Please let me know if there's any trouble accessing anything in the presentation!

tinyurl.com/CDS-midterm

I came across this scietific aritcle on my phone, while looking at news articles on my google homepage. What struck me the most was the title and photo were such a cruel combination. The title reads "CRISPR Snips Away Extra Chromosomes, Offering New Hope for Down Syndrome Treatment" with a photo of a little girl with down syndrome. I just feel like the idea of snipping away down syndrome and also using a photo of a girl with down syndrome is especially eugenic. The "hopeful tone" of the title is a contrast to the actual implications of "erasing" downsnydrome. Also the article does not talk at all about the implications of such treatement on the DS community nor involve a person with DS perspective. 

Reading these pieces really made me think about how deeply ableism is embedded in academia, even in ways I hadn’t fully considered before. Margaret Price’s concept of “topoi” stood out to me—especially how certain ideas about mental disability get reinforced in ways that make it harder for neurodivergent and intellecutally disabled people to be seen as “academic.” The expectation of productivity, rationality, and composure is something I’ve felt before, but I hadn’t really connected it to a larger system until now. The way Price ties this to school shootings was particularly heavy to read, because it’s true that discussions about mental illness in academic spaces often focus on danger rather than support.

I remember learning about the industrial revolution in middle school and learning how our education system began to reflect the standardization of factory spaces. Students lined up in desks facing the front of the room. Standardized tests were administered to assess the large increase in students attending schools. I remember being appalled by the similarities between working on a factory floor and working in a classroom. Yet, despite that revelation, our teachers and school system do not do anything to change the classroom orientation nor how we assess students. The readings for this week on disability in academia highlighted some of these restrictive and standardized methods.

Yep, they do exist, thanks to the Plain Writing Act of 2010. You can find the guidelines at plainlanguage.gov. "Plain language" is not intended to be used in all contexts, but in the case of government information meant for the public, it seems like a good thing.   

Access intimacy is a kind of love that exists in the spaces where care is natural, unspoken, and deeply felt. It’s the relief of someone instinctively knowing what you need, not because you had to explain every detail, but because they understand the world in a way that makes room for you. It’s the kind of love that isn’t just about grand gestures but about the quiet moments—someone slowing their pace to match yours, rearranging a space without being asked, or remembering the small accommodations that make a world of difference. True accessibility isn’t just about compliance or legal standards; it’s about love in practice, about a world where people are valued enough that their presence is never an afterthought.

I had never heard of this museum before, but when I looked at pictures online it seemed very disturbing. Showing humans off as specimens removes them so much from who they are as people and when I read Riva's article on the museum I could not agree with her more. That if families of those in the collection were allowed to be apart of the exhibit they would include the persons life. I think this also connects to a huge problem in the US when it comes to donated bodies to science and how the industry is completely unregulated and bodies donated to science are actually not guranteed to go to a reuptable institution such as a university.

In both of my disabilities classes, advanced theory and literature, there has been a discussion of "masking". It seems as though as long as their has been disabled people recording their own lives, there has been a trend of what has been come to be known as "masking". By psycological definition "...masking, also known as social camouflaging, is a defensive behavior in which an individual conceals their natural personality or behavior in response to social pressure, abuse, or harassment." Which is a pretty good definition in my opionon. Unfortunetly, in many medical and non-disabled spaces maksing has come to be know as something that is done because of a disability or a person's own weakness.

I was interested by the way Clare traced how disabled people have claimed and been denied relative autonomy throughout history. He discusses in depth his aversion to the word “freak,” owing primarily to the history of freak shows. While part of the piece discusses how aspects of the freak show afforded certain performers a level of autonomy, many others were kidnapped, bought, and taken advantage of.

The "Hidden Brain" episode tells a compelling and distressing story about Carrie Buck, who was a victim of the American eugenics movement. This movement sanctioned forced sterilizations under the guise of scientific progress and social betterment. This episode isn't just a history lesson; it's also a profound contemplation on the ethical implications of using science and law to intervene in personal liberties.

Carrie Buck's story, as narrated in the podcast, epitomizes the dangers of misapplying scientific concepts like eugenics in legal and social frameworks. Declared 'feebleminded' by the very institutions meant to protect her, Carrie's personal tragedy underscores the perilous intersection of prejudice and pseudoscience. The podcast effectively illustrates how eugenics was not merely a scientific anomaly but a widespread social movement endorsed by seemingly progressive ideals of betterment and health.

This critical reminder of the responsibilities that come with scientific knowledge and legal power is an essential part of the historical account of the podcast. Additionally, the episode prompts us to think about science and law as they are applied today. It forces us to consider the following questions: are the implements that are meant to better human existence really being used to better human existence, or are they being misused? Are we in the present doing anything that could be viewed by future generations as similarly dictatorial and unjust to what we now view as the Inquisition? It calls to mind the possibility of science and law serving as instruments of injustice when guided by flawed ideologies. It reminds us of the need for vigilance and ethical consideration in how these powerful tools are applied, and serves as a potent illustration of the potential for science and law to be abused in ways that fundamentally undermine human dignity and equality.