Results 1-20 of 182
Mr. Maximov was given one of the most unenviable journalistic assignments I can imagine with this piece: reviewing a documentary whose central subject matter is the disabled and an arts group advocating for them. How on earth does one give an honest critique of such of a film without risking being called insensitive to the theater group, the cause, the disabled population, or all of the above? Well, I guess you better hedge your bets on loving the film start to finish, so you can go to sleep feeling like a good guy, with your journalistic principles intact to boot.
The backlash of letters in response to Mr. Maximov's review more than makes my point. In this 30 + sentence article, about 5 sentences are devoted to discussion about the FC controvery. The rest of the article from the first sentence to the last, reinforces the work of the theater group and the need for the disabled to be able to express themselves. No journalist writing anything about FC should leave out reference to the well-documented controversy surrounding the subject - it's called balanced reporting. And I find it hard to believe that anyone involved with the theater group, the film, or the practice of FC itself is ignorant to the questions surrounding the legitimacy of FC. But those involved with this film have been so quick to criticize Mr. Maximov's raising of perfectly legitimate issues while largely ignoring the complimentary tone of 80% of his article that one has to question why they are so defensive. If FC should be cleared of all controversy, then simply point to the facts that show it. There would be no need to be so defensive if the overwhelming bulk of evidence supported the claims of FC's proponents.
Incidentally, my only criticism of Mr. Maximov's article is that it is diplomatic to a fault. His praise of the film is so careful and measured that I get the sense that this is not so much a review as it is a nod to a local filmmaker. As a film goer, I'm glad to know there are people making films on these topics, but I also want to know whether the reviewer thought it was a quality film - and I don't really get a clear sense of that in this review. Perhaps Mr. Maximov was, understandably, concerned about criticizing a film covering this subject matter. Ironically, those involved with the film have no problem criticizing him.
First of all, I’d like to thank the letter writers and commenters for adding their thoughts and perspectives on my article. The subject of facilitated communication (FC) turns out to need much greater attention than the 750 words I wrote in my review of A New Kind of Listening.
I appreciate Kenny Dalsheimer and Alison Latimer’s setting the record straight on the reasons for the disclaimer at the end of the film. In talking to Dalsheimer, I was told that the Institute had been shown a rough cut, and that a decision was made to add the disclaimer. But I misunderstood his explanation and thought the Institute had requested it. I apologize for the error.
Like Dalsheimer, who didn’t want FC to be the focus of his film, I didn’t want it to be the focus of my review—the film tells the story of an inclusive theater group, and the FC question is tangential to its main points. But I felt that to leave unmentioned the serious doubts I felt on seeing the communication depicted in it would betray my responsibility as a reviewer, would amount to an act of willful ignorance along the lines of “the emperor’s new clothes.” I watched the video very carefully, repeatedly pausing and rewinding. It seems clear that at times Chris Mueller-Medlicott is typing without looking at the keyboard. This was the cause of my initial suspicions.
As far as the accusation of lazy journalism and of failing to do proper research before writing my article, I acknowledge that I could have contacted more sources. But again, the credibility of FC was not the focus of my article. And, in fact, I did research the issue rather extensively before I wrote about it.
There is a vast wealth of material on FC on the Internet. The disclaimer at the end of the film states, “For training guidelines and research validating facilitated communication please visit: www.inclusioninstitutes.org.” I visited the site, and read the better part of the information posted there. I found much other relevant information at the Web site for DEAL (Dignity, Education and Learning: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealcc/), an Australian organization directed by Rosemary Crossley, the inventor of facilitated communication, and at numerous other sites.
I also came across a documentary that appeared on the PBS series Frontline in 1993. The film, Prisoners of Silence, echoed many of the doubts I experienced while watching A New Kind of Listening (a transcript of the show is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1202.html. It has also been posted to Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3439467496200920717 &ei=Yl_ySoKDIY3uqQKH0ow9 &hl=en#).
The Frontline documentary, and much other research available or referred to online, presents overwhelming evidence against facilitated communication. Study after study has revealed messages typed using FC that originated from the facilitator, not the client. In 1994, the American Psychological Association resolved that “Peer reviewed, scientifically based studies have found that the typed language output (represented through computers, letter boards, etc.) attributed to the clients was directed or systematically determined by the paraprofessional/professional therapists who provided facilitated assistance… . Consequently, specific activities [involving FC] contribute immediate threats to the individual civil and human rights of the person with autism or severe mental retardation.”
The FC community’s responses to specific criticism do not seem credible. In the face of the accumulated evidence, they accuse their critics of professional bias, poor study design, and a desire to “silence” people who are disabled. They point to a few cases in which clients using FC have gone on to communicate independently. This is a marvelous outcome for those individuals, but it doesn’t diminish the grave danger to the rights of other FC clients, for whom the evidence indicates that in the majority of cases, someone else is essentially speaking for them.
The issues surrounding FC inspire intense emotions that can cloud rational judgment. It’s not surprising that many therapists, family members and advocates would prefer to ignore evidence that it doesn’t work. To be sure, in the specific case of Chris Mueller-Medlicott, I’m not prepared to make any definitive claim about the validity of his communication. His family and others around him were in a better position to judge than a critic who watched an hour-long film in which he appeared.
I do, however, want to share with Indy readers the results of my research on facilitated communication. I invite those who are interested to look into the matter for themselves and decide which arguments they find most persuasive.
However, it's pretty clear that all y'all are DUDES with a dude perspective on local (and non-local) music. Of course, one of the Chrisses could be a lovely lady, but I doubt it.
A good percentage of the bands in Troika are woman-led or women-backed, and a lesser number are woman-driven. Not to mention Troika itself, put together by the fantastic ladies at 307 Knox and friends.
It would be really f'in nice to have -- out of 11 reviewers in the primary entertainment weekly for the area -- have at least one or two be women who add a different perspective on things, and broaden the discussion.
Thanks!
Churlish. I love it.
Unfortunately, Maximov made one factual error, was lazy in his reporting and missed a core message of the film.
First, Maximov wrote, "After seeing a rough cut of the film, officials at the [FC] institute had sufficient qualms to request a disclaimer at the end." No such request was made by the institute. Margaret Heath, Polly Medlicott and I included the language in deference to the institute's amazing work and the promise FC holds for thousands of people who can benefit from its use.
Secondly, in his critique of FC, Maximov wrongly asserts that Margaret Heath, a highly skilled and sensitive facilitator, actively influenced the typing shown in the film. Maximov's failure to contact Ms. Heath and explore his own skepticism before printing erroneous assumptions does a disservice to the many people working earnestly to give voice to people who might otherwise be voiceless.
Finally, as the review title indicates, Maximov's eyes were focused squarely on Chris Mueller-Medlicott and the disabled members of the theater group. Yes, Chris is a main character, and Maximov's discussion of his life and how it is treated in the film is right on. But one of the key messages of the film—that inclusive arts benefits and transforms everybody—was missed.
The film is challenging and will stir controversy and debate. We need the courage to suspend disbelief and trust the heartfelt, inclusive work shared in A NEW KIND OF LISTENING.
Kenny Dalsheimer
www.anewkindoflistening.com
I remember a long discussion of "Dallas." The Hound said he liked the cat fights. "They have a certain tension." Someone said, "Ooh, tension. I like that." The Hound said, "750 verbals, man. Dig it."
http://www.blogger.com/profile/06328225246284521960Yes, there are obviously people who like "homogenous" schools. Guess what. They're not all white.
I am not a social conservative, but can still see that busing is not the answer to anything. If you can't teach poor kids close to home you can't team them across town either. Economic busing serves noone and is only meant to mask the problem, making it just slightly harder to identify.
919 286 1972 •
919 286 4274 •
