When 'must' turns to 'can,' obligation becomes inclusion

The Unitarian Church of Barneveld

In his book, “The Righteous Mind,” psychologist Jonathan Haidt explains that his three-year old son seemed to be allergic to the word “must.” As an experiment, to see how humans react to the word “must”, Haidt. told his son, “You must eat ice cream.” Proving that this little boy was truly put off by the word “must,” the son declined. The young boy’s brain searched for reasons why he did not have to eat ice cream.

Then, at another time, Haidt, said to his son, “You can have ice cream,” and the boy’s thoughts turned to reasons why he would like to have ice cream, so he accepted the offer.

It seems to me that many UU congregations are also averse to the word “must.” Perhaps we don’t have a creed because we don’t like being told what we must believe. If a congregation believes it must have an elevator, it is understandable that many will look for reasons why this is unfeasible.

If we can change the perspective from “must” to “can,” we can together look for solutions.

Recently members of the Equual Access Board developed some questions to ask your congregation. The hope is that these questions will help turn the conversations from, “We must have congregations accessible for people with disabilities,” to “How can we live our faith in the worth and dignity of all?”

Consider being proactive by asking the congregation’s board the following questions and making these points:
Can we make our congregation more open to:
People who have temporary or permanent mobility impairments?
People with heart or other cardiorespiratory issues?
People who have had strokes or other issues that affect balance?
People who use wheelchairs or scooters?
Families with children in strollers?
Aging members with changing physical challenges?
All clergy, lay leaders and others who participate in worship?
All members, friends and visitors?

How can we put our Congregation’s Covenant into action?

If we believe in honoring the inherent worth and dignity of all people, how can we demonstrate that in our actions?

To paraphrase the famous baseball movie, if you build it, we will come.

An Induction Hearing Loop Comes to Brooklyn

Last October, an audiologist and member of the First Unitarian Congregational Society in Brooklyn, Margaret Weber, read an inspiring article in the October 24, 2011 Science section of the NY Times on the Induction Hearing Loop called:  “A Hearing Aid that Cuts Out all the Clatter.”  She had been doing her own research on the loop and with this great exposure in the Times, Margaret felt that she was ready to discuss the technology with other members to see if they agreed that it might be the right time to bring the Loop to Brooklyn.  Enter members, Kay Corkett, who was serving on the Board of Trustees, and Kathy Ivans a school psychologist. They both became as enthusiastic about the Loop as Margaret and determined to write a proposal to the Board suggesting a special fundraiser to install the loop in the First U Sanctuary.

The major point made by the NY times article was that the Hearing Loop sends sound from a microphone directly into hearing aids equipped with a telecoil (a device originally developed years ago to enhance the sound from a telephone).  With the sound coming directly into the hearing aid, the surrounding noise in the room is eliminated. Without the Loop, hearing aids amplify everything, both what you want to hear and what you don’t want to hear.  So the sounds of creaking floor boards and pews, shuffling of feet and bodies and the reverberation of sound on surfaces interfere with hearing.  That’s also true for those with no hearing loss, but those folks are able to tune the background noise out while hearing aids amplify it.

The Induction Hearing Loop is literally a thin cable that runs invisibly from an amplifier around a room and back to the amplifier making a loop. The technology has been around for 70 years and is in wide use in Europe and parts of the US, and now it is becoming more widely used in other parts of the country in schools, churches, and concert halls.  For example, the New York City MTA has installed the Loop in 400 of the token booths that have clerks and microphones.

So, having met numerous times to discuss their research and proposal strategies, as well as obtaining bids from audio companies, Margaret, Kathy and Kay completed a five page proposal and took it to the Board.  They asked the Board to consider fundraising for the Hearing Loop in the annual end-of-year appeal letter to the congregation. The proposal was accepted.

First Unitarian is a 169 year old land-marked building, so research has shown that it is very difficult and extremely expensive to provide access for those members and visitors with mobility challenges.  But the installation of the Hearing Loop has at least been one step taken toward garnering the support of the congregation to put energy and money behind the goal of providing access for full participation to those members and visitors with hearing loss.

Coping with Crossflow in Congregational Politics by Roger Christan Schriner

A few months ago, I posted about using the analogy of traffic “crossflow,” to change our thinking about the process of gaining full inclusion in our congregations. In driving from point A to point B, we need to cope with crossflow -- traffic flowing from the opposite direction and from either side. If we acknowledge that we’ll need to deal with these impediments, we are less likely to become frustrated.

Encouraging a UU congregation to become more accessible is a journey from point A, the status quo, to point B, fully equal access. The question is not, “Will there be crossflow,” but “How shall I cope with inevitable glitches and obstacles? Here are some suggestions about dealing with institutional issues and power dynamics in promoting equal access:

1. Be realistic about how long it will take to get from A to B. Is this a congregation that usually moves quickly or slowly? Is leadership pro-active or passive? Clearly focused or distracted and confused? Is change typically welcomed or resisted?

2. Identify individual(s) or group(s) resisting your initiative. Is it possible that most people agree with you, but are passively acquiescing to the objections of a vocal minority? If so, how could you encourage those silent voices to speak up? Who could help you mobilize those who have been passive?

3. Are people in favor of your general idea but unclear about how to proceed? Give them two or three specific alternatives to consider.

Notice that I deliberately used the hated word, “politics” in titling this article. Politics has gotten a bad rap because our government has become so dysfunctional, but I still remember my political science teacher’s comment that “politics is the art of the possible.” It is the art of making decisions in groups, blending diverse interests and opinions to achieve common goals. In this sense, congregations are political organizations, and congregational leaders must be good politicians.

Although congregational decision-making can be a rather cumbersome process, I believe that our little corner of the universe tends to “bend toward justice.” But justice seldom materializes without effort. It takes time, energy, and creativity, coping with crossflow.