RE: Mental Retardation - Improper terminology?

[Martin Bourgeois]

Well, one of my colleagues, Bill Maclean, is currently editor of the American Journal of Mental Retardation. I forwarded the original message to Bill to get his thoughts, and I'll send his response to the list when he gets back to me.   Marty From: Jean-Marc Perreault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 1/26/2006 5:28 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: RE: Mental Retardation - Improper terminology? Chris,         I should clarify that I DO NOT use “mentally retarded”. I use Mental Retardation as a classification, and then, if I must refer to an individual, I will say a person who suffers from the condition, not a “mentally retarded” individual.          I also try to explain what you are mentioning, how labels become loaded over time and so on.   On a further note, I decided to call the director of the local Learning Disability Centre. I had a chat with her, which was quite “interesting”. She did not refute that she had had a strong reaction to the student’s reporting. This being said, she did mention she understood the “academic” context in which I was instructing, and saw how it was part of a larger frame of reference.   Cheers!   JM       From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 26, 2006 3:58 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: Mental Retardation - Improper terminology?   Jean-Marc, I think that the phrase "mentally retarded" has been replaced by other euphemisms in recent years (e.g., "developmentally delayed"), especially in communitites of individuals who view themselves as "advocates" for such individuals. Note, however, that "retarded" was itself a euphemism when it was introduced. All euphemisms like this begin to lose their appeal when the general public begins to see through them and they then re-acquire all the negative connotations they were originally supposed to evade -- about once per generation. This is a never-ending cycle. You may wish to use the term your student has suggested simply to avoid pointless controversy. Or, you may decide to use some "official" term (such as that in the DSM) and explain to the student, and class (since she made it a public isssue), that you are using it as a technical term (to avoid confusion with other superficially similar conditions). Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ============================ . Jean-Marc Perreault wrote: Hi Tipsters,            I’m facing a rather surprising situation at the moment. In discussing Intelligence and its distribution in the population, I naturally touched on the “gifted”, as well as on “mental retardation”. One student was offended that I would use such a “crude and archaic” term. She then went to the Learning Disability centre where she volunteers and shared with them that I was still using such terminology (mental retardation). According to the student, when she told them about it (director, supervisor, psychologist), they just about spit their coffee on the spot! She reports that they could not believe I would use such terminology. Wow!   Ok. So, after talking with the student, I started to wonder if I had perhaps missed the boat at some point or another. So I went back to all the Intro texts lining my bookshelf (thanks to all the publishers who keep sending them my way), and looked up various sections on intelligence. Well, they all use Mental Retardation as a classification, even the Canadian Edition (as Canadians sometimes tend to be very politically correct, I thought that for sure I would find some form of warning in there).   Here are two that I looked at:     Myers, D.G. (2004). Psychology (7th ed.). Holland, MI: Worth.  On page 439: The degrees of Mental Retardation.   Lefton, L.A., Brannon, L., Boyes, M.C., & Ogden, N.A. (2005). Psychology (2nd Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson. On page 298.     And the list goes on… Geee… Even the DSM has it as a classification. It feels rather strange to being accused of being so discriminatory and backwards when in fact I strongly urge my students to stay away from labelling individuals. As such, I press them to avoid using such terms as “schizophrenic, alcoholic, depressed”, and so on when referring to individuals. I tell them to talk about the conditions instead.   So, I’m curious to hear about your opinions on the matter. Is it still ok to talk about Mental Retardation? Or should I move towards what her mentors suggested: Mentally challenged, or even “gifted” (she said they were moving in that direction to replace mental retardation).   Cheers to all!   Jean-Marc --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]     --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]