Ageism persists. Do we treat our elders differently from middle aged people? It was made worse in the pandemic with the isolation of so many older people. Younger people found ways to get out and mingle with friends. We kept the elderly inside with masks and social restrictions. But ageism has not disappeared, as demonstrated by the recent fires in my community and the impact of isolation on the many seniors whose lives were impacted of the destruction of their homes and the trauma of prolonged evacuation.
In her groundbreaking book, “This Chair Rocks — A Manifesto Against Ageism,” author Ashton Applewhite explains the origin of the term. “When geriatrician Robert Butler coined the term ageism in 1969 — not long after ‘sexism’ made its debut — he defined it as a combination of prejudicial attitudes toward older people, old age, and aging itself; discriminatory practices against olders; and institutional practices and policies that perpetuate stereotypes about them.”
Although we have survived the pandemic and the recent fire evacuation, ageism is still deeply ingrained in our language and institutions, and we have been negligent in not calling it out. Examples abound. We commonly use the phrase “silver tsunami,” despite the comparison of an older adult demographic to a natural disaster. We publish lists of “40 under 40,” with the unintended consequence of digging ourselves deeper into our youth-obsessed culture. We celebrate our 100+ year old residents as if they are unique (they really aren’t anymore) and somewhat odd.
We support businesses that are supposed to protect our loved ones with long term care, without insisting on appropriate oversight and accountability. The pandemic and the fires in LA shoved this one right into our faces. The Eaton Fire in Altadena where I live damaged some elder facilities and certainly caused trauma from the evacuations and placement of residents, many of whom are still living with family or in hotels. We cannot begin to correct the problem until we accept our own culpability and commit to doing the hard work to eliminate it. Not having proper evacuation policies and procedures caused a great deal of anxiety and stress for many elders in Southern California.
A headline in Foreign Policy (Feb. 11, 2021) a few years ago caught my eye: “How the Pandemic Made the ‘Last Acceptable Prejudice Worse.’ ”
In January of 2021, California took that step with the release of the Master Plan for Aging (MPA). The MPA is the culmination of an 18-month study by the California Health and Human Services Agency, coordinating with the California Department on Aging (CDA). The MPA, itself, is an exceptional example of inclusion, soliciting input from the public and private sectors, as well as from philanthropic organizations and ordinary folks, like me, who wanted to contribute. The goal of the MPA is to build a “California for All Ages” by 2030. The MPA website contains the document, short- and long-term goals, action plans, a playbook for local governments, and a data dashboard to track progress. California’s Master Plan for Aging sets the stage for other states to follow.
In addition to the MPA, the California Commission on Aging held a public hearing in May of 2025 to address the needs of elders after the Eaton and Palisades fires. The Commission will be releasing a report in the Fall of this year summarizing the efforts that have been made to address the housing and health care needs of elders in the Los Angeles area. This report will provide an important roadmap for future planning and implementation.
Finally, the pandemic has painfully demonstrated that viruses — both biological and cultural — care nothing for geographic borders. On March 18, the World Health Organization, the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the United Nations Population Fund, released “A Global Report on Ageism,” calling for “urgent action to combat ageism and better measurement and reporting to expose ageism for what it is — an insidious scourge on society.”The report is a call to action with three recommendations: 1) Invest in evidence-based strategies to prevent and tackle ageism. 2) Improve data and research to gain a better understanding of ageism and how to reduce it. 3) Build a movement to change the narrative around age and aging.
I’m looking toward the day when stories about ageism will be found only in historical documents, instead of flashing across my daily news feed. But we need to be vigilant. We need to call out ageism when it occurs; and we need to hold our elected officials, as well as all community leaders and ourselves, accountable for implementing the priorities and plans to embrace inclusion and kick ageism to the curb.