Conservative Perspective on Proposed Disability Services Cut at U of W.
The article posted on the CBC website (Disabled services cut at U.of Winnipeg) was about the story that was circulating around the city and appearing on the news. The alleged email that had been sent around talking about cuts the University of Winnipeg was contemplating. The outrage began when it was discovered that the proposed cuts would be to disability services. Of course this caused an uproar as many people rely on these services so they can attend classes and thrive at the university each day. The article ends with John Corlett (vice president of academics) saying the cuts would be temporary, and that the internal email was not an accurate depiction of the stance the University holds. The liberal view of this proposal is consistent with how they would want to tackle a problem. Unlike neo-conservatives, they welcome change more readily. The comment Corlett made about the cuts only being temporary is an example of how although conservatives want to fix the problems they say the welfare state has caused, the process of correcting issues requires a slow course of action.
Regardless of how long the cuts may have been for, the bottom line is the rumours of services being cut was enough to cause worry for many people and if it had gone through, a number of students would have been disadvantaged. This entire situation is a prime example of a neo-conservative position regarding “problems in society” and how it’s the individual’s responsibility to look after himself. If services for the disabled were to be cut it would be “every man for himself” or as discussed in the fourth chapter of Mullaly and reiterated in class, a case of “survival of the fittest”. There would be an immense number of students who would not be able to cope with the challenges they would have to face without the help disability services provides.
The idea of an individualistic society, keeping your problems to yourself and trying to manage in a world that does not accommodate any special needs you may have may be detrimental to the development and well being of those who require assistance. A neo-conservative belief is that everyone is entitled to freedom and equality (Mullaly 2007). But it seems that even this simple idea is a complex reality for many people. For some there seems to be a cost to keep up with society. As stated by Mullaly, the neo-conservative belief for individual rights includes equality of freedom, but social inequality.
In my own experience I’ve seen how services can impact ones’ life and give them the tools and strengths to participate in society. From family members with speech problems, to relatives and friends with forms of autism and other types of mental illness, The programs they were and still are a part of are so important to their overall health and development. If services they were enrolled in were cut, the ability for them to function in society with a disability would have posed a problem. Viewing the welfare state as having a negative effect on society and wanting more private industry is a common belief among neo-conservatives. The outcome for people who can’t afford the services they require to function in society would not be a desired one. I don’t want to think of what the reality could be for some of my friends and family if these programs were not running.
Neo-Conservative values regarding achievement tend to be associated with status and measuring or comparing where people are on the economic scale including which class they fall into. If you need assistance to be a contributing member of society it can be more difficult when you deal with mental illness. The controversial attitude that “you can be successful like me if you just get an education” or “it’s your problem not societies” does not always take into account the different obstacles each of us face whether it be depression, autism, mood disorders, personality disorder and many other challenges.
From another perspective, a socialist position would be that everyone is equal and society will work together to keep it that way. The idea of inequality and exclusion when it comes to decision making is frowned upon (Mullaly 2010). I’m not trying to say any ideology is better than another, all of the political ideologies have their pros and cons. There are benefits that lift up a society and consequences that can bring it down.
Mullaly, B. (2007). The Neo-Conservativve Paradigm. In B. Mullaly,
The New Structural Social Work: Third Edition (pp. 70-90).
Oxford University Press.
I really like the way you applied the liberal and neoconservative lenses to the U of W proposed cuts to disability services. I also appreciate how you linked your analysis to your own experience. I think when these realities hit close to home, it impacts our ideologies (unless you happen to be rich enough to pay for all the services you need, which some people are).
ReplyDeleteHello Jennilee, I was quite shocked myself when I heard about the possibility of cuts to the disability services at the U of W and how many people would be negatively affected by this. I agree regardless if it was temporary or not the reaction to this statement by people expressed the importance of these services too many people in the university. I thought you did a good job in the connecting this situation to a neo-conservative perspective. The idea that everyone should fend for themselves leaves people with disabilities behind because supports like these help these individuals gain success in society. Thanks your post it was insightful.
ReplyDeleteNicole G