Hi, Thanks for all the responses. It sure seems to confirm my thoughts and feelings on the matter. The issue I have with "learning difficulty" is that it is not very explicit and could be interpreted as meaning many things. At least, with a term like mental retardation, one has a clear idea of cognitive difficulties likely due to organic or genetic causes. Learning difficulty could be applied to many of my students who come from small communities and have had a different, non main stream education (I can think of this great woman who comes from a very traditional Inuit community up in the Northwest Territories). Her learning style makes it so that she is having "Learning Difficulties". Should I move this further and assume she has "mental retardation"? Absolutely not! She is a bright woman, with lots of insight and a wonderful life history. My guess is she would score low on the WAIS, as her education was more traditional. Nonetheless, she would score high on the Intelligence definition that states : the ability to learn from experience, and use the information to adapt to new situations! In fact, I would challenge anyone on this list to try and survive just one week in the environment she comes from!
Anyhow, I understand the dangers of labelling. But as Chris Green was saying, labels change over time as they accrue new pejorative meaning (about once per generation was his estimate?). Thanks again for all the contributions. I will definitely bring some back to my class. Cheers! JM -----Original Message----- From: Jim Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 28, 2006 5:22 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: Mental Retardation - Improper terminology? Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27-Jan-06 6:08:33 PM >>> At 9:44 AM -0600 1/27/06, Blackman, Duncan DCRE wrote: >Hello Jean-Marc and other Tipsters, > >The primary issue that people with this classification have is that >the terminology has excluded them from opportunities available to >all other people who are not labelled. Their challenge is to >convince the societies and communities around them to include them, >to allow them to belong and participate to the best of their >abilities and interests. They want to be known as people first and >included in discussions and policy-making concerning their lives >without discrimination, marginalization and social exclusion. The problem is still that it's not the terminology that's excluded them -- it's the actions of people. It is not at all clear that the terminology has any causal relationship to these actions. If not, fighting a terminology fight is counterproductive. -- JC: I think another problem could be advocates' tendency to try to minimize the very real negative consequences of various disabilities. In Jean-Marc's original post, he noted: *--------------------------------------------- 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). *--------------------------------------------- To label "mental retardation" (or equivalent phrase) as "gifted" is extremely dangerous, if only because it reduces preventive measures. I understand that a (the?) primary cause of retardation now is Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (or whatever its current label is). Imagine labels on alcohol that read: "Please do not drink during pregnancy. It produces gifted children." Or legislators being asked to provide more funding for facilities and services for "gifted" children and adults. The trick appears to be to find labels that communicate accurately and effectively the debilitating nature of the disability, without exacerbating the all-too-prevalent stigma present in society. And to do this in a way that maximizes development of people with the condition without giving false hope (and resulting disappointment) that maximizing development means complete elimination of any actual consequences of the disability (as opposed to elimination of barriers to maximal achievement). Take care Jim --- 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]
