東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

The Politics of Naive Integrationism...

Swadley, Heather.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

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

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	The Politics of Naive Integrationism: Community Integration for Disabled People and the Promises of Olmstead./
Author:	Swadley, Heather.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
Description:	192 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-12, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International82-12A.
Subject:	Disability studies. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28415721
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. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 192 p.

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

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

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.

ISBN: 9798738619557Subjects--Topical Terms:

543687
Disability studies.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Disability

The Politics of Naive Integrationism: Community Integration for Disabled People and the Promises of Olmstead.
LDR:02588nmm a2200385 4500 001 2401187
005 20241022112056.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798738619557
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28415721
035 $a AAI28415721
035 $a 2401187
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Swadley, Heather. $3 3771265
245 1 0 $a The Politics of Naive Integrationism: Community Integration for Disabled People and the Promises of Olmstead.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 192 p.
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.
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.
590 $a School code: 0175.
650 4 $a Disability studies. $3 543687
650 4 $a Public policy. $3 532803
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
653 $a Disability
653 $a Integration
653 $a Olmstead
690 $a 0201
690 $a 0630
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0615
710 2 $a University of Pennsylvania. $b Political Science. $3 2100856
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 82-12A.
790 $a 0175
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28415721