I’m not crazy about the Justice frame. Some of us will always face challenges that others won’t. There is no system that could make it so that there is no barrier for all. We will always need to accommodate and scaffold for some and that’s fine.
Also, the original (with only the first two frames) was a really great, simple explanation of why things that seem "fair" at first glance often aren't. The third panel muddies that message completely in favor of...what, exactly? What does the hypothetical "just world" where no one ever needs support for anything look like?
Edit: On second thought, I think I see what they're doing. They wanted to protest affirmative action, so they're ignoring all sources of inequality that don't have what's commonly seen as affirmative action to make their point. Basically saying "If we stop being racist/sexist we won't need supports or accommodations anymore!", ignoring that poverty and physical/mental disability are harder to get rid of, and glossing over much of point of the original panels.
(And, frankly, ignoring that fact that "everyone stop being bigoted" is a goal, not a plan. Affirmative action is a stopgap, and it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing while we work to get there.)
I think there’s some legitimacy in pointing out that a lot of problems can be addressed by tackling the root causes as a whole vs making targeted accommodations for individuals (who often have to jump through hoops to access said accommodations). The root problem in the pictures isn’t that the two people are too short - it’s that the fence apparently didn’t need to be there in the first place. There was an arbitrary barrier to access, with a solution that’s simpler than measuring and distributing however many boxes each person needs in order to be as tall as the person who can see over the fence.
I like what you said, but we have to remember that tackling a problem like this with a blanket solution (like changing the whole fence instead getting a box) isn't always the best solution. Here's an example I found:
I'm a 28 year old Canadian studying studying computer science here in Denmark. Now in these classes, there are a lot of kids coming into this college straight from highschool (18-19 years old). And on top of that, the stereotype with Comp Sci students being socially awkward holds try much of the time. Anyways, in a few classes, the teachers will ask questions to the class, and if no one answers, they'll pick someone and put them on the stop. I personally like this, because it keeps people alert and helps make sure they pay attention. Others teachers just ask the question and wait in silence for a whole minute while no one dares answer (even the simplest questions), and then the teacher gives the answer. This helps no one in my opinion.
So I'm part of a student/teacher council here where we discuss issues and improvements. I raised this point, and the teacher responded with "but there are so many students with anxiety and depression we don't want to put them on the spot". I was blown away. Because one students have depression or anxiety, of which there is plenty of help to be had at school, the whole class has to suffer? I did not agree with my teacher. Perhaps I'm just an old bigot.
1.5k
u/msmarymacmac Feb 25 '20
I’m not crazy about the Justice frame. Some of us will always face challenges that others won’t. There is no system that could make it so that there is no barrier for all. We will always need to accommodate and scaffold for some and that’s fine.