There’s an article from The Mighty circulating the internet called “I Couldn’t Find a ‘Back to School’ Ad That Included Kids With Disabilities… So I Made My Own” Maybe you’ve read it, or maybe you’ve already shared it.
It’s a
well written article in which the author expresses her frustration about the
lack of disability representation in online back-to-school ads, so she creates
her own. And I agree. Disabilities are absolutely under-represented in all
forms of advertising.
But
here’s where I got stuck: This author assumed (you
know what they say about assuming…) that all disabilities are visible. In
looking for a “child who looked like her daughter” she may well have overlooked
children with Dyslexia, ADHD, social issues, anxiety or other psychological
issues, those with mental illnesses and many others. Is it accurate to say that
each child in each ad she shared in her post doesn’t have some form of a
disability? Can she really assert; “Not one model in close to 50 ads included
one child with a disability. Not one.”? I will graciously stand corrected if
she did the research and verified that each child is typically developing. But
I am very uncomfortable with the assumption.
People
with disabilities and their families do not want assumptions made about them. None
of us do. But this article made assumptions FOR them. Is that any better? I
realize that some may argue that this is a bit of semantics, but hear me out.
If we are truly invested in creating a more inclusive society, then the rules
have to be consistent; for everyone. If it is unfair to make assumptions about
a person’s needs or abilities without getting to know him/her, then it is
unfair to assume that every child or person we see in an advertisement is
neurotypical. The truth is that not
all disabilities are visible. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment