"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.