I also think this is an issue that is worth discussing - well overdue in
fact. I think there's a danger of sleepwalking into adopting policy like
this because it seems well meaning. It risks enabling back-door
discrimination and encourages people to think in stereotypes. It is also
insulting to staff who want to work in the area and are subject to enhanced
CRB checks that staff in similar specialist fields of work aren't required
to undergo.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claire Wickham" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Safeguarding vulnerable adults within HE - best practice?
>I think you are raising some very valid points: disabled is not synonymous
>with "vulnerable" and I personally wouldn't have a problem with an adult -
>which the majority of students are - deciding they were not "vulnerable".
>The phrase itself isn't very helpful either: it has a pejorative or
>patronising ring that doesn't sit well with an equalities perspective.
>
> How does one police an entrance policy for "vulnerable adults" anyway?
> Presumably students/staff classified as "vulnerable" won't have this
> stencilled on their foreheads? I think I'd agree with you that a blanket
> policy on "vulnerable students" would be discriminatory: students would
> always be vulnerable for a reason and a policy that focussed on individual
> risks and safety would be more appropriate.
>
> Looking forward to a debate on this topic,
>
> Claire
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. on
> behalf of swift
> Sent: Mon 21/01/2008 19:54
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Safeguarding vulnerable adults within HE - best practice?
>
>
>
> I'm a student, who is wondering whether anyone else has noticed a
> change to working practices/perceptions as a result of the relatively
> new introduction of safeguarding in relation to vulnerable adults?
>
> Also, having superficially compared different publically available
> policies from different universities, there seem to be discrepancies.
>
> For example, some make reference to staff as vulnerable adults, some
> don't, and some suggest that they can self identify as such (unlike
> students), which doesn't seem to fit.
>
> Some seem to lump "vulnerable adults" in with children, and thus use
> quite perjorative language when talking about adults.
>
> I also feel that some statements contained within policies can be
> alarming from a human rights/social model perspective, as (for
> example), one policy I found reserved the right to refuse admittance
> to vulnerable adults if the measures needed for safeguarding were
> unreasonable/disproportionate.
>
> However, those are probably very superficial questions, but I thought
> it was something that might make for an interesting debate.
>
>
> This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses by
> McAfee anti-virus software and none were detected
>
>
>
>
> This email was independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus
> software and none were found
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.8/1235 - Release Date: 21/01/2008
09:39
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3188 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
|