Hi
Some time ago, out of little more than curiosity, I looked through the
archives of a list used exclusively by a particular group of
professionals serving the disabled community (perhaps not the best
description - but I'd prefer not to reveal too much about the list!).
I'm not the most 'PC' of people, but I was appalled at some of the
terminology being used by list members and felt that it had the
potential to encourage stereotyping and the development of a 'disability
unfriendly' philosophy. I thought about this for a while, discussed it
with colleagues and revisited the list archives to see if what I had
witnessed was a 'blip'. It wasn't.
For work-related reasons, I felt unable to complain to the list owner
directly, so I contacted a leading member of a national disability
organisation who said she would investigate the issue. I have no idea
if things have changed on the list (though I rather doubt it) as,
shortly afterwards, the archives were closed to outside scrutiny.
I realise that there is no risk of something similar developing on this
list. However, my point is that keeping the list open to public
scrutiny says something positive about its philosophy, its ethics, and
the integrity of its members. Please keep it open.
Regards
Peter Hill
University College Worcester, CATER, ARC Oxford.
|