Too Gross To Touch: WCD meets TSA

On my last flight from JFK to SFO, I met with some trouble in security. TSA staff person, Noni, was supposed to perform my search, but she ran into difficulties. My movement disorder can be triggered by unfamiliar and unwelcome touch. Stress makes things even more sensitive; flying is a stressful situation, and I believe – but don’t remember – that we were running a little late that time. I warned her about the involuntary movement, and she began the search. After a couple of large spazzes, she went to her supervisor (Luther) and asked him (in front of me) to get someone else to do it because it was too much for her. I didn’t feel particularly good about this, but I let it go.

Today, however, she saw me coming. Yes. Literally. And while she was escorting me back to the common search area, she cheerfully explained that I scared her too much to do to the search and that she just couldn’t do the search; she physically shuddered at the thought of it. The same old Luther supervisor condoned her opinion, and a third staff person was called. As you can imagine, I feel absolutely horrible about this. It was humiliating and shaming. Even if it hadn’t occurred in the public area, it would have been shaming. But she was quite happy discussing this in front of other TSA staff and the myriads passing through the security area. It was and is humiliating; I feel shamed by my body. And I wish I had had the guts to call them on it. Next time.

Wizard and I disagree about this.

NOTE: I am not harshing on Wizard here – he wrote the parts that express his point of view. I absolutely cannot agree, but THANKS Wizard.

He is sympathetic to how I feel, but he argues that while an organization providing a service must provide equal services to everyone, there is no requirement that every individual within an organization provide services equally. Most of the time, he points out, the distinction does not mean very much because usually an organization can’t provide equivalent service unless all the front-line staff do. Organizations can’t define special procedures for individuals without good reason, but if there is an “escalation” procedure by which line staff can have difficult cases handled by a supervisor, if the supervisor is quick and efficient, and if the exceptional procedure isn’t shaming, an equivalent service is provided by both and is therefore allowed.

I see it differently. Though one might legitimately argue that institutional cultures exist, organizations are not really independent of their people. And, to my mind, when you accept employment with an organization, you agree to be, enforce, enact, even embody its principles. Thus, if your job has, say, three clearly defined components, I don’t see how you can accept the job, wish to remain at the job, and refuse to carry out one of the components because it trespasses against your personal prejudices. Being a conscientious objector and joining the armed forces but in a supportive/logistical role might, I suppose, be an exception: I personally won’t kill anyone, but I believe that it is important to have an army so I will support the people who put their lives on the line.

Wizard counters with the point that people work in situations that contravene their desires all the time -- the newbie has to take out the trash, the engineer refuses to sign off on a design she thinks is poorly motivated. In other words, a sense of professional ethics can sometimes compel a worker to submit to this kind of situation and allow her to maintain her integrity without having to resign. He recognizes that these situations probably can’t be considered as prejudice in the same way, but nonetheless thinks that they are still situations that concern personal preference.

I say that if an institution or corporation has a procedure for difficult customers – say, tech support people who are dealing with particularly abusive callers – it doesn’t seem right to escalate or refer anyone whose accent you don’t like. In other words, what I see as the discriminatory exercise of preference is not made acceptable even if the customer’s experience is the same and the employer doesn’t mind. I think that individuals are responsible for their actions and that personal prejudice cannot affect how one performs one’s job.

I am going to resort to an example that uses race – I feel uneasy about using race to explain disability, but I recognize that more people are familiar with and accept discourses of race while ideas about disability are less familiar. So, how about this? African-American woman walks into a bank. Teller A just doesn’t serve blacks. Too gross. Too freaky. Don’t know what they do with their money. She refers her client to Teller B who does. The situation is even more aggressive if she explains what she is doing and why. To my mind, this is as unacceptable a situation as the events today at JFK – we decided a long time ago that “separate but equal” was never equal. This doesn’t even meet those standards.

Wizard argues, provocatively, that my last point is unfair, particularly given the fact that the screener was affected by my reaction to her, and, specifically, to her touch. It might therefore be fairer to compare my experience to someone who responds loudly.

Arguments aside, I still feel gross. And I am at a loss to understand why she reacted as she did. I’m not a difficult case. I was not angry, rude, hostile, or difficult. Nor am I contagious. A gazillion people with disabilities must pass through JFK every day. Does she refuse to search all of them or was it something about me in particular? What exactly about my involuntary movement grossed her out? Even if Wizard is right, it seems like an unfair loophole--she shouldn’t behave that way, even if it’s legal.

Anyone else care to venture an opinion? Suggest any strategies to resolve it?