Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Mr. Fitzpatrick suggested that my role this morning might be one of challenge and inspiration. I think we had yesterday the most inspiring day this Association could ever have hoped for at a convention. Anything further along this line would be an anticlimax and besides somehow inspiration is not exactly my long suit. But when Mr. Fitzpatrick suggests that I might throw out some challenges I am quite ready to do so, even though the challenges I would like to discuss here today may impress some of you as rather dreary and dry. Thus I have selected as my topic "Old Words and New Challenges" because at this time when with the publication of the Report of the President's Panel, all sorts of new vistas, all sorts of new programs are developing, we must be doubly sure that we speak a common clear language.

As I have visited during the past several years the facilities and services for the mentally retarded throughout the country, conferred with hundreds of committees and commissions, and reviewed journals and recent books, I have become increasingly concerned with the problem of semantics, the problem of the use of words and the meaning of these words. I know that in this connection many people very impatiently speak rather glibly of playing with words, of splitting hairs, and particularly in an organization geared so much for action as ours, they often tend to ignore these problems of terminology, of semantics, and urge us "never mind the words -- let's get on with the work". Yet, words have deep meaning and we of all people dealing as we do with individuals whose particular deficiency is so often in the area of language, really ought to know what it means not to be able to speak out clearly.

Yesterday morning, listening to one of the early university sponsored television programs, somebody mentioned Chester Bowles' phrase that we are witnessing now everywhere in the world a Revolution of Rising Expectations, a revolution (in the philosophical sense of the word) of ever-increasing expectations of what the individual may expect for himself and for others. An example was given in terms of semantics which struck me as particularly applicable to our topic today. It was pointed out how the meaning of the word individualism is now being interpreted so very differently. It used to be rugged individualism -- rugged individualism for the few -- an excuse for unilateral action by the strong. But increasingly we are now talking about individualism as the opportunity for the many and it impressed me how this applies very definitely to our large institutions where "individualism" should mean making it possible for each of the residents to be considered individually within the confines of a larger group, to be allowed to be a person. Here you have just one example, this one word "individualism" which may point to almost diametrically opposed program objectives in terms of what you propose to do for people.

Let me give you a few very concrete examples from our field of endeavor so that I can convey to you what I am concerned about and where I see work to be done on the State and local, as well as national level.

One of our most progressive Mid-western States has this very month published a very important report produced by a committee of distinguished experts and community leaders. I was dismayed to see that this report, otherwise most interesting, most challenging, specifically selects as the three general categories of mental retardation applicable to programming for all the mentally retarded regardless of age, the terms "educable retarded", "trainable retarded" and "dependent retarded". This is all the harder to understand as the report makes reference to the new Manual on Classification of the American Association on Mental Deficiency which of course, as I hope you all know, two years ago recommended a four level classification of mildly, moderately, severely and profoundly retarded.

While some of us had certain quarrels to find with this classification, overall we thought this was a mighty step forward and yet here comes a new report by an able group which has worked very hard but which simply falls back not only to what now should be past but to a use of terminology that wasn't sound ever.

Particularly as we deal increasingly with the adult retarded, the use of the words "educable retarded" and "trainable retarded" becomes more and more damaging, if not pernicious, because it simply labels the mentally retarded person for life on the basis of what we earlier judged his adjustment to be to a particular school situation. Surely most of you are aware that these were terms specifically selected to deal with a technical educational situation -- to what kind of school group a particular school child should be assigned. It gives rise to concern if this kind of school classification is now used in a broad general application to retardates of all ages by such a distinguished committee, because if we have learned anything in the field of the rehabilitation of the adult retarded it is that we by no means can take school performance as a sure predictor of later vocational performance.