Yes, I know that because I am a white male Christian that I should only be the perpetrator of discrimination and never the victim. However, I managed to get the short end of the stick four times this year. These have resulted in me having to endure serious finical hardship.
The first occurrence happened in February while I was with my first employer of the year, ResCare Homecare. I was hired to provide services to my assigned clients who mostly required respite and personal care. The discriminatory act in this instance was committed by the next-door neighbor of a 4-year-old autistic boy who I was to provide respite and habitation. Her complaint of me “touching him inappropriately” centered around my use of the intervention technique call, “the bear hug.” There is no doubt in my mind that she would have never made such an accusation against a woman using this technique. After all, I am a man and some view all men as being abusers of women and children.
Lisa Ratan taught “The bear hug” technique to me when I worked in the Early Childhood Department of Word of Grace Church in Mesa, AZ. (March 1993 - August 1995) Ms. Ratan was a member of the ASU faculty were she taught a course on Early Childhood. She was a staunch advocate of children’s rights and had classroom standards that were far superior to those of the State of
Ms. Ratan taught “the bear hug” as a non-abusive “intervention technique.” It was used a child needed to be restrained from doing something that could injure themselves or others. The hug it self, couple with speaking to the child in a calm-firm voice, was designed to stop the behavior in a way that also show affection. In this manner, the behavior is ended while your rapport with the child is strengthened. As I used this technique, I noticed that many of the children that I used it on regularly actually enjoyed being held. It therefore dawned on me to try to use it as a “preemptive” technique. I would give these children the affection they craved before they acted up and therefore would not have to act inappropriately in order to receive it, and it worked!
The boy that I worked with in February was the first autistic child that I have ever tried using it with. It was all that I knew to do with a child who’s out of control behavior was chasing away caregivers left and right. It is hard for me to say whether or not it would have been effective with him because the allegation was made less then a week and a half after I started working with him. There was no question that he and I were bonding; the question was whether or not he would start minding. His autism seemed to make him “randomly tactile defensive” meaning that what he like one day, including “the bear hug,” he did not like the next. I defiantly need a more comprehensive strategy for working with him that may or may not have included a limited use of “the bear hug,” but I was never given the opportunity to ask.
I was placed on immediate administrative leave without pay because of this allegation. After about six weeks, ResCare finally asked me to come in and give my side of the story. Why so long? They claimed there were a spike in various allegations made against various caregivers and they handled them in the order of gravity. Those who were accused of worst acts were moved ahead of mine. They were also required by law to report allegations of this nature to both the police and Child Protective Services, neither of which ever contacted me.
ResCare finally reached their decision in August after about five months of them sometime investigating the allegation and sometimes putting me on the back burner. They offered me my job back; but would only allow me to work with adults. What they did not say is that I had been exonerated of this allegation. If I truly were, they would not have placed this restriction upon me. They found no reason to believe that I was guilty and that is all they cared about. Some of my clients that I worked with before being placed on administrative leave were adults and I had no objections to resume working with them. The three objections that I do have are: first, that such a restriction says that they believe that I might be guilty and my reputation is still in question. Second, the restriction is a condemnation of a technique taught to me be a mentor that I highly respect and that I have used effectively ever since. Finally, my right to an expedient due process was violated.
I have use Ms. Ratan’s “bear hug” technique in a number of volunteer Church setting and have been praised for my ability to handle children. I have also tried to use this same technique in professional settings, such as daycare, respite care, etc and have been run out every time. Why the difference? The mission of the Churches is, in part, to minister to the needs of those who come to them. When they see someone is good at doing just that, most will stand up to those who would make unmerited allegations against them.
The mission of any business is to make money. This is the case in almost all corporations whether you are talking about childcare, security, etc. Negative publicity and lawsuits, whether they are won are lost, hurts profit margins. Most corporate policy makers consist of bean counters and civil law lawyers who can and will override the judgment of genuine industry experts. This veto power rest solely in the hands of those who care nothing about what is in the best interest of the customers, clients, employee, etc. They are only concerned that their corporate executives get their new 50’ yachts.
No comments:
Post a Comment