For a very brief amount of time, yours truly was employed at a facility working with mentally challenged people. These were not the sort of people who would ever be close to being considered "high functioning". They would never be able to raise to the level of living on their own, and for some, even the prospect of them ever being able to tie their own shoes was out of the question. Each one, my "wing" of the facility housed around 12, had developed to different level, a few could maintain a simple conversation with me, others could only communicate through rough gestures. And yet, they all seemed to understand that my role there was to help them. They knew the cooks were there to feed them, the nurses there to make them feel better, and the bosses were there to make sure everything ran smoothly.
In the next level of housing were residents who could function a little more independently. They could be given tasks and accomplish them with a bit less difficulty than the group I was with. You could give them two step instructions, "Go get the newspaper, and take it to so-and-so", and most of the time, they'd be able to accomplish these tasks. The levels of dependency lowered with ever tier, until you reached a group of people who were considered "high functioning". Many of these could hold down jobs, and live semi independently. But with every group, there were still issues, still reminders that these people were not your average people, and that they needed a little more assistance than "normal" people.
To get a bit of an idea on the ranges of mental retardation, wikipedia lists these as the characteristics according to IQ:
All that being said, it's clear that the group with with I worked was in the profound category, with the highest group described being closer to the mild category.
I know, you're starting to wonder why all this information is important, well I promise I am getting to that. I just want to make sure that you have a solid understanding of what I'll be talking about.
Individuals that have special needs, or are mentally impaired as some prefer to call it, are left to rely on the rest of us to ensure that their needs are taken care of. Imagine having a child well past adulthood, who only had the basic mentality of a young child. To what point would you be willing to step up and take care of them? To what point would you hold their school responsible for ensuring a safe and well balanced learning environment?
It seems that a Colorado Springs school feels that they should in no way be responsible for the fact that while in the position of caring for a mentally challenged girl, they took it on their own behalf to pair her with a peer mentor. The problem wasn't that they included her in this program, no the problem was with the 15 year old student they opted to pair her with. Removed from school for behavior problems 20 times. 0.0 grade point average. Unsupervised time alone with the girl- who would have been 18 at the time, with an IQ of around 50. They school wasn't just lacking in judgement a little, and the outcome wasn't a minor problem- rather the pairing of this girl, and this deviant ended with a teacher finding the two together alone. Now, just being alone isn't a crime, however the fact that the boy was sexually assaulting the girl is a crime.
That's not the end of the story, or even the worse part of it. You see the boy is a juvenile, so he gets his little slap on the wrist; the girl becomes aggressive and begins to display inappropriate behavior; and the school attempts to wash it's hands of the mess it created by refusing to take any sort of responsibility. The parents of the girl attempted to work with the school to find a reasonable outcome to the situation, which has left their once friendly and easy going daughter in a state where she now needs constant supervision. The school, being the pricks they are hire a "professional" to assess the girl that was assaulted, who I'll remind you has the mental capacity of a 4 year old. The results of the "assessment"?
And the schools reaction to this assessment? Well, they seemed to have embraced it open arms, treasuring that opinion as if it was a first born child. After all, now their not the least bit responsible for injuring this child, no now their are almost saint like for helping her be in a position to experience a "pleasurable" moment. They have helped enlighten her to a whole new world. Of course, this new enlightenment is bogged down by emotional and physical attributes that she'll never fully understand, she's now been introduced to a world which has opened her up to fearing other people, displaying behavior problems and increasing her need for constant care in order to help protect other people from her "acting out". But lets not talk about the "bad" effects. Let's just focus on the fact that the school found someone outrageous enough to turn a sexual assault into a "pleasurable learning experience". That way the school still looks good, and doesn't have to explain why they allowed the unsupervised contact between a special needs student and a delinquent.
I had read about, and begun writing up this story a few days back, before heading out of state. I didn't have the time I thought I would to finish it while gone, and so the story brewed in my head for a while. As I was returning home I caught Glenn Beck on the radio, and it seems he's picked up the story. And, still after all these days of letting this story simmer in my head, I still can't get past the fact that the school has decided to take the low road in this case. Listening to Beck, I only became more angry that a "expert" a "professional" could reach this conclusion. And that the school would be so willing to embrace it. But, then I keep coming back to one sentence that just won't go away:
"one of its experts" One? One of it's experts. Kind of makes you wonder what it's OTHER experts thought. I mean, if this idiot was their only expert, they'd have said "...district has refused to mediate a civil lawsuit as its expert called the attack "pleasurable" for the woman..." But they didn't. And they didn't say "their experts", making it that all of them came to the same conclusion. Instead, it says "one of it's experts". I guess it just goes to show that if you shop around enough, you'll find just what it is you are looking for.
ABC News: Parents: Expert Says Attack 'Pleasurable'
In the next level of housing were residents who could function a little more independently. They could be given tasks and accomplish them with a bit less difficulty than the group I was with. You could give them two step instructions, "Go get the newspaper, and take it to so-and-so", and most of the time, they'd be able to accomplish these tasks. The levels of dependency lowered with ever tier, until you reached a group of people who were considered "high functioning". Many of these could hold down jobs, and live semi independently. But with every group, there were still issues, still reminders that these people were not your average people, and that they needed a little more assistance than "normal" people.
To get a bit of an idea on the ranges of mental retardation, wikipedia lists these as the characteristics according to IQ:
IQ score ranges (from DSM-IV):
mild mental retardation: IQ 50–55 to 70; children require mild support; formally called "Educable Mentally Retarded".
moderate retardation: IQ 35–40 to 50–55; children require moderate supervision and assistance; formally called "Trainable Mentally Retarded".
severe mental retardation: IQ 20–25 to 35–40; can be taught basic life skills and simple tasks with supervision.
profound mental retardation: IQ below 20–25; usually caused by a neurological condition; require constant care.
All that being said, it's clear that the group with with I worked was in the profound category, with the highest group described being closer to the mild category.
I know, you're starting to wonder why all this information is important, well I promise I am getting to that. I just want to make sure that you have a solid understanding of what I'll be talking about.
Individuals that have special needs, or are mentally impaired as some prefer to call it, are left to rely on the rest of us to ensure that their needs are taken care of. Imagine having a child well past adulthood, who only had the basic mentality of a young child. To what point would you be willing to step up and take care of them? To what point would you hold their school responsible for ensuring a safe and well balanced learning environment?
It seems that a Colorado Springs school feels that they should in no way be responsible for the fact that while in the position of caring for a mentally challenged girl, they took it on their own behalf to pair her with a peer mentor. The problem wasn't that they included her in this program, no the problem was with the 15 year old student they opted to pair her with. Removed from school for behavior problems 20 times. 0.0 grade point average. Unsupervised time alone with the girl- who would have been 18 at the time, with an IQ of around 50. They school wasn't just lacking in judgement a little, and the outcome wasn't a minor problem- rather the pairing of this girl, and this deviant ended with a teacher finding the two together alone. Now, just being alone isn't a crime, however the fact that the boy was sexually assaulting the girl is a crime.
That's not the end of the story, or even the worse part of it. You see the boy is a juvenile, so he gets his little slap on the wrist; the girl becomes aggressive and begins to display inappropriate behavior; and the school attempts to wash it's hands of the mess it created by refusing to take any sort of responsibility. The parents of the girl attempted to work with the school to find a reasonable outcome to the situation, which has left their once friendly and easy going daughter in a state where she now needs constant supervision. The school, being the pricks they are hire a "professional" to assess the girl that was assaulted, who I'll remind you has the mental capacity of a 4 year old. The results of the "assessment"?
"A professional hired by the district said the assault was pleasurable, not traumatic," said Starr. "He said it ignited her female desires."
And the schools reaction to this assessment? Well, they seemed to have embraced it open arms, treasuring that opinion as if it was a first born child. After all, now their not the least bit responsible for injuring this child, no now their are almost saint like for helping her be in a position to experience a "pleasurable" moment. They have helped enlighten her to a whole new world. Of course, this new enlightenment is bogged down by emotional and physical attributes that she'll never fully understand, she's now been introduced to a world which has opened her up to fearing other people, displaying behavior problems and increasing her need for constant care in order to help protect other people from her "acting out". But lets not talk about the "bad" effects. Let's just focus on the fact that the school found someone outrageous enough to turn a sexual assault into a "pleasurable learning experience". That way the school still looks good, and doesn't have to explain why they allowed the unsupervised contact between a special needs student and a delinquent.
I had read about, and begun writing up this story a few days back, before heading out of state. I didn't have the time I thought I would to finish it while gone, and so the story brewed in my head for a while. As I was returning home I caught Glenn Beck on the radio, and it seems he's picked up the story. And, still after all these days of letting this story simmer in my head, I still can't get past the fact that the school has decided to take the low road in this case. Listening to Beck, I only became more angry that a "expert" a "professional" could reach this conclusion. And that the school would be so willing to embrace it. But, then I keep coming back to one sentence that just won't go away:
The parents of a severely disabled woman suing a Colorado Springs school district over a sexual assault at a high school said the district has refused to mediate a civil lawsuit as one of its experts called the attack "pleasurable" for the woman.
"one of its experts" One? One of it's experts. Kind of makes you wonder what it's OTHER experts thought. I mean, if this idiot was their only expert, they'd have said "...district has refused to mediate a civil lawsuit as its expert called the attack "pleasurable" for the woman..." But they didn't. And they didn't say "their experts", making it that all of them came to the same conclusion. Instead, it says "one of it's experts". I guess it just goes to show that if you shop around enough, you'll find just what it is you are looking for.
ABC News: Parents: Expert Says Attack 'Pleasurable'
Comments
A Proud American!