differences

BBC is taking some very heated criticism over the host of a children's television show, Cerrie Burnell. Unlike certain other children's entertainers, Ms. Burnell has not been accused and convicted of molesting children, indecent exposure, or possession of child pornography. So what is the problem? Does she moonlight as a stripper? Forget to wear underpants? Party into the wee hours with gossip mag photos to prove it?

Nope. Ms. Burnell only has one hand.

Oh, I'm so sorry. Readers with children, I should have made sure you didn't have any little ones peeking over your shoulder as you read this. I am sure the sight of Ms. Burnell will put them in years of therapy.

Incredulous that anyone could find a woman with such a pleasant, gentle face objectionable, I scrolled through the comments and found this gem:

Do any of you who think [criticism of BBC's choice of a host] is so "unbelievable" actually have kids? It's very hard, as a parent, to have every social issue jammed down the throat of your kids before they even hit first grade. Kids need a certain level of emotion maturity and understanding to be able to MAKE SENSE of the things they see. Otherwise they can't categorize it properly in their minds.

Most parents are perfectly happy to deal with any situation but you want to do it when you know they are ready, NOT when the media and the politicians tell you to.

Parents, how do you "deal" with the "situation" of people who do not have a perfect arm? Or spine? Or brain? At what level of "emotional maturity" did you allow your child to lay eyes upon the "situation" of those of a different race or ethnicity?

Lest any of you think the above commentator was alone in her stupid, stupid idiocy, BBC also noted that "a father lamented that Burnell being on the show forced him to have conversations with his child about disabilities." Oh, how incredibly selfish of Ms. Burnell! I'm sure that if she knew that her body would force a parent to converse with his child, she would have confined herself to the shadows. Because that's where she belongs, you know. I'm sure that BBC hired Ms. Burnell precisely to "force" parents into talking to their children...not because Ms. Burnell was, oh, good at her job.

I attended an elementary school in Boston that simply did not address these matters. The place was rather diverse, looking back at my class pictures. Jews and Catholics, mostly, and a fair number of Vietnamese and Russian immigrants. Throw in a girl with fetal alcohol syndrome and two boys with Down syndrome, oh, and one African immigrant who suffered from polio as a child, and there you have it: "social issue[s]" aplenty "jammed down the throat." No one stepped in and said, "there will be some people joining our class who are Not Like Us. Please treat them as you would anyone else even though they are Not Like Us." Why? Because it is the height of idiocy to explicitly tell a child that someone has a "social issue" that makes him Different and yet expect the child to do something good with the information - all before having encountered said "social issue."* Contrary to the brilliant commentator above, kids don't need to "make sense" of every single thing. Present something as a non-issue, and they'll take our cues and treat it as such. A few queries, of course, but I believe "why doesn't she have a hand?" is perfectly natural and good.

As opposed to "Johnny, there will be a lady on television who doesn't have a hand, unlike the rest of us, and that's Different. This is an Issue that we need to discuss." Explanations like this present the differentness first, and the person second, and that reflects a lack of "emotional maturity" on the part of the parent. It tells the child that Ms. Burnell is "the lady with no hand" and not "the lady who hosts a television show." It tells the child that any deviation from normalcy is an Issue than warrants discussion. It probably means that the child will spend more time focusing on the missing hand than the show's content. And it assures the child that it is perfectly acceptable to view Different others as whatever their differentness is. Thus, the next-door neighbors are not "Jane and John" but "the black people next door." And your lab partner Susan is "you know, the girl who has a wheelchair."

It is fine to discuss differences. But it is ugly to use differences to define anyone. Neither Ms. Burnell's existence nor her arm is a "social issue." I sincerely hope I'm not the only one who feels this way.

* Though I believe there are some disabilities that might warrant a pre-meeting discussion. It is probably useful for sighted children to know that a blind student will be in class tomorrow so they can learn how to approach a blind person at a crosswalk. Likewise, it might not a bad idea to let children know that a new playmate has autism of Tourrette's syndrome. However, people like Ms. Burnell don't really have these kinds of special needs that warrant a pre-meeting discussion. (Though certainly, a person who is missing a hand or uses a wheelchair will invite discussion - and that's fine and appropriate. I'm not advocating that anyone ignore differences - simply that we do not use differences to, well, point out how Different the Different person is.)