“Cambridge is often called a progressive city,” observes an Aug. 29 letter by the newly formed Cambridge Progressive Electoral Collaboration, but “for many residents that is not the reality.” What is also true, and more troubling, is that Cpec’s agenda for the November elections replicates one feature of that unreality.
Behold Cpec’s questionnaires for City Council and School Committee elections, in which the progressives query the candidates about drug addicts, tenants, “homeless individuals,” indigenous communities, poor people, college students, taxpayers, immigrants, “communities of color” and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex and asexual persons. City Council candidates are even quizzed about Palestinians who do not live here.
And what do the progressives ask about the city’s disabled residents? The council questionnaire acknowledges their existence once in its 59 paragraphs, lumping them in with the elderly, as though all disabled persons are elderly. The School Committee questionnaire makes no mention of special education, which represents up to 30 percent of the total enrollment of some schools and 29 percent of the district’s entire budget. If you are a disabled adult or child, your needs and desires – to receive a nonsegregated education, to cross a street without getting walloped in a bicycle lane – are not electoral priorities.
The absence is particularly dismaying in housing policy. According to the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition, one of the eight Cpec member organizations, “Cambridge needs a housing plan that prioritizes the needs of Black, brown and no-income, low-income and moderate-income people.” Actually, progressives need to kick the failed, self-serving identity politics of the 1990s. An intellectually disabled special education student could be white or black, rich or poor, intersex or not. No matter where he or she or they or it falls on the progressives’ dropdown menu, the state’s education obligation ceases at age 22. At that point, our city offers zero housing options to keep body and soul together. Seventy-two percent of intellectually disabled adults in Massachusetts live with their parents, at least until the hell of a group home beckons.
So here are a few candidate questions missing from the progressives’ agenda:
(1) The city’s housing eligibility tool does not ask whether applicants have a disability. Nor does the covenant of the Affordable Housing Trust contain an inheritance provision for owners who have children with disabilities. Would you support adding the eligibility criterion and the provision?
(2) High Spirit is a shared-living, intentional community in Western Massachusetts. Founded by a Cambridge couple and funded by the state’s Department of Developmental Services, it is a rare example of political imagination in disability housing. Do you support High Spirit’s legislative efforts to replicate its model? What policy mechanisms might introduce shared living to Cambridge? (Remember urban communes?)
(3) The city’s annual census reports party affiliation, nationality, military service, date of birth, occupation and number of dogs, but not disability status. The Equity and Inclusion Dashboard at the Community Development Department reports gender and ethnicity characteristics of the city’s workforce, but not disability status. Other than public handicap parking spaces, the Open Data Portal contains no municipal-level information about disability at all. Do you support adding disability status to the city’s collection of data?
(4) The Cambridge Program for Individuals with Special Needs is an excellently run social recreation program. Do you support increasing its funding, so it does not have to panhandle to private donors?
(5) The school district’s Special Education Parent Advisory Council is among the most anemic in Greater Boston. Do you support a restart, and then a Sepac voice at School Committee meetings?
(6) The school district forces parents of special education students to sign nondisclosure agreements as a condition of settling grievances, appeals and complaints. Do you support ending this noxious practice?
Even if our progressives don’t remember, please be sure to ask the candidates about the city’s most vulnerable residents. If you are feeling bold, you could even ask candidates for their most creative disability initiative. Just don’t hold your breath.
John Summers, Fairmont Street, Cambridge
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
In attempting to raise some valid concerns, this commentary undermines itself with tone.
Sneering at “dropdown menu identity politics,” mocking “Palestinians who do not live here,” and the pronoun riff (“he or she or they or it”) alienate more than persuade.
The claim that the disabled risk “getting walloped in a bicycle lane” is misguided. Bike lanes make streets safer for everyone. People are far more likely to be hit by cars than bikes. By reducing accidents, bike lanes also prevent injuries that create disabilities.
The letter also misses an opportunity: CPEC’s stated goals, equity, inclusion, protecting vulnerable groups, are fully consistent with disability justice.
Framing the critique as an extension of those principles, and centering housing on economic need (which naturally includes disabled residents), would have been constructive.
Instead, derision of progressive rhetoric makes the piece come off as reactionary rather than a serious contribution.
“If you are a disabled adult or child, your needs and desires – to receive a nonsegregated education, to cross a street without getting walloped in a bicycle lane – are not electoral priorities.”
Bike lanes are not a threat to disabled people, in fact many disabled people rely on them due to inaccessible sidewalks.
The real threat to disabled people is cars: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829222001575
Car crashes are also frequently disabling events. Equating concern with the needs of people with disabilities with opposition to safe bike infrastructure is simply baseless and needs to stop.
As a parent with a disabled child, I can attest to the author’s comments on the lack of a real Special Education program of any substance.
In 1990 when my developmentally disabled son started school we had high hopes. By the time he had been mainstreamed through 3 grades, over my objection, he was lost in a standard classroom
At the time, we were allowed to place him elsewhere if he was not progressing. We moved him to a program in Lexington, and today, he can read and write, and has a great life.
It is my understanding that not much has changed in the ensuing years.
As an older resident, I often feel vulnerable. I can’t move as quickly as I used to, and since I no longer drive, I spend a lot of time as a pedestrian.
The bike lanes have made a real difference for me. They make crossing the street feel safer by reducing how long I’m exposed to cars. I don’t understand why the commentator isn’t more concerned about the real dangers cars pose. This is something I worry about every day.
I’m also confused by the point about housing. From what I understand, Cambridge’s housing efforts are meant to support people with limited resources. Is the author suggesting that assistance should instead go to people who already have the means to live here? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Reading the commentary, I didn’t find it constructive. It felt less like an attempt to work toward solutions and more like frustration directed at progressive policies and groups trying to help.
I’m confused why disability should be included on the eligibility tool, when disability isn’t one of the criteria for housing eligibility. That tool is not used for applications, it’s just informational to tell potential applicants if they’re even eligible for housing assistance.
Bike lanes provide a safe route for wheelchair users to move throughout our city. Have you seen our sidewalks? Bricks are gorgeous, but they’re a bad paving material.
This article is filled with important points. Disability rights must continue to be prioritized and unfortunately, this is not happening with the current council. Just this month, a plan was released to add bike lanes on Broadway and the draft calls for the removal of handicapped parking spaces outside of CRLS. If this happens, people with disabilities will no longer have an easy entry into the school which will be tremendously harmful.
@Scott Ron, I don’t believe there are any existing handicapped parking spaces on Broadway adjacent to CRLS, not according to the city’s website at least: https://www.cambridgema.gov/iwantto/parkacarincambridge
There’s two spots on Cambridge Street, but none on Broadway. The proposed changes to the street don’t actually change anything in that regard.