en retard

Seventh grade French was a good place for the snickers of embarrassment. It was bad enough to be required to speak at all in a class (10% of the grade). In the world of French, words sounded weird, or too much like embarrassing words in English. Imagine being twelve, and being called on to say pu as you learn past participles. Anticipation of the dread word would force hands up early in desperation, just to be called on before pouvoir came up. There were always exceptions, of course, some wise guy who knew that brazenly answering the teacher, intentionally missing the correct way to say u would prompt a fifteen-minute pronunciation exercise. “Étudiants! Say ‘ee.’ Now say ‘oo.’ C’est ça!.” But you had to admit, some of the expressions were downright hilarious, and one of those was what you had to say to the teacher those days when your locker wouldn’t open, and you were still out in the hall when the bell rang: “Je regrette. Je suis en retard.” Back then, that kid in the back of the room would whisper something like, “Oui, tu es un RE-TARD,” and everyone would start laughing. It was funny, right?

I had hoped we had all outgrown these things, and that our world had left that RETARD word and all its nasty connotations behind. It is fine in French, when it is pronounced differently, means something different, and you are truly late, not developmentally DELAYED. Just late. It is not a word I was ever allowed to use in English, even back when I was growing up. I just didn’t say it. I thought it was gone. It was a word I had never heard from my own kids… my daughter asked me last year what it meant. I was happy that day, glad she had not been subjected to the taunting disgrace of comparing a friend’s missteps and mess-ups with a person who has a developmental disability. Here in Massachusetts, the Department of Mental Retardation changed its name, admittedly late in the scheme of things. I remember moving to this state, looking for services for my son, shocked that a progressive state called its department that, and at last, it does not. My own kids were completely aware of the real difficulties their brother had in learning things, his inability to speak, his retardation. But the word itself shocked.

My oldest boy hit middle school, where to my dismay I learned that the word had not been shelved. Oh, no. RETARD is the term for the kids in the support class. Not only that, it is also the general insult from one kid to another, or the complaint about an assignment, or anything a kids does not like (“This is RETARDed!”). It is even a term of understated endearment, as kids call one another RETARD, shooting baskets and missing, acting goofy, but still liking one another all the same.

I banned the word, reminding my older son of his younger brother, and how the word hurts him. So instead, when my older son became clinically depressed and felt friendless, he began to use it on himself.

The word started popping up everywhere–or maybe I just then noticed it–in shopping malls, in school halls, and yes, in movie theaters. Had we regressed this much? I wondered. Have years of special education mandates and inclusion gotten us anywhere? It seemed even worse than when I was growing up!

And later, as my older son learned that his middle school felt they could no longer help him, and he was transferred to a private school that could more appropriately address his mental health issues, he told me that he went to RETARD school, and that was what all the kids who went there called it. My younger son, the one who truly does have an official diagnosis on paper of “severe mental retardation” has never called himself a RETARD. He cannot. No, and it would seem that it is not even an accurate use of the word now. The word seems reserved for kids who are not retarded by diagnosis, but disabled nonetheless by their own self-image. How sad that these kids–my kid!–hate themselves, and how sad that RETARD is the best word that they can find to demonstrate exactly how much.

So, my children, who liked Ben Stiller in “Night at the Museum,” are not going to see his new movie. Nope. I imagine that “Tropic Thunder” really could be just as hilarious as it is hyped up to be, but I also fear that the satire involved–the fun poked at the portrayal of the mentally disabled and African Americans (and even Tom Cruise in a fat suit)–would simply go way above my kids’ head. I will not let my kids laugh at someone imitating the stereotypes that hurt so many people, that perpetuate the habit of calling someone a RETARD.

Of course, I wonder if the satire intended is not going way above a lot of heads. I wonder if the laughs really are at the expense of the intellectually impaired, and not at the finer idea of how horrible it is to use the stereotypes for personal benefit.

The outrage is there for this movie, I know, with statements made by Tim Shriver of the Special Olympics, and boycotts planned along with demonstrations by ARC chapters across the country. I am angry about the pervasive acceptance of discrimination to people with intellectual disabilities. I am angry that the word RETARD is tossed out cavalierly. But I am not surprised that this movie was made. I am not surprised that some people undoubtedly think that watching Ben Stiller act like a RETARD is going to get lots of laughs, and lots of money. I am not the least bit surprised that this pillaging of the self-worth of people with intellectual disabilities would be acceptable, if the slur is even noticed at all. Why would we not accept this, if people with disabilities do not already face discrimination everyday of their lives already?

Reviews of the movie and comments made in reaction to these protests do not encourage me. It seems that there are two sides to this issue that prevail. Either it is completely unacceptable to use the words and stereotypes for any reason, or it is fair game to be mean because political correctness is “so 90s”. Neither, I think, is right.

Indeed, I do wonder, as the protests continue, if this is what Ben Stiller had intended. Reading the reviews, I see that the movie makes fun of the ridiculous measures that actors will go to for that extra edge, that Hollywood will go to for another hit. It seems that there are stereotypes abound in the movie, from the subject matter (Vietnam, complete with apocalyptic helicopter shots and soundtrack) to all the characters. An actor in black face in this day is ridiculous, and yet here we find Robert Downey, Jr. surgically changing his skin color to play an African American. One scene in the trailer finds Downey humming the theme to “The Jeffersons” as an African-American actor questions Downey about his stereotyping of his background and culture. We assume in this scene some understanding that we have learned from “Silver Streak,” where Richard Pryor challenges assumptions himself as he teaches a black-faced Gene Wilder how to act the part. But the RETARD act is still out there, ambiguous. I imagine that no intellectually disabled person offers similar feedback to Stiller, but in so many cases, that person could not.

Some of us become voices for our mentally disabled family members, assuming that we ourselves know best for them. Sometimes we do; we know how to hear unspoken words, and read picture boards or hugs. We want to protect, and we want the people we love to have good lives. We fight for the education, for the medical treatment, for the jobs and the housing, and in the end, we fight just for the right of our family members to be considered as equal human beings. The word RETARD persists, and its associations reach farther.

I wonder, sometimes, in our fight, if we do not do more damage. Our children may be fully included in a classroom, but out of some sense of privacy, or dignity, or legal ramifications, we fail to tell the other children how our children are different, why they behave the way they do, why they talk funny. And they do. We insist on these rights, and yet push for more assistance. And yes, we do have rights, and we do need more help. But we sometimes fail to step back and understand those who have not fought our fight with us. We assume everyone will understand and accept, just because our children are present alongside others, but we speak so much a language of vague acceptance that we sometimes forget to address the specific.

My daughter, exposed as she always has been to disabilities of many sorts, came home in tears one day after a boy cut off a piece of her hair. This came after repeated efforts by adults to address the boys’ impulsivity and distracting behaviors. My daughter was tolerant, and liked this boy, did not think of him as different… and yet, that incident scared her, as it would have with any child. My daughter thought then that he was just mean and unpredictable. The adults in charge apologized–they were wonderful–but I knew the situation all too well. The mother was always trying, balanced between being involved and being overbearing, obvious in her efforts to help her son. The boy himself was full of life, full of questions, quick and bright. Kids may care, if they know, but they may be annoyed if they do not. They probably did not understand how hard it was just for him to sit still with so much else going on. So often we do not understand enough to know how to be a friend, and if the boy continues to annoy his peers, and we continue to avoid the discussion, he will at some point be called a RETARD, too.

My own younger son, nonverbal and fully included in his kindergarten class years ago, pulled hair and grabbed food from other children’s snacks. Yes, his classmates understood something, but he was never truly included, alone in a crowd. Either he was avoided (and this happened more as the year progressed), or he was someone’s “best friend,” not unlike a class pet. In the worst incident, I was shocked to learn–by seeing it in the school newsletter–that my son had thrown the first handful of dirt on the 9/11 tree. What a picture of compassion, my retarded son, sending the school’s tribute to people who lost lives and family, to our inclusive nation. He became the special education mascot, for a school that was not coming anywhere close to meeting his needs. The mental retardation discussion, of course, was off limits for his classmates. And now when he is out, squealing in stores, grabbing, laughing inappropriately, someone may wonder what is wrong with him, but I have never heard anyone call him a RETARD. Maybe people do call him that, but not to our faces. Names can hurt, but they lose their bullying power when the person at whom they are aimed cannot respond. No, the word is rarely used that way now: but we evoke the image of my son and so many others each time we use it to mean “stupid.” After all, what else could be a worse insult?

Most people are not completely insensitive to the humanity of people with intellectual disabilities, but they may not know much about them. They may have a vague sense of the nonverbal outbursts, or the flapping, or the diminutive status assigned to so many, and they have indeed generalized their experience to a Hollywood moment, a Rainman perhaps. Who is to blame people who simply do not know which particular stereotypes are part of the diagnosis, and which are individual traits? The world of disability, of developmental disability in particular, is a world that remains separate, if more common. Self advocates with milder retardation may do well to stand up and tell about their struggles, and demand equal treatment, but the more impaired cannot. Some families are just plain exhausted to do it anymore. And sometimes we thrive on these stereotypes. The rhetoric of retardation is exploited with the best of intentions at times, in advertisements intended to demonstrate compassion, in fundraising efforts, in political runs. A good person includes these people, we say, and we accept the differences. This is the world as it should be… and yet, it is not the world now. Stiller’s performance and use of the word RETARD is sad, perhaps, but not sad because he performed it–indeed, there may well be a greater message here. It is sad because the perceptions and expectations he depicts are true.

If Stiller’s movie is indeed a poke at those who exploit the vulnerabilities and differences of others for personal gain, then maybe Stiller has advanced a conversation about prejudice to a community whose time for human rights has come. If so, rather than condemning the film, we should be engaging in the dialogue it opens, and challenging in our own lives the assumptions we make about people. If so, we should question the use of the word, used not so often directly to the group of people it originally described, as much as to condemn more generally. Why this word? What is the underlying message every time we use it?

We hate the word, but we fear the concept. Even within disability communities, it is not uncommon to defend the intelligence that others just do not see. A person may have autism, but some justification of worth comes from showing some qualities that prove high intelligence. A person with cerebral palsy may have difficulties moving or speaking, but it is all right, if the glimmers of a brilliant mind are only difficult to understand… No, these people are not RETARDs. But strip away all that underlying brainpower. Assume the worst. My child really is retarded. And still I love him, with his huge heart and ready hugs and perseverance when learning is such a struggle. I cannot pretend that beneath his nonverbal exterior he is doing calculus in his sleep. But he is still a person, and unique in the gifts he brings to this earth. He is retarded, but he does not deserve to be reduced to the notion of an unwanted RETARD… and that notion just needs to disappear. Calling someone a RETARD seems easier than admitting, “I cannot understand you.” Calling something RETARDed seems less dangerous than saying, “This makes me mad.” If challenging the stereotypes and our use of them is indeed his intention, Stiller has achieved the Horatian goal to please and to instruct. If, on the other hand, Stiller allows himself simply to be lauded for pretending to be a RETARD in the most crass way possible, and if the best that comes of this movie is for groups of high school boys to imitate Stiller’s performance and feel entitled to abuse people with developmental disabilities because of the example, then not only has Stiller failed in his comedy: we have failed as human beings.

change comes slowly

Yesterday, I found myself hopeful, excited by the symbolic gesture in a new name for the Department of Mental Retardation.

Those hopes were dashed when I saw the final Senate budget this morning. Despite amendments filed to restore cuts to crucial programs, those cuts remain. The budget for human services overall is not only disappointing; it is cruel. Some gains are there for select programs, but it sure hurts to look at the things that affect daily life for so many people, and realize that belts will tighten even more, and some will go without… again. I know that the economic realities are hurting everyone now, but these are programs that were suffering through the best of times. They may well now be on the brink of collapse.

For all of the happy moments we celebrate in symbolic gestures like inclusion classrooms, we continue to underfund programs that help people with disabilities. The ultimate price of this systemic abuse is high, as human beings lose their ability to work and to live somewhat independently. It trickles down levels, making the doling out of portions into a game. And far too often, those who figure out how to play that game and have the time to devote to it beat out the ones who need help the most. More and more families find themselves also unable to work, while the care of a loved one falls on their shoulders. We have let this situation grow increasingly worse for years–at least twenty years now. The crisis in the economy only intensifies the situation, as competition for those dwindling funds grows, too.

Names mean a lot. Gestures mean a lot. Now let’s put our money where our mouth is.

could it be?…

Could this really be the day? Could this be the day that Massachusetts strikes through a department name that shocked me when I moved to this state? The wording in the Senate budget amendment would indicate that it is, and the joint committee that gets the budget next is not likely to change “Department of Developmental Services” back to its present name. It has been years that Massachusetts advocates have been working to change the name, and it seems that this will be the year.

The Department of Mental Retardation.

I thought that sort of name had gone the way of the institutions… Unfortunately, we still have those, too, in Massachusetts.

Mental retardation.

My son has this diagnosis along with autism. Those clinical diagnoses jump around when no one can find a clear explanation for why a person is not like everyone else. “Mental retardation” is a name I have mostly avoided using, largely because of its highly presumptive and predictive quality. “Developmental disability” seems to allow for more latitude, more possibilities. And I really prefer to refer to his abilities, rather than his disabilities, even on the most challenging days.

Beyond my own son, who does qualify for DMR’s minimal services no matter the name of the department, I wonder if a name change might not highlight the growing need for the forgotten developmental disabilities in the Commonwealth. Our own DMR houses the Division of Autism, which should serve all individuals on the autism spectrum, not just those who fit into DMR’s eligibility requirements, which are largely based on IQ, more stringently so for adults. There are a good number of people who have developmental disabilities who do not have IQs under 70. So who serves them? The Department of Mental Health sees “Asperger’s syndrome,” and hands fly up in the air: “That’s not ours! To DMR with you! Away!” Even those with multiple mental health diagnoses get pinned with an autism spectrum disorder, and DMH flies away. But right now, DMR does not provide services to individuals with Asperger’s syndrome, either.

Of course, the issue is really one of funding, and that rant is yet to come. Some who opposed the name change point to that very issue of funding, and the sympathy that the term “mental retardation” inspires. My son has been the special education mascot once or twice in his life, and I found those moments to be ones of circus-like shame. Perhaps the notion of “those poor people” inspires some guilt-ridden legislative line items, but does it inspire understanding and real systems change? Does it give people real lives, or does it perpetuate the fear? Not to say that funding is not important: I imagine that if the well had not run dry, DMH or DMR (DDS?) in this day and age would happily ensure that all people with disabilities get what they so desperately need. They would coordinate services rather than playing ping-pong to maintain a barely manageable caseload. I truly believe that every person who works for these agencies wants nothing more than to be able to provide appropriate services.

But lest I let these dreams of coordinated case management and appropriate services fly away with my point, let me get back to the very basic problem with a name like “Department of Mental Retardation.”

My son, with a diagnosis of “severe mental retardation” should, by definition, not gain cognitive abilities above those of a four year old.

How the hell does anyone know that?

And yet, with that prescription, who will ever help him to realize his potential, and not those of a clinical diagnosis?

Does a name mean anything? Oh yes. Sticks and stones have far less power.

A name means everything. And perhaps, this year in Massachusetts, a name will mean NOT keeping people in their place, but supporting their development. Maybe, just maybe, a name will mean change.