A version of this Essay was presented as a paper to the Greater Bay Area Interuniversity Disabilities Consortium, Berkeley, April 25, 2003. The views expressed here are the author's and not necessarily those of the University of California or PAI.
It is 7 a.m. and the dial is tuned to 94.9, not far from sister
stations on the FM frequency, beacons of cosmopolitan and progressive
programming, from Pacifica's KPFA to National Public Radio affiliates. But,
KYLD shows no resemblance to the rest of the left-end FM family. The 94.9
"Doghouse" is a daily party where the on- air and off-air attendees[3]
drop in from San Jose, Oakland, Fremont, Richmond, and all other places
encircling the San Francisco Bay, between 6:00 and 10:00 AM. They are
African-American teenage students, Latina office workers in their 30s, white
stay-at-home moms pushing 40 and Asian 20-somethings between jobs.
Many callers will get Doghouse T-shirts, Doghouse videos and tickets to
concerts and nightclubs when they say the magic words "Whassup,
Doghouse?" and submit to competitive questioning or other contests. They
also get a dose of hip-hop, rhythm and blues and house vibes. But, mostly they
get an earful of what the canine crew calls comedy and clowning. It is the
height of lowbrow audio programming: a marathon of prank phone calls and
stunts, insipid interviews, crude humor and stream-of-conscious machismo, misogyny
and sophomoric "straight talk."[4] The San Francisco
morning newspaper awarded the show a three star "crass quotient" a
few years ago in a review of radio shows "that routinely cross the bounds
of good taste,"[5] with its daily menu of testicular vernacular
and anatomical allusions.
"They're
huge," says one industry trade publication writer of the Doghouse show.
"For what they do, they really hit the mark. They really deliver the
multicultural urban marketplace we're in."[6] "No other morning
show has ever had double digits in San Francisco before," boasts Jeff
Vandergrift, whose shock jock alias is J.V, about Doghouse's 10.8 ratings
share.[7] It is no surprise, then, that the
show is sponsored by prominent businesses[8] and airs ads from
government agencies.[9]
J.V. is the egocentric
and sadistic lead deejay. His sidekicks are yes man Hollywood and slightly
smarter straight man Elvis. Other sycophants hang out with them at the
"Wild 94" party station—Greg, the laid-back mixer, Ruth the go-fer
intern, Show Biz, the Stepin Fetchit whipping boy. And then there is Hank,
better known by his nom de radio, Hammerin' Hank. Born in Kansas in 1967, Hank
attended special education classes in high school and lived in a group home in
California's San Joaquin Valley for about four years[10] —
perhaps a community care residential facility for adults with cognitive
impairments.[11] He may even be a client of a
regional center, a service and support clearinghouse for Californians with
developmental disabilities.[12]
You know there is
something a little different in Hank's routines. His voice is high pitched and
nasal and his speech is slow. His lines are recited from memory or heavily
scripted. His breathing is labored and he punctuates many of his lines with an
exaggerated, prolonged laugh. He is not your standard disabled performance
artist. Nor is he your typical crip sit-down comic. Hank is a wanna-be deejay
and maybe he's not wanting as much as being. Or, maybe he's wanting
belonging, camaraderie, coolness.
He may talk the gutter
talk of J.V. or Elvis—with all the female objectification, slurs against gay
men, and genital hijinks. But, Hanky—as he is sometimes called—is not as cool
or glib and never will be. He suits the purposes of his creators and alleged
buddies much more as a puppet or pet, catering to their puerile whims and
guffawing on cue. In return, he gets to be on the radio, participate in the
locker room banter with the self-styled Radio Kings and enjoy the bad boy
celebrity. On his web page, Hank answers the question "Why Radio?"
with: "Free stuff, the nightclubs, and the women."[13]
Here is a typical Doghouse scenario with Hank: An
interview subject, not wise to the Wild 94 format, is phoned up. He is the
author of a new book on rock 'n roll.
A
few months earlier, crew member Show Biz was given one of the infamous
consequences dished out by J.V. and gang for failure to properly perform a
prank or stunt: He was to lick Hank's anus—in the KYLD studio. Hank was
instructed to tell Show Biz, "Lick my butt, bitch" and they both were
hooted by the other deejays for "being gay."[17]
Elvis suggested that Show Biz could "taste the meatloaf served at [Hank's]
group home."[18]
J.V.
and his henchmen periodically ask studio guests to shed an article or two of
clothing as part of a stunt or consequence. In the past, Hank has been
summoned to play a version of strip poker on the air and submit to teasing
about his genitals and poor hygiene. The crew has also had him rub the breasts
of hired women.[19]
On another morning, the Doghouse Deejays are laughing
about how they told Hank that he was going to die if he kept eating unhealthy
foods and howling at the fact that Hank really believed them.[21] J.V.
says: "Hank really believes
he's a comedian."
They call Hank into the on-air studio.
Next, Hank is asked to read
a script to various listeners who call in. He is to give them clues to guess
the answers. The name of the game is "The 'Tard Password Game." The
deejays are frustrated with Hank's ability to read the script or to play the
game appropriately and they quickly lose interest.
There follow
jokes about destroying brain capacity and about being "mentally
challenged." Meanwhile, Hank is all but silent as the Doghouse crew
comment on how close they are to touching him with the Taser.[23]
One
reporter writes off-handedly that the Doghouse team has come under fire for its
hazing of Hank, who he describes as a "slow-witted man."[24]
The criticism has been neither vigorous nor influential, however, as Hank
remains on the air in full form.
The Doghouse's ableist
allusions go beyond Hank. They include cliché Helen Keller jokes, [25]
and riddles about deaf people, persistent vegetative state and obesity.[26]
Deejay Elvis, the master prank caller, will pretend to be an irate Vietnam vet
with a laryngectomy and psychiatric disability,[27] or a
man with Tourette's Syndrome phoning to make a restaurant reservation[28]
or to get a suit fitted. Some of his supposed coprolaliac utterances include:
Christopher Reeve Super Gimp…
Eat it…
Faggot Heifer…
Son of a goddamn bitch.[29]
In another phony phone call, Elvis calls the
respondent a "mongoloid."[30] Several mornings later, both Elvis
and J.V. take turns on the telephone pretending they are looking for a speech
therapist for a family member. Elvis's "brother" or J.V.'s
"son" then gets on line speaking in a garbled and distorted voice,
muttering nonsense and off-color remarks, including the obligatory reference to
testicles.[31]
About a month later,
crew member Show Biz croons a ditty he composed about making love to a
"midget girl," with her "Midget arms / Midget legs/ Midget body/
And big ol' head." There are allusions to "Munchkin Land,"
shopping at Baby Gap and rhymes like "She's standing three feet tall /
Next to my balls."[32] There are even jokes in Spanish, as
when J.V. asks: "What do you call a hooker with no legs? Answer: Con
suelo."[33]
Participation of persons
like Hammerin' Hank in this form of humorous entertainment raises questions for
the disability community. Should we care about this medium and this depiction
of an adult with a developmental disability? The station's audience is
geographically and demographically diverse, the ratings are high and the
commercial sponsorship is substantial.[34] "You have to have
everybody," according to J.V.[35] Can advertisers really afford to
look the other way, well into an era of disability awareness and marketplace
"handicapitalism?"[36]
If everybody is indeed
tuning in, should we accept this as Hank's choice to do what the other shock
jocks do—talk smack, be part of the "rude is hip throng,"[37]
and perhaps get paid for it—no matter how tasteless or demeaning the humor?
Or, through means of education, public criticism or consumer boycott, should we
work to eliminate this negative portrayal of people with disabilities?[38]
In this Essay, I examine where Hank fits into the world of disability humor and
performance art and whether his audio antics are a product of
self-determination or a form of humiliating and abusive burlesque. Perhaps
surprisingly, the disability advocacy community does not speak with one voice
on this issue.
Good Humor Man Cometh Not
A
recent article about cinematic images in this Quarterly posits that "humor
does not have to be at the expense of a disabled person, but can be a sign of
identification."[39] Author Tom O'Connor regards this
identification as a necessary part of integration into popular culture.
Identity transfer from non-disabled member of the audience to disabled
protagonist is much the same as female to male, or adult viewer to child
character. He eschews "mock sentiments of political correctness" and
regulations in favor of self-deprecation and mass media acceptance of people
with disabilities as human beings.[40] The "healing power" of
self-deprecation is what disabled humorist David Roche employs in his stand-up
comedy routine:
When I walk on stage, the audience says with one
voice: "What happened to your face?" I have encouraged them to say
this, so I then explain that I was born with a severe facial disfigurement…. [41]
He explains that "my shadow side—my
difficulty and challenge—is on the outside, where I have been forced to deal
with it…."[42]
The
path between good-natured laughter and mockery is not easily traveled.
Responding to so-called P.C. criticism, one filmmaker defended the inclusion of
a blind character in his TV sitcom. There is a rudeness about humor, he
asserts, that makes people laugh.
Now it's getting down to the point where blind
people have a Society and any jokes about blind people are banned…So there's
another avenue of humor cut off….But jokes like that are not meant to hurt
blind people—not in a million years.[43]
Rather than attribute this comment to disability
backlash,[44] O'Connor sees in it an appeal for
people with disabilities to be able to laugh at themselves.[45]
Complementing the theory
of mutual identification is the notion that stigma or oppression will be
eliminated when people perceive the fundamental similarities they share with
stigmatized or oppressed people, rather than the differences. [46] One
student of ethnic literature states: "The way that you show people that
you're really a human being is in many cases to make people relax and laugh
with you…."[47] His reference to the American
tradition of self-deprecating jokes told by racial and religious minorities is
equally apt for the minority of Americans with disabilities. In its most recent
variation, Muslim and Arab-American comics appear in comedy clubs with jokes
about terrorism, racial profiling, religious customs and international
politics.[48] Similarly, Kate Rigg performs
Chink-o-Rama, a provocative review where the Asian comedian bleats out Chinese
stereotypes like:
I'd like to reintroduce
the Won-Ton clan and Emcee Chink Daddy. He's not Chinese. He's Korean. But it
don't matter. All Asian people look the same! What's up Chink Daddy? Yo! Kung
Fu Mama!! Let's kick it! [49]
She continues the
caricature with a sexual tease:
Hey you, Mrs. Single
White Female, hold still while I manicure your nails… Hot Asian mamas in every
direction...gonna give you boys a good connection. 1-900-Ching-Chong. Live
Action with live Suzy Wong! Oriental babes. Oriental chicks. I know how to chop
your sticks...[50]
Just as the derogatory term queer has been converted into a word of pride[51]
by those identifying as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, Rigg is hoping
to do the same with the ethnic slur chink:
When you…claim the
language that has been used against you—and you use it freely amongst
yourselves—it makes it harder for a so-called oppressor…to have as much power. [52]
This is her theory:
[I]f I am calling myself
a chink, right, then if someone calls me a chink, then who cares? It's not as
much fun for them. [53]
As for name
calling, there is plenty of that when the Doghouse takes to the air. But,
whereas crip
and gimp have
become accepted insider vernacular for people with physical disabilities, there
is not a similar campaign to reclaim the epithets 'tard or moron.[54] In
fact, self-advocacy organizations have celebrated that "members have
fought long and hard to escape the indignity of labels…far fewer people use the
derogatory terms—'the retarded.' 'the disabled,' 'the trainable.'"[55] Even acknowledging that "insults as a
form of word play"[56] may be a tolerated custom amongst
members of subordinated communities, it is important to view the history and
context in determining whether the name-calling is a form of acceptable humor
or has crossed the line.[57]
There is not the least hint of irony or
self-deprecation when derogatory terms for "mentally retarded" get
bandied about by Hammerin' Hank or his fellow dogs.[58] For
example, in one of his insipid interviews, Hank telephones a vocal music
instructor— after an on-air rehearsal and words of encouragement from J.V.
Among Hank's questions and retorts are:
Have you ever made a retard
sound great?
I want to learn to sing so
I can get a lot of bitches.
Mind your own damn
business.
What kind of a pussy are
you? [59]
In a more
recent repartee, Show Biz phones Hank's mother with the usual
name-calling and insults, and then disingenuously shifts to more socially
appropriate terminology:
Show Biz: "Can I use your
son on Saturday to perform
the "'Tard
Song" [at a club]?
Hank's Mother: "If you pick him up."
Show Biz: "...and can I
borrow a dress?"
Show Biz (after asking to talk
to Hank: "I'm gonna dress you up as a 'tard
girl...uhm, a girl that's mentally challenged."[60]
Hank's vocabulary is
sexual and with-it, like Kate Rigg's Chink-o-Rama talk of "Hot Asian
mamas…Oriental chicks" or her "…give you boys a good connection…chop
your sticks…." But, whereas Rigg appropriates the insults and Chinese stereotypes
and puns, Hammerin' Hank simply spews out crude or hateful vulgarities that are
devoid of self-mockery or wit. Just as the minstrel show allowed whites to
explore fantasies that middle class culture denied them— of laziness, sexual
desire, unstructured time[61]— so, too, the Doghouse vignettes with
Hank permit an exploration of silliness and raunchiness. Only, it is supposed
to be even funnier when coming from the mouth of a foolish cripple, than from
one of the hipper members of the crew.
The more fundamental
question is: Does the Doghouse use humor about Hank to reinforce his humanity?
And, is there truly acceptance from his studio cohorts? From KYLD listeners?
J.V.'s defense of Hank's performances reads like a line from an old-timey group
home manager or special ed teacher: Hank "is a star…People come up to him
and want to hug him. He gets a lot of love out there…"[62]
Hank's place in this canine crowd is really more akin to Elephant Man John
Merrick's place in upper-class Victorian society. Merrick's wish to be
normal, notwithstanding his physical disfigurement, turns out to be a fantasy,
as he ends up on stage in a freak show or examined in a medical school lecture
hall.[63]
Doghouse's ringleader
insists that "[t]he thing people don't see is we do take care of [Hank].
We buy him clothes, we take him to the movies and the mall." [64]
The irony of this defense is that "mall therapy," or en masse mall walking, is
derided by advocates as the antithesis of a quality day-program activity for
developmentally disabled adults. Moreover, this kind of paternalism is
reminiscent of the attitude adopted by freak show mangers who looked after
their charges, even after they retired from the side show.[65]
Despite J.V.'s protests,
Hank is not really just like the other show dogs in the 94.9 sound booth. His shtick
is not
about shared humor and storytelling, nor about the elimination of stigma. His
laughter is not humorous or infectious, inviting listeners to join in. Rather,
it is forced and anxious, and separates the audience from the performer.[66]
Peering At
The 'Tard
If Hank's performance is
not in the manner of comedians who use self-deprecating humor to gain
acceptance, is it instead a purposeful manipulation of what feminist scholar
Rosemarie Garland-Thomson calls "the staring dynamic?" [67]
In her pioneering work, she writes: "[T]he stare is the dominant mode of
looking at disability in this culture."[68] The mode is one of
estrangement and discomfort for the viewer and the viewed, as it "undoes
the social order by its presence and attenuates the human bond based on the
assumption of corporeal similarity."[69]
Garland-Thomson's
subjects are women performers with disabilities who reclaim the taboo against
staring by challenging their audiences to focus on their disabilities. These
artists incorporate the pervasive, yet secretive, manner in which the
non-disabled engage the disabled in our society. The engagement involves the
medical specialist who probes and diagnoses, as well as the male heterosexual
who fetishizes the disabled female body or the stranger who "gawk[s] with
ambivalence or abandon at the prosthetic hook, the empty sleeve, the scarred
flesh, the unfocused eye, the twitching limb…"[70]
Cheryl Marie Wade is one
of the profiled performers. A poet, storyteller and singer, she
"appropriates the allure of the tawdry side show and the sentimental
investment of the telethon" in her invitation to stare.[71] In
her poem My Hands,
she capitalizes on a part of her body that violates the feminine ideal as she
confronts the audience with an array of unpleasant, titillating and provocative
images:
Mine are the hands of
your bad dreams…
Claw hands…dwarf knobby
hands…
Hands that make your
eyes tear…
Hands that could grace
your brow, your thigh…[72]
In her one-woman show,
Mary Duffy, who has a limb anomaly, presents as a classic female nude and
armless marble statue. Her fusion of a supposedly freakish body and aesthetic
sexualized gazing suggests neither freak show nor medical school case study.
Duffy is instead a museum objet d'art that confronts the viewer with a visual and
aural monologue, taking back the oppressive language, medicalization and shame
that defined her existence as a person with a disability.[73] She
recasts herself as "being whole, complete and functional."[74]
Carrie Sandahl is the third artist
highlighted by Garland-Thompson. She uses a street theatre and body art
approach, with costume, props and one-on-one encounters in the public sphere.
Her cane, uneven gait and white lab coat with superimposed clinical text
convert her into a live medical chart, objectifying her body by the medical
discourse that has been imposed on her for much of her—and other disabled
people's—life.[75]
Humorist
David Roche is not one of Garland-Thomson's subjects. Yet, he, too confronts his
audience with his physical disability. His message is less about forcing them
to ponder the dynamics of the staring relationship than it is about
universality:
[E]very person has feelings of being disfigured,
of feeling different and in some way unacceptable.…What seemed to be my
"flaws" have been revealed as a wonderful source of strength….I am
proud to be part of the emerging culture of disability. [76]
Finally,
there is Frank Moore, a Berkeley-based artist with severe cerebral palsy
"that left him spastic, unable to walk or talk, and horny for
attention," who stages nude, erotic grope-a-thons. [77]
A fellow performance artist and ex-porn star says Moore is "showing people
can be in wheelchairs and still be interested in sex, nudity, and
eroticism."[78] His work is not so much about
disability, but "springs from his long experience as a disabled
man—ignored, stared at, isolated, dismissed as a freak, and told what he
couldn't do."[79]
Like Cheryl Marie Wade, Hammerin' Hank likes music and
showmanship. He sometimes ends up performing without clothing, like Mary Duffy,
although he does so only with coaxing or brow-beating. And, like Carrie Sandahl
he regularly confronts strangers in a tête-à-tête.[80] He
is also in-your-face, as is David Roche and uses sexual imagery like Frank
Moore. But, the comparison is a superficial one, and ends there.
Hank does not reclaim
staring or re-narrate the disability script with liberating assertions and
self- representations. Nor does he manipulate the image or direct the
listener in the same way as the performers described above. Lastly, he does not control the terms of the
encounter.[81] On the contrary, his script is
controlled by others and it is an oppressive and mocking text he is forced to
recite. His is the antithesis of "managing, deflecting, resisting or
renouncing stares."[82] Hank does not manage stigma, but
magnifies it. And the Doghouse message is: Please do stare—and gawk!
What's Allowed: Aural
Sex
Might Hank's performance
at least allow for sexuality—one of the three aspects of personhood which, in
Garland-Thomson's schema, have been denied to the disabled subject? It is
evident that much of the Doghouse script is devoted to explicit sexual content
or innuendo. But, Hank is specially cast as a person who is asexual or de-sexualized.
In this respect, he shares the plight of the minstrel singer who is "a
cackling stereotype—the Negro as eunuch, an object of white mirth."[83]
And, it stands in contrast to the re-narrated version of disabled sexual
subjectivity offered by Wade, Duffy and Moore—a sexuality which is neither
pathological, nor victimized, nor passive.[84]
Instead, the Doghouse portrayal of Hank's sexuality fits the conventional mold:
pathetic, unattractive and deformed —owing largely to his cognitive impairment
and physical appearance.[85] The image of the undesirable disabled
body is a familiar one in the disability context. Performance Artist Frank
Moore, for example, speaks of the verbal abuse he experienced as a youth from
the medical profession and others.[86] Men with significant physical
impairments have reported, in other studies, on the barriers they face in
negotiating sexual relationships. These range from socio-sexual isolation in
adolescent years and parents' negative or protective attitudes to social
expectations of normative functioning and poor body image. Together these
barriers affect not only the attainment of sexual intimacy, but also the
asexual representation of people with disabilities in American culture. [87]
Developmentally
disabled Hank is permitted—and encouraged—to talk about sex, to be titillated.[88] He
can assume the moniker Hammerin', with its sexual connotation.[89] But,
his teammates continue to deny Hank any sexuality.[90] He
may interview the author of Pucker Power or do phallic phone play with strangers. However, Hank is not to take
part in sex— except in ways the team deems humiliating or perverted, e.g.,
homosexual or anal sex or in the role of a voyeur or john. It is almost like an
inverted devoteeism.[91] In place of a pathological attraction
with the disabled body, we are treated to Doghouse's revulsion of the disabled,
along with a fetishizing of "normal" sexual imagery, i.e.
non-disabled and heterosexual.[92]
It is a rendering that
is slightly at odds with the historical view that persons with mental
retardation are over-sexed. One nineteenth century physician wrote, for
example, that "[t]he passions that most commonly appeared in idiots were
anger, fear, and love. They sometimes felt 'an inordinate degree of sexual
appetite…'"[93] Today's professionals have evolved in
their thinking. But, even the rights-based approach to social and sexual
expression focuses more on learning to protect oneself from unwanted
encounters, following safe sex practices, accepting responsibility and giving
informed consent, [94] than it does on the capacity of
persons with cognitive or physical impairments to be publicly sexual and
attractive beings.[95]
One
therapist and educator asserts that the major reason that sexuality and
disability is controversial is because it "force[s] a massive reevaluation
of who disabled people are." [96]
The image is one of perpetual children who never become adults and whose
sexuality is therefore unexpected. "They're socially unacceptable people
wanting to engage in socially unacceptable behavior."[97]
The Role of Ridicule
Some
would suggest there is empowerment or agency —the other two aspects of
personhood—insofar as Hank's participation on the Doghouse show is purposeful.
He can say that he has made it in radio, and is now as gross as the other guys.
Hank's humorous
routines, however, are more in line with an earlier era of minstrels and human
oddities, or freaks. His performance actually de-humanizes and
disparages. His radio persona is really an audio version of the minstrel with
huge eyes and gaping mouth, the ill-fitting clothes and "nigger"
dialect. In constant motion on stage, these showmen "contorted their
bodies, cocked their heads…and twisted their outstretched legs."[98]
In serving to "codify the public image of blacks
as the prototypical Fool or Sambo," minstrelsy
had a great impact on American culture.[99]
Hank's lines reek of
ignorance and his speech is juvenile and awkward, like the minstrel's so-called
Ethiopian dialogue:
O you sweet and lubly Dinah!
Dare are nofin any finer;
Your tongue is sweeter than a parrot's.
Your hair hangs like a bunch of carrots.
And though of flattery I'm a hater,
I lubs you like a sweet potater! [100]
His speech appears to be more explicit and
racier than his minstrel predecessors. Yet, a nineteenth century critic of
minstrelsy complained of the "vulgar caricatures of the style and manner
of well-known artists" and "the vilest puns, of which 'Lend her de
Sham-money,' or 'Lucy did lam a Moor,' are not exaggerated specimens."[101]
The
ridiculing of cognitive disability has a long and dishonorable history. During
the Middle Ages and Renaissance, some persons with mental retardation were
procured for amusement for the idle and well-to-do.[102]
Developmentally delayed persons, for instance, served regularly as buffoons and
jesters at the dinner table of Pope Leo X, who encouraged his guests to laugh
at the mean-spirited pranks played on them. [103] Attitudes had not
progressed much by the time of the American Revolution. People with mental
retardation were treated as the village idiot and "an object of merriment
and ridicule," if they were not fortunate to live at home out of public
view in a back room or cellar, but "in the community" abandoned by
friends and family.[104]
Beginning
in the mid-1800s, the American freak show began to exhibit human oddities on
stage, including persons with mental retardation, often by casting them with
slightly accentuated physical features or in costume or in an allegedly
primitive milieu.[105] One activist dubs this phenomenon
the "pornography of disability."[106] Displays included,
for example, siblings with microcephaly, known as pinheads.[107] They might appear in aborigine garb
and background or in Aztec motif. Also exhibited were persons of short
stature, referred to as dwarves or
imbeciles, who might be displayed
in a South Pacific setting.[108]
Some
of the freaks were said to speak unintelligible languages or gibberish or would
grunt or growl on cue. They would adopt insulting names like Tik Tak, The
Aztec Pinhead or The Original Aztec Indian Midgets From Old Mexico.[109]
As with the image
portrayed by the black-faced, patois-speaking minstrel, there was an emphasis
on the exotic or erotic. "Very
special people" was one of the terms used to describe these alleged human
anomalies,[110] sounding eerily like the "child
with special needs" or euphemistic "special person" bestowed
today on youths with disabilities.
Supposedly,
only docile and cooperative subjects could be cast as freaks, as aggressive and
disorderly persons were difficult to take care of and "did not exhibit
well."[111] Customers, too, were expected to
assume a docile pose, after taking in the barker's monologue and "gazing
at the prodigious body in awestruck wonder…"[112] One
commentator suggests that the gazing allowed the audience to feel "more
perfect, more beautiful, less repulsive" than the exhibited human
oddities.[113]
Some
of the freaks were taken at a young age from their parents, perhaps for money,
on the supposition that they would be cured of their so-called mental
deficiency, or even that they would be spared institutionalization.[114]
In his interview defending the appearance of Hank on the Doghouse, J.V. notes
that the Doghouse team had met with Hank's parents and had their blessing for
his role on the radio show.[115]
Perhaps
Hank is an active participant in the role of freak[116] and
may believe that this is his only entrée into the world of radio or nightclubs
or social acceptance. Like the black minstrels of yesteryear and the disabled
adults who played the side shows, this young man may see this as his only
opportunity to enter the world of show business—or indeed to have any livelihood[117]— notwithstanding
changing social attitudes and civil rights and employment opportunity
legislation.[118] After all, in the words of disability studies scholar
Rachel Adams, "the realities of appearance-based discrimination persist in
American culture"[119] as does "the discomfort of
living with a body always marked as other…"[120]
Thus,
it is the conscious or unconscious attitude of a man with mental retardation
who takes on the name Hammerin' Hank to convince himself he has sex appeal,
while being razzed as a retard. He is today's beefy showman named Tiny or the
large woman dressed up in a dainty girl's dress and made to giggle and dance.[121]
We can peek at Hank's weekly sideshow, where he fancies himself a Don Juan,
but instead he must laugh, play the fool, spew vulgarities and get aroused on
command.
Viewed differently, this
is a performer and an audience who—like their classic freak show
counterparts—choose a form of amusement despised and disapproved by the
bourgeoisie.[122] Must we impose an elitist and
moralistic standard on Hank and the Doghouse listeners? Perhaps the dreaded
disability "PC squad" [123] that monitors speech and media for
the wrong words and negative images should just accept the bathroom humor as a
mode of contemporary youth entertainment. Hopefully, the bathroom door one day
will be closed and young people will get out of the toilet, get culture and
develop sensitivity in some other forum. Like adolescence itself, this may be
just a passing phase.
Freedom of Choice
Stated differently, can
an argument be constructed in favor of just letting Hank be Hank? This does
not mean condoning the Doghouse show's content. But, it does suggest that
disabled people deserve the same right to be wrong as non-disabled people, and
are permitted to make the same choices as their peers—even choosing to be a
shock jock. When I shared my Doghouse discovery [124]
with colleagues in the field of disability rights and services, a passionate
debate ensued among lawyers, social service providers and other advocates about
this choice, raising questions of freedom, paternalism and social identity.
Self-determination is
the watchword of the contemporary disability rights movement. The concept has
been embraced by consumers, parents, practitioners and educators, with little
controversy.[125]
Sometimes
it is expressed in terms of choice[126] or "people
'speaking up' for themselves" in making and acting on lifestyle choices.
One self-advocates' guide defines self-determination this way:
-
I will have more control over my life.
-
I will have more choice about what I do everyday.
-
I will have more control over my future.[127]
Another guide declares:
Self-determination is "a ten dollar word
for choice…it is another word for freedom…a life filled with rising
expectations, dignity, responsibility, and opportunity…a chance to live the
American dream."[128]
In addition to choice,
self-determination may also embody the concepts of self-advocacy, self-regulation, problem-solving,
decision-making, goal setting and independence.[129] In
the California model, for example, opportunities are provided to system
consumers to make choices in their own lives, including where and with whom
they live, their relationships, the way they spend their time, the pursuit of
their personal future and program planning and implementation.[130]
The Arc's[131]
education researcher, Michael Wehmeyer, defined self-determination as "people
or peoples controlling their lives and their destinies. It is both that simple and that complex."[132]
He offered a slightly different definition in an earlier article: The process
by which individuals become the primary causal agent for decisions made in
their life—without undue internal influences.[133]
Causal agency, in turn, suggests that people take actions that are purposeful
and lead to achieved ends.[134] Much of the literature is about
facilitating true choice and ceding control impulses, working against a history
of protection and trying to fix the disability.[135]
Maybe it should have
come as no surprise when Maxine,[136] a disability rights lawyer in
southern California, sent the following e-mail in response to my posting about
Hammerin' Hank's anal antics on the Doghouse, and my suggestions of abuse:
Without wanting to
inflame folks, I do have a few thoughts.
We are assuming,
somewhat paternalistically, that the individual involved here is not capable of
making his own decisions about what types of activities to participate in. Is
this a conserv[atee]? Have we spoken to him? I am wary about throwing around
terms like "exploitation and abuse" when we do not have more facts.
[It is our role] to support an individual's freedom to choose his or her
pursuits and paths, even if we view them as poor choices.
We may be acting
hypocritically here. I am concerned about the long term effects of complaints
to the licensing unit at the Department of Social Services. Do we want
licensed facilities to start monitoring the activities of their residents?
Slippery slope here—a breeding ground for violations of individual choice and
clients' rights.
These were the responses
from other lawyers and advocates:
Maxine, it sounds like
you're advocating for personal autonomy.
This is not a matter for
investigation.[137] Besides, what about the First
Amendment and all that jazz? Not that I condone bad taste, bad press or poor
judgment... I find folks like Howard Stern utterly distasteful... but, I am not
forced to listen to them.[138]
I'm with Maxine on this.
We cannot assume that "Hank" wants protection. Maybe you could get
in touch with him and check it out. I can just imagine this becoming a
"poster boy" issue: "See, this is what happens when these people
are let out unsupervised!" What would be the complaint against
"Hank's" facility? That they let him do what he wanted to do? The show is
appalling, right up there with dwarf-tossing and the like, and we might want to
think that "Hank" can't possibly understand or appreciate being the
butt of this "humor"— you should pardon the expression. But, maybe he
likes the celebrity it's brought him. Or maybe he's getting paid for it!
Some
of the above comments are in line with contemporary theory: Self-determined
behavior does not always result in successful behavior. Every decision does not
turn out to be an optimal one, nor is every choice the perfect one, nor every
goal the right goal. There may also be negative outcomes. Support
persons—service providers, families and friends—often struggle with choices
that conflict with their own judgment about what is best, e.g., when an
individual chooses not to work, to spend time in an unsafe area, to eat
unhealthily or chooses an unorthodox sexual lifestyle.[139]
And, many of these themes are manifested in what we know of Hank's choices: the
nature of his job, unhealthy eating, and offensive sexual conduct.
Upon
reading the postings about Hank from disability advocates, one regional center
executive director was blunt and incredulous:
Assuming that
this is a real situation, equating anus licking with free choice and client
self-determination is so incredibly stupid that it boggles my mind…. Free
speech, slippery slope! This is really idiotic.... Is "Hank" learning
that he will get approval, and air time, by allowing others to make a fool of
him, to make fun of him, and his disability, like he was Quasimoto
"entertaining" folks outside of Notre Dame? [Some advocates just
don't] understand
the difference between client rights and client abuse.
Maxine
responds:
It is indeed a hard issue, but I still struggle
to see how it becomes our role as advocates to monitor choices — as opposed to
not supporting them or contacting Hank directly to let him know that there may
be better things out there for him…. I know people with disabilities who choose
to participate in bad taste events like these. In some instances, folks are
well aware of what they are doing — at least to the extent they know they are
having fun, getting paid, interacting with non-disabled peers in the community
and in a work setting, and enjoying some sense of celebrity. People, disabled
or not, often balance such things when making choices in their lives.
Again,
self-determination theorists would recognize that making unhealthy choices is part of leading a "normal" life and that the "dignity of risk" is an experience that all people should know. "To deny any person their fair share of risk experiences is to further cripple them for healthy living."[140] As Maxine argues, this may include bad employment decisions or engaging in what
others may view as an exploitative activity. Ironically, this rationale is
similar to the one offered by freak show entrepreneurs in defense of their
exhibitions. In a letter to Sociologist Robert Bogdan, one of the remaining
show operators insisted that he paid his troupe of human oddities and had an
above-board business relationship with them. Bogdan posits that the proprietor
"did not have to profess motives manufactured from higher ideals—curing,
protecting and serving—ideals that made the person with the physical or mental
difference unsure of where he or she stood."[141]
Nevertheless, one
commentator asserts that self-determination should not be equated with absolute
authority by the person with a disability, or as the equivalent to chaos.
Moreover, if actions are consistently unsuccessful in all aspects of one's
life, then that life is not very self-determined.[142] In
other words, the goal must be to present information so that the best informed
decisions can be made by disabled people for themselves.[143]
One research team draws the line for intervention at the point where there are
serious health and safety risks, or infringement on the rights of others.[144]
Support providers still
can encourage self-determination while setting the parameters of choice, e.g.,
by examining alternative solutions.[145] This is certainly the aim of most
transition training or habilitation programs for persons with developmental
disabilities of varying severity. There is no shortage of resources and studies
involving employment,[146] social skills training, friendship [147]
and sexuality. [148]
With regard to social interactions, it is ironic that while one team of
academics at San Francisco State University sought to identify inappropriate
social behaviors by young adults with severe disabilities, Hank was engaging in
some of those very same target behaviors across town and on the air: squeals,
shouts, cheers, inappropriate greeting, name calling, touching peers in an
inappropriate manner, perseverating on topic or sentence, and interrupting
conversations. [149]
Actually, some of the
things that Hank has written—or wrote "with support" — on his
Doghouse web page would please exponents of person-centered planning, if
recorded as social, recreational or vocational objectives in his individual
program plan.[150] For instance, he is "still
single and still looking for a lovely girlfriend." He likes "Latin
women, nightclubs, baseball games, comedy shows, and TV." In terms of job
preparation and satisfaction, he "would be looking for another radio
job" if he were not in radio, and he detested all of his pre-broadcasting
employment. Lastly, he dislikes "mean people, some veggies, liars, and
people who don't stand for the National Anthem."[151]
Hank's choices for
career, residential living, leisure and personal relationships clearly are more
abundant than those available in the nineteenth or early twentieth century to
persons with mental retardation— or racial minorities — who ventured outside
their homes for social or vocational purposes.[152]
Nonetheless, social skills deficits is one of the reasons that people with
developmental disabilities have a hard time making friendships, retaining jobs
or otherwise negotiating the community environment.[153]
Yet, can one seriously regard the Doghouse as a supportive work environment?
Its deejays are hardly skilled facilitators, much less "natural
supports,"[154] notwithstanding J.V.'s assertions
about "hanging out" with Hank.
Speak For Thy Self
The reaction to
Hammerin' Hank by peer and self-advocates[155] stands in sharp contrast
to that manifested by lawyers. "Appalling!!!!!!!!!!!" was the
beginning of the email message sent by Martine, a long-time peer advocate and
regional center client, in reading the posting about Hank and Show Biz having
anal sex. Her initial suggestion was to contact regional centers and area
boards,[156] as well as Protection &
Advocacy's unit that investigates abuse and neglect. If spreading his buttocks
for a Doghouse teammate is not abuse, what about the threatened shock treatment
of Hank with the Taser? Given that the use of aversive procedures to reduce
unwanted behaviors among persons with disabilities is now considered neither
ethical nor humane, [157] this is surely a cruel form of
humor—even if the other deejay dogs were all bark and no bite.
"I hate that
deejay. He is beyond awful" was the terse e-mail sent by Jessica, a
non-attorney advocate who does outreach in ethnic and language minority
disability communities, after she read about Hammerin' Hank's escapades.
Interestingly, Martine and Jessica's reactions were much more along the lines
of the regional center director's, someone usually viewed with contempt for
inadequately espousing the progressive disability line. However, Candace,
another peer/self-advocate and People First[158] activist, was, for no
apparent reason, reticent to speak out about Hank or take part in any kind of
complaint process. She also relayed to me that an advisor to a People First
chapter had counseled her not to get involved in protesting the matter. Was she
indifferent, embarrassed, confused or following the lead of her mentor?
Martine and another peer
advocate teamed up to draft a letter of complaint to KYLD's parent company and
various advertisers. The effort was not lightly undertaken and involved
several weeks of vetting and fretting about the letter's contents. "I am
very, very strongly opposed to any letter coming from a disability rights
agency on this issue —unless directed to do so by 'Hank' (or his
conservator— and I don't believe he is conserved) in response to some
allegation of exploitation or abuse," was the e-mail reply from attorney
Maxine, when I told her about the letter. "It really runs afoul of all I
stand for in terms of choice and independence." She continued:
Is it PAI's role to contact "Hank" in
a way that passes judgment on his life and/or criticizes his choice of
employment because it does not fit a disability rights agenda? My suggestion
would be to not contact Hank at all— or to just send him basic information
about PAI. I have spoken about this issue … to numbers of co-workers and
friends [who have] disabilities. Everyone, without exception, has shared my
concerns about the approach taken here.
What if Hank had called you before this issue
surfaced internally and reported that his family thought the job was "bad
for him and for other people with disabilities" and told him that unless
he quit he would be kicked out of their house? You would advise Hank that he
had the right to make choices in his life, even if they are— by others' standards—bad
choices.
Yet, choice, if taken
out of context, is problematic. For example, Professor Wehmeyer cites the case
of a woman with mental retardation allowed to stand at a window in her group
home all day because, it is said, that was her choice. In fact, the reason
she may be standing there is because she was waiting for the companion who had
earlier in the week come by to pick her up.[159]
It is also a mistake to
assume that self-determination is the equivalent of just making choices—such as
changing the channel on the group home TV set or switching to a new adult day
program.[160] Others have warned that the
trivialization of choice is one of the common misinterpretations about
self-determination: "[E]namored of the philosophical connections between
'choice' and 'freedom' or perhaps connecting liberation from institutions with
some notion of freedom" some "seem to extol 'choice' as a value
supreme to all others."[161] The exercise of choice must be
complemented by problem solving, decision-making, self-awareness and goal
setting.[162] One of the first writers on the
subject, Dr. Bengt Nirje, conceived of self-determination as a component of
normalization, which in turn encompasses the notion of respect:
When mentally retarded adults express their
right to self-determination in public and in action, and thus gain and
experience due citizen respect, they also have
something to teach… to society in general…the
respect due to everyone…[163]
Thus, one does not
simply invoke self-determination for the sake of self-determination.
It's About Respect
The debate lined up in ways that were predictable and
not so predictable : Lawyers were wary of trampling on the tarmac of First
Amendment jurisprudence, but were also scrupulous about preserving personal
autonomy.[164] Self-advocacy activists espoused the same disapproving
views as a system administrator. The arguments really reflect a larger dynamic
in the disability rights community—where the forces of protection are up
against the forces of advocacy.[165] But, it is not really a question
of one without the other, any more than self-determination is merely about
unbridled choices.
Maxine eventually conceded that a letter to the radio
station was perhaps in order—so long as it did not threaten Hank's employment
or question his judgment:
I think it is appropriate to raise concerns about the station's
"pattern" of promoting negative stereotypes about people with
disabilities. That can be done without being judgmental of Hank's choices
(assuming he is even a real person as opposed to a non-disabled person playing
a "role") and without being "paternalistic" in our approach
(e.g. saying "Does Hank know what he is doing?" or "You are
abusing Hank.")
Concerning this latter argument, Professor Bogdan
recounts the story of a showman who took umbrage at the efforts of a disability
rights activist to ban him from the New York State Fair on the grounds that
"[t]he freak show is to disabled people as the striptease is to women, as
'Amos 'n' Andy' is to blacks."[166] One of the showman's complaints was
that the activist ought to have talked to him about being exploited.[167]
There is a fine line that separates individual agency
from exploitation, and the spectator may easily become what Professor Adams
calls the "unwitting accomplice,"[168] if not an avid and
condescending gawker.[169] Even where the object of mirth
appears to be a willing participant, it is worth inquiring if that individual
has given his consent and whether we as spectators have a duty to object, or
question the propriety of a given act.
As
for the letter to the radio station, Maxine concludes:
My
suggestion is to ask KYLD to cease the pattern and practice and
to give positive images of persons with disabilities equal time….I'd stay clear of
asking for the termination of the Hank programming, because cutting negative
images and incorporating positive images would remedy our concerns— while
maintaining Hank's employment. I know PAI has goals around challenging
negative imagery,[170] but that needs to be done in a
manner that is consistent with the values of self-determination and choice.
There was never really much discussion amongst
colleagues about disability images, beyond a cursory and resigned recognition
that radio producers and entertainers have a right to free expression. There
was no parallel acknowledgment that insults themselves can inflict
psycho-sociological or political damage[171] or that hate speech
may be a precursor to hate crimes.[172]
Yet, whether referred to as mongoloid idiots or persons with Down's, there is an "intimate connection" between
the ways people with developmental disabilities are portrayed and the social
policies concerning their rights and their supports. [173]
The father of a child with a disability reminds us that
"[r]epresentations matter...That's why advocates of the disabled are so
concerned about polite words, popular movies, and visual and textual
representations of every kind."[174] In the end, the advocates narrowly reached agreement
about how to handle the portrayal of Hank, by balancing self-determination and
choice against negative imagery and exploitation.
Epilogue
A letter protesting the aural representation of
Hammerin' Hank—not Hank himself— was mailed to Station KYLD, its parent
corporation, Clear Channel Radio and to various Doghouse sponsors. If past
complaints were any predictor,[175] however, this simply would not carry
enough weight to overturn the ratings scales. Would programmers and
advertisers at least utter mild disapproval?[176] Would the general
manager—or corporate CEO—order the Doghouse boys to work in some positive
images of disabled persons?[177] How would the dogs themselves
respond to the criticism? I
expected the usual rationalizing, defensiveness and back-peddling that
could be served up like so much chow.
In
fact, the response from the parent company essentially defended the antics as
good clean fun: Everybody kids around. In his letter to the self-advocates,
the regional vice president wrote: "I fully understand your concern for
Hank and will discuss the use of the term 'tard' with the morning show and ask
them to be more sensitive to its potential negative connotation." [178]
Several weeks later,
there were references to Hank's contemplating the idea of leaving the Doghouse.
J.V. intimated that the deejays had to "sign some papers" promising
to forego certain on-air activities. He stated wistfully, "This show has
gotten away with more than any other show." [179]
He even
observed one day that "no product wants to associate" with you if you
are too out of line. The latter remark was curious in light of the lukewarm
reception some of the commercial sponsors gave to the complaint letter about
Hank.[180] However, any illusions of the
protest letter's impact were short-lived.
Notwithstanding the
radio executive's promise to talk to the boys about their language, the deejays
tried to give away Hank to another station and managed to work in several
references to "retard" in the process.[181]
Not long afterwards, Hank was put "on trial" during a morning
broadcast.
With a mix of mockery,
empathy and pity, Deejay Elvis announced "The Trial of the Unloyal [sic]
Retard." [182] Crew members acted out the roles of prosecution and defense,
and a pool of jurors was assembled. Judge J.V. ordered that the "lone,
sorry-ass prisoner" be brought in. Shackled, Hank was "officially
tried" for failing to display "loyalty, honesty and hard work,"
but mainly for dissing the deejays and speaking his own mind. J.V. told Hank
that in addition to being discharged, he would be killed or have a limb cut off
if found guilty. Elvis added that Hank would have to go back to his old job,
making tacos.
A
bizarre mock hearing followed, in which Ruth the Intern was appointed as the
public defender. She argued that Hank has a mental disability, which she
described as hyperactivity, requiring anti-depressants that sometimes caused
him to be moody or act defiantly. Moreover, if kicked off the show, he would be
devastated.
Ruth: "[This show] is
all he's got. He lives for radio."
While The Honorable J.V.
constantly ogled her breasts, Ruth engaged in a paternalistic defense, albeit
spirited and seemingly sincere. She began by asking Hank his age.
Ruth: "And, do you act like a
35-year-old?"
Hank (flatly): "No."
J.V.: "He's not like
everyone. He's not fully there."
Ruth stated that Hank "pleads no contest" to
not always following orders and doing what he is ordered to do, as he does not
have "full mental capacity."
Ruth: "This is what
makes him endearing to our listeners. The kids love him. Listeners love
him…He'll try to do his best."[183]
"He
acts on impulse," testified a station engineer, who reportedly had
"mental challenges" himself.[184]
The jurors were moved—by
pity? genuine empathy?—and Hank was cleared of the charges, but admonished to
try harder. Once more, Hank was objectified, infantilized, talked about in the
third person—as if not present—as so often occurs around people with
disabilities. Thus, the barking and tail-wagging goes on as usual at FM 94.9's
Doghouse. And J.V. assures us, with one of his self-indulgent monologues:
"It's never
a personal issue. It's entertainment. It's a show. …Some little twits try
to stir things up. They just don't get it." A guest chimes in: "It's radio."[185]
APPENDIX
October 25, 2002
I received your letter and wanted to assure you
that our relationship with Hammerin' Hank is both positive and fulfilling. Hank
has been with the station for almost 10 years and is endeared by both the staff
and audience. Radio is his life and it is all he has wanted to do for years
and I am happy that WILD 94.9 has made him a part of the family.
As
a member of the Doghouse morning show he is part of the inner-circle of the
show and that inner-circle pokes fun at each other on a constant basis. All
members, be they White, Black, Asian, short, fat, or mentally disabled have fun
with each other and ALL become the focus at one time or another. All of the
members have openly discussed their lives on air, which is why it is common
knowledge that Hank was in a group home. The other members are the butt of
jokes due to their current or past situations as well.
I fully understand your concern for Hank and will discuss the use of the term
"tard" with the morning show and ask them to be more sensitive to its
potential negative connotation.
On
another note, we also highlight Hank's ability to outwit anyone when it comes
to music. He is a master of music history and song charts and is often
challenged by listeners to "name that tune" or music trivia.
Again,
thank you for bringing this to my attention. We have a lot of love for Hank,
he is a long term member of our family and like a family we all poke at each
other but never in a malicious or hurtful way. Hank knows he can always come
talk to me when something makes him uncomfortable.
Sincerely,
Michael Martin
Regional Vice President/Programming
Northern California
Clear Channel Radio
[1] The Collected Works of Langston
Hughes, Vol 1 (The Poems 1921-1940) (Arnold
Rampersad ed.) 171-72 (2001).
[2] Collected Poems 160-62 (1985).
[3] The listeners perhaps are described
more accurately as eavesdroppers, or the audio equivalent of voyeurs.
[4] The deejays would have their audience
believe that some of their remarks are candid and genuine, but most of the talk
is "straight" because it is explicitly and incessantly heterosexist
and homophobic.
[5] "Airwaves Pollution," San
Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 23, 1997). http://www.sfgate.com. Phony phone calls, gay-baiting and what one reporter
refers to as "their relentless obsession with body functions…" is
always a winning recipe on the show. James Sullivan, "Wild Dogs: Really
Raunchy Antics that Outrage Listeners are Part of the Winning Formula Cooked Up
Every Morning by KYLD;s Doghouse Team," San Francisco Chronicle (May 15, 1998), http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/05/15/ DD62431.DTL. See also, "Editorial—Radio On the 'Edge'," San
Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 23, 1997). http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/11/23/ED7963.DTL .
[6] Sullivan, supra n. 5 (quoting Sandy Skeie of Gavin magazine).
[7] Ibid. The 10.8 rating translates approximately into 10% of all radio
listeners at a given time—in a region with at least 65 stations. Ibid.
[8] J.C. Penney's, Sprint, AT&T
Wireless, Verizon Wireless, State Farm Insurance, McDonald's, Bank of America,
Wells Fargo Bank, Macy's, Seven-Eleven, Universal Pictures, Fox TV, Six Flags
Marine World, Trident, Coca Cola, Red Bull, Mastercard, Travelocity, Dodge,
Volkswagen, Hyundai, Ford-Lincoln & Mercury, Valvoline, AutoZone, Trader
Joe's, Albertson's, Wherehouse Music, Shane Co. Jewelers, Corona, Coinstar and
local Toyota, Mitsubishi and Honda dealers are among the advertisers.
[9] The show has run advertisements or
public service announcements from: California's Departments of Consumer Affairs
and Health Services and Children & Family Commission; the U.S. Immigration
& Naturalization Service and Secret Service; National Child Identification
Program; Oakland International Airport and the San Jose Fire Department. Even
the Easter Seal Society has aired an announcement about services for adults and
children with disabilities.
[10] KYLD web site
(http://www.wild949.com/dj_hank.hmtl. (June 4, 2002)). With regard to the
group home, Hank allegedly writes: "I would of [sic] graduated from there
much earlier, but I kept getting into trouble." Interestingly, the
references to special education and group home have been deleted from more
recent web page versions. Hank's full name is Henry Oaks. December 17, 2002
broadcast.
[11] See Calif. Health & Safety Code
§§1501 & 1502 for an overview of the community care facilities and programs
available in California.
[12] A regional center is an agency that
contracts with the state "to provide fixed points of contact in the
community for persons with developmental disabilities and their families [to]
have access to the services and supports best suited to them throughout their
lifetime." Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code §4620.
[13]
http://www.wild949.com/deejay_hank.hmtl. (June 4, 2002).
[14] I choose to repeat the epithets here.
See, e.g., Richard Delgado, "Words That Wound: A Tort Action for Racial
Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling," 17 Harv. Civ.Rights-Civ. Lib.
L.Rev. 133, 145153, 156, 180 (1982)
(repetition of graphic racial epithets). For a different approach, see, Mari
J. Matsuda, "Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's
Story," 87 Mich.L.Rev. 2320,
2329,n. 49 (1989). Invoking the words of Poet Audre Lorde, Professor Matsuda
refrains from repeating slurs "in a personal effort to avoid harm to
others, and to prevent desensitization to harmful words." See also, ibid., n. 72 ("'the only good n—r is a dead n—r' and
other obscene defamation so extreme it is not included in this footnote.")
A listener to National Public Radio's Weekend Edition had a similar reaction
to a story that bleeped out obscenities, but left intact a racial slur.
Listener e-mail to wesat@npr.org. May 3, 2003 broadcast.
[15] Slang references to penis are usually bleeped or
self-censored by the crew, who abide by some standards of acceptable
reference. Still, there is a steady stream of anatomical argot. See, Sullivan
and "Editorial," San Francisco Chronicle, supra n. 5.
[16] August 2, 2002 broadcast. Some
readers may question the need for such explicit quotations here. As offensive
as they are, they convey a sense of the gritty programming content to those
fortunate enough to have their radios turned off to the real thing. "[T]he
Doghouse continues to bring new meaning to the term 'shock radio.'"
Sullivan, supra n. 5. Referring to one
of the principal deejays, a local columnist wrote: "Elvis makes Howard Stern
sound dignified." Scott Ostler, "XFL's Weird, Wacky Kickoff: New
Football League Features Lewd PA Men, Raw Cheerleaders," San
Francisco Chronicle (Feb. 5, 2001)(Elvis
was moonlighting as an XFL game announcer). http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/05/MN167172.DTL.
Perhaps more offensive than the obscenities and slang, however, are the insults
and epithets. See nn. 14 supra &
163, 170 infra.
[17] Lesbianism is tolerated and even
fetishized by the Wild 94 party crew. Male homosexuality, however, is the
ultimate put-down and gay-baiting is de rigeur. See, William Pollack, Real Boys 219, 224 (1999) (noting the name-calling and mistreatment experienced
by young men suspected of being gay). For instance, on the August 16, 2002
broadcast, junior crew member Chicken is warned that if he inserts his own
finger up his anus it is a true manifestation of homosexuality. On August 22,
three in-studio male contestants vying for free concert tickets are humiliated
drill sergeant-style. They are called faggots, ridiculed about wearing "gay" clothing
and jewelry, and two of them are ordered to kiss one another and confess their
homosexual tendencies. On the December 17, 2002 broadcast, Show Biz and another
male crew member are told they must tongue-kiss for 30 seconds as a consequence
for failing the assignment du jour
and then Show Biz is teased because he seems to be enjoying it. See also n. 92 infra. But, how does one explain a link—without comment—
on the Doghouse web page to Gay Pride Day 2002 photos (http://www.wild949.com/jacor-common/globalphotos.html
(Sep. 16, 2002)) or comments by J.V. and the others deploring the murder of a
local transgendered youth on October 20, 2002 and several subsequent
broadcasts?
[18] May 17, 2002 show. A few weeks later,
Hank is asked to phone a restaurant to say he left something behind. A man with
a heavy Spanish accent at the other end is earnestly engaged for several
minutes as Hank asks him, "Have you seen my balls?…They're in a tan, fuzzy
sack…"
[19] Sullivan, supra n. 5.
[20] September 30, 2002 broadcast.
[21]
The dialogue went like this:
Elvis: "You could see his heart bulging through his
shirt...just like in the cartoons...Did you see him breathing hard?"
J.V.: "He thought he was going to die by
Thanksgiving...He needs to be put on a diet....Hollywood was asking him about
all the things that he'll miss when he's dead…"
[22] According to its manufacturers, the
Air Taser "combines the injury reducing benefits of traditional stun
technology with a quantum leap in stopping power via new Electro-Muscular
Disruption (EMD) technology. The Air Taser over-rides the central nervous
system, providing more reliable takedown power." http://www.storesonline.com/site/361065/page/45031.
Similarly, the Talon stun gun is hyped to "disrupt[ ] the signal from the
brain to the muscles, causing the assailant to drop...trying to remember how to
move his arms and legs." The Taser's two probes send "powerful
T-Waves" through the wires into the body, jamming the nervous system and
causing incapacitation for several minutes.
http://aaadefense.hypermart.net/taserkit.htm.
[23] On subsequent shows, other members of
the crew were dared to have the Taser held to their testicles. Most agreed to
be shocked, no doubt for fear of being perceived as wimps. J.V. says, "'I
swear to God on my mother' that all of the show's stunts are real..."
Sullivan, supra n. 5.
[24] Ibid.
[25] October 2, 2002.
[26] On January 2, 2003, a whole joke fest
took place to try and make a contestant crack a smile.
[27] February 19, 2003.
[28] November 26, 2002.
[29] August 1, 2002.
[30] August 6, 2002.
[31] August 15, 2002. This author was
prompted to nominate Station KYLD and its parent company, Clear Channel Radio,
for one of the annual "ADA Turkey" awards handed out by Disability
Rights Advocates of Oakland, California to businesses noted for Americans with
Disabilities Act violations or a disability-unfriendly reputation.
[32] September 20, 2002 broadcast. Show
Biz himself is not immune from the cavalier labeling. In a segment where the
production crew are airing their workplace grievances, Elvis claims Show Biz
has Attention-Deficit Disorder. February 3, 2003.
[33] December 19, 2002. In inexplicable
contrast, the dogs show themselves capable of a somber and semi- serious
discussion about mental health in response to a call from a woman who appeared
to have schizophrenia. They even permitted a psychiatric nurse to give
impromptu on-air advice. November 12, 2002 broadcast. Similarly, they were
appalled when they received an e-mail from a fan who said her boyfriend told a
young woman eating in a restaurant that she "would be cute, if [she]
weren't in a wheelchair." January 23, 2003. Nevertheless, these outbreaks
of solemnity tend to come from a perspective of pity and are interspersed with
banter about "straight jacket" and "loony bin" or "You
can think that, but don't say it."
[34] These private and government agency
sponsors may be oblivious to the Doghouse program content and are looking only
at market share.
[35] Sullivan, supra n. 5.
[36] Beth Haller & Sue Ralph,
"Profitability, Diversity, and Disability Images in Advertising in the
United States and Great Britain," 21 Disability Studies Qtrly. 6 (2001). See also ibid. at 2, 4 on the need for better recognition of the
disabled consumer and accurate advertising images.
[37] Sullivan, supra n. 5.
[38] See
e.g., Protection & Advocacy, Inc.'s public policy objectives in its
Advocacy Services Plans of 1999-02 ("work with people with disabilities to
promote their concerns and image through the media…to combat negative
publicity…working collaboratively…[to obtain] media coverage of individuals
with developmental disabilities successfully living in the community") and
2003-08 (developing and implementing strategies "to combat negative myths
and labels…[and] negative publicity.") http://www.pai-ca.org
/pubs/54021.pdf. See also, Inter-American Convention for the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities, art. III(C) (signatory countries to
undertake educational campaigns aimed at eliminating prejudices, stereotypes,
and other attitudes and to promote respect for, and coexistence with, persons
with disabilities) (adopted by Organization of American States General
Assembly, June 7, 1999). AG/RES. 1608 (XXIX-O/99).
[39] Tom O'Connor, "Disability and
David Lynch's 'Disabled' Body of Work," 22 Disability Studies Qtrly. 4 (2002).
[40] Ibid.
[41]
http://www.davidroche.com/about_new.htm.
[42] Ibid.
[43] O'Connor, supra n. 39 at 3-4 (quoting David Lynch, whose cinematic and TV renderings often
feature major characters with disabilities, in Lynch on Lynch (Chris Rodley ed.) 153 (1997)).
[44] See, e.g., Linda Hamilton Krieger,
"Afterword: Socio-Legal Backlash," 21 Berkeley J. Employ. &
Labor L. 476, 493 (2000). Backlash occurs, according to
Professor Krieger, when opponents of a new legal regime—such as disability
anti-discrimination laws— reject key elements of that regime based on
"assertions of the normative superiority of the pre-existing social, legal
and institutional framework." This may take the form of "derisive
humor leveled at the law and those who mobilize and seek to enforce it."
[45] O'Connor, supra n. 39 at 4.
[46] Ibid. (quoting Lorita M.
Coleman, "Stigma: An Enigma Demystified," in The Disability Studies Reader (Lennard Davis ed.) 228 (1997)).
[47] Jodi Wilgoren, "Arab and Muslim
Comics Turn Fear Into Funny," New York Times (quoting Louisiana State
University English Professor John Lowe)(Sept. 1, 2002).
[48] Ibid.
[49] Cynthia Gouw, "Pacific Time" KQED-FM (June 13,
2002, San Francisco)(Transcript).
[50] Ibid.
[51] See, Rachel Adams, Sideshow U.S.A.
10 (2001) (noting how "critics and
activists…have wrested the term queer from its original pejorative
connotations, while insisting on the memory of violence and shame…").
[52] Gouw, supra n. 49.
[53] Ibid.
[54] See, Stephen A. Rosenbaum, "When
It's Not Apparent: Some Modest Advice to Parent Advocates for Students with
Disabilities," 5 UC Davis J. of Juvenile L. & Pol'y 159, 160, n. 7 (2001) on the re-appropriation of epithets and Adams, supra n. 51 at 227 (quoting activist Simi Lipton)(the words cripple, gimp
and freak "are personally
and politically useful as a means to comment on oppression because they assert
our right to name our own experience"). University of California Ed
Roberts Postdoctoral Fellow Mark Sherry has collected a number of web site
addresses that demonstrate how 'tard
and retard have actually assumed
a renewed vicious connotation. See, e.g., http://tardblog.com,
http://www.menace.com/retard.html.
and http://www.menace.com/retard.html.
Professor Adams notes the trend of minority groups to revise terminology,
"substituting voluntary labels for degrading slurs." Adams, supra
n. 51 at 10. However, she intentionally
uses the "blunt and unsparing" freak as it "recalls a climate in which the
misfortunes of some became sources of entertainment and profit for
others." Ibid.
[55] Minnesota Governor's Planning
Council on Developmental Disabilities, Shifting Patterns 27 (1992) (quoting a People First brochure). See n. 155 infra for a definition of self-advocacy.
[56] Matsuda, supra at 2364.
[57] Professor Matsuda writes: "The
appropriate standard in determining whether language is persecutorial, hateful,
and degrading is the recipient's community standard. We should avoid further
victimization of subordinated groups by misunderstanding their linguistic and
cultural norms." Ibid. Professor
Delgado's approach is far from
relativist as he asserts that certain insults "are badges of degradation
even when used between friends…" Delgado, supra n. 14 at 174. For example, author Frederick Drimmer
observes that the people who work in sideshows may jokingly refer to each other
as freaks, but they recognize
this as an epithet. Frederick Drimmer, Very Special People 10 (1979). But see, Adams, supra n. 51 at 136 ("proudly claim[ing] the title of
freak as a personal or collective mode of self-identification").
[58]
While fag-bashing and mocking persons with disabilities is clearly sanctioned,
the Doghouse gang do seem to "get it" enough to steer clear generally
of ethnic or racial hazing, except for the airing of unwitting phone
respondents with foreign accents, such as the Latino cook in the
above-described prank call, n. 18,
supra, and the periodic razzing of
Show Biz when they "talk black."
[59] "This is your interview. This is your time to shine." December 20, 2002 interview
with Roger Love.
[60] February 4, 2003
broadcast. These latter episodes followed assurances from the corporate vice
president that he would discuss the use of the term 'tard with the deejays. See
Appendix.
[61]
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/minstrel/zipcoonfr.html.
[62] Sullivan, supra n. 5.
[63] O'Connor, supra n. 39 at 9-10 in reference to David Lynch's
portrayal of John Merrick in the film version of The Elephant Man. See also, Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 394-95.
[64] Sullivan, supra n. 5 (interviewing
J.V.).
[65] Robert Bogdan, Freak Show 125-26 (1980). But see, ibid. at 269-70 (many so-called freaks obtained genuine
acceptance off-stage) and Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 13-14 (many sideshow performers settled in
nearby communities after they retired and were no strangers to romance and
marriage).
[66] Rachel Adams describes this
phenomenon in her analysis of the classic 1932 film Freaks. Adams, supra n. 51 at 77-78.
[67] Rosemarie
Garland-Thomson, "Dares to Stares: Disabled Women Performance Artists and
the Dynamics of Staring" 3 (paper presented to the Greater Bay Area
Interuniversity Disability Studies Consortium, Berkeley, February 8, 2002).
[68] Ibid. at 2. "[A]s anyone with a visible disability knows, persistent
stares are one of the informing experiences of being disabled." Ibid.
[69] Ibid. at 3.
[70] Ibid. at 2.
[71] Ibid. at 6.
[72] Ibid. at 6-7 (excerpts from the video, David T. Mitchell & Sharon
Snyder, Vital Signs: Crip Culture Talks Back (1996)).
[73] Ibid. at 9-11.
[74] Ibid. at 11.
[75] Ibid. at 11-13.
[76] http://www.davidroche.com/about_new.htm, supra n. 41. Roche continues: "In my speaking and performing, I
bring profound encouragement and empowerment to audiences to help them face
change and challenges in relationships, on the job, in all phases of their
lives." Ibid.
[77] Will Harper, "Touching Our
Private Parts," East Bay Express 15
(Feb. 4, 2003).
[78] Ibid. at 19.
[79] Ibid. at 15.
[80] Actually, he engages in an oreille-à-l'oreille with his telephonic shenanigans.
[81] Garland -Thomson, supra n. 67 at 4-5.
[82] Ibid. at 13.
[83] Francis Davis, The History of the
Blues 66 (1995). This is a reference to
singer George Washington Johnson.
[84] Garland-Thomson, supra n. 67 at 5.
[85] Research has shown that persons with
mental retardation are perceived by community members as being less physically
attractive and exhibiting less favorable social behaviors. Moreover, the
general public's acceptance of the right to date and to marry is much lower
than its acceptance of successful employment of developmentally disabled
individuals. Brian H. Abery & Maurice Fahnestock, "Enhancing the Social
Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities" in Challenges for
a Service System in Transition (Mary F.
Hayden & Brian H. Abery eds.) 93 (1994) (citations omitted).
[86] Doctors and "society" told
Moore he was an "ugly cripple, a burden no woman would want."
Harper, supra n. 77 at 17. After an
operation on his testicles at age 13, he overheard nurses comment "no
woman would make love with him." Ibid. at 21. Even a criticism of Moore's cable TV program
focuses as much on his disability as the show's sexual content: "When they
bring a camera close to a woman's crotch and try to insert a disabled man's
penis into a vagina—if you don't call that bad taste, I don't know what
is." Ibid. at 19 (quoting a
Berkeley City Council Member).
[87] See, e.g. Russell P. Shuttleworth,
"Toward A Constructionist Approach to Disability and Sexuality and the
Inclusion of Disabled People in the Sexual Rights Movement" 2, 5, 17
(focus on ethnographic study of men with cerebral palsy) (forthcoming chapter, Sexuality
Inequalities (Niles Teunis ed.)) (2003
draft on file with author).
[88] "You're acting like you're about
to have an orgasm," J.V. tells him on one show. December 17, 2002.
[89] "Hot Off the Press," San
Francisco Bay Guardian 27 (Sept. 25,
2002)("When a man tells you his name is Hammer, he's telling you all you
need to know, at least if you're an insatiable slut.")
[90] "No" is the immediate and
smug reply of one of the deejays, when Hank is asked: "Have you ever had
your balls sucked?" August 16, 2002 broadcast. In a crude query about
sexual exploits, one deejay asks Hank if he has ever raped anyone. "He
rapes his blanket every week" is Elvis' allusion to Hank's allegedly
immature and frustrated attempts at sexual pleasure. February 21, 2003. Young male anxiety about sexual prowess and
experience takes on an even heightened meaning in the mind of a disabled
youth. Tom Shakespeare, Kath Gillespie-Sells & Dominic Davies, The Sexual Politics of Disability: Untold Stories
23-25 (1996).
[91] Garland-Thomson, supra n. 67 at 5.
[92] The association of freakishness and
homosexuality is not a new one. A 1947 gay advocacy publication asked that
lesbians not be identified as freaks. Adams,
supra n. 51 at 93 (citing
Vice Versa). Moreover, the inquisitorial
"trial by humiliation" concept that proved so popular with Hank the
'Tard, see text acc. nn. 181-183 infra, was instituted against crew member Nick G., who had been accused of
being gay. On March 4, 2003, the deejay honchos elicited evidence such as a
limp-wristed handshake, so-called gay strut, effeminate manner of speech and
testimony that he listens to the unofficial queer anthem ,"Y-M-C-A."
In his usual fashion, J.V. dismisses it all by saying the charges would be
dropped if Nick merely admitted he
is gay and adds, unconvincingly: "You homosexual men, we give you
love."
[93] R.C.
Scheerenberger, A History of Mental Retardation 98 (1983) (quoting Dr.
Benjamin Rush, Medical Inquiries and Observations Upon the Diseases
of the Mind (1812) in C. McNairy, "President's Conception of Our
Task," 28 J. of Psycho-Asthanics 28 (1923)). By contrast, the doctor who treated and befriended
so-called Elephant Man John Merrick wrote a more sympathetic account many years
earlier about the sexual needs of a man with a disability: "His bodily
deformity had left unmarred the instincts and feelings of his years. He was
amorous. He would like to have been a lover…" Frederick Treves, The
Elephant Man and Other Reminisces (quoted
in Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 398).
[94] See, e.g., Statement of the
Association of Regional Center Agencies, http://www.w3ddesign.com/committee.
[95] By contrast, the advertising industry
began to recognize some years ago that people with disabilities can be sexy or
attractive in all the conventional ways—smiling, clear complexion, tanned—and
still not hide a less muscular limb, a crutch or a wheelchair. Haller &
Ralph, supra n. 36 at 9.
[96] David Steinberg & Helen Behar, "Differences, Sex
and Power: Interview with Dave Hingsburger," Spectator Magazine (n.d.), reprinted at http://www.sexuality.org/l/davids/cnhint.html.
[97] Ibid. See also, Shuttleworth, supra n. 87 at 17 (image of asexuality derived from implicit association
between children as non-sexual beings and adults with limited functions).
[98] Robert C. Toll, Blacking Up: The
Minstrel Show in Nineteenth Century America, (cited in http://www.africana.com/Articles/tt_200.ht.)
Even black minstrels eventually
put on blackface, "creat[ing] a comic mask that ridiculed an entire
race." Robert C. Toll, On With the Show: The First Century of
Show Business in America, (cited
in ibid.) Thomas D. "Daddy" Rice, a white man, was
recognized as the first true minstrel. He impersonated "a crippled and
deformed black hostler or stable groom" while singing and dancing to a
tune called "Jim Crow." Mel Watkins, On the Real Side:
Laughing, Lying, and Signifying—The Underground Tradition of African-American
Humor (cited in Ibid.) See nn. 105 & 108 infra on the nexus between race and disability.
[99] Watkins, supra n. 98 .
[100] J. Harry Carleton,
"Bones In Love," Minstrel Gags and End Men's Hand-Book (19th Cent.)
(quoted at
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/railton/huckfinn/minstrl.html).
[101] J.J. Trux, "Negro
Minstrelsy—Ancient and Modern," Putnam's Monthly Magazine 78 (1855) (quoted in http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=TruNeg&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed).
[102] Scheerenberger, supra n. 93 at 33.
[103] C. Hibbert, The
House of Medicis 225-26 (1975) in Scheerenberger, supra n. 93 at 33-34. In one such case, a
"half-witted, hungry dwarf" seated at the pope's table was jeered
while eating spoiled meat covered in sauce, believing that he was partaking in
a fine meal. Ibid.
[104] R.C. Scheerenberger, Deinstitutionalization
and Institutionalized Reform 45 (1976), quoted
in Robinsue Frohboese & Bruce Dennis
Sales, "Parental Opposition to Deinstitutionalization: A Challenge in Need
of Attention and Resolution,"4 Law & Human Behavior 1, 4 (1980). My conclusion that a segregated life
was better than one integrated in the community is only partly facetious.
[105] Bogdan, supra n. 65
at 119. Nativist xenophobia and
anti-foreigner bias are reflected in this kind of display. Adams, supra n. 51 at 200. In the Barnum & Bailey heyday,
persons with mental and physical disabilities were exhibited "indiscriminately"
with nonwhite or non-Western and exotic performers. Ibid. at 11, 26.
[106] Bogdan, supra n. 65 at 2 (quoting Douglas Biklen of the Center on Human Policy,
Syracuse University).
[107] One contemporary author writes that
this is "an unkind but vividly accurate translation of the scientific
term…usually associated with feeble-mindedness." Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 352.
[108] Bogdan, supra n. 65 at
119-122. Professor Rachel Adams writes of the historic connection between
disability and race in the sensational and exploitative exhibition of persons
with disabilities and "ethnographic curiosities" or "racial
freaks." Adams, supra n. 51
at 169-70, 215.
[109] Ibid. at 124, 127, 132.
[110] Ibid. at 6. See generally, Drimmer, supra n. 57. Drimmer uses special people in lieu of the "uglier" terms freaks and monsters, but notes that performers
is the preferred term of self-reference. Ibid. at 10.
[111] Bogdan, supra n. 65 at 123.
[112] Adams, supra n. 51 at 13. The customer, nonetheless, may have
been surprised to find a return stare "often laden with resentment or
hostility." Ibid. at 7.
[113] Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 10 (citation omitted).
[114] Bogdan, supra n. 65 at 122, 128, 146.
[115] Sullivan, supra n. 5. Nevertheless, on a subsequent show these same
parents are referred to as "not fully there" and "hicks."
[116] Sometimes those who were exhibited
as freaks were active in the construction of their role, as was the case with
William Henry Johnson, a man with mental retardation and microcephaly. Bogdan, supra n. 65 at 134. Author Susan Sontag writes about the
phenomenon of freak portraiture, i.e. where the subject poses willingly.
"Do they know how grotesque they are?" she asks. Sontag, On
Photography 35-36 (1977)(quoted
in Adams, supra n. 51 at 128).
[117] Adams, supra n. 51 at 13-14. See also, Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 15 (Florida Supreme Court struck down
51-year-old prohibition against freak shows in 1972, as "state has no
business telling anyone he cannot earn an honest living.")
[118] Today, Adams observes, people with
disabilities "must seek new, less exploitative ways of gaining the public
eye." Ibid. at 136. The civil
rights movement, sexual revolution and counterculture have ushered in changes
displacing the debate from the sideshow platform to the public square. Ibid. at 18. See also, Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 15 (noting contemporary sentiment against
displaying "unnaturally formed human beings" for money).
[119] Adams, supra. n. 51 at 20.
[120] Ibid. at 227. See also, Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 13 (freaks hiding from the world to avoid the punishment
"inflict[ed] on those who differ from the rest in mind or body.")
According to Adams, supra n. 51
at 227, voyeurism did not end with the demise of the freak show.
[121] Bogdan, supra n. 65 at
114.
[122] Adams, supra n. 51 at 13-14. Professor Adams notes that protests
and legal battles against the sideshows were couched in terms of morality, but
the subtext reflected a conflict, on the one hand, between middle class values
and on the other hand, the right for marginalized populations to be employed
and for the underclass to be amused "in ways that may arouse disgust or
disapproval from others." Ibid. at 13. My apologies to Marsha Saxton, World Institute on Disability and
University of California scholar, who claims that politically conscious members
of the proletariat may also
object to this form of entertainment. Bogdan, supra n. 65 at
146, writes that it was not notions of dignity or self-determination that led
to the demise of freak shows, but the move toward custodial
institutionalization and medicalization of those with disabilities. See also,
Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 10.
Paradoxically, once hidden from the rest of society, these individuals are no
longer freaks, "for they have found a space that can accommodate their
atypical bodies and behaviors. There is no one to gaze at them and no profit to
be made through their exhibition." Adams, supra n. 51 at 130. Moreover, as institutionalized wards of
the state, they are no longer obligated to seek employment. Ibid. at 15.
[123] Professor Haller and Dr. Ralph
write of Madison Avenue and Wall Street's reaction to the "politically
correct" monitoring of TV ads, including inappropriate images of a man
with Down's Syndrome and a woman in a straight jacket. Haller & Ralph, supra. n. 36 at 5. They do note that the monitoring has
improved advertisers' sensitivity analysis.
[124] I began to "monitor"
Doghouse in an effort to listen to the radio programming to which my teenage
son was exposed. Like some of my colleagues, he too is concerned about Hank
losing his job if a complaint is registered—including any criticism expressed
in this Essay. But, my most grievous error—in his view—would be in hassling
the Doghouse team. I don't believe he has ever actually heard Hank on the air,
but he is embarrassed to have any connection with me and has asked that I
publish this under an alias. Interestingly,
he has made no reference in this discussion to his brother (my older son), who has significant
cognitive and physical disabilities.
[125] Carolyn Hughes & Martin Agran,
"Self-Determination: Signaling a Systems Change?" 23 J. of The
Ass'n for Persons with Severe Handicaps 1
(1998). Still, one researcher calls the concept elusive, with no generally
accepted definition. Brian H. Abery, "A Conceptual Framework for Enhancing
Self-Determination," in Challenges for a Service System in
Transition, supra n. 85 at 347.
[126] See e.g., Mary-Ellen Fortini &
Mary FitzPatrick, "The Universal Design for Promoting
Self-Determination," in Restructuring
for Caring and Effective Education
(Richard A. Villa & Jacqueline S. Thousand eds.) at 575-76 (2000)
(self-determination refers to development of skills and opportunities for
people to make decisions, experience control and have choices in their lives
and ability to make choices about
their lives.)
[127] Increasing Self-Determination in
Arizona: The Plans of the Design Team
(n.d.) (on file with author).
[128] Minnesota Governor's Planning
Council on Developmental Disabilities, supra n. 55 at 1 (citation omitted).
[129] Hughes & Agran, supra n. 125 at 1 and Abery, supra n. 125 at 353.
[130] Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code
§4502(j).
[131] The Arc, formerly the Association
for Retarded Citizens, is one of the oldest advocacy and service organizations
for persons with developmental disabilities. http://www.thearc.org/history.
[132] Michael L. Wehmeyer,
"Self-Determination and Individuals with Significant Disabilities:
Examining Meanings and Misinterpretations," (hereafter "J.A.S.H."), 23 J.
of The Ass'n for Persons with Severe Handicaps), supra n. 125 at 5, 8 (emphasis in original).
[133] Michael L. Wehmeyer,
"Self-determination: Critical Skills for Outcome-Oriented Transition
Services," 15 J. for Vocational Special Needs Education 3-9 (1992).
[134] Thomas Michael Holub, Peg Lamb &
Myong-Ye Bang, "Empowering All Students Through Self-Determination," in Restructuring High Schools for All
Students (Cheryl M. Jorgensen ed.) 186
(1998).
[135] Michael W. Smull, "Some
Thoughts from the Field: Invited Response to Articles on
Self-Determination," 23 J. of The Ass'n for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, supra n. 125 at 53, 54.
[136] The names of individuals have been
changed to protect their privacy. Similarly, the various e-mail messages quoted
here, posted between May and August 2002, have been edited in minor ways for
spelling, punctuation and removal of identifying information.
[137] Protection and Advocacy agencies
have the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect involving
persons with developmental disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §6042(a)(2)(B).
[138] E-mail posting. Another respondent
wrote: "And then there's that pesky free speech issue…" See n. 164 infra.
[139] Linda M. Bambara, Christine L. Cole
& Freya Koger, "Translating Self-Determination Concepts into Support
for Adults With Severe Disabilities," 23 J. of The Ass'n for Persons
with Severe Handicaps, supra n. 125 at 27, 29.
[140] R. Perske, "The Dignity of
Risk," in Normalization:
The Principle of Normalization (W.
Wolfensberger ed.) 194-200 (1972), cited in Wehmeyer (J.A.S.H.), supra
n. 132 at 7. One colleague, Denise, posits that there would not be such a fuss
about Hank's career choice if his impairment were physical. She is also doubtful that there are alternative
radio programming options for people with cognitive disabilities. Conversation
of April 7, 2003.
[141] Bogdan, supra n. 65 at 268. A contemporary Coney Island Side Show
exhibitor, who also emphasizes the business relationship, takes umbrage at
Bogdan's criticism of freak shows: "Who's exploitative, the critic who
condemns the performer [or] the producer of the show who pays him a salary?"
Adams, supra n. 51 at 216.
[142] Wehmeyer (J.A.S.H.), supra
n. 132 at 11.
[143] Abery, supra n. 125 at 355 (one must be exposed to alternatives
in order to make informed decisions).
[144] Bambara et al., supra n. 139 at 29.
[145] Ibid.
[146] See, e.g, Annotated Bibliography On Supported
Employment (Bonnie
Shoultz, ed.) 1991, Research and Training Center on Community Integration,
Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University; and Pathways to Home and
Community: Promising Practices for Indiana Citizens with Disabilities, Indiana Institute on Disability and Community, Indiana
University, Bloomington (2000).
[147] See,
e.g., Brian H. Abery & Maurice Fahnestock, supra n. 85 and Stuart J. Schleien, John E. Rynders &
Frederick P. Green, "Facilitating Integration in Recreation
Environments," in Challenges for a Service System in Transition,
supra n. 85, ch. 5 & 6.
[148] See, e.g., statement of The
Committee on Sexuality, Advocating for Persons With Developmental Disabilities,
which "recognizes and supports the rights of all people with developmental
disabilities to have opportunities for social relationships and sexual
expression." http://www.w3ddesign.com/committee. See
also, the Disability and Sexuality website, www.disabledsex.org ("intended to
challenge the myths that disabled people are invisible, asexual, unintelligent,
undesirable or incapable in any way") and Shuttleworth, supra
n. 87 at 24-25 (continued oppression and exclusion from sexual decision-making
experienced by people with cognitive disabilities, particularly those living in
institutionalized or group settings).
[149] Pam Hunt, Morgen Alwell, Lori Goetz
& Wayne Sailor, "Generalized Effects of Conversation Skill
Training," 15 J. of The Ass'n for Persons with Severe Handicaps 250, 253 (Table 2) (1990).
[150] The IPP is California's version of a
planning team document. It records a regional center consumer's choices,
supports and other decisions related to living arrangements, work, education,
recreation, leisure activities, etc. Calif.Welf. & Inst. Code §4646(b)
& 4646.5(c)(1).
[151]
http://www.wild949.com/deejay_hank.hmtl. (Sept. 28, 2002). The list of dislikes
is probably the most suspect in terms of its authenticity.
[152] African-American
men had put on blackface in order to capitalize on America's racism by playing
to the white belief that they were indeed the plantation darkies they portrayed
on stage—even advertising themselves as "genuine Negroes." Wynton
Marsalis, "Reflections on minstrelsy," http://www.pbs.org/jazz/exchange/exchange_minstrel.htm. Similarly, some of the
"human oddities" were conscious of the image they projected about
abnormality and were even contemptuous of their audience. Bogdan, supra n. 65 at 271-72. After a hiatus, the freak show has
seen a revival of sorts— sometimes with sexual and gender twists— in contrast
with the equally popular minstrel entertainment. The latter is too dependent
on a now taboo racialized humor. Adams, supra n. 51 at
12, 215. See also, nn. 117 & 118 supra.
[153] Abery & Fahnestock, supra n. 85 at
93.
[154] Under California's developmental
disabilities service system, regional center program planning teams are
required to first consider services and supports for persons with developmental
disabilities who are in "natural community, home, work and recreational
settings." Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code §4648(a)(2). See also,
§4512(e)-(f)(defining "natural supports" and "circle of
support").
[155] "Self-advocacy," according to People First of California, "means
that the members are learning how to speak for themselves and make decisions
about what they want to do with their lives." http://www.peoplefirstca.org, supra n. 154. Sometimes referred to as "personal
advocacy," it involves "speaking out or acting on behalf of oneself
or others, or on behalf of a particular issue" whether individually or in
groups. One research team concludes that "positive outcome" and
"enhanced dignity and self respect" are important attributes of
self-advocacy development. Abery, supra n. 125 at 359-60 (citations omitted). The mission of PAI's
Developmental Disability Peer/Self-Advocacy Unit is to "assist[] persons
with disabilities in understanding and controlling the systems and processes
which affect their lives" through peer role models. PAI, Advocacy
Services Plan (2003-08), supra n. 38 at
8. http://www.pai-ca.org/pubs/540201.pdf.
[156] Area Boards are part of a statewide
monitoring and advocacy system to ensure that the legal, civil and service
rights of Californians with developmental disabilities are protected. Calif.
Welf. & Inst. Code §4548(d)(1).
[157] Fredda Brown, Carole R. Gothelf,
Doug Guess & Donna H. Lehr, "Self-Determination for Individuals With
the Most Severe Disabilities: Moving Beyond Chimera," 23 J. of The
Ass'n for Persons with Severe Handicaps
17, 22, supra n. 125. In
California, no publicly funded educational agency may authorize any behavioral
intervention which is designed or used to subject an individual to verbal
abuse, humiliation, ridicule or excessive emotional trauma or any intervention
likely to cause physical pain. 5 Calif. Code of Regs. §3052(l). Similarly, all
care providers of persons with developmental disabilities are prohibited from
using any form of behavior modification that may cause pain or trauma, unless
part of a tightly controlled treatment program endorsed by a qualified
professional and the interdisciplinary team. 17 Calif. Code of Regs. §50822.
[158] The mission of this self-advocacy
organization is to aid people with developmental disabilities "to speak
for ourselves, know our rights and responsibilities, and [be] respected, valued
members of our communities." http://www.peoplefirstca.org,
supra n. 154 .
[159] Wehmeyer (J.A.S.H.), supra n. 132 at 13. Sometimes we worry the choice is
contrived, not real. One mother asks about her adult son's invitation one year
to spend Christmas at his home—rather
than his parents.' "Did his housemates… 'support his choice' to invite us
over or shape his choice on his
behalf?" Diane L. Ferguson, "Relating to Self-Determination: One
Parent's Thoughts," 23 J. of The Ass'n for Persons with Severe
Handicaps 44, 45, supra n. 125 (emphasis added).
[160] These reflect comments actually made
by focus group participants during PAI's 2002 priorities-setting process.
[161] Wehmeyer (J.A.S.H.), supra n.
132 at 14 (quoting D. Ferleger,
"The Place of 'Choice'," in Choice and Responsibility: Legal and Ethical Dilemmas in
Services for Persons with Mental Disability
(C.J. Sundram ed.) 64-97 (1994)). See also, Abrey, supra n. 125 at 357 (process of choice-making is only one
of the abilities needed to achieve autonomy).
[162] Wehmeyer (J.A.S.H.), supra n. 132 at 13.
[163] Bengt Nirje, "The Right to
Self-Determination," in Normalization:
The Principle of Normalization, supra n. 140, quoted in Hughes & Agran, supra n. 125 at 1.
[164] Under conventional legal analysis,
restrictions on hate speech tend to be incompatible with the First Amendment's
protection of freedom of speech. Professor Matsuda, however, cites to numerous
international conventions and other democratic nations' laws which proscribe
racist expression or speech. Matsuda, supra
n. 14 at 2341-48. She also puts forth an argument for a narrow application of a
prohibition of hate speech that preserves First Amendment values. Ibid. at 2356-61. Professor Delgado also distinguishes
between the values of free expression and the use of racial insults and racist
speech, and lays out the elements for filing a court action against one who
uses an epithet intended to demean. Delgado, supra n. 14 at 175-80.
[165] Even this description does not do
justice to the nuances, e.g., there is advocacy for and advocacy with.
[166] Bogdan, supra n. 65 at 280.
[167] Ibid. "How can she say I'm being taken advantage of? Hell, what does
she want for me—to be on welfare?" Ibid. A 1971 roundtable of performers elicited this
pessimistic assessment of job opportunities: "You get more respect in a
sideshow; in the street you'd have to be a beggar." Drimmer, supra n. 57 at 15.
[168] Adams, supra n. 57 at 216. Professor Adams writes about a
developmentally disabled person of short stature who appears in a contemporary
Coney Island side show and, according to the show's producer, is proud and
happy with his role. "We could not laugh, for despite [his] concerted
efforts, there was nothing funny about what we were seeing and the very act of
looking….suddenly made us feel complicit in his degradation." Ibid.
[169] See text acc. n. 113 supra.
[170] See n. 38 supra.
[171] See, Delgado, supra at 135-150 for a discussion of the harms caused
psychologically, sociologically and politically by racial insults and racism. Delagdo asserts that "[t]he
racial insult remains one of the most pervasive channels through which
discriminatory attitudes are imparted….Not only does the listener learn and
internalize the messages contained in racial insults, these messages color our
society's institutions and are transmitted to succeeding generations." Ibid. at 135-36. A similar argument can be made with
regard to disablist name-calling
and attitudes.
[172] Disability studies scholar Mark
Sherry writes that "the line between speech and conduct is difficult in
practice to establish." Mark Sherry, "Don't Ask, Tell or Respond:
Silent Acceptance of Disability Hate Crimes" 5 (paper presented at the
Greater Bay Area Interuniversity Disability Studies Consortium, Berkeley,
November 20, 2002). Sherry notes that those who favor penalizing hate speech
define hate crimes more expansively than free speech supporters, as they
conceive of hate speech or hate crimes as "part of a continuum of bigotry
and prejudice" rather than discrete acts. Ibid. He cites other authors who view hate speech as
creating a "symbolic code for violence" or a political climate where
persons with disabilities experience "oppressive silencing," (e.g.,
R.K. Whillock, "The Use of Hate As A Strategem for Achieving Political and
Social Goals" (1995) and Marian Corker, "The UK Disability
Discrimination Act: Disabling Language, Justifying Inequitable Social
Participation" (2000) (full citations omitted)). Ibid.
[173] Rachel Adams, "Enabling
Differences: New Work in Disability Studies," 37 Michigan Qrtrly.
Review 348, 349 (1998)(referring to
portrayal by doctors, educators, politicians and artists).
[174] Ibid. at 349 (quoting
Michael Bérubé, Life
As We Know It: A Father,
A Family, and An Exceptional Child 260
(1996)). See also, n. 38 supra
on media images.
[175] These ranged from direct complaints
to station management, to protests to the Federal Communications Commission and
lawsuits. See, e.g., Peter Hartlaub, "No Prank Too Wild In the Ratings
Game: Costly Lawsuits Don't Deter Radio Station," San Francisco
Chronicle (Dec. 31, 2000) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/31/MN112871.DTL; Jerry Carroll, "KYLD Gives A Mom A Hard
Time," San Francisco Chronicle
(Apr. 3, 1998) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/04/03/DD88340.DTL .
[176] See nn. 8-9, 34-36 & acc. text, supra, regarding the Doghouse sponsors and
changes in the advertising industry. To
make matters worse, the show runs anti-tobacco and anti-drug public service
announcements right along with the deejays' jokes about illegal drugs and
alcohol. The Wild 94.9 website is supposed to make up for the lapses, showing
that the "dogs" can also be good citizens. See, e.g., http://www.wild949.com/doghouse_drugs.html & http://www.wild949.com/doghouse_mediacontact.html
(Mar. 1, 2003). "Along
with all this madness, the Doghouse has helped the community. Deejay Hollywood
walked from San Francisco to San Jose (50 Miles) to raise funds to help a
3-year-old cancer patient. J.V. swam from Alcatraz to the shore." http://www.wild949.com/deejay_doghouse.html.
(Mar. 1, 2003).
[177] December 3, 2002 broadcast.
[178] See Appendix. Martin is not adverse to reviewing programs for
appropriateness. After the events of September 11, 2001, he was quoted in a
major daily as saying that "program directors were having informal
discussions about what songs might be inappropriate to play." James Sullivan,
"Radio Employee Circulates Don't-Play List," San Francisco
Chronicle (Sept. 18, 2001). http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/18/DD228327.DTL.
A Clear Channel staff member had just distributed a list of more than 150
"questionable" songs to the company's affiliates nationwide,
suggesting that they not be aired. Ibid.
[179] December 3, 2002.
[180] While Coinstar wrote that it would
review its media planning guidelines for airing commercials, more typical was
the response from Macy's West: "…we recognize and respect the media's
right to express editorial opinions, even if it may present a view contrary to
those of our customers." (Letters of October 25, 2002 and January 16,
2003 on file with author).
[181] See e.g., text acc. nn. 59-60 supra.
[182] December 17, 2002.
[183] This is consistent with Vice President Martin's letter of
October 25, 2002. See Appendix.
[184] An engineer witness, who allegedly
has a developmental disability, was put on the phone while he was eating a
tamale snack. After he "testified" in Hank's favor, Elvis responded
sarcastically: "I didn't know Gerber's makes [baby food] tamales."
[185] August 14, 2002. The comments were
made in response to a recent guest who had complained about being disrespected
on the show.
Authors
Share
Downloads
Information
Metrics
Citation
File Checksums
(MD5)
-
html: 57b94d3f22c204e9f22437b4c31bebd4
Rosenbaum,
S.
(2003) 'Hammerin' Hank: The Right to Be Raunchy or FM Freak Show?',
Disability Studies Quarterly. 23(3/4)
doi: 10.18061/dsq.v23i3/4.432
Rosenbaum,
S.
Hammerin' Hank: The Right to Be Raunchy or FM Freak Show?. Disability Studies Quarterly. 2003 7; %}23(3/4)
doi: 10.18061/dsq.v23i3/4.432
Rosenbaum,
S.
(2003, 7 15). Hammerin' Hank: The Right to Be Raunchy or FM Freak Show?.
Disability Studies Quarterly 23(3/4)
doi: 10.18061/dsq.v23i3/4.432
