Future for the Disabled

I recall with ironic and embarrassed amusement the reactions of many people when handicapped parking places became the norm, ramps for wheelchairs were being built, and restrooms contained special stalls to accommodate the physically challenged. Some felt we were catering to the needs of a small minority and rebuilding society to accommodate the very few with disabilities. The move toward a lesser restrictive environment grew rapidly in the early 1970s with the US Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that helped fund accessibility requirements, and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that increased awareness and physical requirements, and prevented job discrimination based on disabilities. ADA has also contributed to building code accessibility by insisting on entrance ramps, wider doors, seating capacity, restroom needs, water fountains, and required elevators. In addition, we have all experienced the abundance of handicapped parking spaces (and perhaps emotion at those undeserving people who seem to take advantage of those spaces), intended to help disabled people have easier access to various facilities.

In some ways this has all been a drain on taxpayers, business owners, architects, and institutions. One could always attempt the old argument that the free market ought to determine the accommodations and needs of those who are disabled. Just as we tend to frequent the restaurant where we enjoy the food, price, and environment, so should a person with a disability frequent the places that provide the great accessibility for their needs, and that those businesses that recognize those needs, build accordingly, with the result being increased profit margins. But in fact, is that true?

Without legislation, would there exist handicap parking spaces or wider doors, or bathroom stalls with bars or elevators in every building? I seriously doubt it. The market, correctly, caters to the needs of the majority and is governed primarily through the resulting demands of the people by a process known as supply and demand. When there is a demand for particular goods, there is a supply developed to meet that demand, with an abundance of supply lowering the cost of the goods, and a limited supply causing greater demand and higher costs. But the question is: would the people demand accommodations for those with disabilities and only frequent those establishments providing easy access? Maybe, but it is questionable, especially considering the small number of people with this serviceable requirement.

So the government finds itself infringing on culture and society by seeking to legislate accessibility and services for those with disabilities. While it does not seem fair or right to force businesses and owners to provide easy access, and the cost can be astronomical, in the end, it gives people with disabilities freedom and rights to shop, work, and live in society that would otherwise be unavailable to them. This is an unusual and perhaps rare example of government intervention that demonstrates care, compassion, and positive results for those disabled people.

But what does the future hold for those with mental disabilities, those whose inherent aptitude is limited, those without the ability to hold down a steady job, those who cannot drive, or perhaps have trouble balancing a checkbook, or even difficulty communicating? Do we treat them as pariahs, blights on society, hopeless losers? In the not so far past, we would relegate them to prisons where many of them might get worse and never know a free environment. Maybe we should quickly send them to institutions so as to avoid thinking about them. Or do we instead, as a civilized society attempt to rise above the barbarisms of the past, provide options for them and find ways and means to integrate them into society whenever possible? In other words, can we provide the least restrictive environment possible? Is there a place in our world for someone with a mental disability?

As we slowly but surely become a more civilized world, we may find ourselves in a difficult, but morally responsible position to provide accommodations for the mentally handicapped as well as the physically handicapped. Obviously, every person is different and some require greater care than others, and it could be a long haul requiring many years of contention, questions, and doubt, but I believe we will one day embrace all disabilities as deserving of their rightful place among the citizenship of our world. Meanwhile, it becomes our responsibility and obligation for families to find ways to help their own, and to continue to refine civilization to include those with disabilities. We have come a long way in this regard, and I anticipate future growth in awareness and accommodations.

Special Education: After School, What?

With our middle son, autistic since birth, nearing the age of 18, but still needing 2 more years of school before completing his high school diploma, it occurs to me to ask what happens to him and countless others who have been guided, taught, and educationally nurtured throughout most of their lives. What do they do? Who helps them and are we prepared as a society for an influx of adult-aged special learners?

I read with interest, a little shock, and emotional disparity an article about the American playwright, Arthur Miller, known for Death of a Salesman, and The Crucible, and his Down Syndrome son, Daniel. (http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/09/miller200709?printable=true&currentPage=all)
It is a dramatic story of a public figure (Arthur Miller was once married to Marilyn Monroe) who rejected his son, sent him to an institution where he was mistreated, shuffled around, and finally adopted by a family he calls his own, never checked on him, and only near the end of the playwright's life, sought an opportunity to meet him. Ironically, in Miller's will, he made Daniel a rightful heir to his sizable fortune. It is also a historical, cultural study of the 60s, when parents did not know what should be done or could be done for their children with special problems. A prominent, well-known intellect, immensely respected for two long-running plays, in a moment of fear, or maybe anger, or lack of compassion, or maybe even misguided wisdom, sent his son to what he perhaps thought would be a better life for himself and the infant, who was projected to have a shortened lifespan. Perhaps most dramatically, this is testimony to the strength, joys, challenges, and boundless optimism found in children with disabilities. Incidentally, it must be noted that after the birth of Daniel, and subsequent rejection, Arthur Miller did not produce any great works of consequence.

In some ways, society has grown out of the prejudice and confusion of how to deal with children who have learning disabilities and physical anomalies, at least we are more sympathetic and understanding of these children and have dedicated more education money to the learning process. With this emphasis has come a greater commitment on the part of parents to keep their children in the home, avoid the institutions, and battle the learning challenges on several fronts. This idea comes at a good time in our culture with a stunning rise in children with autism and learning disabilities. Texas public schools are close to 12% in children enrolled in special education, and it is difficult to determine how many children are being served in private education or various non state supported institutions.

And with this knowledge, I come back to the question at hand, what will happen to these children when they become adults? Are these children, many with great problems, many with few, a drain on society without enough redeeming qualities to become contributing citizens? Or are there are enough programs to help these children when they become adults, adults with job needs, transportation needs, food and clothing, independent living as much as possible. And of course there is the age-old question, should the government even be involved in the helping the disadvantaged? Private charity and family responsibility are the primary methods for reaching out to the adults in our community desperately in need, but somehow I suspect many are not finding these sources. In the case of Daniel Miller, Arthur Miller's son, the state assumed responsibility but did an inadequate job at the time. Eventually, however, Daniel found a home and a loving family. How many are not as fortunate?

I believe there are indeed state-funded programs to help these adults, and I also want to believe that families are taking on more responsibility for their care. In our case, we have researched and sought legal council for ways to help Joel as he enters adulthood, and have decided to take advantage of the MHMR support system for helping Joel, plus have decided after much thought and prayer to assume responsibility for his care by keeping him with us at home until such a time that we are no longer able. There are still many questions we have regarding our son, such as a job, transportation, staying by himself, relationships, food, but overall we are confident in Joel's future.

Yet, I wonder what kind of societal responsibility we have or what state resources are available or how much family dedication there is for all those children not only with autism (some are estimating 1 of 165 children), but also with other learning disabilities, who will in the not so distant future become adults. This is not a question merely for those of us with children who qualify but ultimately is a question for everyone. At the same time, there is hope in this regard, for I was encouraged, in visiting with MHMR, to discover the diligent effort being made to identify adults in need of care. I look forward to this practice continuing.

Convenient Selflessness--Part II

As college students get ready to begin a new year of learning, I am concerned that many of them are searching for ways to help others when it is convenient to do so. Unfortunately, this can often interrupt the collective and individual learning flow and becomes a rationalization for personal mediocrity, an excuse for unproductive results, and often a bargaining chip for acceptance of lower standards. Let's take a marching band rehearsal as an example.

A marching band is comprised of individuals all working together for a common goal, combining music and motion in an eclectic and potentially glorious display of art, energy, sound, emotion, and dramatic presentation. Each person brings to the table a multitude of characteristics and background that make up the individual human spirit and personal definition, to include parental training, aptitude, emotional stability, interests, concepts, work ethic, learning styles, health, and psychological profile. These characteristics operate synchronistically to comprise the human being. As I reflect on the complexity of people, I am actually amazed that there any successful marching bands at all!

Nevertheless, the concept of marching band seems to work. It works due to selfishness! Each person without exception is responsible to learn the music, learn the moves, learn the right spot, apply the knowledge, skills, and energy necessary for success and produce excellence when it is needed. I recall having an ineffective teaching method of having the students help each other on the field in rehearsals. The students would quickly point out the flaws of the other students and "help" them into the correct spot, in addition, they would mention the wrong notes being played, and the multitude of marching mistakes. Soon the result was anger, arrogance, contentiousness, stress, and confusion. The students who were "absolutely certain" about their position on the field, blamed those who were incorrect, and left each rehearsal in disgust at the multitude of inept marchers "ruining" the excellence of the predicted performance. Those less certain (and usually more correct) felt somehow unimportant, flawed, and insecure as though they had no purpose and no rights to attempt something of this magnitude.

I recall the day I took a different approach as a marching band director and encouraged the "fix yourself and nobody else" teaching style. Soon I noticed greater independence, quicker growth and improvement from everyone, quieter rehearsals, and stunningly accurate results. The band demonstrated a higher standard through individual effort that lead to collective excellence.

Can adherence and commitment to selfish gain lead to selfless corporate results? I believe the answer is yes to an extent. I believe we should selfishly prepare for selflessness in order to accomplish the greatest good. One of the greatest examples of this is the life of Jesus Christ who spent most of his life becoming prepared for what would be a ministry that led to the ultimate sacrifice for mankind. Applying physical, spiritual, emotional, and mental energy gave him the necessary tools for His ministry that would become the finest example of selfless behavior the world has ever known.

This leads me to conclude that students should take the opportunity to develop themselves so that they in turn can one day help others. Selfish commitment to excellence can, if applied well and used wisely, be one of the best ways to benefit the collective whole. So as we begin a new school year, I want to encourage relentless dedication to excellence in developing oneself but never lose sight of the higher calling of ministering to others. True selflessness should not be only those times of convenience but in fact is a lifestyle that takes years to find fruition.

Convenient Selflessness--Pt. 1

Recognizing this will not be a popular position, nevertheless I feel a need to postulate on a subject that has recently become clear to me upon thinking about the new cultural emphasis on technology and its effects on students, young adults, and society at large. Many times I have read and heard speeches on the obvious selfishness of the upcoming generation, considered by many to be one of the most self-involved, self-serving groups of people the world has known. Speakers often have great examples to support their position, and use their thesis as a motivational tool for altruism, charity, and ultimately Christian behavior, pointing to Christ as a model of sacrificial actions, serving all of humanity with selfless acts of kindness by giving of himself regardless of personal discomfort, to the disregard of personal safety.

No doubt this is true and my purpose in proposing a different view is not to negate the tremendous far-reaching actions of the greatest man to walk this earth, a man whom we Christians exalt for His sacrificial behavior, wisdom, love, and charity; yet, I do wish to look at another angle, partly due to my tendency to be a contrarian, and partly due to seeing both some benefits to selfless behavior and some potential problems. I propose that students, in particular, need to guard against convenient selflessness that can become an obstacle to personal success.

I recently experienced some computer problems related to a music writing software program situation that rendered the program ineffective. Like many computer people, I often arrogantly believe that eventually I can figure out my own problems, but after two weeks, I decided to enter an online help forum and submit my problem. Within a few hours, I had 4 responses, one of which solved my problem simply, efficiently, and completely. Similarly, I had another problem related to the computer and this time found the solution on a discussion board. I did not pay for this help and in one case, it involved downloading a free program used to solve the problem. The sharing of information across the computer world is astonishingly beneficial and vastly necessary for those of us who lead active computer oriented lives.

People, in general, are quick to offer help and to reach out to those in need when they recognize a way to help a particular situation. Why do we love puppies so much? Is it the awareness that a puppy is helpless and needs loving attention? Why does the tenderness of a mother holding her baby melt and mold us into babbling, high pitched children when we get near? Our hearts soften when we see someone in a wheelchair or with a cast on a limb, and the flower business remains a major industry due to hospital stays and funerals. I recall conducting an experiment in a crowded mall by "accidentally" falling down and hesitating before getting up. As I expected, some walked by, trying to avoid looking at the poor soul, but many people reached out to help me up and ask if everything would were okay.

I suspect that had I been seriously hurt, requiring instant medical attention, most would have been quite hesitant to act on the need, but I believe someone would have contacted officials or sought medical help immediately. I believe we live in a world of "instant" good Samaritans who desire to reach out and help when it is convenient and easy. I believe we are facing an epidemic of short-term altruism that in some instances can cause more harm than good. There is nothing wrong with selfless, charitable behavior and certainly helping others can be considered a virtue, but I do question how giving are we really and at what point is our altruism limited to our own convenience.

I do need to be careful before proceeding further to clarify that I do not subscribe to the Ayn Rand philosophy of Objectivism, elevating selfishness to lofty position of great value, and I find the old idea of "Self-Reliance" proposed by Ralph Waldo Emerson to be naive and lacking in recognition of the major contributions of those many individuals whose aptitude or inherent limitations require benevolent intercession of other people, people who actively reach out to help those in need. And yet, as I will point out later, there are some major cultural and societal benefits to selfishness that cannot be ignored.

But I am once again reminded of Aristotle's philosophy of the virtue of moderation: the value of working to achieve a balance between extreme selfishness and selflessness. Of course a Randian would point out that altruism is a myth in that acts of kindness are not selfless but are, indeed, ultimately self-serving, benefitting a person's emotional need to help others and satisfying the requirement to be charitable. Such as the man who feels a need to perform one kind action per week, helping someone cross a street, giving money to someone who needs it, picking up trash, and many other acts of kindness, that while may seem immediately productive, may also be self-serving in motivation.

In this case, attitude and the heart of the individual comes into play which, of course, cannot always be determined. Therefore, one could argue, that while an act of benevolence may in fact be a selfish satisfaction of one's own emotional need to do the right thing, the result, regardless of the motive, is a positive and generally propitious gain for others in addition to oneself.

In the next installment, let us examine some examples of the benefits of some degree of selfishness. Don't give up on me yet. As has been hinted at, I am headed toward a recognition of the great teacher and savior of the world, Jesus Christ whose life practices were both sacrificial and examples of how self-awareness and self-serving actions can also lead to great gain for others.

Jeremy Lewis and the Sign

In the summer of 2000, I was in Dallas finishing up a great week of music and worship with the Baptist All-State Choir and Band when I received a call from my wife that one of my Howard Payne University Band students had been killed in a tragic automobile accident. I spent that evening in tears of sorrow as I reflected on the short but meaningful life of Jeremy. He was a fine 20 year old music major who played the piano, euphonium, and was engaged to be married. A class act in character and in appearance, Jeremy enjoyed a rather theatrical but pleasant approach to life, with styled hair, sharp clothes, and a warm personal presentation. The semester prior to his death, he and I had driven together to his home town band rehearsal and enjoyed visiting about band, church, and life in general.

His funeral was difficult, as all funerals are, and I among many others sang, played, and honored the memory of our friend. Subsequent weeks of honoring included endowing a scholarship in his memory, writing a piece of music for band which was later published, dedicating a concert to his memory, placing photos and a poem in the band hall, and making another trip to the cemetery to pay my respects. About this time, we had been working to have a more permanent marching band tower that would be safe (our old tower was a falling apart scaffolding), and provide a necessary platform for teaching. It seemed logical and right to call the tower the Jeremy Lewis Memorial Band Tower. Much of the money for the tower came from the two organizations, Kappa Kappa Psi and Tau Beta Sigma.

I approved of the sign and saw the proposed wording on a piece of paper. Much to my surprise, however, the sign was enormous, almost ostentatious, and covered the width of the tower with lettering equal to the size of the Howard Payne University sign. At the time and in the years that followed, my emotions ran counter to my logic. I was thankful and continue to be thankful that Jeremy's life made a major impact on so many including myself, and the sign was another way to honor his memory. And yet, it was the life of Jeremy that was not diaphanous and all the signs in the world cannot supplant or even supplement his remarkable contributions and his significance to all who had crossed his path. A sign is only a material object, not a person.

Two recent events led me to remove the sign which was not done in any kind of "cowardly" fashion but rather was done in the middle of the day. One was the tragic death of Shane Ewen, another Kappa Kappa Psi brother from an earlier generation who deserves to be honored in some way, and the second was the acceptance that our band tower was and is unnecessarily high considering the size of the band. In addition, with the upcoming construction on Mims, it seemed a good time to consider selling the tower, replacing it with a smaller, mobile one, and placing upon it a smaller, commemorative Jeremy Lewis sign. Further refection made me realize that all our lives have meaning and it is time to find a way to acknowledge other music and band alums who have passed away.

So with a conflict of emotions, I removed the sign hoping my Kappa Kappa Psi brothers would accept and understand that the time had come for a change. My own son, Jacob, helped considerably with a supportive email he sent to the brothers of the fraternity. Rather than expend our emotions in anger over the sign, I would prefer, and I believe, so would the family, that those who wish to honor Jeremy's memory, consider giving money to the Jeremy Lewis Scholarship. I can think of no better way to keep Jeremy's memory alive than to perpetuate his life through future lives of music students.

If you feel a need to disagree or agree, please contact me directly or you may respond to this letter. This has not been an easy decision for me, but after much prayer and thought, I felt it was time. I mostly welcome your ideas on how we can honor the passing of other band and music alumni. I am considering a plaque for the display case in the music building, or perhaps a memorial on the side of the building, or maybe even a walkway. Please let me know your thoughts.

Loving Patience!

Okay, it is true, we were slobs. Not everyone, just 3 of us were slobs, and not complete slobs but just generally messy. We weren't messy in the same way nor at the same time, but nevertheless being neat was at the bottom of the list of importance. The fourth member of the family was the organized and tidy one. The 3 boys were "creatively organized" and the mother was fastidious. It made for a tough household situation, but somehow she dealt with it magnificently with great patience and a loving guiding hand that only a Mother knows how to manage. 3 against 1, what great possibilities for battles, disagreements, contentiousness, and maybe family war that could be, and yet, what really happened? A glare, or a few words and she usually won!

Yes, there were the frequent speeches about picking up our clothes, making our beds, sweeping the garage, taking our dishes to the kitchen, wiping up the messes, being more careful, fixing the cushions, picking up the toys, putting the balls in the closet, wiping our feet, taking off the occasional wet shoes, and unraveling the latest wild invention such as the automatic bed maker, the clothes shaper for ease of dressing, and the new object designed for making noise. Later years included picking up musical instrument paraphernalia such as slide grease, valve oil, mouthpieces, hand guards, water bottles, manuscript paper, music, records, and a seemingly unlimited supply of books.

On top of this chaos of fun, knowledge, and creativity, we 3 led very busy lives requiring quick meals, transportation to and fro, rehearsals, lessons, games, eventually dates (well, 2 of us anyway had dates), and an infinite number of church obligations from ranging from services, fellowships, practices, various socials, Royal Ambassadors, and even meetings. My father, with memberships in the Optimist Club, Credit Union board, Community Band, various civic organizations, and two jobs received the most attention but his two boys were close behind, and in different but oddly similar ways, remained exceedingly active throughout their formative years.

The abundant flowing of creative ideas in my home were matched by a roller coaster of emotional ups and downs--easy to imagine with 2 messy sons and 1 messy husband who never seemed to run out of a new ideas--with an ever-present blanket of love that enveloped our household regardless of the circumstances. We were not afraid to fail, not afraid to try, and always willing to take a risk for the moments of success. This energetic, intense application of all endeavors resulted in occasional tears of sorrow and, more importantly, the sharing of a multitude of joys and excitement when something worked out as hoped. When I think back on growing up in the Tucker home, I am humbled and amazed at the complexity that surrounded our lives.

But behind it all stood a woman with immense patience and tolerance who made the events, situations, and mostly success possible. My mother. Breakfast every morning, dinner on the table every evening, clean up quickly without help, rush a boy to an event, return to bring him home, get the boys in bed, wait up for them in later years, clean the house, wash the dishes, fold the clothes, hug the boy when appropriate, scold when needed, and mostly stabilize what could have been constant creative chaos. She was infinitely patient and hard-working and mostly supportive of her right-brained family, and while she may not have understood the excessive originality of each boy, one of which was her husband, she somehow respected it, and encouraged the gifts rather than stifled them. In addition, she eventually had her own successful career, which continues today with the not unexpected selflessness of her life as a wife and mother shining forth in her current activities as a college teacher.

How she put up with us, I will never know. We probably rarely helped around the house, and, of course we were much too busy to ever cook or clean up, and staying organized was a total mystery to the three of us, but somehow she kept up with our lives, our schedules, our personalities, and unconditionally offered us motherly love and attention. Thanks to my mother and all mothers who put up with so much.

I must laugh as I hear my wife remind us, 4 boys this time, to clean up our mess, make the beds, straighten the office, take off the wet shoes, and sweep the garage, and I marvel at her ability to scold when needed, and hug when appropriate. I guess nothing ever changes the constant devoted love of a wonderful wife and mother!

Joel the Organist

Upon completing the previous blog on Joel, I realized most of the attention was on Joel as a listener and appreciator of music, but mention should be made that Joel is also a performing musician with his choice of media being the pipe organ or the electronic organ. In many ways, it is difficult to explain why he prefers the sound and style of the organ over other instruments and it is equally difficult to understand his desire and almost need to play hymns on an organ, and yet, there is no doubt, that Joel loves playing hymns on the organ.

The organ is considered the "king" of all the instruments with its almost infinite combinations of sounds and possibilities of range and dynamic extension not to mention the requirement to use both hands and feet in a complex display of virtuosity and musical comprehension. Organists are generally highly intelligent, detail oriented, multi-dimensioned, with a quiet strength and self-confidence born from playing an instrument with the capability of dominating all other sound.

Unlike a piano which relies on a pedal to provide for a sustained quality, the organ has a smooth, sustained quality that requires a special playing technique of connecting the notes by pressing the next note at the same moment the previous one is lifted. The result is a beautiful non-percussive approach to playing that allows for great expression and elision of musical phrases.

As was mentioned in an earlier blog, Joel's propensity to see the world "non-percussively," optimistically, and harmoniously, and his preference for smooth music without the harsh angles often found in music is manifested in the type of music he enjoys hearing and performing. Related to this is his speech which often lacks definition, articulation, and even volume. He intends to speak clearly, enunciate accurately, and loudly enough to be heard, but the result is often somewhat slurred, hesitant, and at a low dynamic. In an odd, but not necessarily negative way, Joel's speech patterns resemble that of an organ: connected, non-percussive, rich, pleasant, and congenial.

In conclusion, I believe that Joel's preference for hymns and marches is indicative of his general positive demeanor, total tolerance, and acceptance of all things good. I also contend that his desire to practice the organ is an extension of his own unusual approach to speaking and his preference for connected sounds rather than angular, sharp sounds. This is, of course, difficult or maybe impossible to prove, but nevertheless Joel continues to enjoy playing hymns on the organ and he is very happy to practice for several hours a day. His tendency to repeat the same hymn in the same way will be dealt with at another time.