Library Collections: Document: Full Text

I have little doubt that the majority of the persons here assembled and, indeed, the majority of staffs in the social service department in our state residential facilities for the retarded, would declare their general agreement with either one of these two documents, particularly the second one, approved in Jerusalem, (1) because some conservative voices prevailed in the League's Council to leave off two items most difficult for the general public to accept: 1) the right to marry, and 2) the right to vote. But such acceptance of either statement would, indeed, be of little consequence unless it is coupled with a most fundamental change in the functioning of the social service departments in these institutions along the lines I have already indicated.

We face a strange phenomenon in this country. On the one hand a Presidential Committee -8,9- for two years in succession has criticized in strongest terms the inhuman treatment to which individuals in many of our State institutions are exposed. To the contrary, we are over and over assured that once we get more money to hire more staff and repair some buildings there is not much to worry about. Those of you who know the conditions in some of the California institutions must, indeed, have marvelled at the nonchalant attitude with which the Director of the Human Relations Agency, Mr. Spencer Williams, glossed over the very conditions which are a matter of such deep concern to the President's Committee and, of course, to countless parents and informed citizens who know so well what Mr. Williams professes not to know. We must recognize, of course, that Mr. Williams' task is in the political area. But what about the Social Service Departments and their professional responsibility? . What is their responsibility in the face of flagrant violations of a resident child's or adult's human rights which come to their attention? What about willful concealment of the true nature of a child's death or serious injury, caused by gross negligence of the institutional staff? What about continuing exposure of young children to vicious sexual assaults because of the administration's refusal to take appropriate action?

What about the gross abuse of medication or other medical treatment which when used as a disciplinary measure without doubt constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, outlawed under the Constitution of the United States? (2)

Or the use of residents for peonage, involuntary servitude at long hours, again outlawed by the Constitution? (3)

What about denial or undue restrictions of visitation rights to parents, particularly parents from disadvantaged backgrounds who cannot effectively protest? What about measures deliberately designed to humiliate children such as keeping them naked for punishment or placing a child or adult in a group functioning at a much lower level, again solely for disciplinary reasons?

What about the withholding of a child from schooling -- an act which if committed by the parents would result in court action?

Who will be the child's advocate if not the social worker?

Who will convey to parents the true information or see to it that it is conveyed to them, if not the social worker?

These are not hypothetical questions -- I am referring to actual happenings in the recent past -- not in one State but in several.

And thus it has came to pass last week that the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children, having in vain communicated by letter, visits and telegrams with the Governor, the Secretary of Welfare, the Director of Mental Retardation and others to bring to their attention clear evidence of gross irregularities, including cases of negligence resulting in death of residents, decided in their Annual Convention by unanimous vote to authorize its Board of Directors to engage counsel to determine what kind of legal action may be taken to compel the State to remedial action.

Once again, the parent association and only the parent association came forth as advocates and defenders. Where was the Social Service Department? Safely barricaded behind the aforesaid mentioned roadblock that protects the bureaucracy in what is known to sociologists as system maintenance.

Who is being attacked? Who is the guilty party?

My friend and colleague, Dr. Roland Warren, reminded me just the other day that when an effort was made after Hitler-Germany's collapse to take to account the German industrialists who had made great profits from collaboration with Hitler's extermination policies, the point was made from our side that after all these industrial leaders were all honorable men.