Over, the past decade there has been many conversations occuring around how to address the significant disparities that exist around the state of Minnesota in the State of Minnesota, many of which have not been inclusive of the inequality that exists for Minnesotans with disabilities.
Historically, people with disabilities have been segregated in institutions. They have been placed in special schools, and enclaves and left to thier own devices on the margins of society. Such segregation has been ruled illegal after years of legal challenges by advocates, parents and self advocates.
Despite this and the fact that it has historically led on disability rights, Minnesota is posed to take a significant step backward with the creation of it's first Autism farm, basically communal agricultural settings where people with developmental disabilities can live and work.
Proponents argue that high support autistic people can’t live fully in the community but group homes cost too much, so the State should fund farm-based settings instead.
The premise is innacurate because high support people CAN and DO live in the community as evidenced by many examples. To suggest otherwise ignores successful, person-centered models in favor of more depersonalizing institutional settings.
The simple fact of the matter is that the overreliance on Group homes and the concept of farms/compounds are equally bad, and cost isn’t the real issue: the core issue is segregation.
While I am aware of the problems with the drop off in services and resources, for Adults on the spectrum, segregated farms are not a long term or legitimate solution. They are reminiscent of the colony model of institutions that arose in the 1880s and gained prominence in the early 20th century, as the eugenics movement ensured that they were packed with “feebleminded” people.
Back in the day, institutions required a large labor force to keep themselves operational and patients were doing hard labor for little to no pay with zero control over the Conditions in an entirely segregated setting. The practice came to a halt when the DC circuit court of appeals ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to institutional workers in their decision in Souder v Brennan.
It's not that segregated settings don’t have nice enough things, it’s that people are not treated as people; the institutional staff exercise total control and ultimately become custodial, often resulting with people being trapped in a cycle of neglect or mismanagement for their entire lives and ultimately marks the end of the road for the individuals that live there. And that’s the real tragedy: that there is not enough of a fight being put up for real community integration, not that the Medicaid settings rule wants to help people live in the community.
Furthermore the tactics of proponents are blatantly not ethical. A parent doesn’t get to expose someone else 's private information just to make a point. Your kid’s disability is not about you.Your kid’s disability is not your story to tell. If you want to help other families with tips on how to help their children, do it in private. If you do it in public at your child’s expense, you are not doing your job, which is parenting.
Our humanity and our dignity should not be conditional to how the world will see us through videos, pictures and comments from such parents. We have a right to integration and this entire concept entirely misses the boat in that regard.
