| | Ryan:
"Presented" then, needs clarification.
In Clockwork Orange, images of violence are 'presented' to someone as a matter of conditioning. His eyelids were mechanically kept open, and he was forced to stare at the images.
That is one end of the spectrum of 'presented.'
The other end of the spectrum is, 'subjected to walking down the same side of the street as, such that a child's gaze passed upon and he was made aware of the existence of a handicapped person objectively occupying the same existence.'
That is the other end of the 'presented' spectrum.
"Ever, under any circumstances, share the same public classrooms in school as" is what I think Rand meant.
Is it reasonable to mix kids with an IQ of 60 into a classroom of kids with an IQ of 100, and tailor the proceedings to the kid with an IQ of 60? Hardly. I don't know anyone who believes that.
But as well, imagine what kids with IQs of 140+ feel like in classrooms full of kids with IQs of 100. (Sadly, there are plenty of folks who have no trouble at all with that.)
But since education is primarily taken, not given, simply being exposed to 'handicapped' kids is not the fear based horror one might imagine. At one end of the spectrum of 'handicapped' -- the nightmare end -- are beings who cannot control themselves in the least, who scream constantly in a total rage against their reality. But, that is the six sigma end of 'handicapped,' and if that is what Rand meant, then I'd agree, there is no upside in 'presenting' a child with that six sigma reality until a child is an adult equipped and trained to understand and deal with that six sigma reality. But by far, that is not the typical 'handicapped' child. People have to use reasonable judgment -- and they mostly do.
To be clear, the most typical lesson one takes away from close exposure to a 'handicapped' person, especially as a child, is 'reality is not nearly so awe inspiring as my irrational fears; this human, in deeply fundamental ways, values many of the same important things about life that I do.'
Exposure, as a child, to handicapped individuals, can and often does greatly enhance a child's own sense of life. There is no lack of tenacity, spirit, or effort to be found among handicapped children, who strive to joyfully live their lives-- in spite of the fear and ignorance of those around them. 'Handicap' is not a communicable disease.
I think Rand was a product of an earlier, ignorant time, when 'handicapped' folks were barbarically locked away, and shunned, and turned into self-fulfilling images of human misery. Truly barbaric procedures -- frontal lobotomies, icepicks up the eye sockets -- were used to 'pacify' bags of walking meat, who were at most warehoused. We were truly barbaric, fearful primitives. In that world, I agree; it would be horrific to expose children to the products of ignorant tribal barbarism. We should have been ashamed of what we were doing to fellow human beings.
At the other end of this tribal insanity is, exposing children to other children who aren't 'beautiful.' Should a young Nazi-wannabee prick be subject to such 'sense of life' dampening experiences, and be 'presented' with other children who are not 'beautiful?'
Finally, what I've come to learn about some 'syndromes' is, the difference between those with a diagnosed 'syndrome' and 'normal' folks is, ... the absence of a diagnosed known syndrome. Every one of us has genetic deletions, but only those of us with diagnosed 'syndromatic' deletions -- deletions that systematically occur often enough to be called 'a syndrome' -- have a known laundry list. For the rest of us, that laundry list is random, chaotic, and unpredicted. So, what is 'normal' in the large majority of cases is simply 'undiagnosed/unknown genetic deletion/mutation.'
In that case, by 'handicapped' is meant, 'diagnosed handicapped.'
So, be careful what you wish for, and/or will tolerate. That technology is conspiring to get ever better at identifying that perfect GATTACA world, and weeding out the 'handicapped' among us.
regards,
Fred
|
|
