Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

Why should they be ashamed to be disabled? My kids know about their own disabilities and see them as a source of inspiration that they've overcome so much.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

So, the professor was trying to accommodate the needs of students and your son could not appreciate the effort. Did you make the effort to teach your son anything about tolerance?

They are REQUIRED to provide accommodations to students with documented disabilities and are required to have that in the syllabus. The college even has a template of what the language about accommodations should be, but this professor decided they wanted to stigmatize their students who need accommodations. If the professor really cared about providing accommodations, they would've called them accommodations instead of "adjustments for special needs."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

So, the professor was trying to accommodate the needs of students and your son could not appreciate the effort. Did you make the effort to teach your son anything about tolerance?

They are REQUIRED to provide accommodations to students with documented disabilities and are required to have that in the syllabus. The college even has a template of what the language about accommodations should be, but this professor decided they wanted to stigmatize their students who need accommodations. If the professor really cared about providing accommodations, they would've called them accommodations instead of "adjustments for special needs."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

So, the professor was trying to accommodate the needs of students and your son could not appreciate the effort. Did you make the effort to teach your son anything about tolerance?

They are REQUIRED to provide accommodations to students with documented disabilities and are required to have that in the syllabus. The college even has a template of what the language about accommodations should be, but this professor decided they wanted to stigmatize their students who need accommodations. If the professor really cared about providing accommodations, they would've called them accommodations instead of "adjustments for special needs."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

If the kid is disabled, they shouldn't be afraid to say that they are disabled. Stop stigmatizing our disabilities.

This is not an intuitive viewpoint and School Board candidates should not be criticized for not knowing that’s how some in your community want to be portrayed. Others may prefer to focus on their abilities or special needs rather than to be defined by their disabilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

If the kid is disabled, they shouldn't be afraid to say that they are disabled. Stop stigmatizing our disabilities.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

So, the professor was trying to accommodate the needs of students and your son could not appreciate the effort. Did you make the effort to teach your son anything about tolerance?

Anonymous wrote:So, what about kids with peanut allergies. Are they "disabled?" I would say they have "special needs:" A need for a peanut free classroom.[url] I think we could all agree that is okay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

Wow, this is so wrong. I don’t know how your son will manage in the world if he demands such semantic intricacies. I’m assuming this poster is still Litton Todd.