So You Think You Can Dance II

As promised, the much awaited response :) to my last post about Brett Banford's appearance on So You Think You Can Dance... I feel that I am of two minds in relation to this story. First, when they introduced Brett I was concerned with how they would treat his story. Would he have talent and show dancing skills, or would he be one of the "15 seconds of fame" people who look utterly ridiculous and only audition so they can have their mugs on TV? Thankfully, he was the former (in my opinion). He had dancing skills and this was recognized by the judges. The judges went on to say that while he could "move well" he was not a good dancer. They mentioned how they were inspired by him and the other dancers in the auditorium were applauding Brett's efforts and his comments. I was very grateful that the judges handled the situation in the manner that they did. They did not patronize Brett and they never said that he was a good dancer, for a person with a disability. (A statement like this may have pushed me over the edge and caused me to throw something!) Overall, my initial fears were unfounded and I feel that the story was handled well.

Now...here is the other thought that I was having. In today's society we talk about equality and how we would like to see everyone treated equally (while we know this will never be reality and in some cases should not be reality). My question is this--was Brett treated equally or did he receive "special" treatment because of his disability? If we want people with disabilities to be treated like everyone else, does that mean that we should embrace the good and the bad of that idea? If Brett had not had a disability, would he have been treated differently than he was? While it is impossible to answer this question, we can look at some of the behaviors of the judges. Why did the judge feel it necessary to begin his comments by asking "you don't want me to patronize you do you?" Did he ask that question of any other participant in the competition or did Brett receive different treatment? Also (and I may be reading way too much into this and trying to judge intent), didn't the tone of the first judge's voice sound slightly condescending? It almost sounded to me as if he was speaking to a child rather than a young man. This may be completely incorrect, but watch the clip and decide for yourself.

For me, I guess the point is this...on a show like this (an extremely important qualifying statement) was Brett treated differently because of his disability? Should he have been treated differently because of his disability? On a show that boosts its ratings because judges abuse or degrade participants, was an exception made because of Brett's disability? I would suggest that Brett was treated differently because of his disability. I think that if he had not had a disability, then he would have been treated more harshly, not necessarily badgered and belittled, but more harshly than he was. (I realize that this completely ignores the issue of treating people like this in the first place, but this is how these shows get their ratings and I am only making this argument in the context of the show.)

On a much more practical level, the question becomes, "how should we treat people with disabilities?" Typical answers to this usually include some form of the word "dignity." I would certainly agree with that, but I would also like to add that we should treat people with disabilities similarly to the way we treat other people. Or maybe, on a much more positive note, we should start treating everyone else like we feel we should treat people with disabilities. Don't offer pity, offer acceptance.