[ Contents | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Bob Quesal
Date: 10/8/03
Time: 1:12:52 PM
Remote Name: 143.43.201.67
Sorry to jump into this discussion a bit late. Let me see if I understand this correctly: A person who stutters teaches a class in stuttering and brings a bias to that class (based on personal experience) and shares that bias with the class. If he (or she) has not achieved a certain degree of fluency, his (or her) credibility must be called into question. Students decide, "If my professor could not achieve fluency after investing his (or her) life in studying it and trying to understand the disorder of stuttering, it must be hopeless to try to help people who stutter." And that is why they are afraid to work with clients who stutter.
1. Message to students: ALL of your professors are biased. They all have been influenced by their personal experiences. (Attending an academic program - or two, or three - and learning about stuttering from a mentor counts as personal experience, as does knowing - or not knowing - people who stutter.) The ones who say they are not biased probably hold the biggest biases.
2. Your professor has earned a Ph.D. He (or she) teaches at a university. He (or she) probably presents at local, state, national, and (perhaps) international meetings. He (or she) has probably published a few things. He (or she) probably advises students, serves on committees, makes good coffee, etc., etc. Too bad he (or she) can't be fluent. What a failure. If you think that way, you are a fluency bigot. See: http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad5/papers/quesal5.html
3. Extending from point 2: Gee, maybe there's more to it than fluency. Maybe it'd be nice if we could define success as more than "perfect" fluency. I agree with Ellen-Marie that if someone still stutters severely and says "I'm cured" that may be a problem. But I can't understand why in these days of tolerance and diversity, it's okay to be a fluency bigot. It's a shame that more professors (both those who stutter and those who do not) can't give students the message that you can make the life of a person who stutters so much better even if you don't make them totally fluent. Unfortunately, as I understand it to say such a thing today is unethical.
4. Do all of your other clients achieve "normal" function? Do your dysphagia clients swallow "normally" again? Do your aphasics speak "normally?" How about your articulation/phonology kids? Do they have "normal" speech? Your language kids? Why is it that "do the best you can with what you've got" is acceptable for so many disorders we work with, but it doesn't apply to stuttering?
At some level, I suppose, the "fear" of working with people who stutter may have some basis. But in general, the arguments about it are essentially myths. Unfortunately, the future isn't looking all that great, either: http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/comdis/isad4/papers/quesal3.html
...but that's just my opinion.
Bob Quesal Angry "happy stutterer"