State of Utah Practices Institutional Discrimination against Handicapped

Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.  This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".  It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction going on to influence the individual's actual behavior towards the group leader or the group, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.

The State of Utah routinely discriminates against drivers with disabilities by subjecting them to unnecessary road tests and medical exams, and imposing arbitrary restrictions on their driving.

The Utah Drivers License Division applies its Medical Evaluation Program – meant to identify drivers with medical problems that might cause them to crash – to punish drivers who are capable and safe, but have a physical disability. The practice is based on stereotypes about people with disabilities, and it serves as a punitive imposition on those drivers, who must spend extra time and money proving they don’t pose a risk.

Presumed guilt unless and until they can prove innocence to the satisfaction of the State of Utah.

The State of Utah Drivers License Division presumes to interpret every possible evidence by their own privately held and arbitrary set of special rules. The propriety of their management of such concerns is not in question. The problem is a presumptive overreach that extends far beyond any reasonable measures. Such abusive bullying is clearly a violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

Obviously, disabled people over the years have endured being subjected to this institutional prejudicial discriminatory attitude. Though the State treats them capriciously, and bullies them into fearful submission, almost all fear to complain, as the State routinely threatens to restrict or revoke their licenses in reprisal.

The State commonly cites medical conditions affecting a person’s ability to drive as the cause of automobile accidents. But there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that drivers with orthopedic impairments, or who use adaptive hand controls, present any increased accident risk.

The State of Utah mandates that health care providers report when patients in their care are treated for any of the health conditions iterated on their list of politically-incorrect conditions. Once a driver is forced into the Drivers License “medical review” program, he or she remains there forever, without hope of reprieve. While in the program, drivers are routinely required to undergo special medical testing, and forced to provide documentation from doctors and therapists disclosing personal medical information that is otherwise supposed to be protected from such government prying. Handicapped people are routinely subject to a set of totally arbitrary special restrictions placed on their licenses. The State is not required to justify or substantiate, and generally gives the impression that there is no possible appeal from their permanent punitive measures.

Among the unjustified restrictions imposed against me personally by the State:

• Limit maximum operating speed to roads with speed limit of 40 mph or less
• Distance from home I am permitted to travel must be within a radius of 15 miles
• Restricted to daytime driving
• Prohibited from travel on freeways and interstates
• Prohibited from travel in areas with higher speed limits
• Restricted to operation of my own vehicles only when accompanied by a fully licensed “normal” driver

The State of Utah has already revoked my driving license, so there is really nothing they can do to impose further additional punitive measures or implement additional arbitrary restrictions. They have to be satisfied with fabricating results from the “driving test” that fail to qualify for their standard of drivers license renewal. I suspect they enjoy the feeling of smug moral superiority that derives from such abuse of the public trust.

A good place to address this problem would be to put a stop to the routine discrimination against drivers with disabilities based wholly on speculation, stereotypes and generalizations. The State of Utah is not entitled to act based on their suspicion that a particular driver MIGHT be dangerous. Either I am, or I am not. Prove it.

Since the State of Utah Drivers License Division has demonstrated an ingrained, institutional predisposition to such behavior, it would be fair and appropriate for their records to be regularly subjected to routine audit by an outside independent and objective auditing agent. This auditing must needs be conducted at random intervals selected by the auditor and unannounced to the management, so that the Drivers License Division is unable to easily falsify or sequester appropriate documentation.

It might also be effective for the State to intervene with at least temporary qualified independent management oversight, since the abuse of public trust is apparently found through all levels of this bureaucratic institution. These discriminatory practices are obviously not the fault of any one particular individual, although I have met certain people who exhibit the greatest enthusiasm for pursuing the job of punishing handicapped people. Perhaps some of them fully believe that they are just doing their duty. And that is probably the most unfortunate aspect of all these problems.

The State of Utah publishes an elaborate and comprehensive summary showing numerous charts and statistics regarding all motor vehicle accidents.  There are no graphics or statistics to substantiate the prejudice against handicapped drivers, though there are other circumstances which are clearly related to the incidence of traffic accidents.

Apparently they don't really bother to read their own reports.

Overall, a general attitude seems to prevail in  the State of Utah Drivers License Division that is so aptly and succinctly characterized by one of their recent public service ad campaigns.

In my case there is an implied comma after the injunction.

They seem to be saying, we automatically assume a priori that the people we work for are stupid, and treat them accordingly.  And of course, that prejudice goes double for handicapped individuals.  The contemptuous and parochial posturing apparently informs this attitude and the institutional policy that formalizes it

More about the driving test results...

Triumph of the Subjective

From my personal perspective, it has become progressively more obvious to me.  Experience spells it out plainly now.

To me there is every appearance that philosophical dependence on subjectivity dominates in the moral relativism of an "alternative lifestyle" culture.  Starting from the basis of "If it feels good, do it", and progressing toward the victimization posturing accusation, "You make me feel bad", subjectivity has become the leading value in this vociferous segment of our culture.

There is a sea-change in the general attitude reflected in the philosophy of a vocal minority of our culture.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks expresses concern about this trend.

It is well to worry about our moral foundation. We live in a world where more and more persons of influence are teaching and acting out a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong—that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. Many even question whether there is a God.  (Dallin H. Oaks, "Balancing Truth and Tolerance").

One of the instances I see as an example is coining politically-correct terms like "gay" and "homophobe".

Ironically, in popular usage, both terms are employed to characterize the opposite of the traditional.  There is good reason for this, and to devious thinking it makes perfect sense.

Of course "gay" no longer means "being cheerful".  In fact the prospect for "gay" seems quite dismal.  Those who characterize themselves as "gay" generally seem anything but.  Today no one not wishing to self-identify with homosexual tendencies would ever even consider referring to themselves as "gay".  The "gay" public persona most often seems be an expression of unhappiness, a protest or demonstration of some sort.

Technically, the term "homophobe" is a portmanteau, the Latin roots of which would seem to denote "man" and "fear".  In actual usage it seems to have little connection with any perception of fear itself, and more to do with the accusation of discrimination based on prejudice.

The object of such protests generally seems to be an effort to transfer the blame for unhappiness onto somebody else.  This does not seem to be a culture that assumes personal responsibility for their own satisfaction with life.

The obvious intent is to claim the moral high ground.  Ironically, if we "hate the haters", we feel justified, we feel good.   And nothing is wrong if it feels good.

That such rationale seems quite inconsistent with moral relativism is apparently not a consideration. Though it escapes me why the "haters" somehow are accorded less claim to the validity of their own "hateful" feelings.

If I were assigning semantic significance, I would more often attribute such feelings to women.   Many contemporary women, as they publicly project, are fearful of men.  Their daily interaction reflects fearful and neurotic thinking.  How many men purchase products so associated with an aggressive posture of fear, like personal mace and tasers?

For public police officers these tools are available to subdue aggressive criminals.  To women, these are defense against rapists and muggers who would prey on the weak and vulnerable - and fearful.

In short I think it is women, rather than men, who tend to be "homophobes".  They use their own posture of fear as justification for legalistic schemes to protect themselves, based wholly on feeling "threatened".

I do not doubt that some women feel threatened or insecure.  But total subjectivity is not an effective basis for establishing civil laws.

Art Appreciation

Subjective...

It seems to me that a very large slice of our motivation for artistic endeavors is subjective. What is aesthetically pleasing to one is not necessarily appreciated by all. Even more, the impressions we experience are individualistic and subjective. Thus we may not see or hear the same things as other partakers of the same artistic offering. When we attempt to create a work of art, we endow our creation with something personal. But others are quite likely to perceive something entirely different, relative to their own frame of reference.

Sometimes this leads to confusion. Because our society is so strongly directed toward the authoritative, we often tend to sell out our own creative birthright to so-called experts -- critics and the critically acclaimed, people with "high" academic qualifications, those who have successfully marketed their work, the wealthy and powerful. But, at least from the most important individual perspective, the personal experience of such people is no more or less valid than our own. In fact, in the subjective sense, no other perspective supercedes our own.

It is ironic, too, that our experience of the arts can be so colored by input coming from outside the specific channel or medium of the work of art. A negative word from the critics can cast a pall on our enjoyment of the film. Good reviews motivate us more strongly to go see it for ourselves.

Perhaps we should strive more to insulate ourselves from input that tends to inform preconceived notions about the quality of a work of art.

What would you think, if you saw the "Mona Lisa" for the first time, but had never heard anything about it? Would you judge it to be a masterpiece?

Not so subjective...

On the other side of the page, it is obvious that there are elements of artistic endeavor that are decidedly less subjective.

Aspiring artists have experimented for thousands of years with all forms of expression, a myriad of media, a sea of genres. For reasons not so plain, some art forms have more universal appeal, and some are perhaps only attractive -- or even comprehensible -- to the artist who created the work.

In this regard, the experienced artist has a decided edge. Not even native talent or natural genius seem more important in rendering a successful artistic creation that evokes a significant response in a significant number of people.

Although in some instances that academic training can be somewhat helpful in this regard, it appears to me that the best art is generally produced by someone who has tried and practiced and worked long and hard to create evocative and aesthetically stimulating products. Training with a "master" or "mentor" ostensibly helps the artist to learn specific technical skills.

Coloring inside the lines...

While it seems trendy to assert our individuality, in art there seems to be a lot of value in learning discipline. This is particularly important within a specific genre or medium, where technical proficiency precedes effective expression.

The discipline within a specific form of art helps to ensure that other people will be able to understand and share the expression the artist is attempting. Without establishing a common frame of experience, the artist cannot rightly expect his work to be appreciated.

Thus we have rules for paintings, poetry, stories, sculptures. Sometimes departing from the rules has a point. But usually, coloring inside the lines helps us create something others can relate to.