Out of the Horrors of War. Audra Jennings

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ “objects of charity,” which would cause them to lose “self-respect” and become “victim[s] of pauperization and paternalism.”⁹⁵

      Still, the assurances did not stop questions about how the bill might change the relationship between states and the federal government. Representative Henry O. Talle (R-IA) questioned whether the bill’s liberalization of federal funding—the federal government covered all administrative costs, while states received one-to-one matching grants for other costs—would “deprive the States of any power they now have.” William Blackney (R-MI) expressed concern whether the bill grew out of “the apparent policy on the part of the Federal Government to encroach on the educational policies of the States.” Others criticized the fact that the committee had removed the limit on federal funding in the original act.⁹⁶

      An amendment to ban discrimination “on account of race, creed, or color” in the program, proposed on the House floor by Earle Willey (R-DE), shone light on the other side of the states’ rights coin. Representative John E. Rankin (D-MS), himself having led the charge against the bill on veterans’ issues, railed, “this amendment would just kill the bill. If the gentleman wants to destroy this legislation, that is the way to do it.” Barden also objected to the amendment claiming, “There has never been the slightest inference of any discrimination.” He argued that legislating protections for African Americans would unfairly portray the program as discriminatory. Debate over the amendment was short, and it failed to pass. But the response to the amendment revealed how the fight for states’ rights was also about protecting the South’s system of separate and unequal. Despite these challenges and questions, the bill passed both the House and Senate in June, and President Roosevelt signed the bill into law in July 1943.⁹⁷

      Taken together, Public Law 16, which established the new veterans’ vocational rehabilitation program, and the Barden-La Follette Act, aimed at addressing key war crises, discharging the debt owed to disabled veterans, and addressing the country’s labor shortage. Moreover, rehabilitation had the potential to extend the New Deal promise of opportunity, employment, and security to Americans with disabilities. Yet, by separating veterans as a special class of citizens, these laws perpetuated divides in disability policy based on how, and whether, one earned access to federal assistance.

      Vice Admiral Ross T. McIntire, Surgeon General and Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery of the Navy, argued that the VA rehabilitation program sought to help the disabled veteran understand that “he should be a useful citizen and make his way, earning his living,” instead of existing on a pension. The program worked to give the veteran the tools to become that productive citizen.⁹⁸ On the whole, Public Law 16 aimed to make veterans with service-connected disabilities employable. To be eligible for services under the new law, veterans had to have served after the attack on Pearl Harbor, been honorably discharged, and have a disability from or aggravated by service that limited the individual’s vocational prospects. Any injury or aggravation of an injury sustained during VA occupational training counted as a battle injury for pension purposes. The VA provided counseling, drawing on veterans’ previous education, experiences, disability, wishes, and available programs. It then assigned veterans to training courses at universities and other educational facilities and used on-the-job-training programs offered by businesses; however, the VA limited educational funding to four years. During their time in a rehabilitation program, veterans received an eightydollar a month pension, with increases for married veterans and those supporting children or parents. Veterans could also receive pay through on-job-training programs, provided that a veteran’s combined pension and training pay did not exceed the typical pay for fully trained individuals in the veteran’s field. Additionally, the VA covered the cost of tuition, books, supplies, and equipment, while disabled trainees could receive loans of up to one hundred dollars for incidental expenses not covered by the program. Veterans who completed rehabilitation training received additional financial support for two months as they looked for jobs.⁹⁹

      The Barden-La Follette Act sought to prime the civilian rehabilitation program to contribute to the pressing needs of the wartime economy. In so doing, however, policymakers put in motion a longer-term transformation of the program that would contribute to the growth of the disability rights movement. The expanded civilian rehabilitation program aimed to provide “all services necessary to render disabled persons capable of engaging in remunerative employment, or of becoming more advantageously employed, on a normal competitive basis.” The pressing needs of the wartime economy led lawmakers to liberalize services available to disabled citizens, allowing federal funds to be used for “the physical reconstruction of the handicapped so that they can as nearly as possible approximate normal work capacity.” It also extended rehabilitation to people with mental illness and intellectual disabilities and made psychiatric care available both to people with mental disabilities and those “with physical disabilities complicated by the presence of psychiatric difficulties.”¹⁰⁰

      War needs also encouraged policymakers to shift more of the financial burden for the program to the federal government. They removed the fixed ceiling on federal appropriations, and the federal government covered all state administrative costs, which essentially meant that the federal government paid the full cost of providing vocational guidance and counseling. Medical and training costs were shared on a matching basis—one federal dollar for every state dollar, except in specific cases where the federal government committed to covering the full cost: civilians disabled in the conflict, including merchant seamen, and federal employees injured on the job. The day-to-day business of rehabilitation remained with the states, and states continued to place individuals accepted for rehabilitation into existing training programs through public and private schools and in on-the-job training programs with established companies. Medical services were to be obtained through local physicians.¹⁰¹

      The civilian program worked closely with the Employment Service; state education, welfare, agriculture, and workers’ compensation agencies; “Crippled Children’s Societies”; the American Red Cross; and a range of community members and service organizations, from doctors to churches, to identify potential clients. An applicant would receive medical examinations “to determine eligibility and to link his capacities with the physical demands of jobs” and “a vocational diagnosis” after completing various aptitude tests and interviews to determine past education, work experiences, and interests. Throughout the process, rehabilitation workers sought to help the client “understand his assets and liabilities, the causes of his present problems, and the steps necessary to correct these difficulties.” “Physical reconstruction,” if it would significantly reduce the individuals “employment handicap,” followed for individuals deemed eligible and feasible for rehabilitation. Medical rehabilitation services could include a wide range of medical, psychiatric, surgical, convalescent, hospital, and dental care; therapy; and prosthetics, drugs, and other medical supplies. Once “physical reconstruction” was complete, clients pursued training, and rehabilitation counselors assisted them with job placement.¹⁰²

      Rehabilitation represented a medical- and means-tested form of aid. Applicants had to be disabled enough that rehabilitation would “reduce substantially or eliminate the employment handicaps” and yet able-bodied enough that physicians viewed their physical and mental condition as “relatively stable and remediable.” Essentially, rehabilitation was not meant to provide “long-term care for chronic illness,” and indeed, hospital care was limited to ninety days. Disabled people’s attitudes also figured into the determination of eligibility and feasibility. As Michael J. Shortley, director of the new U.S. Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR), put it, “there must be a sense of directed objective, which is ‘hope’ expressed in another way.” All those determined to be eligible received counseling, training, and placement at no cost. Financial need opened the door to medical services, financial support during rehabilitation, and assistance with supplies and other training materials.¹⁰³

      While disability activists demanded the right to shape federal services, the OVR instead turned to a range of professionals for advice in developing the expanded program. The office established two new advisory committees. The first, СКАЧАТЬ