School is supposed to be a place for learning.
A place where kids feel safe.
A place where all possible care is taken to make learning possible.
Yet, at least one school had set up a committee to decide whether or not to allow a disabled child’s guide dog to accompany her to school.
What?
Our society is rightly supportive of disabled people, and doubly so for those who work hard to succeed despite their disability. Since different people have different needs and preferences, we have developed a myriad of tools to aid them.
One such ‘tool’ – perhaps ‘the classical one’ – is the guide dog.
These canines are not just some loving pets. They go through a screening process which permits only the most intelligent, non-aggressive animals to be entered into a rigorous training program. And only the best of the best ever graduate to become certified guide dogs.
And that is not the end. Now that the dog has become a highly trained professional, it is carefully matched with the person whom it is to assist, to ensure compatibility. And there are courses to teach the disabled person and the dog how to communicate with each other, as well as to teach the dog the skills which it will require to aid this specific person.
That is doubly so in the case of a guide dog assigned to a child!
Cargo made it through all that training! Fully trained, graduated and certified as an official guide dog, Cargo was assigned to a young girl named Annika Merner. A ‘feel good’ story, right?
Except that,Colchester North Elementary School in Essex, Ontario, where Annika is a grade 4 student, will not permit Cargo to enter school property!
Why?
Well, some kids might be allergic to dogs…
Please, do not misunderstand: I am not making light of allergies, especially serious ones. They could affect a child’s ability to learn – no question about it.
But, surely, in a civilized society, we can figure out a way to accommodate both! The school and the parents of all the affected kids could sit, talk, figure out a workable solution based on the level of allergies of the individual students that were affected and their relative location in the school.
Could they not?
Why wouldn’t they?
But that did not happen. Nothing like that. Just a simple ‘No dogs on school property – no exceptions for guide dogs!’
Only after Annika’s parents pointed out that this is not only unfair to their child, but actually against the law – guide dogs are exempted from ‘no dog’ rules – the Greater Essex County District School Board formed a committee last November to examine the issue…
Now, eleven months later, they have still not come up with any decision – and little Annika is still going to school without her guide dog.
Good news: in two weeks, the committee might come out with a decision which might permit the use of a guide dog on school property.
Ah, the mighty ‘might‘!
How grand of them!
This – in my never-humble-opinion – is indicative of a much greater problem in our society. We have lost the ability, desire – or both – to get along with each other amicably without long and convoluted sets of rules, whose application often blurs the line between accommodating a real, physical disability and frivolous grievances which are a matter of choices and opinions.
It is precisely to deal with situations like Annika’s that the Human Rights Commissions (Tribunals) (HRCs) were formed! Their whole ‘raison d’etre’ was making sure that people were not discriminated against based on things they had no control over, like their race or disabilities.
After all, one cannot simply choose to no longer be disabled. A person cannot become a member of a different race by changing their opinion or belief. These are not a matter of choice!
To discriminate against someone because of something one cannot change, one cannot choose to change, to deny a person the best possible chance to start out from ‘ as level a playing field as physically possible’ – that is wrong! And we, as a society, must not tolerate it. Ever.
Of course, we can never overcome a disability someone else has for them – but we should and MUST do our best to permit disabled people the tools to help them overcome it as much as possible. Even if it means allowing their guide dogs access to places where pet dogs are not permitted. Like, say, school…
That is a reasonable accommodation!
Instead, we – as a society – have lumped ‘accommodation’ based on ‘choices, opinions and/or beliefs’ and given them equal or greater importance than accommodation because of real disabilities.
In 2006, Canadian Supreme Court unanimously decided that even though knives of all kinds are banned on school property, a Sikh boy can carry a 10cm blade because he believes his religion requires it. This, despite the testimony of Sikh religious leaders who stated that carrying a picture of the ceremonial dagger is sufficient to satisfy the religious requirement.
In effect, the Supreme Court of Canada said that religious belief is sufficient grounds for weaponizing our schools!
Please, contrast the two cases: one child, based on ‘belief’, is permitted to bring weapons to school… while a disabled child’s certified guide dog is banned!
We have, with the HRCs acting as enforcers, elevated people’s choices and opinions into a place which is supposed to be reserved to stop discrimination based on things people have no control over!
Certainly, we must tolerate other opinions and personal beliefs – but we should not be obligated to accommodate them to as high a degree as if they were something the person could not exercise a choice over. Like, say, one’s race or physical disability…
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
October 10, 2009 at 19:05
You hear about these debates about guide dogs from time to time. It amazes me that people seem to think something needs to be studied before the dogs will be allowed entry to whatever facility is in question. On what possible grounds would one want to exclude a person entry to their place of business or whatever, just because they need and have the assistance of a guide dog??? The animals are clean. They don’t jump up on other customers. They don’t slobber on people’s plates. They are house trained. What’s the problem!!
October 11, 2009 at 05:06
I think allergies shouldn’t be taken lightly, though. I would love to have a working dog for my autistic daughter, but my husband is allergic to dogs. If my husband had to work around a dog all day, there’s no doubt in my mind he would become sick.
I think there’s no cut-and-dried solution to this conflict. I noticed that we didn’t hear from the other side of the debate. Are there actually any kids with allergies?
Perhaps one solution would be to come up with a working dog whose fur does not trigger allergies.
Xanthippa says:
Well – that is the crux of the matter! As far as I read the story (and, I am only reading what I could find on the net), the school did not bother to find out IF there REALLY were any allergies, and if there were, how serious these were.
If one lives with a dog, the area is rather small. Schools tend to be a little bigger than homes. If there were students who were allergic to dogs (and the ‘committee’ did not state they actually found any, or even looked for them), would their allergies be triggered if, say, the guide dog were confined to a specific wing of the school only? Could they not get together and work out some way of accommodating both sides?
Instead, they have taken almost a full year to ‘think about it’…. how difficult is this?
October 11, 2009 at 15:36
Well, if there are any Muslims at the school, then there’s no way a dog will ever be allowed. I’m currently reading Surrender by Bruce Bawer. He cites one instance of a college student who used a guide dog (the dog actually protects him when he suffers a seizure); a Muslim threatened to kill the dog saying it was “unclean.”
This also makes me think of the kids with peanut allergies, and how many schools have banned peanut butter as a result (I’ve read studies that say many parents who claim their kids have peanut allergies have never actually had their kids tested). I thrived on peanut butter & jelly sandwiches as a kid — even today (as a middle-aged lady), I still love peanut butter.
But I’m with you on the guide dog issue — allowing it seems very reasonable.
Xanthippa says:
I have a friend whose daughter is so allergic to peanuts, the smell of them will trigger them and could kill her. A friend of my son’s has so strong peanut allergies, he actually fell unconscious when someone who had had peanutbutter accidentally brushed some of the oil on to him in the school yard. So, I ‘GET’ the allergy thing…
BUT
allergies of this strength are not as common to ‘dogs’ as to ‘peanuts’. Still, if such an allergy existed in the school, denying the dog entry would be understandable. But, denying a certified dog entry because there ‘might’ be allergies…..that is not very reasonable.
As for Muslims: Muhammad banned dogs, because when one of his wives had a black puppy and it hid from him under the bed where he had relations with his wife, the Angel who brought messages from Allah to him refused to show up. However, his people appealed to him saying they need dogs to work for them. Muhammad relented and made an exception for ‘working dogs’: as long as a dog was a ‘working dog’, like a sheepdog – or, like a guide dog is these days – Muhammad said they were excepted from the whole ‘kill them for being unclean’ thing. Since good Muslims follow Muhammad’s teachings, they must accept working dogs – or they will no longer be living according to the example of the Prophet Muhammad.
October 11, 2009 at 18:11
A couple of years ago I participated in a seminar for charities hosted by the CRA. At our table was a fellow from a charity working with the blind, and sure enough he was blind.
It wasn’t until we broke for lunch that I realized his guide dog had been laying under the table for the whole morning.
October 11, 2009 at 19:44
Right on, Xanthippa! On the subject of allergies, if that’s what worries them, I’m not surprised. While there’s no doubt that some allergies are real and dangerous I’ve always thought the whole issue has become seriously overblown. It seems every little sniffle is diagnosed as an allergy. Paranoid parents scare the crap out of their kids who then develop psychosomatic symptoms at the drop of a peanut. There’s been some push back on this recently. For example.
And don’t get me started on the various venues including theatres and hospitals that browbeat people about wearing scents. What bullcrap!
Xanthippa says:
A few years ago, my son brought home a list of things his school had banned, because of allergies. This was meant to be a guide for what foods we, as parents, were not supposed to send as part of our kids’ lunches.
The list was 3 columns, 12-point print, and covered over one and a half pages of regular (8 1/2 x 11 inches) page. It included such things as nuts and peanuts, but it also listed such a wide category as ‘legumes’!
Now, banning all ‘legumes’ from kids lunches is somewhat problematic. After all, soy-beans are ‘legumes’ – and therefore any product which includes ‘soy lecithin’ is a product which contains ‘legumes’ – and which was therefore banned from the school. I dare you to go to the supermarket and find one single bread that does not have ‘soy lecithin’ as an ingredient!
A few weeks into the school year, I went in to the office and asked if they really expected me to bake my own bread to send for lunch with my son. The staff was stunned! They NEVER realized the implications of what they had done….
When kids are registered, ALL their allergies are listed. This does not contain only ‘environmental’ allergies, but also things that need to be directly ingested. They simply took ALL the allergies listed (from extreme ‘smell the stuff and die’ to ‘eat a lot of this and get a mild head-ache’) and put them on the list of ‘banned foods’!!!
After I walked them through their list and demonstrated that if a parent were to adhere to this, they would not be allowed to send any store bought bread, any cold-cuts, any cheese and, of course, any ‘meat substitute’ like nuts and peanuts….. Home-made bread, apples – and a few home-cooked meats – would be the only things that would be permitted if a parent were to adhere to their list. Oh – and chocolate (the school provided chocolate milk in their milk program) is a legume – so, it, too, would be banned by their list!
It made them think!
Next year, we got no such list.
Oh – as far as scents….. I am very allergic to many parfumes. They trigger migranes in me. I HATE it when people wear too much parfume! But, I would never deny them their right to do so! Don’t get me wrong – I WILL criticize them and ridicule them, or use any other social weapon at my disposal. But, I would never dream of ‘banning’ scents!!!! My allergy is my problem – NOT theirs!
October 11, 2009 at 20:23
[…] [ ED NOTE: Mbrandon8026 from Freedom Through Truth was kind enough to let me crosspost this article from his blog. You can read the original here. An alternative take from Xanthippa's Chamberpot can be read here. ] […]
October 15, 2009 at 03:00
Dogs must not in school of course. Some of the students may cause allergies or rashes because of animals. This do not mean that we discriminate animals but its just for our health.