in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/15/05 12:01 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/13/05 7:31 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice.

You wrongly presume that neither party is willing

You didn't speak of any process whereby the parties in question have a say
in this "mentoring."

Why should they? They are students. They are given assignments and they are
expected to complete them.

A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being, not an
"assignment."

They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given
assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students.

This "mentoring" as you have described it is nothing but the objectification
of the person with a disability as lesser human.



and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.

I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is that
the
two people have chosen to be in the relationship.

Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement.

I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to call
it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this nature.
It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned.

Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives.
They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships through
experience.

Ridiculous! A person with a disability gains nothing positive from being
taught that they are lesser human beings and the non-disabled person gains
nothing positive from learning that they should assume power and control
over people with disabilities. Just because there are negative forced
relationships in the world it makes no sense to deliberately subject people
to experience them. With your way of thinking, it would make sense to
sexually assault children so they will be able to deal with it. Yes, your
thinking is that scary.


The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with
a
disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of
teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and
need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for
them.

Balderdash. The whole point is to TEACH the mentor how to mentor while
also
teaching the disabled student how to be mentored.

Ah, basically teaching the non-disabled student to boss people with
disabilities, and teaching people with disabilities to be bossed.

Mentoring is not "bossing." It's "tutoring or coaching."

Being forced to tutor or coach someone who has not asked for your tutoring
or coaching is a boss/being bossed relationship.

Not really.


Absolutely the worst possible suggestion, unless your goal is to make
people
with disabilities even more vulnerable than they are.

The goal is to teach both students. No compulsory school student has freely
"chosen" to be in a mentor relationship with a teacher. They are required to
submit to education, and their teachers "mentor" them. It's not demeaning or
harmful for disabled student to be subjected to teaching, whomever the
teacher may be.

It is both demeaning and harmful to all concerned in the scenario you
propose. The forced-to-be-teacher does not have the maturity or training to
take on that role, and the forced-to-be-student is being asked to sort
through an impossibly confusing relationship whereby they are being bossed
by what should be a peer, not a superior.

That's why it's called "education." Everybody learns something.

Why not have them learning more useful and positive things than how to have
a miserable life as victims or abusers?


Mentoring has nothing to
do with "making their decisions for them," it is simply defined as
"tutoring
or coaching."

Actually, even using standard dictionary definitions, the key to a
mentoring
relationship is trust. While trust might possibly emerge from an imposed
relationship, it seems to me it is much more likely to come from a
relationship where the two people actually choose to be together.

That's happenstantial trust.

No, that's about mutuality.

Trust is also built between people forced
together through the interactions they experience.

That's also a good way to build hatred.

That it may be does not mean that it is, or will always be. Most of the time
it works out okay, and children need to learn early how to get along with
others, even those they don't like.

They could learn to respect each other, rather than be forced into a
relationship that neither is equipped to handle.


Maybe so, but the point is that neither
the two-year-old nor the disabled child nor the older child assigned to
mentor him are in charge of things

They should be.

They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are
grown up.

But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of children
who are disabled.

Mentoring is not being "in charge of."

Is the person with a disability freely inviting the individual to be their
mentor, and is the person being inviting freely accepting the invitation? If
not, your program is nothing more than assigning a non-disabled boss to a
person with a disability.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being, not an
"assignment."

They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given
assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students.

This "mentoring" as you have described it is nothing but the objectification
of the person with a disability as lesser human.

No more so than any form of didacticism for any other student. No more so
than by creating a "specialized" curriculum for a disabled student, and in
fact less so. Students are, by definition, ignorant of the things they are
to be taught. Assigning studies is a perfectly ordinary part of every
educational scheme, and it's not "objectifying" anyone to do so,
irrespective of their abilities. When any student needs specialized teaching
or mentoring, providing it is not "objectifying" them or categorizing them
as a "lesser human," it's simply recognizing that students may learn
differently and may require some additional instruction to help them
succeed. No "objectification" is present.




and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.

I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is that
the
two people have chosen to be in the relationship.

Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement.

I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to call
it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this nature.
It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned.

Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives.
They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships through
experience.

Ridiculous! A person with a disability gains nothing positive from being
taught that they are lesser human beings and the non-disabled person gains
nothing positive from learning that they should assume power and control
over people with disabilities.

Sophistry. Providing mentoring is not, as you insist, an evil plot to
"objectify" and "dehumanize" the student, nor is it a method of creating
juvenile despots with megalomaniacal tendencies.

Just because there are negative forced
relationships in the world it makes no sense to deliberately subject people
to experience them.

It makes perfect sense. It's absolutely necessary to *every* child's proper
development to expose them to situations and relationships in which they
have to learn to compromise and seek consensus with others. That's one of
the primary things that group schooling is for; to expose children to other
children in venues that force them to learn to get along with others.
Students who receive exclusively private tutoring, with the absence of peers
with whom they can learn to form relationships, are ill-equipped to survive
in the real world. Just ask any child star.

With your way of thinking, it would make sense to
sexually assault children so they will be able to deal with it. Yes, your
thinking is that scary.

Specious, amphigorical nonsense. Learning to relate to and get along with
ones peers is entirely different from engaging in sexual abuse.

By even suggesting this as an appropriate analogy you destroy your
credibility.


They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are
grown up.

But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of children
who are disabled.

Mentoring is not being "in charge of."

Is the person with a disability freely inviting the individual to be their
mentor, and is the person being inviting freely accepting the invitation? If
not, your program is nothing more than assigning a non-disabled boss to a
person with a disability.

Doesn't matter. They are students. They must complete the assignments given.
As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being,
not an
"assignment."

They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given
assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students.

This "mentoring" as you have described it is nothing but the
objectification
of the person with a disability as lesser human.

No more so than any form of didacticism for any other student.

It is more in that you have just created two classes of students, an added
(negative and destructive) layer of objectification.

No more so
than by creating a "specialized" curriculum for a disabled student

An appropriate curriculum, not specialized.

and in
fact less so. Students are, by definition, ignorant of the things they are
to be taught. Assigning studies is a perfectly ordinary part of every
educational scheme, and it's not "objectifying" anyone to do so,
irrespective of their abilities.

Sure it is! They aren't a "study" they are human beings!

When any student needs specialized teaching
or mentoring, providing it is not "objectifying" them or categorizing them
as a "lesser human," it's simply recognizing that students may learn
differently and may require some additional instruction to help them
succeed. No "objectification" is present.

Forcing students with vastly different needs to be in the same class where
the students who are not getting an appropriate curriculum are assigned
non-disabled bosses is about nothing more than objectification and the
development of future victims and abusers.


and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.

I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is
that
the
two people have chosen to be in the relationship.

Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a
requirement.

I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to
call
it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this
nature.
It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned.

Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives.
They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships
through
experience.

Ridiculous! A person with a disability gains nothing positive from being
taught that they are lesser human beings and the non-disabled person
gains
nothing positive from learning that they should assume power and control
over people with disabilities.

Sophistry. Providing mentoring is not, as you insist, an evil plot to
"objectify" and "dehumanize" the student, nor is it a method of creating
juvenile despots with megalomaniacal tendencies.

You may truly believe that your proposal would accomplish otherwise, but
sadly, that's exactly what such relationships produce.

Just because there are negative forced
relationships in the world it makes no sense to deliberately subject
people
to experience them.

It makes perfect sense. It's absolutely necessary to *every* child's
proper
development to expose them to situations and relationships in which they
have to learn to compromise and seek consensus with others.

Mhm.

That's one of
the primary things that group schooling is for; to expose children to
other
children in venues that force them to learn to get along with others.

OK.

Students who receive exclusively private tutoring, with the absence of
peers
with whom they can learn to form relationships, are ill-equipped to
survive
in the real world. Just ask any child star.

None of which has anything to do with your scheme.

With your way of thinking, it would make sense to
sexually assault children so they will be able to deal with it. Yes, your
thinking is that scary.

Specious, amphigorical nonsense. Learning to relate to and get along with
ones peers is entirely different from engaging in sexual abuse.

What you are proposing will result in production of victims and abusers much
more so than learning to get along.

By even suggesting this as an appropriate analogy you destroy your
credibility.

Only becuase you have no idea how foolish your idea truly is.

They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they
are
grown up.

But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of
children
who are disabled.

Mentoring is not being "in charge of."

Is the person with a disability freely inviting the individual to be
their
mentor, and is the person being inviting freely accepting the invitation?
If
not, your program is nothing more than assigning a non-disabled boss to a
person with a disability.

Doesn't matter.

It does matter.

This is why you need to think more about abusers and the abused.

They are students. They must complete the assignments given.

Thus when exerting this power care is required to ensure why the assignment
is being given and if the results are likely to meet with the goals.

As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters
the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to
be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by
non-disabled people?!?

My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with
disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse.
Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach
non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters
the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to
be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by
non-disabled people?!?

It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will
ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be
"bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how to
be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability
status.



My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with
disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse.
Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach
non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid.

You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate to
authority is a bad thing.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/15/05 10:22 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters
the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to
be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by
non-disabled people?!?

It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will
ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be
"bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how to
be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability
status.

I don't hear you assigning any people with disabilities to boss their
non-disabled peers. So, obviously, since your little system features
non-disabled people bossing disabled people, the main outcome will be as I
stated: people with disabilities will get used to being bossed by
non-disabled people, and non-disabled people will get used to bossing people
with disabilities.

But before you come up with some scheme to give the people with disabilties
equal bossing time, why the heck do these kids need to be bossing each other
at all...they already have teachers, principals, parents, and other
authority figures to boss them. Why not just eliminate the need for this
misguided and dangerous scheme by ensuring that students have an appropriate
curriculum?

My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with
disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse.
Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach
non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid.

You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate to
authority is a bad thing.

Teaching people with disabilities to be a subordinate class of lesser humans
who are to yield control of their own lives to a higher class of
non-disabled people is most definitely and unquestionably a very bad thing
and leads to horrifying rates of sexual assault and other forms of abuse.

Scott, you had what you no doubt thought to be an interesting idea but it is
totally without merit, and would lead to a vulnerable group of people being
further victimized, and the school being nothing but a training ground for
victims and abusers.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/15/05 10:22 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters
the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to
be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by
non-disabled people?!?

It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will
ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be
"bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how to
be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability
status.

I don't hear you assigning any people with disabilities to boss their
non-disabled peers.
So, obviously, since your little system features
non-disabled people bossing disabled people, the main outcome will be as I
stated: people with disabilities will get used to being bossed by
non-disabled people, and non-disabled people will get used to bossing people
with disabilities.

Don't be silly, that's what mentoring programs are *about.* I never
suggested NOT mentoring non disabled students. In fact I repeatedly told you
that ANY student who was having difficulty in a specific academic area needs
to be mentored.

It so happens that we are specifically discussing the disabled, but that in
no way suggests that they are the only students who need mentors.


But before you come up with some scheme to give the people with disabilties
equal bossing time, why the heck do these kids need to be bossing each other
at all...they already have teachers, principals, parents, and other
authority figures to boss them.

You really seem to have some sort of authority-figure aversion.

Why not just eliminate the need for this
misguided and dangerous scheme by ensuring that students have an appropriate
curriculum?

Mentoring is an appropriate curriculum for a student who is having
difficulty.


My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with
disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse.
Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach
non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid.

You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate to
authority is a bad thing.

Teaching people with disabilities to be a subordinate class of lesser humans
who are to yield control of their own lives to a higher class of
non-disabled people is most definitely and unquestionably a very bad thing
and leads to horrifying rates of sexual assault and other forms of abuse.

Specious, unsubstantiated, hysterical, untrue claptrap and nonsense.


Scott, you had what you no doubt thought to be an interesting idea but it is
totally without merit,

Sez you. It's not my idea, it's an idea held by many education
professionals, none of whom see the bogey-man you're in a panic about.

and would lead to a vulnerable group of people being
further victimized, and the school being nothing but a training ground for
victims and abusers.

Your anti-paranoia medication is wearing off.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/15/05 10:22 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:



As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who
enters
the
workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how
to
be
"bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it.

Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by
non-disabled people?!?

It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will
ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be
"bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how
to
be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability
status.

I don't hear you assigning any people with disabilities to boss their
non-disabled peers.
So, obviously, since your little system features
non-disabled people bossing disabled people, the main outcome will be as
I
stated: people with disabilities will get used to being bossed by
non-disabled people, and non-disabled people will get used to bossing
people
with disabilities.

Don't be silly, that's what mentoring programs are *about.* I never
suggested NOT mentoring non disabled students. In fact I repeatedly told
you
that ANY student who was having difficulty in a specific academic area
needs
to be mentored.

It so happens that we are specifically discussing the disabled, but that
in
no way suggests that they are the only students who need mentors.

But the only reason they need "mentors" (or really "peer bosses" in your
system) is because they are being forced into an inappropriate curriculum to
begin with.

But before you come up with some scheme to give the people with
disabilties
equal bossing time, why the heck do these kids need to be bossing each
other
at all...they already have teachers, principals, parents, and other
authority figures to boss them.

You really seem to have some sort of authority-figure aversion.

No, I'm just explaining that there is no issue with not having any authority
figures to teach them how to be bossed. No need to throw peers into the mix.

Why not just eliminate the need for this
misguided and dangerous scheme by ensuring that students have an
appropriate
curriculum?

Mentoring is an appropriate curriculum for a student who is having
difficulty.

They wouldn't be having difficulty if they weren't being subjected to an
inappropriate curriculum.

My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with
disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of
abuse.
Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach
non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid.

You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate
to
authority is a bad thing.

Teaching people with disabilities to be a subordinate class of lesser
humans
who are to yield control of their own lives to a higher class of
non-disabled people is most definitely and unquestionably a very bad
thing
and leads to horrifying rates of sexual assault and other forms of abuse.

Specious, unsubstantiated, hysterical, untrue claptrap and nonsense.

Only because you are ignorant.

Scott, you had what you no doubt thought to be an interesting idea but it
is
totally without merit,

Sez you. It's not my idea, it's an idea held by many education
professionals, none of whom see the bogey-man you're in a panic about.

They are ignorant too. That's the beauty of being an "education
professional" the damage you do becomes someone else's problem.

and would lead to a vulnerable group of people being
further victimized, and the school being nothing but a training ground
for
victims and abusers.

Your anti-paranoia medication is wearing off.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Hi folks! Just thought I'd pop in and see how you are getting on.

I see that Sadder-butt Weiser is still spouting arrant nonsense, such
as:

...The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed."...

In fact, only a small percentage of the officer corps is drawn from
enlisted recruits, and only a *tiny* percentage of general officers
come up from the ranks.

But when did Scott ever let truth and accuracy get in the way of what
looks (to him) like a good debating point?

Hang in there Scottie; keep on spittin' against the wind until you
finally bring it to a stop!

I'll look in again next month to see if yer still beating the same dead
horses.
-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ps.com...
Hi folks! Just thought I'd pop in and see how you are getting on.

I see that Sadder-butt Weiser is still spouting arrant nonsense, such
as:

...The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed."...

In fact, only a small percentage of the officer corps is drawn from
enlisted recruits, and only a *tiny* percentage of general officers
come up from the ranks.

But when did Scott ever let truth and accuracy get in the way of what
looks (to him) like a good debating point?

Hang in there Scottie; keep on spittin' against the wind until you
finally bring it to a stop!

I'll look in again next month to see if yer still beating the same dead
horses.
-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

He's taken to citing anonymous "education experts."

You know Scotty is in trouble when...

A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

Hi folks! Just thought I'd pop in and see how you are getting on.

I see that Sadder-butt Weiser is still spouting arrant nonsense, such
as:

...The military knows this, which is why even
General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be
"bossed."...

In fact, only a small percentage of the officer corps is drawn from
enlisted recruits, and only a *tiny* percentage of general officers
come up from the ranks.

Every officer in the United States Army goes through OCS, where they get the
living **** "bossed" out of them as recruits. The whole point is to teach
them how to obey (and give) orders.

But when did Scott ever let truth and accuracy get in the way of what
looks (to him) like a good debating point?

Evidently you don't know **** from Shinola. Small surprise.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser