Special Olympics aims at ending the derogatory use of the "r-word"

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

So, shall we change it to "mentally shifted" instead of "mentally retarded?"

"Shift" would constitute a shift in mindset.

Yeah, but one's mindset could shift without any mental detriment.

"Retarded" means "slowed down" and that seems pretty accurate.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by CobraKai

It's not just the word - it's what the word contributes to.According to Special Olympics, less than 10% of people with intellectual disabilities in the United States are employed, compared to 50% of U.S. Special Olympics athletes, compared to 92% of the general population. By using the r-word, people indirectly help ostracize those with intellectual disabilities – by increasing awareness of the issue, we can help foster a greater acceptance of those with intellectual disabilities into our community.

While I think your premise is likely correct, this isn't particularly compelling evidence of how these individuals are affected.

Did these individuals have full employment 3 decades ago, before the term "retarded" entered the general lexicon as a slang term? Is it really in the best interests of the whole for widespread employment? How much of this is self-selection (presumably, those who seek out endeavors such as Special Olympics will be those who seek out challenges such as employment as well) versus an actual societal viewpoint?

This is much more complex than we've really allowed for so far in this conversation.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

Yeah, but one's mindset could shift without any mental detriment.

"Retarded" means "slowed down" and that seems pretty accurate.

I agree.

Oh well.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is much more complex than we've really allowed for so far in this conversation.

This includes the different levels of mental retardation.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by CobraKai

It's not just the word - it's what the word contributes to.According to Special Olympics, less than 10% of people with intellectual disabilities in the United States are employed, compared to 50% of U.S. Special Olympics athletes, compared to 92% of the general population. By using the r-word, people indirectly help ostracize those with intellectual disabilities – by increasing awareness of the issue, we can help foster a greater acceptance of those with intellectual disabilities into our community.

This is kind of goofy. It's likely the intellectual disabilities that contribute to unemployment, rather than the terminology used to describe those with the disabilities.

Being mean to intellectually delayed or retarded people is immoral as far as I see it. Generally using words for these conditions to disparage others is an extension of this meanness. However, focusing on the use of any particular word is probably wastes a lot of energy that could go to actually improving the experiences of the folks we're talking about labeling, and it likely allows some people to feel like they are doing something to help disabled folks when they really aren't doing much. "I'm so sensitive; I can't stand to hear anyone say retarded."

In kind of an unrelated point, a friend of mine, who teaches special education and particularly worked with younger than school-aged kids, was often frustrated by how the contemporary names for intellectual disabilities made it difficult for parents to understand and accept their children's circumstances. While nobody wants to place unnecessary limits on any kid, your mom probably needs to understand what your IQ score means. She said parents understood what moderately or mildly retarded meant, but often didn't understand what the more up to date terms indicated. Changing terminology on its own doesn't do that much to changed the person's experience.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

This is kind of goofy. It's likely the intellectual disabilities that contribute to unemployment, rather than the terminology used to describe those with the disabilities.

Being mean to intellectually delayed or retarded people is immoral as far as I see it. Generally using words for these conditions to disparage others is an extension of this meanness. However, focusing on the use of any particular word is probably wastes a lot of energy that could go to actually improving the experiences of the folks we're talking about labeling, and it likely allows some people to feel like they are doing something to help disabled folks when they really aren't doing much. "I'm so sensitive; I can't stand to hear anyone say retarded."

In kind of an unrelated point, a friend of mine, who teaches special education and particularly worked with younger than school-aged kids, was often frustrated by how the contemporary names for intellectual disabilities made it difficult for parents to understand and accept their children's circumstances. While nobody wants to place unnecessary limits on any kid, your mom probably needs to understand what your IQ score means. She said parents understood what moderately or mildly retarded meant, but often didn't understand what the more up to date terms indicated. Changing terminology on its own doesn't do that much to changed the person's experience.

Semantics rears it's ugly head again. Changing the name without changing the intended meaning only makes people feel better until they realize that the same thing is being said. Now "special" has an ugly sound to it.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Semantics rears it's ugly head again. Changing the name without changing the intended meaning only makes people feel better until they realize that the same thing is being said. Now "special" has an ugly sound to it.

Exactly.

[UGAalum94]

Yeah, and it's an area of life when people do need to understand what the are dealing with to understand the urgency of taking advantage of the programs offered.

Intellectually delayed may imply that time alone will resolve the issue and the parent may not actively pursue early intervention programs. It's not just about people's feelings.

Again, I'm not saying it's okay to insult people, especially by misapplying the name of their condition to insult someone.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by CobraKai

It's not just the word - it's what the word contributes to.According to Special Olympics, less than 10% of people with intellectual disabilities in the United States are employed, compared to 50% of U.S. Special Olympics athletes, compared to 92% of the general population. By using the r-word, people indirectly help ostracize those with intellectual disabilities – by increasing awareness of the issue, we can help foster a greater acceptance of those with intellectual disabilities into our community.

They are not employed because they are not functionally able to, which is why a greater proportion of Special Olympics athletes do.

Look despite my Aryan blood and great heritage filled with strong men and fertile women, we have two special ed people in the extended family. They are not capable of crushing cans (which was one of their jobs for awhile). Or working at Mazzios (which was the other one of their jobs for awhile).

And that's okay.

But dropping the use of the word retarded isn't going to improve anyone's mental ability (although it dumbs mine down from it's political correctness) or make employers more accepting. The employers who employ the mentally handicapped already deal with enough tards that don't have a doctors note.

[33girl]

Not only that, the parents/guardians/teachers who get their kids involved with Special Olympics are more likely to be instilling in these people a sense of self esteem and purpose in life that would exist even if SO didn't. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with economic level as well.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Semantics rears it's ugly head again. Changing the name without changing the intended meaning only makes people feel better until they realize that the same thing is being said. Now "special" has an ugly sound to it.

See: Welcome To The Dollhouse and Dawn's "Special People Club."

Tangent: IMO, here is no real danger or detriment to calling a 23 year old person who's been tested throughout life and who without any question has the IQ of a 3 year old a mentally retarded individual. There IS a real danger in labeling a child at too early an age and them having to carry a label forever that doesn't apply. Some of my friends are struggling with this - their kids are getting called autistic or Asperger's and they don't think it's necessarily true. It seems we are coming at the problem from the wrong end.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Semantics rears it's ugly head again. Changing the name without changing the intended meaning only makes people feel better until they realize that the same thing is being said. Now "special" has an ugly sound to it.

Already there. My sister bristles if I call someone "special" meaning slow.

I feel like this is like trying to make casual names for women. The b-word is highly unacceptable with a lot of people, but some don't mind it being applied where (by definition) it shouldn't be. Others replace the word with "female," but some women have a problem with that. Some prefer ma'am and others hate it, some like "Miss Lady" but one girl didn't like that either...people will get insulted by just about anything, depending on their individual idiosyncrasies. I'm all for banning words that are blatant insults, no one word is going to gain universal popularity.

[PrettyBoy]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I applaud them for what they're trying to do (one of my teachers growing up had a mentally handicapped son, so I don't use the term anyway), but I don't really see it going anywhere. This is the same thing that the NAACP tried to do with the N word, but the use of that hasn't changed.

Booyaaaa! Good post, k_s. I couldn't have said it better.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Tangent: IMO, here is no real danger or detriment to calling a 23 year old person who's been tested throughout life and who without any question has the IQ of a 3 year old a mentally retarded individual. There IS a real danger in labeling a child at too early an age and them having to carry a label forever that doesn't apply. Some of my friends are struggling with this - their kids are getting called autistic or Asperger's and they don't think it's necessarily true. It seems we are coming at the problem from the wrong end.

But there's also a real danger in not diagnosing someone at a young age, and not giving that child/young adult the type of educational support that they need (through IDPs, etc.). I have a couple of special education professionals in my family (including one who's very well-respected in the field), and they feel pretty strongly that the ability to diagnose early has been a big positive. Now, if it's a faulty diagnosis, or it's done by someone who has no knowledge in the field, that's a whole other issue...

I'm not saying this is the case with your friends, but I'll flip your statement a little - as I see it, there is a problem with parents who don't want to admit that their child is on the spectrum, or has some learning disability, etc. Whether it's because they blame themselves, or because they don't want to see their children as anything less than "perfect," I think parental resistance is a bigger issue than early diagnosis.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Tangent: IMO, here is no real danger or detriment to calling a 23 year old person who's been tested throughout life and who without any question has the IQ of a 3 year old a mentally retarded individual. There IS a real danger in labeling a child at too early an age and them having to carry a label forever that doesn't apply. Some of my friends are struggling with this - their kids are getting called autistic or Asperger's and they don't think it's necessarily true. It seems we are coming at the problem from the wrong end.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

But there's also a real danger in not diagnosing someone at a young age, and not giving that child/young adult the type of educational support that they need (through IDPs, etc.). I have a couple of special education professionals in my family (including one who's very well-respected in the field), and they feel pretty strongly that the ability to diagnose early has been a big positive. Now, if it's a faulty diagnosis, or it's done by someone who has no knowledge in the field, that's a whole other issue...

I'm not saying this is the case with your friends, but I'll flip your statement a little - as I see it, there is a problem with parents who don't want to admit that their child is on the spectrum, or has some learning disability, etc. Whether it's because they blame themselves, or because they don't want to see their children as anything less than "perfect," I think parental resistance is a bigger issue than early diagnosis.

I think, in ways, you're both right. I've seen major issues with parental resistance. You're right that when you're talking about the autism spectrum, the earlier the diagnosis the better. But it doesn't help if you have random people who (1) don't really know what they're talking about or (2) aren't in a proper position (teacher, school counselor) to be offering that kind of advice.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think, in ways, you're both right. I've seen major issues with parental resistance. You're right that when you're talking about the autism spectrum, the earlier the diagnosis the better. But it doesn't help if you have random people who (1) don't really know what they're talking about or (2) aren't in a proper position (teacher, school counselor) to be offering that kind of advice.

One of the girls who is having this issue with her daughter is a teacher herself with a Masters' degree. Part of the problem is they're in a rural area and the (small) school district, basically, wants to throw her into the learning disabled area, get the extra $$ from the state and be done with it. They don't want to keep working with her or testing her.

Also, I think that the increased awareness of autism has made parents & teachers more easily believe that children have it. Kinda like reading the Merck Manual and then thinking you have some horrid disease because you have one or two of the symptoms.