國立虎尾科技大學 |

The Politics of Naive Integrationism : = Community Integration for Disabled People and the Promises of Olmstead.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The Politics of Naive Integrationism :/
其他題名:	Community Integration for Disabled People and the Promises of Olmstead.
作者:	Swadley, Heather.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (192 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-12, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International82-12A.
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798738619557

The Politics of Naive Integrationism : = Community Integration for Disabled People and the Promises of Olmstead.
Swadley, Heather.

The Politics of Naive Integrationism :Community Integration for Disabled People and the Promises of Olmstead. - 1 online resource (192 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-12, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2021.

Includes bibliographical references

Are disabled people "better off" in segregated or integrated settings? This question serves as a source of frequent tension between non-disabled academics and disability rights activists, the former often arguing for segregated service provision and the latter championing integration. This project argues that this supposed choice is a false dichotomy-it is a choice between fully supportive segregated services and what I call "naive integration." Naive integration is a governmental policy posture that presumptively integrates disabled people while simultaneously failing to provide the community supports and accessibility features necessary to allow them to thrive. The reason integration is perceived as a policy failure is that the federal government, as well as state and municipal governments, all too frequently integrate disabled people in a naive manner. I argue for a radical reimagination of what it means to integrate disabled people into their communities. Utilizing insights from political science, sociology, public policy, and law, I suggest that naive integration may be overcome through a strategy of creative litigation and systemic policy changes inspired by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act's Olmstead mandate. I explore how the fields of housing, education, and employment could be impacted by a more robust understanding of Olmstead's presumption toward service provision in community-based settings.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798738619557Subjects--Topical Terms:

558774
Political science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

DisabilityIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

The Politics of Naive Integrationism : = Community Integration for Disabled People and the Promises of Olmstead.
LDR:02790ntm a22003857 4500 001 1149441
005 20241022112056.5
006 m o d
007 cr bn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2021 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798738619557
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28415721
035 $a AAI28415721
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Swadley, Heather. $3 1475679
245 1 4 $a The Politics of Naive Integrationism : $b Community Integration for Disabled People and the Promises of Olmstead.
264 0 $c 2021
300 $a 1 online resource (192 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-12, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Smith, Rogers.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2021.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Are disabled people "better off" in segregated or integrated settings? This question serves as a source of frequent tension between non-disabled academics and disability rights activists, the former often arguing for segregated service provision and the latter championing integration. This project argues that this supposed choice is a false dichotomy-it is a choice between fully supportive segregated services and what I call "naive integration." Naive integration is a governmental policy posture that presumptively integrates disabled people while simultaneously failing to provide the community supports and accessibility features necessary to allow them to thrive. The reason integration is perceived as a policy failure is that the federal government, as well as state and municipal governments, all too frequently integrate disabled people in a naive manner. I argue for a radical reimagination of what it means to integrate disabled people into their communities. Utilizing insights from political science, sociology, public policy, and law, I suggest that naive integration may be overcome through a strategy of creative litigation and systemic policy changes inspired by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act's Olmstead mandate. I explore how the fields of housing, education, and employment could be impacted by a more robust understanding of Olmstead's presumption toward service provision in community-based settings.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Political science. $3 558774
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Public policy. $3 1002398
650 4 $a Disability studies. $3 809395
653 $a Disability
653 $a Integration
653 $a Olmstead
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0201
690 $a 0630
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0615
710 2 $a University of Pennsylvania. $b Political Science. $3 1183327
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 82-12A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28415721 $z click for full text (PQDT)