You don't get it.

Four weeks ago I wrote nearly 1,000 words that (I thought) clearly presented a perspective that would lead to discussion of and consideration for important over urgent. It was a dispatch asking a question seeking a greater depth of mutual understanding. I did not ask this question seeking support. I was not asking for organizationally-imposed rhetorical platitudes. I was not asking for (what I have interpreted as) condescending pity in the form of “resources” and “rights”. And I do not want to launch an investigation into discrimination or harassment. These are some of the options you have offered. From that reaction I can only surmise that you don't get it. From the reaction that I got, it appears to me that you focused on one word---“disability”---connected that to eight words---“I am being taken advantage of at work”---and if you even read the other nine-hundred-thirty words, (it appears to me that) you ignored their importance in order to react to the greater urgency of those nine words. You don't get it. Have I said that?

You don't get it.

I suppose it is nice that you take me at my (nine) word(s), but I would much prefer you make an effort to take me at my (nine-hundred-thirty-nine) word(s). I know you are capable of discerning meaning from large groups of words, and I understand the mechanical urgency regarding those nine words, so I am sorry to have to come across as angry, but I am angry; and we encourage truthfulness. Right? I truly do not mean to put you on the defensive; I do not mean to give the impression that I am personally attacking anyone. I am not. I am angry at a system that constantly requires urgent at the expense of important, and I am attacking a system that constantly encourages superficiality at the expense of depth. So again, I do not want or need support. I am not seeking pity, or even compassion; (though a little mutual empathy might help us to move forward together). Mostly I am pursuing a shared depth of understanding that will advance our efforts toward justice, fairness and equity.

Four weeks ago I began this effort from a personal perspective that (I believe) has been misinterpreted. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps your hands are tied. Perhaps you do get it but you are unable to act otherwise. But whether one's inaction and lack of autonomy is due to a fear of the system or an inability to think beyond prescribed dictates, (and whether one's inability is due to incapability or entrenched groupthink), the results are the same: urgent wins.

When I began this week's written thought I believed I would choose truthful over nice by sending this to you, as I did my written thought four weeks ago. But at this point in the evolution of this new thought, I realize that “You” is not the first person I approached in my effort to share. And “You” is not any of the individuals that each successive individual felt compelled to pass my missive to. “You” is the system. “You” is the compulsion, the prescribed necessity, to pass my written thought up the line. “You” is only you in the sense that you represent this multi-headed monster by doing your job. (And though I understand that is what you are doing, I had actively hoped for more.)

When I first expressed my perspective four weeks ago, I was simply seeking understanding. I was merely wanting to talk to someone to explore then gauge the validity of my inquiry. I was actively hoping for someone to acknowledge the possibility that my thought might help us to advance. I was exposing a human frailty: the desire and (sometimes) need for validation.

But per your official systematized response, you say, “my main concerns are that you feel supported and you feel that you can be successful in your work space.” I don't feel this validates me; I feel this sets me apart. And I now have confirmation that I have an assigned place. I believe I have more to offer than that which is allowed within the confines of my assigned work space. I frequently work to be successful outside of this assigned place, and when it suits those that assign, I have been; (and I still do not want that to change). But in this case, in an effort to advance an important initiative---(Justice!)---by associating a personal example of (minimally offensive) perceived injustice, I obviously overstepped bounds. I suppose I understand why one cannot say “bomb” in an airport, but regardless, I find it sad that a word alone can trigger such an explosive reaction that the individual who utters that word has ceased to exist as he or she was previous to that utterance. This is how I now feel. Handle with care. Kid gloves. Call in the bomb squad; the experts. Instead of finding greater depth, I feel like I have scared everyone out of the water.

I am immensely saddened by this.

But from the reaction that I got four weeks ago, I am afraid to be truthful.

Today I plan to click the little button at the bottom of your second email to indicate that I no longer want or need the aid or assistance of a system that is programmed to react urgently and ignore depth. As I previously said, my original intent was to share this thought in another effort toward a greater depth of mutual understanding. But I realize that would be naïve and foolish. I suppose there is some comfort in that four weeks ago my truthfulness merely mutated into superficial and pretentious niceties. There was a day, and there still are places, in which truthfulness such as mine was and is forbidden, ignored and/or fired. I look forward to the day when truthfulness is consistently rewarded with mutual respect and effort.

… … … … …

I did not click your button. I decided I was not ready to shut this door. I responded, but I was more nice than truthful. Truthful (as more completely presented in this week's thought) would be misunderstood. I left the door open though in order to have some recourse for the two (personally-perceived) ongoing difficulties that may not be addressed to my (personally-selfish) satisfaction. And I cannot help but to think that old and disabled may be playing some part in their current back-burner status; perhaps not overtly on your part, but nonetheless...

I suppose I am expecting too much. To move beyond the reality of triggers and bombs, I suppose, is the equivalent of working to free those who have never been enslaved, (i.e. those in power), and to free those who have never been enslaved is the equivalent of throwing them overboard, with no flotation device, into shark infested waters; and those in power of course would much rather view reality from the safety of the ship's deck. So on board they (you?) will remain, unknowing and unenlightened.

You claim to value justice but when offered the opportunity to experience its reality, you fall back into the safer shallows of urgency. I wish I could say I don't get it, but I do. It is hard and uncomfortable work to move deeper into shark infested waters. This is why you don't get it.

I appreciate the opportunity to express what I feel and I suppose that opportunity is progress. And in fairness, I also on occasion (and more frequently than I like) choose safety. Additionally, I realize that in the greater context, this circumstance (on its current trajectory) will have minimal to zero impact on anyone but me; but that does not make it any less important.

I look forward to the day when truthfulness is consistently rewarded with mutual respect and effort.