Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:10:03.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Minority Group Model and Persons With Disabilities: Toward a More Progressive Disability Public Policy in the United States of America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2015

Corey Leshandon Moore
Corey Leshandon Moore*
Affiliation:
Little Rock, Arkansas
*
Corey Leshandon. Moore, 1602 Green Mountain Dr. Apt 311V, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Get access

Abstract

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are evidence of the progress, in relation to civil rights, made in the disability public policy arena. Similarly, much progress has been made in regard to societal values and attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Although much progress has been made for persons with disabilities, there is much work to be done. An abundance of concerns have recently surfaced regarding whether the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA effectively address the rights of persons with disabilities. In light of recent concerns, some social scientist have advocated the minority group model as a catalyst for creating public policy that will effectively address the rights of persons with disabilities. The belief is that this perception of persons with disabilities would further progress society's value of promoting the well being of others, respecting the rights of others and promoting the fair distribution of society's resources. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to support the hypothesis that society's perception of persons with disabilities as a bona fide minority group will change societal values resulting in a more progressive public policy.

Type
Articles
Information
The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , 1998 , pp. 36 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J.E. (1991). Judicial and regulatory interpretation of the employment rights of persons with disabilities, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (3), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, B.M., & Barnart, T. (1993). Moral entrepreneurship and the promise of the ADA. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4 (1), 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannerman, D.J., Sheldon, J.B., & Harchik, A.E. (1990). Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23 79–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benshoff, J.J., & Souheaver, H.G. (1991). Private sector rehabilitation and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (4), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, J.O. (1995). Employing people with disabilities: Impact on attitude and situation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 40 (3)m 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilkin, D. (1988). The myth of clinical judgement. Journal of Social Work, 44 (1), 127–140.Google Scholar
Britt, J. (1988). Psychosocial aspects of being female and disabled. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 19 (3), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhauser, R.V. (1992). Beyond stereotypes: Public policy and the doubly disabled. The American Enterprise, 3, 60–64.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. (1994). Unintended consequences in public policy: Petsons with psychiatric disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Policy Studies Journal, 22 (1), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, N.C. (1991). Disability policy and law: Impact on public sector practices. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (4), 24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danek, M.M., Parker, R., & Skymanski, E.M. (1991). Disability research and policy: Forging an alliance. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (4), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, M., & Ash, A. (1988). Disability beyond stigma: Social interaction, discrimination, and activism. Journal of Social Issues, 44 (1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C.A., & Wadsworth, J.S. (1991). Individualism and equality: Critical values in North American culture and the impact on disability. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (4), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, H. (1985). Toward a politics of disability: Definitions, disciplines, and policies. The Social Science Journal, 22 (4), 86–105.Google Scholar
Hahn, H. (1987). Civil rights for disabled Americans: The foundation of a political agenda. In Garther, A. & Joe, T. (Eds.), Images of the disabled, disability images (pp. 181–203). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 44 (1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzbauer, J., & Berven, N. (1996). Disability harassment: A new term for a long-standing problem. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74 (5), 478–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopelman, L.M. (1996). Ethical assumptions and ambiguities in the American with Disabilities Act. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 21, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuehn, M.D. (1991). An agenda for professional practice in the 1990s. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (3), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maki, D.R., & Riggar, T.F. (1991). Disability policy and the laws: Implications for professional practice in the 1990's. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrone, W.P. (1991). The federal legislative process for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (3), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. (1988). Summary of existing legislation affecting persons with disabilities. Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 302 996)Google Scholar
Perlman, L.B., & Kirk, F.S. (1991). key disability and rehabilitation legislation. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (3), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, S.E., & Roessler, R.T. (1987). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (3rd ed). Austin, Texas: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
Schriner, K. (1996). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992: Initiations and issues. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 27 (1), 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, J. (1994). Disability policy and the media: A stealth civil rights movement bypasses the press and defies conventional wisdom. Policy Studies Journal, 22 (1), 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M.J. (1991). The role, function, and responsibilities of rehabilitation consumers and professionals in disability policy and law. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (4), 32–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scotch, R.K. (1988). Disability as the basis for a social movement: Advocacy and the politics of definition. Journal of Social Issues, 44 (1), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvers, A. (1996). (In) equality, (ab) normality, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 21, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stothers, W.G. (1992). Disabilities, the disabled and the media. The Quill, 80, 17–19.Google Scholar
Tarvydas, V.M., & Cottone, R.R. (1991). Ethical responses to legislation, organizational, and economic dynamics: A four level model of ethical practice. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22 (4), 11–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, B.P., & Goldstein, B.A. (1991). Legal rights of persons with disabilities: An analysis of federal law, Horsham, PA: PRP publications. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 453)Google Scholar
Wenig, M.M. (1994). Women with disabilities: A challenge to feminist theology. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 10, 129–134.Google Scholar
Wright, B. (1960). Physical disability: A psychological approach. New York: Harper and Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar