Civil Rights | Introduction
At the Alaska Bead Company, twenty-five-year-old Emily Ningeok carefully weighs out exactly two ounces of craft beads, places them in a small plastic bag, staples a tag on it, and puts the bag in the “done” pile. Working as quickly as she can, Ningeok fills fourteen bags in half an hour. She is an excellent parttime employee who works hard and gets along well with her coworkers. Ningeok is mentally handicapped, and therefore, despite her skills and pleasant personality, is lucky to be working at all. While employment discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and gender has diminished substantially in response to legislative and societal changes, prejudice against people with mental retardation has stubbornly persisted and continues to infringe upon their civil rights.
About 3 percent of Americans are affected by mental retardation—one family in ten will be touched by it in some way—according to the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC). Retardation affects one hundred times as many people as total blindness. It is twelve times more common than cerebral palsy and thirty times more prevalent than neural tube defects such as spina bifida. Despite the prevalence of mental retardation in the general population, many people are uneasy with developmentally handicapped adults. Bob Russell, founder of Custom Manufacturing Services, a Kentucky company with a workforce of 175 mentally handicapped people, explains how employers’ attitudes hurt both them and potential employees: “By looking constantly at people’s intellectual limitations, [employers] are overlooking a lot of potential positives . . . [and] low expectations of mentally retarded people keeps them from reaching their potential.”
Experts estimate that full-time employment rates for mentally handicapped adults range from 7 to 23 percent, with an even smaller percentage, 9 to 20 percent, employed part-time. Thus, most developmentally handicapped adults are either unemployed, work fewer hours per week than they would choose, or work at jobs below their skill level. According to ARC,
The majority [of mentally handicapped adults] are either unemployed or underemployed, despite their desire, and willingness to engage in meaningful work in the community. Of those employed, many have had no choice but to work in sheltered, segregated programs that separate people from their communities. Whatever the setting, few have had the opportunity to earn much money, acquire benefits, advance their careers, or plan for retirement.
While prejudice is not the only barrier to employment for mentally handicapped people—transportation difficulties and skill development are other problem areas—it is the most difficult one to overcome. Employers are often reluctant to recruit, hire, and train mentally handicapped individuals because they are not sure that they can accommodate the new hire’s special needs, such as a more extensive training period or extended mentoring. R.H. Carter explains in the Los Angeles Business Journal, “While the accommodations for people with physical disabilities are largely mechanical and visible, the workplace adjustments for workers with mental . . . disabilities are mostly invisible. They consist primarily of policies, practices, attitudes, and language.” Further, employers often worry that hiring a mentally handicapped person will create a safety risk, such as improper use of products or machinery, in the workplace. However, in a survey of employers in Oklahoma, 93 percent report that mentally handicapped employees present no greater risk than other employees. The President’s Committee on Mental Retardation concurs, reporting safety records equivalent to employees without disabilities.
Moreover, 95 percent of the employers in the Oklahoma survey relate that hiring developmentally disabled people did not adversely affect employee health and benefit programs—another common reason cited for prejudice against mentally handicapped workers. Mentally handicapped workers were comparable to employees without disabilities in performance, attendance, and tenure. Jonah Kaufman, owner of thirteen McDonald’s restaurants employing forty mentally handicapped adults says, “These people [mentally handicapped workers] never come in late and are rarely sick.”
While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 did a great deal to educate the public about the hireability of mentally handicapped citizens, the acts also raised concerns. Employers began to worry about being in compliance with the laws, concerned that their newly hired workers or the advocacy groups that represented them would sue them. The ADA opened doors to employment previously closed for some developmentally handicapped people, but it was not the cure for discrimination that the disabled community had hoped it would be. Other state and federal incentive programs—such as on-the-job-training reimbursements, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), and the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit provision of the Internal Revenue Service—did entice some employers to hire mentally handicapped workers.
Despite all incentives, however, discrimination continues and mentally handicapped people do not fare well in the job market. Statistics that compare the employment rates for mentally and physically handicapped people provide a telling commentary on the American perception of people with mental retardation: Individuals with physical handicaps are less likely to be discriminated against in employment than mentally handicapped people. ARC maintains that “while today’s [mentally handicapped] youth appear to be doing better in the job market, they still are unemployed to a greater extent than youth with most other disabilities and those without disabilities.” A survey of young mentally handicapped adults out of school three to five years revealed that 63 percent were not working.
Estimates place the cost in special services and lost wages as a result of unemployment or underemployment of developmentally handicapped people at about $6 billion a year. The toll in human suffering is incalculable—most people with mental retardation who are capable of working want to work. William Kiernan, director of the Institute for Community Inclusion in Boston, wrote in Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
Employment is a means to economic independence, a route to social identification, and a source for personal networking for most adults in U.S. society. . . . Unfortunately, for many persons with mental retardation, employment and the associate benefits have not been a realistic option.
However, despite intense competition for even minimum-wage jobs, Kiernan is optimistic that employment discrimination against people with mental retardation will decrease in coming years. While tolerance for mentally handicapped people in the workplace has not kept pace with acceptance of physically handicapped workers, minorities, gays, and women, employers have learned the value of diversity and are beginning to understand the economic and social benefits it can bring to their businesses. Kiernan explains:
The changing workforce, the increased emphasis on equality and opportunity, and the recognition that there is a need for a closer working relationship between employers and those charged with facilitating the entry into work of the nontraditional worker are all elements that in the coming years will create more jobs for persons with mental retardation.
Protecting the civil rights of all people within America’s borders—citizen or not, handicapped or not, regardless of race, religion, or country of national origin— is one of the greatest responsibilities entrusted to America’s leaders. The viewpoints in Current Controversies: Civil Rights debate many of the issues surrounding civil rights in the following chapters: Are Threats to Civil Rights a Serious Problem? Should Civil Rights Protections Be Increased? Is Affirmative Action Beneficial? Do Efforts to Prevent Terrorism Threaten Civil Rights? While all Americans treasure their civil rights, few can agree on how best to protect them.
