The Foreign Service Journal, January 2011

J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 15 what the concept “reasonable accom- modation” meant. His office was later taken over by the Human Resources Bureau — which placed it with the same unit in charge of child care serv- ices. That seemed to indicate the low priority State placed on its function. More than once, it’s taken more than a year to get a telephone amplifier. Even at my present assignment, I waited more than a month to receive one. I wonder how a newly hired dis- abled employee would carry out a first assignment without being able to com- municate on the telephone for a month — let alone repair any damage done to his or her credibility. Yet there seems to be a lack of understanding among many Foreign Service personnel of just how vital such devices are. Having a disability does not simply limit your ability to function; it changes your entire method of dealing with the world. I do not speak American Sign Language, so I read lips. Having to focus entirely on the lips and body lan- guage of each person speaking to me is exhausting — so much so that I am fa- tigued at the end of the day. After many years of practice, I read lips well; in fact, I was once asked to assist in a hostage situation in Iraq due to the util- ity of this learned skill. But make no mistake: a disability places you at a dis- advantage when you are competing with the non-disabled in a system that is not well equipped (or inclined) to level the playing field. Up until very recently, none of the department’s training videos for world- wide distribution included closed cap- tioning — subtitles that deaf and hearing-impaired viewers like me de- pend on. That meant that presenta- tions on how to structure your em- ployee evaluations and how promotion panels work were not available to us. A year ago John Robinson, director of the Office of Civil Rights, co-hosted a town-hall meeting that was broadcast to many embassies without closed cap- tions. Ironically, the subject of this broadcast was diversity in the work- place — yet I was unable to watch, let alone participate. Most of the shows broadcast over State’s BNET closed-circuit television system, which is available through the Opennet network, are still not closed- captioned. Ensuring this medium is available to all viewers does not require any new technology; captioning has been available for more than 30 years and is required by law in all television sets manufactured since 1993. The only thing State has to do is hire a com- pany to do the work. In Poland, and other countries where I’ve served, I have received out- standing ratings on my performance evaluations. This is true despite the fact that picking up peripheral auditory in- formation (e.g., overhearing a conver- sation or taking notes while lip reading) is beyond my abilities, so I have always been at the mercy of others for help. Fortunately, most Foreign Service personnel, like the general population, are sensitive, kind and quick to offer help when they see someone strug- gling. I cannot count all the people who have privately taken me aside and invited me to sit next to them while they took notes to aid my participation in a meeting. To me, these people are angels in the making. However, there are also some not- so-kind colleagues. Unfortunately, they are significant in number, mainly be- cause the Foreign Service seems to tol- erate their behavior. One consular officer volunteered the belief that the disabled should not serve in the For- eign Service. And when I asked a su- pervisor why he ignored me and only talked tomy subordinate, he responded — in front of others — that he found my need to read lips annoying. One of my subordinates was so shaken when a deputy chief of mission ranted to her that a deaf person should not be in the Foreign Service that she reported him to the State Department’s Office of Civil Rights. And I will never forget the co- worker who responded, “What part of the sentence do you want me to re- peat?” when I requested that some- thing be repeated. Then there was the person who pantomimed and shouted one-syllable words in response to a sim- ilar request. Perhaps they had no ma- licious intent, but such treatment was very hurtful nevertheless. In two decades of attending country team meetings with an entire room of people who could tell I was struggling to hear, not one colleague has ever asked if I would like to sit up front in- stead of off to the side. After a while, I just stop attending. What is even more disturbing is the department’s ambivalence about this problem. Whereas those charged with security violations face specific penal- ties including dismissal, those who en- gage in insensitivity or overt discrimina- tion — whether it is promotions, the bidding process or just lack of accom- modation in the work environment — effectively face no penalties. The only means of charging a co-worker with dis- crimination against an employee with a disability is to file a formal Equal Em- ployment Opportunity complaint, which is usually a long, drawn-out process. Making the Employee Review Process Truly Fair Then there is the particularly insid- ious procedure that institutionalizes S P E A K I N G O U T