Archive for March, 2009

President Obama Should Know Better

March 20, 2009

President Obama’s gaffe last night on the Tonight Show was unfortunately all too reminiscent of the federal government’s attitude toward people with disabilities.

First of all, when Obama said of his bowling, “It was like the Special Olympics or something,” it was obviously very insulting to people with intellectual or cognitive disabilities.  It’s very possible that Obama talks this way among his peers.  To not understand how offensive that statement is shows a glaring unawareness.  I’m sure there are a lot of Special Olympians who could beat Obama in bowling.

If Obama had made a racist or religious joke, the media would have been all over it.  But a joke against people with special needs?   That’s acceptable. 

I volunteered for two years as a soccer coach for the Special Olympics in Maryland, and I went to a Special Olympics event in California last year (see the two photos I took).  I started volunteering for sports programs for kids with disabilities 10 years ago, and I currently work with kids with autism (www.coachmike.net), so I know a little bit about this subject. 

Special Olympics, Long Beach, California, summer 2008

Special Olympics, Long Beach, California, summer 2008. Photo by Mike Frandsen

 

(Obama sits up there, trying to be smooth and cool.  In fact, let’s face it.  The reason that Obama got elected really isn’t any different than why every U.S. president has gotten elected in the last 40 years.  He was a better speaker than his opponents and people vote mainly on image.  Look it up – of the past 10 presidential elections, it is ALWAYS the candidate who has a better image – the one who is more friendly, possesses more charisma, and is a better public speaker.  The only possible exception was in 2000 when you could argue that Gore had a better persona than Bush [it was about even because while Gore was a much better speaker, he was more stiff and Bush was much more folksy], but many say Gore actually did win that election and he did get half a million more votes anyway. 

It’s why Obama beat Hillary – he was “cooler.”  Experience didn’t matter – funny – it always matters when I apply for a job but it doesn’t for the presidency.  I’m not saying people don’t vote for who they think will be the better president, I’m just saying that people vote for candidates who they like the most based on their personality and charisma.)

I personally believe that Obama is one of those people who is somewhat fake and unauthentic because he constantly says things and does things that are calculated to improve his image.  Not that you would expect anything other than that from a politician.

I’m not anti-Obama – I agree with Obama and the Democrats on most issues – for example, people should have a fair chance at health care – the U.S. policy on that is shameful (in fact, if I ever run for office you can look back at this statement:  “I am NOT proud of my country because of our health care situation.”  And I will never retract that statement).  And we need a clean environment to reduce the incidence of autism, breast cancer, and other disorders and diseases.

But back to the point.

There is a startling unawareness in the federal government with respect to hiring people with disabilities.  It starts at the top with the President, filters down to the cabinet members, down to the directors of the federal agencies, and down to the management and hiring personnel.  I’m not saying Obama is worse than other presidents in giving a fair chance to people with disabilities, but I’m not sure he’s any better.  See my report at http://www.coachmike.net/special_report.php.  I concluded that “The federal government’s Schedule A program intended to facilitate the hiring of people with disabilities is severely underutilized, especially in hiring people with cognitive and psychiatric disabilities.”  

Schedule A is a hiring authority set up by the government to help level the playing field and make it easier to hire people with disabilities, whether they be cognitive/intellectual (the government still uses the outdated “mental retardation” terminology), psychiatric, or physical.  (There still isn’t a developmental category to cover autism). 

The Office of Personnel Management created the Schedule A program more than 20 years ago to allow for greater recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities.  It allows federal agencies to bypass the competitive process to provide disabled

Special Olympics, Long Beach, California, summer 2008

Special Olympics, Long Beach, California, summer 2008.

 individuals a unique opportunity to demonstrate their ability to successfully perform the essential duties of a position with or without reasonable accommodation.  OPM states that the Schedule A certification is used to “appoint persons who are certified that they are at a severe disadvantage in obtaining employment…Certification also ensures that they are capable of functioning in the position for which they will be appointed, and that any residual disabilities are not job-related.”

In almost all cases in which the hiring authority was used, hires of people with physical disabilities outnumbered those with cognitive and psychiatric disabilities by a very wide margin.

People with disabilities have a 70% unemployment rate.  This figure only includes people who are willing and able to work and it’s still 70%. 

The only problem is that Schedule A isn’t mandatory, so it’s woefully underused except by a few agencies.  Take the National Institutes of Health as an example.  You would think this organization would be better, not worse, than other agencies at hiring people with disabilities through the Schedule A hiring authority.  In fact, I believe that the facts show that NIH discriminates against people with disabilities in their hiring process.  

From 1998 to 2008, NIH, with nearly 18,000 full-time employees, hired just four people with cognitive disabilities and one with a psychiatric disability through the Schedule A program.  I learned this information through Freedom of Information Act requests.

I first notified NIH in 2004 that they had been negligent in hiring Schedule A employees with disabilities.  I also notified them in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.  Their response was almost always no response.  Each year I contacted the NIH Director, Equal Employment Office, Human Resource Officials, Selective Placement Coordinator, Institute Directors, and Ombudsman multiple times.  I have 200 pages of documents to prove it.  When I brought the subject up, several times speaking at the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, parents applauded but scientists and NIH leaders laughed at me. 

To this day, NIH refuses to comment on the report, and refuses to take any action to improve the situation.  After eight years at NIH (the last five as an employee), I threatened to quit in December 2006 if NIH did nothing to improve the situation.  They did nothing, I quit, and two years later NIH still hasn’t taken any action.

(This is a little off topic, but now I need a federal job again because the kidney transplant I will need soon will cost $180,000 including medications for the first year, and my insurance currently only covers 80% of it whereas the federal insurance covers 100% – see www.mikeneedsakidney.com.  But NIH is treating me like a private company would treat a whistleblower.  Instead of trying to improve the situation that I brought attention to, they are ignoring it, and holding the fact that I brought it to their attention against me.).

When I contacted Congressman Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) office, they promised to respond.  They ignored the issue for more than a year and then stonewalled until they thought I went away. 

You may say that it costs too much to include people with disabilities in the workforce.  But in fact, it costs too much not to do it.  You can get productivity at a relatively low price by hiring people with disabilities, and prevent them from relying on government programs like Social Security disability when possible.  (Same with health care – a little bit of preventative care goes a long way to save money in the long run).

The success or failure of any organization starts at the top.  The President’s remarks were dismissive of the abilities of people with special needs.  There is an attitude throughout the government that people with disabilities are to be ignored.  Taking action would be to admit that there is a problem, and agencies such as NIH are more concerned with their image than doing the right thing, so they would never admit that they have been deficient in hiring people with disabilities through the Schedule A hiring authority.  

The media doesn’t care either.  As I write this at 2:30 p.m., I just saw an interview on MSNBC with Chuck Todd about Obama’s appearance last night on the Tonight Show.  Todd said the show went great for Obama.  Not once in this ridiculously long interview did they bring up the President’s remarks about the Special Olympics.  The interview went so long that it delayed the Presidential Press Secretary’s press conference.  If Hillary had made those remarks, you can bet that MSNBC would be all over it. 

As for NIH, if they can’t handle hiring people with disabilities through the Schedule A program, and they were made aware of this problem five years ago, I’m sorry to say but you have to question whether they can handle other important initiatives such as stem cell research.  Don’t get me wrong – I think stem cell research is critically important to save lives and improve the quality of lives, and as much research should be done as soon as possible.  However, it would be a mistake to just throw a ton of money at the problem like the government did for the banks just because they are supposedly smarter than us. 

If there are competing organizations that can get the job done, they should be considered as well.  Either way, there should be a stringent process that funding goes to the programs that are most deserving and will be held accountable for what they do.  This process should be stringent but also expedited so that bureaucratic red tape doesn’t delay research.  You can argue that stem cell research is more important than ensuring that people with disabilities get a fair chance to contribute to the missions of government agencies.  I would say they are equally important – but they are not mutually exclusive.  The government should do both. 

This blog entry has been a little scattered, but I thought it was important to address the subject quickly.   In summary:

1.  The NIH and other federal agencies must do a better job of hiring people with disabilities using the Schedule A hiring authority.  The only way to do this is to make it or a similar program mandatory because otherwise, the government will discriminate.  

2.  President Obama (“Teflon Barry”) should set an example by hiring people with disabilities to work in the White House.  He should also give a better apology.  He should also ensure that the federal government is held accountable for giving people with disabilities a fair chance, otherwise, hiring officials and management will do the same things they have always done about this situation:  ignore it or laugh about it. 

Please see my websites:  www.coachmike.net and www.mikeneedsakidney.com.  

Finally – I reviewed this post and was going to tone it down because I thought it might be a bit harsh, but I actually decided to add to it and make it stronger.  I think Obama is a good person and a good president – we shouldn’t be afraid to criticize him, though, when he deserves it.  I’m a big Redskins fan but I’ve criticized them mercilessly for the last 15 years.  As for this and other blog posts, I try to be honest and tell it like it is.  Hopefully you appreciate it but if not, it is what it is.  


Note to NFL GMs: Winning should Matter

March 15, 2009

Last year, I wrote that Byron Leftwich wasn’t getting a fair chance to be an NFL starting quarterback, and that NFL people were concentrating too much on his deficiencies instead of his winning record (24-20) as a starter.  A lot of NFL owners, general managers and coaches prefer style over substance, and they’d rather have a player who has what they believe to be the necessities to be a good quarterback (height, arm strength, mobility, etc.) than someone who is great at winning football games. 

Another example of this – NFL people putting a higher priority on style than substance – was Doug Flutie, who if he were given a fair chance would have been a very good NFL starting quarterback for 15 years.  Still another example was Trent Dilfer, who was the starting quarterback during the 2000 season for the Baltimore Ravens who won the Super Bowl.  Dilfer was 58-53 for his career, and he didn’t play on many good teams other than the 2000 Ravens.  For that 10-1 record and Super Bowl championship, Dilfer got kicked out of the door in favor of Elvis Grbac and then Kyle Boller, the poster boy for the first round draft choice who doesn’t work out. 

(At least Boller started for a few seasons.  Top 3 overall draft picks Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, and Akili Smith were all out of the league after a few seasons).  I guess it’s high risk/high reward, like stocks.  A good veteran quarterback (value stock) who can lead you to winning seasons is often passed over for a younger quarterback (more volatile, aggressive stock) who fits the mold but ultimately may not become a winner, but at least seems to have more potential. 

I was reminded of this oddity – how NFL teams don’t always like winners – when Denver Broncos QB Jay Cutler was in the news lately.  Not because of Cutler’s anger at almost being traded, but because it made me remember that Cutler’s predecessor, Jake Plummer, went 40-18 with three playoff appearances with Denver.  Plummer was 7-4 in 2006 when he was replaced by Cutler, who lost 3 of the final 5 games of the season for the Broncos.  Denver failed to make the playoffs that year.  Ok, so you say the Broncos had to sacrifice a year for the future. 

But Cutler’s record as a starter is 17-20 with no playoff appearances.  Denver coach Mike Shanahan replaced Plummer with Cutler at the time because Plummer hadn’t played well in the playoffs, but he missed the point.  First you have to get there, and once you get there, you have an excellent chance to win it all.  The point is putting yourself in a position to win, which Plummer did.  Look at the Cardinals this year, the Giants last year, and the Steelers three years ago.  Each team barely made the playoffs but won or made it to the Super Bowl.  You have to get to the playoffs – after that, there is some luck involved.

There are two sides to every story, and Plummer did make too many mistakes, while Cutler has a very strong arm and will probably have success one day.  But at some point, production – wins – should matter.  Substance should matter over style.  Unfortunately, too often in the NFL, it doesn’t.     

In Favor of the Mid-Majors

March 15, 2009

I was watching ESPN’s college basketball analysts today talk about who belongs in the NCAA tournament.  (As I write this, it’s still a half an hour before the NCAA selection committee announces which teams get into the 64-team field). 

The three commentators, Digger Phelps, Jay Bilas, and Hubert Davis were really arguing in favor of the major conference teams and against the mid-majors.  All of them kept talking about how teams that finish .500 in major conferences are better than the best of the mid-major at large teams.  They claim that the schedules of the mid-majors are too easy.  Of course teams from major conferences are all going to have a few wins against big time programs because they play against those teams a lot more.  Bilas asked, “Who can you beat that is really good?”  He said of the mid-majors, “They’ve gotta go out of conference and find those teams.”  The fact is that the majors are afraid to play the mid-majors because they don’t want to lose to them, and it’s very hard for the mid-majors to schedule major teams because they won’t play them.  

When you have a panel debating something, you can’t have everybody on one side.  Bilas, Davis, and Phelps all either played for or coached teams from major conferences.  They obviously have a lot of friends who are coaches from the major conferences. 

Finally, at least ESPN had Joe Lunardi on who said that the record of double seeded mid-major teams (10 seeds, 11 seeds, 12 seeds, etc.) is better than the record of equivalent seeded major conference teams.  So even though the selection committee is probably biased against mid-major teams because of strength of schedule and gives the mid-majors worse seeds than they deserve, the mid-majors still outperform similarly seeded major conference teams.

It was shameless how Bilas, Davis, and Phelps kept politicking for Arizona and Penn State in favor of Creighton and St. Mary’s.  And Rece Davis failed to reign them in.  The arrogance with which they look down upon the mid-majors and the disdain they have for them is apparent.  

I’m sick of seeing boring teams that finish 8-8 or 9-9 in their conferences get into the tournament in favor of mid-majors who only have a few losses.  Does anyone really want to see Penn State in the tournament?  Phelps had to look at his paper to name the supposedly great players on Arizona’s team while saying that Creighton would have no chance to beat them.  Bilas scoffed at Creighton’s 2-2 record against the top 50 and said Penn State’s 6 wins against the top 50 was so much better.  But they also had 10 losses against the top 50.  Creighton was 9-5 against the top 100 while Penn State was 7-10.

I’m a Maryland fan and I hope they get in but quite frankly I don’t think a team that finishes below .500 in its conference deserves to get in.  Otherwise, why play the regular season?  

Contrast this with ESPN’s college football gameday crew who at least has the guts to bring up differing opinions. 

I think it’s time for ESPN to bring in a commentator from a mid-major school in place of Bilas or Phelps.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.