| The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 offers the most extensive federal commitment to the vocational and medical needs of the disabled members of our society. While applauding parts of the Act, both legal scholars and members of the disabled community have raised numerous complaints about the law's potential effectiveness.; Yet, despite extensive scrutiny and criticism, no attention had been paid to the examination of the origin of this landmark legislation. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to provide an examination of the original legislative hearings that prompted the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. An understanding of what issues were being addressed in the original drafting of the law provides insights about the relationship between this legislation and contemporary disabled persons, as well as sheds light on the validity of the criticisms advanced against the Act.; A Neo-Aristotelian rhetorical analysis was utilized as the methodology for analyzing the text. An argumentative profile of the text was generated, analyzing the testimony for both the content and structural elements of the hearing's arguments.; Nine substantive content themes were identified, while six observations were found about the structure in which these arguments were developed in this specific communication situation.; This rhetorical analysis, and the substantive and structural findings, provided an understanding of what concerns and issues were articulated at the original hearings by both members of Congress and members of the disabled community. These findings were then related to the contemporary criticisms expressed about the overall effectiveness of the legislation. Each of the major criticisms was discussed in detail and numerous critical evaluations were offered about the relationship between this law and society.; In short, much of the criticism waged against this Act reveals a lack of understanding of the original purpose and scope of the legislation. While, indeed, the criticisms may be accurate ones, the disabled community may do better to alter their rhetorical strategy. Perhaps arguing for new legislation would be more effective than trying to read issues into a law that were clearly not concerns during the original rhetorical process that generated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. |
