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.)

Austism and Tasers and gangs, oh my!

Brought to you by the same folks who handcuff kindergarteners when they refuse to take a nap? Autistic middle-schooler Tasered into unconsciousness.

Of course, there are situations where an outburst by a child with special needs and/or mental illness (this child is reported as autistic and bipolar) warrant a physical response for the safety of bystanders and the child himself. Most nurses in psychiatric wards - including pediatric psychiatric wards - have been physically attacked by a patient. It is not uncommon for those who work with autistic teens to report similar experiences. When I worked with severely autistic teenagers, there were at least a dozen full-out attacks on staffers and 2-3 times when police intervention was both necessary and appropriate.

Going by what this article reports, the school called 911 when the child "sa[id] outrageous things...the boy threatened to call members of his gang to retaliate against the teachers." The child's parents' attorney noted that the school knew that the child made similarly outrageous and baseless threats when upset, and that "[t]hey know he has no way of acting on what he is saying. They are taking these idle threats and calling police [instead of following the school's own procedure.]"

I will allow that the school did not consider these threats "idle," and I emphasize that all the information in this article is provided by the child's parents' attorney. Post-Columbine, post-Virgina Tech, post-[insert most recent school violence here], schools are wise to be especially vigilant to (1) threats of violence and (2) patterns of violent threats and violent acts by mentally ill children. I will further add that the attorney only briefly remarks that the child became "frustrated and began to act out" without detailing the specific nature of the outburst. Readers do not know whether the child physically lashed out (and if so, to what degree), or if he was merely saying whatever came to his mind. "Idle" threats alone do not justify police intervention, but a dangerous and uncontrollable outburst might.

Police are trained in how to interact with citizens who are mentally ill, autistic, and diabetic. They are also trained in how to confront and, if necessary, restrain a physically violent child. Moreover, there is a specific set of guidlines for when use of a Taser is appropriate. However, in this case there is no mention as to whether the school informed the officer that the child's threats were merely "idle" or that the child's special needs warranted a different approach. There is also no mention for how the officer justified the use of the Taser. If the child's "frustrat[ion] and...act[ing] out" could be more specifically described as, say, trying to claw his own eyes out (I've seen this happen), then, yes, there is the possibility that using a Taser was appropriate.

If, however, the situation happened exactly as the attorney describes, then it seems that the school is much more at fault than the officer. The attorney indicates that the school had knowledge that the child expressed his frustration with threats so outrageous that no intelligent person could take them with any seriousness, and that the school had a specific procedure for calming the child. Thus, the 911 call would seem to go against both the school's experience with and prior treatment of this child. Moreover, the school should have informed the officer that the child's special needs warranted a response appropriate to these needs. It is not clear in this article that the officer knew he was called in to subdue an autistic and mentally ill child, what steps the officer took, if any, prior to resorting to the Taser, and how the officer justified its use, so I'm going to refrain from placing too much blame on the officer at this time.

On a lighter note...I wonder how an autistic gang would be organized and function.