what do you think about the following opinion of Rand's?

What do you think about the following opinion of Rand's?

"Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, ... "

- Ayn Rand, The Age of Mediocrity, Q & A Ford Hall Forum, April, 1981

I wish I could have asked her:

/1/
"Suppose that you yourself are one day handicapped: perhaps 'ninety years old and in a wheelchair,' to quote a famous remark of yours to Nathaniel Branden. If one day you indeed need a wheelchair to get around, will that indeed make you a 'tragic spectacle' who 'should never be' in some place where a child might come? If you ever do end up in a wheelchair, or otherwise discernibly handicapped -- and if you really do believe that no child can possibly deal with such a sight -- you will have very few places to pilot your wheelchair, because merely leaving your apartment would create a risk that some child might see the 'tragic spectacle.' "

/2/
"Given your proposal to ensure -- in some unspecified manner -- that no child ever enters the presence of a handicapped person: how would you implement that proposal in the case of a child who is himself -- or herself -- handicapped? (Suppose that a real-life Dagny Taggart had been born without legs, or had lost the use of her legs in some childhood accident -- would this morally require quarantining her from all other children, including Eddie and Frisco?)"

/3/
"To consistently apply your own dictum that a child must never encounter a handicapped person because [you say] a child cannot possibly deal with the presence of a handicap, you would of course have to find some way to prevent any handicapped child from becoming aware of his or her *own* state. Just how do you propose to do that? (I would not wish upon you, or upon any virtuous person, the task of trying to prevent a real-life -- but legless -- young Dagny Taggart from gaining awareness of her physical condition.)"

Post 1

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 3:12am

I would think that she is trying to avoid teaching a child that a person is required to assist a disabled person. And trying to protect a child from seeing man as a contorted imperfect thing rather than as a perfect hero?

I think that there is nothing particularly wrong with a child learning about disabled people and in this case Rand went overboard. What problems does a person missing a leg face? What can they do despite this disability? What kind of future solutions to the disability may come to be? I think these are worthwhile questions for a child to answer for themselves.

Post 2

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 5:47am

I think she was actually warning about presenting disability as a normal way of life, that pain is somehow normal. If there were remedies for every disability, few, if any, would exist.

Growing up with a deaf grandma, and half deaf mother, I can tell you that those disabilities were never ever presented to us as "normal," or worse, preferred. My grandmother and mother never expected the rest of the world to rearrange itself to accommodate them.

Instead, they found ways to live their lives in a world that assumes all people have two good ears.

Post 3

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 8:13am

Rand's not just talking about someone in a wheelchair. She means handicapped as in deformed, not as in technically disabled. She isn't concerned with the idea that children might feel pressured to donate to charity, she's worried about messing with their sense of life. Look up harlequin baby, at youtube and tell me you wouldn't agree.

Post 4

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 8:20am

Completely agree with Ted.

Post 5

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 9:35am

I find it far easier to agree with Dean than to agree with Ted (even after clicking Ted's "harlequin baby" link).

Ted, re your statement that Rand was discussing visible deformity, rather than impaired function --

/1/ if true, that plainly provides impoetant context for Rand's answer, so how do we know this? Rand's full comment (including, but going beyond, the sentences I excerpted), which appears here , nowhere contains the word "deformed" or any synonym such as "disfigured": instead of mentioning deformed or disfigured people at all, Rand's full comment specifically mentions retarded people and then extends this to disabled people generally.

/2/ Assuming that Rand here indeed had visible deformity in mind (and not impairment), I'll re-examine your answer in the light of that assumption. You answered that Rand "worried about messing with [children's] sense of life" -- so please rewrite my examples to ask:

/a/ What if the young Dagny Taggart had suffered a severe, untreatable, and unconcealable deformity of appearance (either congenital or acquired in childhood) -- with no other physical impairment, and no mental impairment? If preserving other children's sense of life indeed dictates rearing a visibly deformed child in isolation from other children (no playmates, no leaving home because another child might see her on the stairs or in the elevator), what does that sort of rearing do to the affected child's own sense of life -- over and above whatever just having the deformity itself may do to her sense of life?
(Do we decide that, "Oh, her own sense of life has already been damaged and compromised just by her own awareness of how she looks -- so whatever may remain of her own sense of life is not whole, therefore not as worthy of preservation as another child's sense of life: a very ugly child's sense of life (or what remains of it) can, and should, be [ahem] sacrificed to preserve any other (intact) child's sense of life"?)

/b/ In the case of a visibly deformed child who has one or more siblings -- how to preserve those siblings' sense of life? Require institutionalization at birth (or after any permanently disfiguring accident) for any visibly deformed infant who has a brother or sister?

/c/ I address this question particularly to anyone here who actually knew Ayn Rand well enough [through personal encounters, or through other available evidence such as unedited journals or letters) to form an estimate of her own character and decision-making as expressed in her day-to-day life.
If Ayn Rand, at some time in her life, had suffered an accident causing a severe, incurable, and unconcealable deformity of appearance -- does your estimate of her character and behavior suggest that she would have thenceforth absolutely refused to leave her apartment because a child might see her on the staircase or in the elevator?

(Edited by Kate Gladstone on 9/19, 9:38am)

Post 6

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 11:08am

Try putting this in the context of her Comprachicos and you'll get a better understanding...

Post 7

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 11:52am

(Bold in last sentence is mine)

Rand: [mid-sentence] "...for healthy children to use handicapped materials. I quite agree with the speaker's indignation. I think it's a monstrous thing � the whole progression of everything they're doing � to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to."

Ayn Rand, The Age of Mediocrity, Q & A Ford Hall Forum, April, 1981

The context of the quote, which is conveniently missing, is that Rand was 100% against lavishing resources on children who would never be able to utilize them to further their own lives and live independently, while neglecting the needs of exceptionally bright children in public schools. She hated this practice. So did my own parents, and so do I.

This in no way contradicts Ted's assumption, and Rand, I'm certain, wouldn't disagree with him. I never strived to deliberately introduce my children to deformity of any kind, physical or mental. I knew they couldn't deal with the spectacle, and shouldn't be forced to deal with it. That is what Rand is speaking against. I understand that there are pro-disabled groups who seek to impose themselves on the rest of us from kindergarten on, but I agree with Rand that this is a mistake. Retardation (or physical deformity) isn't something children should aspire to. That is Rand's only point. I can't stop anyone from approaching my child, but I can remove him/her from the situation.

Would Rand argue that retarded children should stay away from a playground filled with children of normal intelligence? I seriously doubt it, but she would argue to keep your normal child away from playgrounds filled with retarded children, and I'd agree with her. I would no more enroll my child in a school for the retarded or physically disabled anymore than a rational parent of a disabled child would enroll their child in a school for the gifted.

The entire speech can be heard here

Post 8

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 12:08pm

And then there's this:

Post 9

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 12:20pm

I most certainly did not say "visible deformity." I said "handicapped as in deformed, not as in technically disabled." That is, not merely wheelchair bound, and especially not just "weird looking," but doomed to suffering, unable from birth to function as a normal human. Having a really bad mole might count as a deformity, but it certainly doesn't count as a handicap.

I suggest a reading of Art of Non-Fiction, specifically where Rand discusses that one cannot fashion a perfect statement, that it is up to the listener to make the effort to understand what is said. If every statement had to be so exact as not to be subject to misinterpretation one could not write a sentence or even open one's mouth to speak unless one began with axioms and definitions, then covered the entire cross-referenced contents of Wikipedia, and finally spent the rest of eternity pinning down caveats in the footnotes. Rand's point is quite clear if one imagines the effect of dealing with "tragic" handicap on a child's sense of life.

Post 10

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 12:29pm

For Ayn Rand, to experience life as heroic was the end - the goal - the purpose. Everything else was the means. Including her writing, her philosophy, her relationships - everything.

She celebrated the heroic in man and worked to ensure she was constantly maximizing her choices in that direction. She did not want to have even one minute in her life where she experienced the acceptance of mediocrity.

She fueled her drive with art and friends and projects that reflected what she wanted to experience in life. She chose to break off with friends, to criticize art, to set demanding goals for her work... because to not do so would have felt like a betrayal of the best - which for her was always the heroic. Her interactions with the public were in sharing her vision through her fiction, and to explain the philosophy that makes the heroic possible.

That is the context that is needed to understand her quote. That and the simple understanding that children are not mature enough to participate in an explicit, conscious understanding of this issue. Yet they are in that early, formative stage of developing their own sense of life - do you as a parent or teacher orient their environment to make it easier and natural to view life as benevolent and man as heroic and their own happiness as their end? Or do you orient them to focus on those who will forever be denied greatness in some area or another, on helping others, and perhaps on sacrificing for the less fortunate? What do you want them to hold as their most shining ideal, their sense of what is best, their motivation and standard as they make choices through their life?

The other side is that any adult who feels strongly drawn to those who are handicapped or deformed or any adult who feels strongly repulsed by them, are each most likely exhibiting some shadow feeling. Some projected fear or shame or insecurity. But that is a different story.

Edit: Ted's posted while I was writing this - other wise I'd have worded my post differently - his observations regarding a view of life as tragic, and his pointing out that people owe an honest effort of building a correct meaning of what they are reading are both excellent.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/19, 12:34pm)

Post 11

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 12:52pm

Joe,

Maybe that young woman will get a sympathy scholarship to Harvard next.

I remember the homecoming queen from my graduating class, Maureen. She was an outstanding student, friendly, and extremely creative. Not to mention fiercely independent, and severely beautiful, as I recall.

Post 12

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 12:55pm

Thanks for all the comments so far.
Re:

I would no more enroll my child in a school for the retarded or physically disabled anymore than a rational parent of a disabled child would enroll their child in a school for the gifted.

Would a rational parent of an intellectually gifted (and disabled) child enroll that child in a school for the intellectually gifted?

Just as many schools ignore the intellectual needs of children who are intellectually gifted,
in the same way (and probably for the same reasons)
many schools for disabled children ignore the intellectual needs of disabled children who are intellectually gifted.
Therefore, the parents of a gifted child who is disabled often have to choose between a school designed for gifted children with normal bodies and a school designed for disabled children with average or below-normal minds.

If you were a parent facing this choice -- and if, for whatever reason, you could neither homeschool nor otherwise found your own school -- which would you choose ... and why?
(Edited by Kate Gladstone on 9/19, 12:57pm)

(Edited by Kate Gladstone on 9/19, 12:59pm)

Post 13

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 5:13pm

Would a rational parent of an intellectually gifted (and disabled) child enroll that child in a school for the intellectually gifted?

Not if that disability was mental retardation, or any other severe mental disability. I'd say that parent is living outside of reality, and dragging their kid along with them.

Just as many schools ignore the intellectual needs of children who are intellectually gifted,
in the same way (and probably for the same reasons)
many schools for disabled children ignore the intellectual needs of disabled children who are intellectually gifted.

Have any stats or evidence for that?

If you were a parent facing this choice -- and if, for whatever reason, you could neither homeschool nor otherwise found your own school -- which would you choose ... and why?

Seems pretty obvious, but I would choose the school that best enabled, nurtured, shaped, and grew my child's cognitive and intellectual ability. I would not choose a school that specialized in mental disabilities for reasons that just don't need explaining.

Physical disabilities offer different challenges, and liabilities, but know that no child has the right to a classical education by anyone, at any price, regardless of ability, or it's lacking.

Post 14

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 7:11pm

I also agree with Ted as to the intent of Rand's statement. While I would certainly try to shield my own children from an environment where handicaps were the norm, I would not go out of my way to prevent their awareness of children or adults with handicaps.

Then again, a handicap is just one limitation, and limitations can be overcome with effort (and sometimes technology). When the handicap in question is severe retardation, I have a great problem with those people who wish to refer to them as 'special children', and a greater problem with those parents who know in advance that they'll be bringing such a child into the world. I think that is, instead, a special cruelty perpetrated on the child and the world around them.

jt

Post 15

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 10:35pm

I should have specified that I meant an intellectually gifted (and *not* retarded) disabled person.

Re how many such children exist -- the smallest of several listservs for parents and teachers of intellectually gifted disabled kids had (the last time I checked: admittedly, some years ago) several hundred members: and by far THE most frequent (and most concretely presented) topic of discussion was the persistent unwillingness of administrators at these kids' schools (including the schools specifically set up for disabled kids OR for gifted kids) to acknowledge (let alone to address in their pedagogy -- intellectual gifts co-existing with the disability. (E.g., "We can't possibly let your daughter take Latin and advanced math because she uses a wheelchair and a catheter." No joke: it just didn't "feel right for that to happen" -- in the words of the guidance counselor -- "when there are so many other students who could benefit and who do not have special needs." !!!!!!!!! )

Post 16

Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 8:50am

Then again, a handicap is just one limitation, and limitations can be overcome with effort (and sometimes technology). When the handicap in question is severe retardation, I have a great problem with those people who wish to refer to them as 'special children', and a greater problem with those parents who know in advance that they'll be bringing such a child into the world. I think that is, instead, a special cruelty perpetrated on the child and the world around them.

No crap, Jay. Enter personal horror story:

My youngest daughter took up band in 9th grade (don't they all?). She was learning to play flute. My oldest daughter had become very proficient with that instrument, competing statewide and winning awards. The younger is a competitive girl in her own right.

At her first recital, I couldn't help but notice a boy in the back of the orchestra sitting with a set of drums in front of him, and a woman holding on to his wrists standing behind him. The young man was looking everywhere in the room but at the music or his instrument. When the students began to play their first piece, the woman holding the young man's wrists was moving his arms to the music, making the drum beats for him, while he gawked everywhere, grunted and squealed. It was the most horrific display of forcing "participation" for the sake of participation I ever witnessed.

The act was so insulting to what the other kids were trying to do, I wanted to grab my daughter and get the hell out of there. But there were hundreds of parents, grandparents, friends, and students in the gym where this took place. So I sat, in wordless disgust, until it was over. Another mother sitting next to me was also shocked. I imagine there were many many shocked people watching this insane spectacle.

I questioned my daughter about this after her recital. She told me, "yeah, he has autism, or something. His parents wanted him to be in the orchestra, so the lady comes in to read his music and play the drums for him."

!!

I am so not making this up. Little wonder why my youngest quit the music program after that first year, and I did not protest.

(E.g., "We can't possibly let your daughter take Latin and advanced math because she uses a wheelchair and a catheter." No joke: it just didn't "feel right for that to happen" -- in the words of the guidance counselor -- "when there are so many other students who could benefit and who do not have special needs." !!!!!!!!! )

Yeah. There's always a risk of not being accepted. Frankly, I wouldn't want the burdensome responsibility in my classroom, either, without extra compensation, of course, or at the very least, some help and recognition from the parents of these students that their child is at risk of stealing a whole lot of time from other students who didn't share their affliction. If those parents could find a volunteer willing to sit with their child through the day to take care of any need they may have, I'd be more comfortable with it, but to saddle teachers alone with it is wrong.

What these parents could have, and should have done is petition every other parent of students in the school and plead their case to them instead of the administration. Something could have been worked out.

Post 17

Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:34am

Rand is said to have told Branden that he should love her even if she were confined to a wheelchair. I think that answers everything.

Post 18

Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 4:21pm

Dare I let you know that the parents of that gifte kid with physical problems *did* attempt to discuss the matter (and work out possible solutions) with the other kids' parents? Those other parents didn't want to think about it (even after the gifted student's parents indeed offered to provide a full-time aide, at no cost to any other parent or to the school). As the other parents saw it (I'm quoting the head od the school's parent group here, because she had a kid of her own in the classes that the other child intellectually qualifie to attend) -- "A kid like this needs to learn to be satisfied with what is provided. because it would be wrong for a gifted kid like this to be intruded into the presence of our own, healthy, gifted kids. Even though there looks like a way to fully handle the medical problems with a private aide, a gifted child with medical problems is just inherently not what we think of as being in the gifted program. Maybe a child who is that gifted could use her intelligence to learn to be satisfied with the ordinary academic program."

!!!!!!!!!!!!
<:-C

Post 19

Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 4:58pm