Extending the diversity agenda in forensics: Invisible disabilities and beyond.

• Author: Shelton, Michael W.

Michael W. Shelton and Cynthia K. Matthews (*)

Diversity issues have become a cornerstone of higher education, and forensic activities are certainly no exception to that rule. Indeed, in many regards the forensic community has been on the leading edge of inclusiveness within higher education. The forensic community has made remarkable progress and it has vividly illuminated the need to share the unique benefits of forensic practice with often socially marginalized demographic groups, particularly women and minorities. Perhaps the next logical step would be to consider the evolving "invisible" elements of that domain, and those with invisible disabilities offer an informative illustrative case.

Disabled people make up one-fifth of the population in the United States (McNeil, 1993), and it has been predicted that at least 400% of these people have disabilities which cannot be seen, or are "invisible" (Asch, 1984). Invisible disability has been defined as "one that is hidden so as not to be immediately noticed by an observer except under unusual circumstances or by disclosure from the disabled person or other outside source" (Matthews, 1994, p. 7) and encompasses both physical and mental conditions. Physical conditions include various chronic illnesses, such as heart disease and lung disease; mental conditions include learning disabilities and cognitive processing problems like dementia and mental retardation. There has been a significant increase in the number of people with invisible disabilities in the United States as indicated by several factors. For the last quarter century the number of people with chronic diseases and disabilities has been climbing (Hayden, 1993; Kaye, LaPlante, Carlson, & Wen ger, 1997). Activity limitations are most frequently caused by conditions that are chronic, including diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, mental and nervous disorders, and lung disease, all of which are, for the most part, invisible (LaPlante, 1991). 1991). These chronic conditions make up two-thirds of the disabling conditions reported in the United States (LaPlante, 1997). New treatments and therapeutic interventions have made it possible for people with chronic conditions and disabilities to survive in dramatically increasing numbers in the last twenty-five years. Examples of particularly remarkable changes in survival rates are: cystic fibrosis, up 700%, spina bifida, up 200%, and heart disease, up 300% (Blum, 1992). Additionally, a distinct increase in disability rates reported by The National Center for Health Statistics among people under 45 years of age are accounted for by a greater prevalence in the diagnosis of asthma, mental disorders (e.g., Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Attention Deficit Disorder), a nd orthopedic impairments (e.g., back and joint problems) (Kaye et al., 1997), conditions which again are invisible under most conditions.

These increases in the numbers of persons with invisible disabilities make it important both to declare the reality of invisible disability and to understand the impact of the visibility factor on the attitudes and behaviors of those living with the condition, for others who interact with them, and the larger forensic community's drive to address diversity. Western societies value self-reliance, beauty, health and independence. This obsession with health is particularly prevalent in United States culture (Galanti, 1997). People tend to believe that healthy is normal and that illness is a deviance (Hayden, 1993). Therefore persons with invisible disabilities have great incentive to keep their conditions concealed. Unfortunately, concealing disabilities can carry serious negative ramifications in terms of relationships. Those negative ramifications can dramatically impact the individuals with invisible disabilities, the able-bodied others with whom they interact and ultimately the larger collective-including th e forensic community-to which they belong.

The central theme of this work is to provide an explication of such potential negative ramifications as a vehicle to illustrate the need for extending the diversity agenda in the forensic community. In pursuit of such a goal we undertake several important steps. We first examine the current status of the diversity agenda in forensics. That examination is followed by an explication of the illustrative case of invisible disabilities to demonstrate the need to broaden inclusiveness. We move from the illustrative case to a discussion of measures that point to the possibility for extending the diversity agenda in forensics to better address and examine invisible disabilities and to view such measures as a catalyst to prompt attention to other diversity factors.

THE CONTEMPORARY DIVERSITY AGENDA IN FORENSICS

Initially, it is vital to acknowledge that the forensic community is leaps and bounds ahead of many other groups, organizations, and institutions in regard to overall diversity issues. The forensic community continues to focus attention upon some critically important diversity matters. For example, in a recent Newsletter the American Forensic Association's Professional Development and Support Committee (Call For..., 1999, p. 7) issued a statement calling for a new research program to undertake measurement of diversity efforts in both scholastic and intercollegiate forensic programs. Yet, the bulk of diversity attention in the forensic community has been targeted at a demographic only level. Indeed, the forensic community has invested so much attention to gender and racial diversity in recent years that a comprehensive and exhaustive review of relevant presentational and published literature would require a book. Here, we will attempt to highlight several of the gender and racial diversity efforts to emerge in the recent past.

Gender has commanded enormous attention within the forensic community. In fact, to contextualize gender diversity in an historical sense the observation made by Friedley and Manchester (1985) is telling:

The gender difference in forensic participation has long been a concern in the forensic community; as early as the 1930s women were addressing the issue. By 1957, the concern was once again expressed and the issue was already stated at the National Developmental Conference on Forensics jointly sponsored by the American Forensic Association and the Speech Communication Association in 1974, ten years later, the 1984 National Development Conference at Northwestern University endorsed a resolution "to increase and strengthen forensic participation by identifying ethnic, racial, gender, and handicap barriers which may currently inhibit student participation as well as disseminate findings concerning such barriers throughout the forensic community." (pp. 1-2)

The 1990s witnessed a virtual explosion in attention to gender diversity in forensics and we highlight that research.

To continue the historical contextualization of gender diversity in forensics, the introductory remarks by Bjork and Trapp (1994) to a special forum section of Argumentation and Advocacy on sexual harassment in intercollegiate debate further sets the stage. They report that both organizational and professional forces within the two predominate modes of team debate, NDT and CEDA, have initiated efforts to focus attention upon problems confronted by women when they elect to engage in intercollegiate debate. Moving beyond that introduction and contextualization, that special forum section offered preliminary data regarding sexual harassment in both CEDA (Stepp, Simerly, & Logue, 1994) and NDT (Szwapa, 1994).

Sexual harassment was, however, only one of the many gender diversity issues to receive scholarly attention in the forensic community during the 1990s. Win-loss and speaker point distribution in terms of gender differences have been empirically examined for both high school (Shelton & Shelton, 1993) and intercollegiate (Bruschke &Johnson, 1994) debaters. Indeed, Bruschke and Johnson found a number of disturbing trends in regard to gender equity in intercollegiate debate, including a tendency for women to receive fewer speaker points than men and to experience more limited success in the debate context. Bruschke and...