Library Collections: Document: Full Text

-* Presented at Wesley Church, Melbourne, Australia, 21 July, 1968.-

-**Professor of Human Development, The Florence Heller Graduate School for Advanced Studies in Social Welfare, Brandeis University.-

On a sunny autumn day in 1921 an English woman was sitting on top of the Mountain la Salève, overlooking Geneva. Her name was Eglantyne Jebb, and for years she had devoted her life to helping the world's needy and handicapped children. Whether they were victims of the war or victims of poverty, crippled by disease or by the lack of a proper home, the plight of these children across the world was her concern and that of the voluntary organizations in many countries which, in no small measure due to her inspiration, eventually came to found the International Union for Child Welfare.

But on that afternoon Eglantyne Jebb's mind was not concerned with problems of organization; rather she was taking stock of what she and her friends and colleagues in the charitable movements in many countries had been accomplishing in appealing for public generosity to aid unfortunate children. And suddenly an inspiration came to her, -- suddenly she saw that what really mattered was that help should come to these children as a matter of right, not as a consequence of generosity for charity's sake. And so she sketched out -- sitting on this mountain top -- a statement of principles that was destined to become part of a Magna Carta for the world. Entitling her document a "Declaration of the Rights of the Child," she developed principles affirming to all children a full opportunity to develop, to grow up under their parents' protection, to be assured protection from illness and exploitation and, if handicapped, to receive the needed special care and education.

The disruptions caused by the world-wide economic depression of the 1920's, the disruption by World War II and the preceeding years of totalitarianism have unfortunately overshadowed the singular achievement of this woman whose Declaration of the Rights of the Child found world wide acceptance. In the headquarters of the International Union for Child Welfare in Geneva there hangs an impressive array of state documents, in many languages, bearing the signature of reigning kings and queens and of other great national leaders such as Mahatma Ghandi.

In 1924 the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted this document, but subsequently it became painfully evident that the world was not ready for this forward looking and yet so simple Declaration. Not until 35 years later did it once again come to the forefront when, with some minor editorial alterations, it was adopted on November 20th, 1959, by the Geneva Assembly of the United Nations. And so I would like to take as a motto for my point of departure today Principle 5 of this Declaration; "The child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required by his particular condition."

Certainly on the face of it this statement appears to be self-evident, so much a matter of course, that there hardly seems to be a need to elaborate on it. And yet far from reflecting what is, it is still only a statement of what ought to be, and against its realization is arrayed one of the most pervasive and corrosive forces in human society, the force of prejudice.

Prejudice is a defensive weapon. Man uses it when he feels threatened by the unknown and unfamiliar, and yet, prejudice is not so much a defense of the weak against the strong, -- its very perversity rests in the fact that it is used by the strong man who feels threatened in his security by those who are unlike him but particularly by those who, to him, are representing a human frailty and deficiency. Because of this last point, prejudice is so frequently a weapon disguised as benevolence.

One of the most frequent weapons of prejudice is segregation, and forever segregation has been rationalized as merely a way of making it possible for people who are alike to stay together. The black ghettos throughout the United States are just one example.

Prejudice will often claim that it only acts to protect people. Thus when we are concerned about inequalities facing the woman in the world of work, the explanation is quickly made that they exist only to protect her in her weakness. Two years ago when I was in Zurich, Switzerland, and the question of voting franchise for the women was once again being discussed, the men in the City Council made moving speeches to the effect that women should be spared the unpleasant aspects of political life. When the physically handicapped are excluded from work opportunities they seek, the reason given is that they must be protected from possible harm.

Prejudice typically does not look at the whole man; it picks on whatever characteristic makes him different whether it is the color of his skin or his national origin, his religion, his physical or mental condition and -- yes -- even his pocketbook, because in recent years we have increasingly seen the connection between poverty, discrimination and prejudice.

Prejudice categorizes and stereotypes. It closes its eyes to the tremendous range of human qualities inherent in the individual because it must focus on the point of weakness. Prejudice is a group phenomenon, it derives its strength from the fact that it is shared by the many against the few.

Prejudice often is not only cloaked in social respectability indeed it is often backed up by the prestige of the professional community. I well remember an episode during days long past when I worked in an institution for delinquent children, and I talked with the senior physician at one of New York's leading hospitals about an occurrence in our institution. One of the boys had undergone a critical operation. We had to secure large quantities of blood for transfusion and I mentioned how many of our Negro boys had volunteered to give blood for their white comrade and that the most suitable donor with matching blood type indeed was a Negro. The physician said "I hope you did not actually go through with this?" When I replied -- "But, Doctor, there is compelling scientific evidence that there is no difference in the blood chemistry of the white and the black person" -- he said -- "I know. I know. But I still think it would be an unwise move" -- His prejudice clearly allowed him to disregard scientific information of which he was well aware.

That was long ago and today we need not worry anymore about this particular point because pernicious and powerful as prejudice is, it eventually can be overcome by the very force that helped establish and maintain it, the collective social judgement of the community or indeed, society at large. Preduucie -sic- must be fought with knowledge; education of the public must be our weapon.

And thus I want to use the opportunity accorded me today by the Wesley Church and the cooperating radio stations to make an urgent plea on behalf of handicapped children and in particular on behalf of the handicapped child's right to receive, in the words of the United Nations' Declaration "the special treatment, education and care required by his particular condition."

It is a fair statement to make. Indeed it is axiomatic, that a sure sign of a civilized country is a scheme of free education, under public auspices, available to all its children. And I wonder how many of the listeners are aware to what extent in this great and wonderful and evermore progressive and affluent country children afflicted with handicaps are deprived of this right to adequate, free education.

I am well aware that this situation is one that differs, at least in some respects, quite sharply from one Australian State to the next. This means that it is not possible to make definitive statements regarding specific details as far as the total Commonwealth is concerned.

But the very fact that in such a basic area, one so vital to the very existence of the Commonwealth as the education of its children, there should be such glaring differences from state to state, merely underlines how incongruous and indeed intolerable such a situation is. Perhaps I can illustrate this point by telling you about a discussion I had only a few days ago with a young scientist in another state. He had just received an offer to join the faculty of a university in Melbourne; an appointment which might well start him off on a distinguished academic career. Yet he could not see his way clear to accept this opportunity because, on inquiry, he had found out that this city, with all its wealth, its wide well-kept streets, its modern skyscrapers, its fine churches, its museums, and last, but not least, its impressive sports arenas, and ball fields, in short, Melbourne in all its affluence would not provide him with an education for his mentally retarded child, other than by placing him on a waiting list of indefinite duration. And thus the father was sure he would have to decide against this move and remain in the city where his son was enrolled in a school program.

Prejudice against children and adults with handicaps is still evident to varying degrees in countries around the world, but strangely the degree of prejudice varies considerably with the nature of the handicap. And it is the child or adult with a mental handicap who is hit most severely.

At the center of this problem rests the long held belief that with the exception of the mildly mentally handicapped, retarded children are indeed ineducable and not entitled to an education. This belief cannot be based on scientific evidence. We deal indeed with a plain example of prejudice -- all its earmarks are clearly present -- the emphasis on the weakness of the child, on his intellectual limitation rather than on his total needs, the categorization and stereotyping, the insistance on overlooking scientific evidence to the contrary, the protestation that the retarded child must be protected from demands he cannot meet.......

During the past two weeks, my wife and I have been privileged to travel through many parts of this country, and to be recipients of the generosity and hospitality of the Australian people. We have been deeply impressed by the growing cities, by our visit to one of the most impressive capital cities we have seen, by the quality and growth of the institutions of higher learning, and last, not least, by the quality of the social provisions this nation has provided to safe-guard the health and welfare of its citizens. I have pointed up in my brief comments one particular problem area -- small, to be sure, within the total framework of a young, rapidly growing nation, but indeed a problem of enormity to the families involved. There is no question that this country has the resources to do justice to its mentally handicapped children and their families, once persistent efforts have brought to the general public, to government and to the professions a new understanding of the right of the mentally handicapped to an education and of his right to use such education to achieve whatever level of contribution he can make to the common good.

I sincerely hope that this afternoon's discussion may have provided a small step toward real fulfillment of the promise of the Declaration Miss Jebb conceived almost half a century ago on the mountain overlooking Geneva.