The "R" Word

A big controversy in the world of special needs is the use of the words “retard” and “retarded.” These words are often used by the world as a means of degrading someone or often used to make fun of someone.

In August of 2008 a movie called “Tropic Thunder” directed by Ben Stiller came out and caused a stir. In this movie the term “retard” was used often. Dreamworks Studios along with director Ben Stiller did not understand why there was such a problem from this. This article explains this controversy further.

The National Down Syndrome Congress boycotted this movie and This article explains their feelings about the issue in more depth. At a Northwest Down Syndrome Association social, Corinne met some teenage siblings and friends of kids with Down Syndrome who had stood outside theaters holding signs to protest the movie.

Our group’s opinion of these words is that it totally depends on the context that the words are used in. If using these words in a professional manner such as in eligibility criteria and diagnosis it is appropriate although certain states, including Utah, are shying away from this term by renaming the disability as Intellectual Disability instead of mental retardation. If using these words as a way to put someone with disabilities down then obviously it is not acceptable at all. We are bothered when others use the word in their daily vocabulary to describe something or someone, but we usually do not make a big deal about it. We probably would not watch the movie, but we would not actively and publicly protest the movie.

What are your thoughts or feelings with the use of the words “retard” or “retarded?”

Would you boycott a movie based solely on your feelings about this term?

Posted by: Down Syndrome Group: Christina, Carrie, Corinne, Camille

What kind of plastic surgery would you have?

Recently, parents have been choosing to have plastic surgery performed on their children with Down Syndrome, even as young as 3 years old, to eliminate the distinguishing physical facial characteristics that a person with Down's exhibits.

Some parents and plastic surgeons feel like plastic surgery would enhance the quality of life in their children. It would reduce stigmas and provide more normalized opportunities in life. If parents agree, the following article explains the pros to this procedure.

http://www.ds-health.com/psurg.ht

On the other side of this argument, parents have been extremely outspoken against the idea of tampering with a child's natural appearance. This oftens happens when the child is either too young or low functioning to understand the consequences of this decision. Plastic surgery inhibits the personal rights of the child, and is just trying to change their appearance to make them more "normal". The following article explains this opinion.

Cosmetic surgery for Down Syndrome Child

If you would like to know more, here is a survey from parents of children with Down Syndrome, and their opinions on this issue.

Hearing Parental Voices: survey

While interviewing a special education professional, her opinion was such that the facial features were not as important as their personal hygiene habits, and dressing. If the parents spent the time and money to get plastic surgery, why wouldn't they just spend that money on teaching and dressing instead.

We think they're cute.

We think that if the plastic surgery was for a functional purpose then it would be beneficial. An example of this would be the tongue reduction surgery. This would be appropriate if ithe child's communication was hindered by the small mouth cavity. We do not believe that it is ethical to change a child's appearance without their agreement (if they understand), and that they are individuals that deserve to not have their individuality tampered with.

If you were to have a child with Down Syndrome, would you choose to have plastic surgery done? Why?

Special Education Inclusion

Despite the clarifications in IDEA, the issue of inclusion and special education is a controversial one; one that parents, districts, and even courts cannot seem to agree on. These articles discuss special education inclusion and gives cases representing both sides. Please read Ken Marlborough’s explanation of special education inclusion here . Also, please read at least the introduction, two court decisions (preferably 1 or 2 plus 4 or 5), and the research and conclusion sections of this article .

As you read, please consider these three questions:
1. What do you think of the “inclusionists” claim “that segregated programs are detrimental to students and do not meet the original goals for special education”?
2. How was the approach by Success For All different than that of the inclusionists? Which argument to you agree with?
3. Do you think cost should be a factor?

As a group, we think that those we dubbed “inclusionists” tend to be biased and are not focused on the education of the child with the disabilities. For example, Marlborough’s concluding sentence is: “Thus schools can create a cooperative learning environment and promote socialization.” Is socialization the main goal here? No! At the same time, we do think that the parent’s opinion should be regarded highly as long as it is balanced by the opinion of the student assistance team – with all having the learning of the student as first priority.

Concerning cost of inclusive versus non-inclusive settings, we think that this can be a big issue. Looking at the court cases, the courts’ responses do not always favor just one side. Recognizing the importance of managing expenses and the limitations of schools, we recommend that cost be considered, but it should not be the deciding factor.

Under-representation for the Deaf-Blind Community

Abigail Breslin has been cast to potray Helen Keller in the Broadway production of The Miracle Worker which has been an uproar in the Deaf and Deaf/blind community.  The advocacy groups have opposed the casting and have been disagreeing with the producer's decision since she was cast.  There is more controversy with the community because the director's perspective focuses more on the teacher Anne Sullivan instead of  Helen Keller.  This is the director's main argument on casting Abigail Breslin.

The Deaf and Deaf/blind community is upset because a deaf/blind actress was not considered for casting for the role and they felt as a community this robbed the story of it's message and robbed a great opportunity to use an actress from the community.

Here are two articles that describe the controversy:

Article about "Miracle Worker" controversy

Article about the director 

This is a Youtube video from a Deaf women who feels a deaf/blind actress should have at least been taken into consideration.  She also says a hearing actress was taken into consideration because she was famous and that would bring more money into the play.

A DEAF perspective

This is the general community's response to the article the day after it was written:

New York Times readers respond

Our group felt that if the Deaf/blind community is denied opportunities to represent their community what can they do to work and express themselves as a whole?  We felt the casting should have represented a more accurate role and expressed accommodation for the actress choice since this movie is about "Miracle Workers."
Do you think a Deaf/blind or Deaf actress should have been cast and do you think this is a realistic expectation from the Deaf/blind community?