” The two parties in the case had previously settled over the issue of razor blades’ presence in crisis cells – the same kind of cell Wallace was able to hang himself in. This lack of awareness on the part of ADOC was only exacerbated by the chronic understaffing of mental health workers. In January of 2023, ADOC stopped reporting the number of deaths – both homicides and suicides – that occurred in its prisons.
In 2021, Disability Rights Mississippi, Mississippi’s federally mandated watchdog agency (protection & advocacy agency), filed suit against the Mississippi Department of Corrections due to severe mistreatment of numerous disabled inmates. One individual, who was described as having ADHD, OCD, and bipolar disorder, was refused access to his medications and, according to DRMS’s investigative report, “during suicide watch, recalls being told by a passing officer to go ahead and kill himself.” Another person with PTSD and bipolar disorder “needs… mood stabilizers. MDOC has yet to treat this offender.” The lawsuit itself, Wallace v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, reads, “DRMS has encountered many offenders who have attempted self-harm, which was ignored by MDOC staff. In some cases, the self-harm was encouraged by MDOC staff.”
Florence Supermax
A short time after Braggs v. Dunn, another lawsuit was filed for similar reasons – this time against the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, also called the ADX. Rodney Jones, who assisted in the early stages of the lawsuit and who was previously held in the ADX, told the New York Times in 2015 that a staff psychiatrist stopped the medication he took for his bipolar disorder because “We don’t give out feel-good drugs here.”
One of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit is Jack Powers. Powers was sent to the ADX after an escape attempt preempted by threats from members of the Aryan Brotherhood, some of whom he had testified against after witnessing the murder of a friend. All three men he testified against were being held at ADX Florence when Powers was transferred there. While incarcerated there, Powers “lost his mind.” He mutilated himself numerous times, including by removing his earlobes, chewing off one of his fingers, removing one of his testicles, and tattooing himself with a razor and black carbon paper dust.
Florence ADX Prison. Source: Yahoo Images
David Shelby was incarcerated for threatening President Bill Clinton after he “became convinced that God wanted him to free Charles Manson from prison.” While incarcerated, Shelby sliced off part of his finger and ate it. Herbert Perkins, another prisoner, attempted to cut his throat with a razor. After being treated, he was ordered to mop up the blood left in his cell – it had not been cleaned since he was taken to the hospital.
Conclusions
American prisons often have inhumane conditions. Those issues are compounded even further when the inmates in question have a mental illness. Prisons are unprepared to serve as psychiatric institutions, nor have they, overall, attempted to change to do so. Even so, that is what they are doing. Between the lack of adequate treatment, the negative psychological effects being incarcerated can cause, and the lack of assistance from correctional workers, it should be no surprise that rates of self-harm, suicide, and mental illness in prisons are so high.
Courts take time to process cases. This is demonstrated by many of the cases mentioned; Carty v. Mapp has been ongoing for 30 years, Wyatt v. Stickney ended in 2003, 33 years after it was first filed, and Braggs v. Dunn, one of the more recent lawsuits mentioned, is over a decade old. This is by design. A longer trial gives more opportunity for both parties to adequately present cases and, in the cases of these lawsuits, make changes. Despite that necessity, something needs to change. Mentally ill people are suffering and dying in jails and in prisons. The correctional system will not change on its own; it takes outside pressure to change things, and lawsuits, the most effective means of creating this change, take decades to be resolved. Systemic changes need to be made to how these prisons function and the societal role they play.
An empty room with three windows, all with long, sheer curtains. The two ceiling lights are off. Nothing but light can be seen outside the windows. Photo by Hans Eiskonen on Unsplash.
Mental Health, Autonomy, and Psychosocial Disability
In 1887, Elizabeth Seaman—better known as Nellie Bly—published Ten Days in a Mad-House, a collection of articles she had previously written for Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World. Along with cementing her status as a World journalist, her raw, unfiltered reporting offered thousands of readers a rare glimpse into a mysterious frontier: American mental asylums.
A Pennsylvania native, Bly’s anonymous newspaper pieces championing women’s rights soon evolved into a career based on investigative journalism. However, complaints from her subjects resulted in newspaper executives assigning her to less controversial topics. After years of rejection and gender discrimination, Bly made a last-ditch attempt to save her career by approaching Pulitzer directly and weaseling her way into a novel undercover assignment. Critics had called her insane her entire life for her risky stories, and now she had to play the part.
Bly’s articles quickly garnered attention for numerous reasons. For one, the story itself was sensational. After successfully feigning insanity with odd mannerisms and facial expressions, Bly found herself in New York City’s Women’s Lunatic Asylum after a medical professional declared her clinically insane. There she remained for ten days despite immediately dropping the act. During this period, staff allegedly attributed her every move, including normal behavior, to her supposed mental illness. This would have perpetually prevented her release had outside contacts not stepped into vouch for her sanity. By this time, Bly had risen to minor celebrity as New York questioned where this “pretty crazy girl” had even come from.
Sanitation was poor. Disease was rampant. Food and potable water were scarce, and the staff frequently resorted to physical and verbal beatings when dealing with those under their care. Upon her exit, Bly stated that she believed many women there were as sane as herself. If anything, the asylum’s treatment of already vulnerable women caused insanity.
A dilapidated wooden shed with some white paint on the door and bottom boards. It has two windows with broken glass and rusty frames. Behind it its dense woods. Photo by Lilartsy on Unsplash.
Life in Mental and Physical Shackles
Despite Bly’s work sparking outrage over a century ago, inhumane treatment of those with mental health disorders—or psychosocial disabilities—continues today. According to the World Health Organization, 1 in 8 people live with mental health issues. Without adequate support and resources, these conditions can quickly become disabling. Psychosocial disabilities share strong correlations with higher poverty rates, increased medical discrimination, occupational inequity, and other factors contributing to a generally lower quality of life.
In 2020, Human Rights Watch released 56-page document reporting rights violations of the mentally ill. “Shackling,” a recurring theme, was found in 60 countries across six continents.
Shackling is an involuntary type of hyper-restrictive housing. Although it does not include shackles specifically, restraints such as ropes, chains, and wires are commonplace methods in keeping the victim in extremely close quarters. These areas can be sheds, closets, or even caves. Similar to the asylums in Bly’s era, sanitation is a luxury. The detained person often eats, drinks, and defecates in the same space with little ability to prevent contamination.
The motives and background around shackling is a complex cultural issue. Some offenders tend to be family members who, despite loving the person, lack the resources and/or education to deal with mental health crises. Keeping the person confined can appear to be the safest option when confronted with the possibility of them hurting themselves or others.
Additionally, social stigma can create even more danger for the family as a whole as well as the mentally ill individual. Instead of risking exile or ostracization from the community, families may seek alternative healing methods at home, such as herbal remedies, that lack significant medical backing. This, in turn, can intensify psychosocial disability, leaving the family overwhelmed and confused with few options.
A photograph of a medical IV stand holding and empty IV bag on a dark background. Photo by Marcelo Leal on Unsplash.
Abuse at the Systemic Level
However, abuse does not just occur at the familial level. Mistreatment and abuse flourish in large institutions. The institutions go by many names: asylums, mental hospitals, psychiatric healing centers, etc. These are establishments, often state-funded, purposefully keeping those with psychosocial disabilities away from the general population. Although the institutions usually operate under the pretext of healing and protecting the mentally ill, many criticize the asylum system for blatant human rights offenses.
Paul and his companions walked in chains—literal shackles—and were not allowed clothing. His restroom was a bucket.
In the USA, a wave of deinstitutionalization in the 1970s shuttered many mental asylums, and psychiatric facilities still operating do so with varying levels of success. New York City’s mayor Eric Adams recently announced an expansion of a law allowing months-long involuntary commitment to hospitals for those who, due to mental illness, failed to acquire “basic needs” such as shelter and food. Hospitalization would, in theory, provide the psychosocially disabled with the time and education to recover and start anew.
Opponents quickly pointed out flaws in this process.
As with shackling, involuntary hospitalization represents a loss of autonomy. In a 2022 article in The Guardian, Ruth Sangree reflects on the USA’s changing legislation by connecting it to her own experiences. She describes the monotonous isolation, undercurrent of fear, confusion resulting by the sudden loss of control over her own life. As a nineteen-year-old with no idea of when she would be “set free,” Sangree focused on appearing normal in fear of indefinite hospitalization, regardless of the effectiveness of treatments.
There stands the argument of many critics of institutions: the system is ineffective at best and traumatic at worst. Still, rebuttals exist. In one Times piece, retired employees from a California asylum vouch for the happiness of their patients, stating they “blossomed” when provided with regimen and shelter. This view forms the defense for New York’s law revision, which frames involuntary hospitalization as a compassionate action for the patient’s own well-being.
Objectively, both sides claim to want the same thing: a better quality of life for those with psychosocial disabilities. It has always been the how that stirs debate.
Eight people of varying skin and sleeve colors standing in a circle with one hand each stacked on top of each other’s. Photo by Hannah Busing on Unsplash.
The Future of Mental Health Care
One factor in the corruption of institutional systems lies in language. Terms like “healing center” and “asylum” have historically protected potential perpetrators from legal action. Nellie Bly’s work helped lift the veil around mental health and disability, peeling away the euphemisms to reveal the abuse of a vulnerable population.
Today, watch groups exist for this reason. Organizations such as the Alabama Disability Advocacy Program (ADAP) examine the care of people with disabilities in facilities like hospitals, nursing homes, and schools, where caregivers can easily take advantage of those under their care. If rights violations are found, they can work with the facility to improve conditions or take legal action. These organizations exist on a state and national level in the USA.
Individuals can make a difference by simply learning about mental health and advocating for equal treatment of those with mental health conditions. #BreakTheChains is a movement led by Human Rights Watch with goals of educating communities to prevent the chaining of men, women, and children with psychosocial disabilities.
Additionally, awareness is key—October is recognized as mental health awareness month, and invisible disabilities week is in late October. Psychosocial disability month specifically takes place in July.
November 10 is the International Day of Science and Peace (IDSP), also known as the World Science Day for Peace and Development. The United Nations host this international event.
History of IDSP
Established in 1986, this historical day was initially developed to commemorate the birth of Marie Curie, a notable physicist and humanitarian. Curie was known for her innovative work within radioactivity, contributing to the discovery of radium and polonium. By 1999, its purpose changed to reflect the global needs of the scientific and humanitarian community, utilizing the day to affirm the global commitment to attaining the goals of the Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge. The day and annual summit unite governmental, intervention mental, and non-governmental organizations meaningfully to promote international solidarity for shared sciences between countries and renew the global commitment to use science to benefit communities that need it most.
The 2023 theme for IDSP will be “Bridging the Gap: Science, Peace, and Human Rights.” This emphasizes the interconnectedness between science and peace, having a role in advancing human rights. Science is a valuable tool for making technological advancements, but it is also helpful in helping address social issues, reducing conflicts, and sustainably promoting human rights.
Photo of space shuttle near body of water. Source: Flickr
Science and Human Rights
Science is frequently associated with helping improve medical interventions, solving coding bugs, and completing mathematical equations. However, contrary to popular belief, science is essential to human rights. Firstly, science has a valuable role in promoting sustainable development. Utilizing scientific methods, data can be collected to quantify the progress toward fulfilling the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ranging from climate change to poverty to infant mortality, scientific data collection and analysis methods are needed to efficiently and effectively respond to global issues. Research and innovation also contribute to the mobilization of resources to historically underserved communities, allowing them to gain access to necessities.
Within innovation, shared desires and interests help unite countries with singular goals. Scientific diplomacy is valuable in bringing countries to the table of collaboration. This deepens connections between countries as it relates to trade and commercial interests and helps foster peaceful relationships, prioritizing human rights.
With the appropriate distribution of resources, scientific advancements help improve the quality of life for communities internationally. Applying what is traditionally “scientific” to communities gives them a chance to live a better quality of life in a cleaner environment.
It is available to educate the public about the vital role of science and encourage innovation to solve global challenges.
How Countries Can Get Involved
Beyond participating in IDSP, countries can have a role in unifying science and human rights through many different avenues. One route is to protect and invest in scientific diplomacy. By allocating funding to scientific innovation and multilateral collaborations, governments can ensure that they can focus on shared goals with their international counterparts, working collaboratively to promote peace and cooperation. Another route is developing policies that protect innovation while developing guardrails for its usage, ensuring it is mobilized to those who need it most. States have a responsibility to be an advocate and protectors of their citizens, and by working to ensure that scientific diplomacy is used for the betterment of people abroad, they can elicit change in a meaningful way.
INTL and MAST Students Visit US Department of State Source: GU Blog
How Citizens Can Get Involved
Citizens have a responsibility to promote peace with science, as well. The role of a community member is to primarily use one’s voice to advocate for innovation and peace; by doing so and mobilizing one’s own story, organizations are held accountable for their actions. From governmental entities, non-profit organizations, and grassroots movements, stakeholders are supported by the citizenry. It is also important to have open conversations to explore further the nuanced introspection of science, peace, and human rights, continuing to promote awareness and understanding.
October 12 is International Day for Disaster Reduction (IDDR). This international event is hosted through the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). In 2023, the focus has been on fighting inequality and fighting to break the cycle of international disaster.
History of IDDR
IDDR started in 1989 as a call to action by the United Nations General Assembly to help educate and mobilize resources to reduce the burden of ongoing disasters and increase resilience. This annual event focuses on a different theme, interpreted from the “Sendai Seven Campaign ,” established in 2015 at the third-ever UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan. The framework proposed during this time helps mobilize resources to local communities to ensure they can act at capacity during times of need; this also allows for communities to be prepared not only for small-scale and large-scale disasters but also man-made, natural, environmental, and biological disasters.
People in hazmat suits tending to a chemical disaster during a mock drill. Source: American Red Cross Flickr
IDDR 2023
IDDR, in 2023, will focus on fighting inequality and issues and publish the results of the first-ever global survey on disability and disasters. This survey, with the purpose of championing disability and inclusion, was commissioned in 2013. 2023 also serves as a monumental year for IDDR as it is right after the midterm review of the aforementioned Sendai Framework; this review is vital, ensuring that progress is made to help accelerate action to rescue disaster disparities and prioritize resilience.
Current Burden of International Disasters
Disasters can happen at any time of the day. It is projected that by 2030, the world will face 1.5 significant disasters per day; this results in a total of 560 disasters per year. Of these disasters, a large proportion is caused by environmental, technological, and biological hazards. Disasters don’t discriminate and have an impact on all people; however, it is noted that they have a disproportionate impact on those with disabilities. This compounded impact results in the development of a perpetual cycle of disaster without resources being efficiently invested to prevent and manage these disasters.
Specifically for those with disabilities, it is noted that development infrastructure is not developed to be inclusive and is oftentimes overlooked during all stages of emergency management. This isolates those with limited mobility and requires a caregiver or other health services, preventing them from accessing resources that will allow them to recover effectively.
Within emergency responses, it is noted that people with disabilities are unnecessarily institutionalized during and after disasters; this further isolates them from their families, peers, and communities.
14 firefighters tending to a forest fire. Source: American Red Cross Flickr
Spotlight: Japan’s 2011 Earthquake
Though there are many examples of international disasters, the horrendous earthquakes in Japan in 2011 highlight the disparities those with disabilities face in times of national emergency. This earthquake, noted as the “strongest earthquake in its recorded history,” was not the only natural disaster that impacted the community; the earthquake caused a tsunami, which amplified the impact and the resources needed to remedy the issue. The earthquake and tsunami destroyed hundreds of businesses, homes, and nuclear reactors. The destruction of these nuclear reactors resulted in toxic materials being released into the environment and communities. Thousands of lives were lost; however,, approximately 25% were disabled. The infrastructure developed for emergencies did not serve them; oftentimes, evacuation centers were not accessible, did not have the needed infrastructure, etc. All of these factors resulted in many people with disabilities not having adequate assistance. These disparities are not unique to Japan and are seen internationally and domestically.
How Countries Can Take Action
The nature of disasters is cyclical; to have the most effective solution, it is vital to break the cycle and do so in a holistic manner. Firstly, there is the preventative lens of the disaster itself; it is vital to understand how disasters occur and to take the actions needed to establish early warning of these disasters. This allows countries to be prepared to make effective decisions that will have a positive global impact. Beyond this, countries and member states should take action to invest in their current infrastructure to make it more prepared for disasters. Though disasters can be mitigated through the above actions, they are not entirely preventable. Therefore, states should be prepared for their response to be inclusive for all; they must build capacity to accommodate vulnerable populations in their emergency response, including those with disabilities, older persons, and women.
How You Can Take Action
Acknowledging IDDR is the first step to helping advocacy for advancements in emergency responses and more equitable infrastructure during times of need. It is a two-pronged fork; communities should work to break the cycle of disaster by improving habits and holding entities responsible, but should continue to invest in making resources more equitable. As a community member, it is your responsibility to use your voice to advocate for both of the above. Another way is to use your time to volunteer alongside community and international partners who are working to make improvements. Together, we can break the disaster cycle and make emergency responses more equitable.
In the last blog, we covered the contextual history of the American Education System, primarily, who was allowed education, who was not, and even the differences in the quality of education that children in America received. We also explored the historical treatment of people with disabilities, both in the larger society, as well as in children with disabilities within the school system. Understanding the past is crucial to analyzing why certain events occur as they do in the future. That is what we set out to do in this continuation of the conversation about disabilities and the American education system. In this second part, we will focus on the realities children with disabilities witness within the education system, including the challenges they face, the school-to-prison pipeline that exists, and how this impacts their development (both mentally and physically). We will then explore how the recent pandemic exacerbated these conditions, and what sort of rights the children possess in this post-pandemic world.
Children with Disabilities in the Education System Today
Source: Yahoo Images
The many challenges faced by students with disabilities in the classroom
Children with disabilities today face many challenges within the classroom even without taking the pandemic into account. These challenges vary from physical barriers to socio-emotional ones. One thing that needs to be recognized is that not all disabilities are alike, and with various disabilities come various challenges. I don’t want to appear to be generalizing the struggles that children with disabilities face in the school system, because each individual’s experiences vary, even between different places. Some states within the United States may be very inclusive, while others may place the responsibility of accessibility on the people with disabilities themselves. Regardless of which state you live in, my goal here is to spread awareness of the various challenges that children with one or multiple disabilities face as they maneuver through their primary academic journey.
With that being said, one of the most common barriers that children with disabilities face is on the social level. Throughout history, children with disabilities have been separated from the rest of the able-bodied society, and this is also true within the school system. Many schools, when they began to accept children with disabilities into the school system, would educate them separately (in the basement or another room) from the other children. Even today, many children with learning and speech disabilities require additional help from trained professionals, which requires these children to spend extra time on their academics, and less time socializing with their peers. This naturally distances them from able-bodied children their age and can lead children with disabilities to become victims of many instances of bullying and harassment. A crucial element to consider is that while many children their age are dealing with the various emotions that come from development, children with disabilities have to deal with additional fears and insecurities surrounding their disabilities, as they learn to accept and adapt to life with disabilities. This can be challenging in and of itself, without having to deal with the social pressures from peers.
Additionally, while schools receive federal funding to meet the required measures for the children with disabilities within their institutions, this funding is limited, covering less than a quarter of the expenses needed to fulfill the required services for each student. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) we covered in the previous blog allows Congress to allocate up to 40% of the average funding per student, but unfortunately, this has never been exercised by Congress, and funding for special education programs continues to be miserly. Schools receive 15% of the funding they are allocated, but they are still required to fulfill all the mandated regulations simply for receiving federal funding. This means that they have to come up with the remaining 85% of the expenditures on their own, in place of the 55% they would be responsible for covering if Congress secured the full 40%. This can place additional strains on these schools that are already struggling for funds.
Furthermore, children with learning disabilities require trained professionals to provide them with additional support throughout their academic journey. Someone who is hearing impaired may require additional resources to combat the auditory issues they face, or someone who is visually impaired may require additional lessons on how to read in Braille. Others with learning disabilities such as dyslexia (which is a disorder in which someone has difficulty reading and processing language), may need additional patience and support to process the information they are learning. Public schools, by law, are required to provide assistance to children with disabilities and those who have been through traumatic experiences. Licensed professionals that focus on educational needs for children with learning disabilities can be hard to find, and this has only worsened due to the pandemic. As many as 44 states experienced this shortage even before the pandemic, and this number continues to grow due to the issues of limited funding discussed earlier. Without the necessary help that students with learning disabilities require, they continue to fall behind their peers academically.
Many of these challenges can be addressed with more funding allotted to the education system as a whole, and professions within the field of special education can be incentivized by the government (by for example, making the training programs free and accessible to those who are interested) to address the shortage of licensed professionals. The education being taught in the schools can be more inclusive of children with disabilities, with opportunities for the children to share their experiences with their peers and help remove the stigma associated with disabilities by normalizing helpful conversations around disabilities. While these challenges can have a great impact on the learning abilities of children with disabilities, there are some challenges that can have drastic impacts on their futures as a whole.
The school-to-prison pipeline
Source: Yahoo Images;
Unfortunately, along with an increase in school shootings within the educational system, another phenomenon that has become all too common is the use of law enforcement to discipline children. More and more stories have been reported regarding children with disabilities and children of color being subjected to drastic disciplinary measures by school systems. When a child “acts out” or showcases any behavior not supported by the schools, the educators have resorted to involving the law instead of following disciplinary protocols within the schools (such as contacting parents, placing students in detention, or for more serious issues, using suspensions). Police are called on these students, and educators watch as young children are punished for their misdeeds by being harassed by the police. In many instances, these incidents have turned deadly, as police officers have used full force on young children, to force them into complying, at times jeopardizing the children’s well-being. Children as young as 7 years of age have been placed in handcuffs and threatened jail time, for childish behavior such as spitting or throwing tantrums. This can be especially dangerous when children with disabilities are involved because they are accused of “misbehaving” when they are simply reacting differently to situations than their able-bodied peers. The police, with little to no training on the different ways to approach people with disabilities, only escalate the already tense situations.
According to a CBS News analysis of data from the Education Department in 2017-2018, children with disabilities are four times more likely to be arrested than their able-bodied counterparts. Another research conducted by Cornell University reports that 55% of Black men with disabilities have been detained before they reach the age of 28. Young African American children with disabilities, therefore, are the most at-risk demographic to face legal repercussions for “behavioral” issues common among most children their age. This phenomenon, known as the school-to-prison pipeline, which disproportionately targets students of color, (and children with disabilities), involves the use of the criminal and justice systems as a tool to discipline children. Unfortunately, these disciplinary attempts remain on the permanent records of the targeted children and can have lifelong implications that determine their future.
An example of this school-to-prison pipeline is clear when looking into some of the instances where law enforcement is used to discipline children. Jacksonville, Illinois is home to a particular school that makes use of its law enforcement officers for behavioral issues. Garrison School, a public school where children with disabilities in that region attend, has been in the news recently for the staggering number of arrests made within a single school year. Although the population of this school is an average of 60-70 children, the police, who are located less than 5 miles from the school, have been called over 100 times for “behavioral” issues, such as throwing tantrums and spraying water. An investigation into this school found that in the school year 2017-2018 alone, more than half of the entire student body was arrested. As the only public school for children with disabilities in that region of Illinois, caregivers are limited in choices of schools for their children. In addition to having disabilities, the children at this particular school have also experienced immense trauma and violence in their past. Arresting these children for their “behaviors” continues to place these children in traumatic situations, further impacting their development.
Impacts on children with disabilities’ development
Source: Yahoo Images
Using the criminal and justice systems to punish or “discipline” children with disabilities can have lasting impressions on the children’s futures. For one, especially children such as those from Garrison School, who deal with personal trauma and violence from their past, experiences with law enforcement can deteriorate their mental health even further. Even those without previous trauma can have lasting impressions on their academic success, meaning that children who have been disciplined with the use of law enforcement are even more isolated from their peers and can experience breaks in their educational journeys. Studies have shown that children who have their needs met are more likely to outperform those students who do not have their needs met. Linking back to the school-to-prison pipeline, those students who have been arrested and imprisoned as young adults are more likely to continue down this path of criminality. Additionally, students with disabilities that have been imprisoned have to face the added struggles of maneuvering the prison system with disabilities, and these struggles are increased with multiple disabilities, especially with invisible disabilities, in which case, many people may not even believe the existence of these disabilities. Studies have shown how incarceration can worsen issues of mental illness within the prison population, and when translated to the impact imprisonment has on people with disabilities, these conditions are exponentially worse.
How it impacts children with disabilities’ professional futures
In addition to the harm this causes to the development of children with disabilities, the practice of using law enforcement to discipline school children has far-reaching consequences. For one, the children who are constantly “othered,” bullied, or harassed by both students and teachers can internalize their experiences and react to them, increasing their chances of being disciplined again for behavioral issues. In addition to that, being imprisoned, even for a few days, can be a traumatic experience that can shape your worldview, and as a result, your future. For young, developing children, these experiences can be impressionable, and coupled with the isolation that many children with disabilities experience, this can be a devastating combination, resulting in the deterioration of the children’s physical and mental well-being. Furthermore, many of these zero-tolerance policies that end in the arrests of children happen due to the faculty members pressing charges against the children. These charges, though they can be sealed for juvenile offenses, can lead to more charges in these children’s future into their adulthood. A criminal history into your adulthood can result in slim educational and employment options. Research conducted more broadly on this subject has been reported by the Prison Policy, and it showcases how increasingly difficult it is to find decent employment upon exiting the prison system. The report adds that even when formerly incarcerated people do find employment, they are often paid fewer wages than their co-workers.
Applying this research to children with disabilities who are disciplined through the legal system, can be an even bigger challenge for their futures. People with disabilities experience many barriers to obtaining employment even without imprisonment on their records. Studies have shown how incarcerating children does not deter them from engaging in criminal behavior in the future; it might actually have the opposite impact. Finally, children who are incarcerated experience large gaps in their education, and this can impact their ability to successfully enter the job market. This issue is exponentially worse among children with disabilities because they are more likely to be imprisoned for “behavioral issues”, and expands the academic gap felt by so many children with learning disabilities who are already facing many social and learning barriers.
How did COVID make things worse for children with disabilities?
Source: Yahoo Images
The pandemic was a time of uncertainty, and many of us were scrambling around not knowing what to do. Even as more and more information came out about the virus itself and how to safeguard it, there was a lot of anxiety and misinformation being spread around. Children with disabilities had to navigate not only their personal lives with their unique experiences but also the larger society that was falling apart around them in the face of a virus. Many businesses and schools shut down in the beginning, which meant that children had to adjust to different learning styles, something that may have been easier for some, but widened the academic gap for others. Children with disabilities as a whole had to be mindful of the threat that the virus posed on their lives. This virus was especially deadly to those with pre-existing conditions and for those who were immunocompromised, both of which apply to many children and adults with disabilities. So, constantly having to live with the anxiety of whether or not they might contract the virus would have been stressful enough without the masking and vaccine debates that have politicized this medical crisis. What is worse, COVID-19 vaccines for children were not available for over a year after the pandemic first began, leaving this population vulnerable to infections with no way to protect themselves against them.
Additionally, along with their children, parents, and caregivers of children with disabilities faced new challenges as everyone attempted to adapt to the “new normal”. While the mandated quarantine helped with transportation issues for some, it opened up a whole new set of issues for many. Children with learning disabilities who received additional help from professionals either had to go without it or transition to seeking their help through zoom. For some, accessing help through Zoom and Telehealth was extremely helpful in addressing the medical needs of people, and this had a positive impact on people with disabilities as a whole. However, accessing Zoom and Telehealth was a challenge on its own for many who lived in rural areas or marginalized areas where internet services were very minimal or nonexistent, or simply unaffordable. The pandemic was a time when many people also lost jobs, so children faced additional financial repercussions from the pandemic. These instances further widened the academic gap among children with disabilities.
This blog mainly focused on the struggles that children face within the American school system. Part three of this series will focus on some of the approaches that have been taken historically when addressing disabilities, and some ways in which we can take action, on a personal level, on a local or national level, and even on an international level.
UAB is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution dedicated to providing equal opportunities and equal access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex (including pregnancy), genetic information, age, disability, religion, and veteran’s status. As required by Title IX, UAB prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity that it operates. Individuals may report concerns or questions to UAB’s Assistant Vice President and Senior Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX notice of nondiscrimination is located at uab.edu/titleix.
