If you’re looking for the newest posts from the Longmore Institute on Disability, please visit: longmoreinstitute.sfsu.edu/blog today!

(Photo: Wide shot of a group of people sitting in chairs facing two ASL interpreters, a table with Karen Nakamura and Andrew Ahn, and a screen showing a live webcam screenshot of Shoshannah Stern and Joshua Feldman with live captioning below them.)
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018, The Center for Asian American Media’s film festival (CAAMFest) and our Superfest Disability Film Festival partnered to co-present a screening of “This Close,” a new Sundance Now original series. Approximately 50 people attended, followed by a lively discussion.
The six-episode show follows two best friends, Kate and Michael, both deaf, as they face the challenges of balancing their personal lives and careers. This series, created by-and-starring deaf actor-writers and real-life besties, Shoshannah Stern and Joshua Feldman, was directed by Andrew Ahn.
In this series, we see two characters navigate heartbreak and workplace discrimination, all while facing the frustrating and empowering experiences of being Deaf in a hearing world. In one scene, the camera takes us down an aisle of an airplane. We see a baby crying, a man blowing his nose, and then Kate and Michael, sleeping soundly, undisturbed and comfortable. Stern noted during the discussion that she hopes season two (the show was recently renewed for another season!) will “take up more examples of #deafgain,” demonstrating positive aspects of being Deaf. And while being Deaf is central to the stories being told, this series is not inspiration porn, nor is there pity because of disability. Rather, this show comes from the perspective of two Deaf writers, drawing from their real experiences to add much-needed complex media portrayals.
After the screening of the episode “Who We Are,” moderator Karen Nakamura of UC Berkeley led a discussion with the audience and Ahn in person, as well as with Stern and Feldman who joined via webcam. The panel explored media tokenization, disability justice, and underrepresentation of minorities both in front of and behind the camera. While Stern agreed intersectionality in the disability community and in media generally must be addressed, she also noted: “We don’t want to tell someone’s story for them, just like I don’t want someone to tell me how I should feel about my own story. That feels a bit colonizing.” For both Stern and Feldman, it is important to be conscious not only of what stories are being told, but who is telling them, and who is being cast to represent them.
This event was organized through a new relationship between CAAMFest and Superfest. Both festivals stress the importance of intersectionality, representation, and collaboration within minority communities. However, all too often minority communities become siloed. Not only do they lose the nuance and complexity of oppressed voices, but they also miss out on the strength that is created when they come together.
We are grateful for this collaboration and friendship. This disability justice work and coalition-building plays a key role in challenging the many barriers — physical, social, personal — that marginalized people continue to face in 2018. At Superfest, we hope to build relationships with other festivals so we can share more intersectional stories with people in the disability community. The best conversations begin with watching films. Once we understand our various communities’ needs, we’ll gain a much better idea of how best to pool our energies for lasting, systemic change.
The following blog is cross-posted from an Opinion piece by Catherine Kudlick, which was part of The New York Times weekly Disability series: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/opinion/my-mothers-blindness-denial.html

I was blindfolded. My legs dangled off a chairlift high above the Colorado ski slope. I nervously licked at little bits of snow that tickled my lips. I was 43, and this was my first time downhill skiing. Whenever the contraption shuddered and bumped, I was convinced that we had become unhitched from the cable and were about to plunge to our deaths.
But assuming my experienced guide was right and we survived the ascent, what then? What should I do with the poles at the top? What if my skis got tangled up? What if the chair knocked me unconscious after I’d dismounted? And how would I explain this to my mother?
I recalled the day not long before when I first broached the topic of my coming training at the Colorado Center for the Blind in Littleton. Hoping to appeal to her adventurous and quirky side, I explained that the program was a bit like Outward Bound. For those who had even slight partial vision, as I do, it involved wearing sleep shades as you did activities — including skiing — that most people assumed could be done only by the sighted.
Mom agreed that this training would help my research on the history of blind people. As a social worker who had been active in the League of Women Voters studying inequalities in the juvenile justice system, she approved of my scholarship on marginalized groups.
But accepting that her daughter belonged to one of those groups was another matter.
After all these years, the idea that I might be blind enough to benefit from the program didn’t seem to register.
I was born two months premature and totally blind with cataracts. Then several months later, I startled when my dad used his new camera flash to take a picture of me nestled in a butterfly chair. This wasn’t supposed to happen. Realizing that my eyes might actually be functioning, my parents whisked me off for the first of what would be a series of operations that would punctuate my life, initially giving me sight, then improving it, then saving it when it almost disappeared, and later improving it again. These procedures ultimately allowed me to see about 10 percent of what fully sighted people do.
Thrilled that I wasn’t completely blind, I grew up as a profoundly visual person who believed in medical miracles. Each surgery brought some new discovery — the flicker of a candle, shiny wrapping paper, our silky black cat asleep on the golden chair. Everything I could see excited me and still does.
But while most people fear blindness because they perceive it as being lost in the dark, I associated it with being thrust into the spotlight.
It was easy to pretend that I had decent vision until the taunting began in elementary school. My cataracts left me wearing thick bifocal glasses and with a condition called nystagmus, rapid muscle movements that make my wandering eyes carry on a rich life of their own. The more I try to hold them still, the more they move. When I was a kid, a doctor explained that my eyes were “always looking for something better to see.”
For me, it wasn’t always so poetic. One of the many operations I had as a young adult required the surgeon to carve out a larger hole in both pupils, with the painful consequence that my eyes are permanently dilated, and thus extremely sensitive to light. I have trouble walking outside at night or in crowded, chaotic places such as airports or hotels. When I’m tired or anxious, my visual world essentially disappears. I can use only one eye at a time, which means I lack depth perception, and I’m easily confused by shadows, brick walkways, curbs, steps and changes in floor texture.
I can’t say for certain when shame obscured all the other complex feelings about my poor eyesight; I only know that unless it involved the miracle in the butterfly chair, we seldom talked about it at home. Nor did we talk about something even more taboo: my mother’s own eyes, and the idea that I inherited my vision problems from her.
Mom functioned through most of her life with one poorly working eye that nobody wanted to admit was rapidly getting worse. As a child, I somehow never connected the fact that I had the only mom in all of suburbia who didn’t drive with my friends’ questions about why her eyes were different colors. Because Mom didn’t wear glasses and Dad did, I grew up believing that he was the one with eye problems.
To be fair, we had many enablers to help construct a comfortable, dishonest world. Because blindness induces so much fear in everyone, friends, teachers, store clerks and even ophthalmologists colluded to turn my mother and me into people who appeared to have far better vision. At a young age, I’d memorized the seldom-changing eye chart so I could perform better on eye exams. I hadn’t set out to deceive anyone; I simply wanted to make people happy because they acted so pleased when I improved.
So when I’d told her about the Colorado Center for the Blind program all these years later, she said: “But, Cath, you never needed a blind school before. You’ve even been teaching college!” Then, with concern in her voice, she asked,
“Has something changed, baby?”
I struggled to find words. Yes, things had been changing. But it wasn’t about what my eyes weren’t seeing; it was about how I was coming to see myself. After decades of pretending to be someone with decent eyesight, I was at last ready to confront this blindness that always hovered at the edges of my world. Skiing with a blindfold was just the beginning.
I’d like to say we were finally able to speak about this freely, but families being families, we never did. I wish we were able to have chided each other for allowing stigma to pull the wool over our eyes (pun intended!) for so many years. We might have bonded over how much work it takes to spend day after day pretending to see the world just like everyone else. We might have even credited our poor eyesight for giving us a fresh perspective on things that fully sighted people take for granted. Imagine swapping stories about how we coped, about absurd situations, about how we made alternative sense of the world!
But, honestly, I didn’t need my mother to do this. Growing up before disability rights and with a mother who berated her for being flawed, my mom had perfected her own strategies and blazed her own trail. Surely, she faced self-doubt and pushed past both her own fears and those of others.
She cultivated nonconformity and invented tools to deal with having to give up a career in New York City in order to be a good wife hauling kids and groceries on a bicycle in suburbia.
In the face of such love and courage, who am I to insist she add embracing blindness to the mix?
When at last my ski guide told me the chairlift had reached the top, I was surprisingly calm. I even imagined taking Mom skiing to thank her for the inner strength and audacity that led me to the top of that mountain in the first place.
Then again, she was right there, just as she has been all along.

The following blog was cross-posted from the Center for Genetics and Society: GATTACA at 20: Looking Back, Looking Ahead… by Katie Hasson
Twenty years after its release, the film Gattaca remains an enduring touchstone for discussions of human genetic technologies. Starring Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law, Gattaca presents a dystopian vision of the “not-too-distant future,” in which society is divided into genetic “haves” and “have-nots.” The “Valids,” conceived through IVF and selected for supposedly “superior” genetic profiles, monopolize high status careers and positions in society; the “In-Valids,” conceived without technology, are discriminated against and excluded, presumed to be “inferior” because they differ from a narrowly defined standard of genetic perfection. The story follows Vincent, an “In-Valid” seeking to defy this system and achieve his dream of space flight.
In the twenty intervening years, “Gattaca” has become shorthand for the potential that genetic engineering could be misused to produce an oppressively unequal and intolerant society. Today, as technical developments raise anew the possibility of genetically modifying future generations, and a resurgence in overt racism and race science gathers steam, the film’s lessons are more relevant than ever.
So what can we learn from Gattaca about the possibilities of human genetic technologies for supporting the common good or intensifying and increasing social inequality? And how close is our present-day reality coming to its dystopian vision?
To explore these questions, the Center for Genetics and Society co-sponsored two Gattaca-centered public events in the Bay Area. Each included a screening of the film, followed by discussion among a panel of scholars and activists. Lively audiences engaged each panel with questions and comments about the film.
The Berkeley event on March 6 was co-sponsored by the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at UC Berkeley. Troy Duster (Chancellor’s Professor, UC Berkeley) offered opening remarks to frame the film, encouraging the audience to watch for how the story portrayed resistance: Are there any signs of increasing social consciousness, or does resistance only take place through individual acts? This theme was explored further in a wide-ranging panel discussion moderated by Karen Nakamura (UC Berkeley, Haas Institute).

Rosemarie Garland-Thomson (Emory University) pointed out that to some extent, the genetic screening and selection depicted in the film is already happening in fertility clinics, fostering a market-driven “soft eugenics” focused on producing the “best possible” child. Troy Duster related the genetic selection technologies in the film to the popularization of DNA ancestry testing. The tests’ increased marketing and social acceptance, he said, permeates society with beliefs about the precise measurement of ancestry – and, by extension of race – that is actually all “smoke and mirrors.”
Osagie Obasogie (UC Berkeley, Haas Institute and CGS Senior Fellow) noted that a number of human genetic technologies share an underlying eugenic logic that associates human value with quantitative measurements, pointing out that this aspect of eugenics has only intensified in the decades since WWII. This is particularly true in recent years, as these quantitative measurements are being re-linked to deterministic understandings of genetics. Connecting this to current debates about CRISPR gene editing, he argued that technology doesn’t develop inevitably under its own direction, but rather is guided by political choices about how to use our time and resources. Gattaca gets us to think about whether this is the kind of society we want and what choices would make the world a better place for all citizens.
A reception following the film provided a chance for audience members and panelists to continue the conversation, while a team from the podcast Life of the Law interviewed attendees for an upcoming episode.

The second screening was held March 8 at the San Francisco Main Public Library and was co-sponsored by SFPL Access Services, Superfest International Disability Film Festival and the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society. It examined Gattaca through an explicit disability justice lens. Catherine Kudlick (Paul K. Longmore Institute on Disability, San Francisco State University) introduced the film, highlighting its central themes of ableism and normalcy. Gattaca, she said, shows us the problematic nature of the dream of a world with no disability.
After the film, Karen Nakamura kicked off a lively discussion with the provocative question “What the heck kind of a disability film is this?!” Lawrence Carter-Long (Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund) and Dominika Bednarska (Performer/Activist) noted Gattaca’s ahead-of-its-time portrayal of non-apparent disabilities and hierarchies of disability; Catherine Kudlick and Sara Acevedo (California Institute of Integral Studies) joined them in exploring the ways the film challenges ableism but nevertheless reproduces familiar negative tropes of disability. Discussion returned several times to question whether the film’s explicit critique was undermined by its unimaginative portrayal of disability experience.
CGS’s Marcy Darnovsky discussed two lessons of the film, the first challenging genetic determinism, which is captured by the tag line “There’s no gene for the human spirit.” The second lesson makes clear that it’s not the supposed “success” of genetic engineering that produces Gattaca’s dystopian society; rather, the mere perception of genetically based “superior” capabilities is enough to produce extreme stratification. She drew out the implications for gene editing technologies and their potential to exacerbate already obscene levels of social inequality.

Both events used Gattaca to explore important questions about the social and political context in which human genetic technologies, including gene editing, are being developed and used. Given the pace of scientific research into human gene editing, there is an urgent need for extensive and meaningful public discussion about how these technologies should be developed, used, and regulated. These events drew on Gattaca as a compelling and accessible starting point for these discussions.
Visit the Gattaca event page or the CGS Youtube channel to watch video of the panels (Longmore Insert: not yet captioned). We’ll be updating the Gattaca event page with additional links and resources, including the upcoming Life of the Law podcast episode and other media coverage.

Recently, Longmore Student Fellow Anna Goose sat down to talk with Laurie Block, about her two-hour film biography work-in-progress, Becoming Helen Keller. This long-term project first started about 16 years ago when Block began searching for a way to “look at disability history in a documentary film that…would bring the general public closer to understanding why the disability rights movement was needed.” Block explained that 60 years ago, the two most famous disabled people in the world were Franklin D. Roosevelt and Helen Keller, both of whom graduated from Harvard University in 1904. “FDR’s life and work has been studied extensively, but it was disability advocates who brought his disability into public focus.”