Hi

Freewood, Madeleine J wrote:

> Dear St.John,
> In my mind there is an inherent contradiction in what you argue here. On the one hand you imply that actions to get the job done can take
> place in a vacuum devoid of P/politics or personal ideologies in fact they rather get in the way, on the other you contextualise that by
> stating the political framework which impacts on how you take the actions you do i.e. a philanthropic approach in which it is the duty of
> the more fortunate to help the less fortunate.


Isn't there a similarity between the 'philanthopic approach' and that
taken by the politically correct when wagging fingers at those whose
terminology does not meet certain ideological criteria? The
philanthopic approach is patronising after all and generally fails to
recognise individual qualities.

St John is being harangued for his use of a single word (sympathy). I'd
have thought the overall sentiment expressed in his email is of more
importance. This is NOT the Disability Research in HE forum after all -
or an exercise in Freudian textual analysis.


>
> With reference to the subject header the whole reason this debate began was because there are different ways and approaches to getting the
> job done, we make choices about which we believe to be the best. There can be no doubt that these choices are influenced by many factors not
> least P/politics, ideologies and the values we hold personally and are dominant in our society. To my mind being explicit about these and
> understanding them more fully is part of getting the job done not an idle way to pass the time spent in the office, as it impacts on the
> choice of actions that we undertake. Further I would suggest that developing a political awareness to inform the actions we take is not
> something beholden only to those people sitting in offices, there are plenty of examples of 'underprivileged' groups of people coming
> together to do just that.
>


So there you go St John. Consider yourself duly finger-wagged at :-)

Regards

Peter Hill


> Best wishes and have a good weekend,
> Madeleine
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Skeates,St.John DEAL Awards Tm
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 26 July 2002 11:59
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: generalist/specialist assessors
>
>
> No but we can establish some priorities. We are fortunate in that we have
> the luxury of being able to debate these issues from our comfortable
> offices, safely cosseted from the harsh realities of the real world.
> Meanwhile the disabled, the underprivileged and the disenfranchised
> strive for a quality of life that we all take for granted in a society
> that is not known for it's sympathy towards those that fall outside what
> is generally accepted as "normal".
>
> I doubt that there is a person on here that has not at some point been
> the victim of discrimination, injustice or bigotry. But while redefining,
> rephrasing or even respelling the language that we use may make an
> interesting coffee time debate and allow those "in the know" to feel smug
> in their righteousness, it is not going to get the support to those who
> need it.
>
> Take a look at the subject line of this email. Does anyone actually
> recall the original debate concerning the who should conduct assessments,
> an issue that has very significant implications when it comes to
> providing the best support possible? Or do we all have our heads so far
> up our own backsides over the fact that an individual dared to use the
> word "disabled" on a mail list titled Dis-forum that the original debate
> is no longer relevant?
>
> So to hell with politics and ideologies - two words which, I suspect,
> humanity would be much better off without!
>
> St.John Skeates
> Awards Section
> Bedfordshire County Council
> Direct Line 01234 316300
>
>
>
>


--
01527 500324
[log in to unmask]
www.study-pro.com

Dyslexia Consultancy and Resources