The case against banning the word retard”By Christopher M. Fa.docx

“The case against banning the word 'retard'”
By Christopher M. Fairman
Sunday, February 14, 2010
washingtonpost.com
Does the word "retard" have less than three weeks to live?
Long before Rahm Emanuel, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh
made the word fodder for political controversy and late-night
punch lines, a movement was underway to eliminate it from
everyday conversation. Saying, irrefutably, that the word and its
variations are hurtful to many, the Special Olympics is leading a
campaign to end its use and is promoting a national awareness
day on March 3. Nearly 60,000 people have signed on to the
following promise on www.r-word.org: "I pledge and support
the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from
everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of
people with intellectual disabilities."
I sympathize with the effort, but I won't be making that pledge.
It's not that I've come to praise the word "retard"; I just don't
think we should bury it. If the history of offensive terms in
America shows anything, it is that words themselves are not the
culprit; the meaning we attach to them is, and such meanings
change dramatically over time and across communities. The
term "mentally retarded" was itself introduced by the medical
establishment in the 20th century to supplant other terms that
had been deemed offensive. Similarly, the words "gay" and
"queer" and even the N-word can be insulting, friendly,
identifying or academic in different contexts.
The varied and evolving uses of such words ultimately render
self-censorship campaigns unnecessary. And restricting speech
of any kind comes with a potential price -- needlessly
institutionalized taboos, government censorship or abridged
freedom of expression -- that we should be wary of paying.
The latest battle over the R-word kicked into high gear with a
Jan. 26 Wall Street Journal report that last summer White House

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel blasted liberal activists unhappy
with the pace of health-care reform, deriding their strategies as
"[expletive] retarded." Palin, the mother of a special-needs
child, quickly took to Facebook to demand Emanuel's firing,
likening the offensiveness of the R-word to that of the N-word.
Limbaugh seized the low ground, saying he found nothing
wrong with "calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards,"
and Palin rushed to his defense, saying Limbaugh had used the
word satirically. Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert took her up
on it, calling Palin an "[expletive] retard" and adding, with a
smile: "You see? It's satire!"
Emanuel apologized and promised to take the R-Word.org
pledge, but as March 3 nears, the word may already be an
endangered species. Forty-eight states have voted to remove the
term "mental retardation" from government agencies and state
codes, and legislation is pending in Congress to strike it from
any federal statutes that still use it, such as the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act. The largest advocacy group for the
intellectually disabled, the Association for Retarded Citizens, is
now simply the Arc. Similarly, the American Association of
Mental Retardation is now the American Association on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention now use "intellectual disability"
in place of "mental retardation." The diagnostic manuals used
by medical professionals also embrace "intellectual disability"
as the official label. Behind the changes is the belief that
"retardation" doesn't communicate dignity and respect.
The irony is that the use of "mental retardation" and its variants
was originally an attempt to convey greater dignity and respect
than previous labels had. While the verb "retard" -- meaning to
delay or hinder -- has roots in the 15th century, its use in
reference to mental development didn't occur until the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, when medical texts began to describe
children with "retarded mental development," "retarded
children" and "mentally retarded patients." By the 1960s,
"mental retardation" became the preferred medical term,

gradually replacing previous diagnostic standards such as
"idiot," "imbecile" and "moron" -- terms that had come to carry
pejorative connotations.
As I was growing up in the 1970s, my father worked for the
Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation,
one of the now-renamed state agencies. The term "retardation"
was common in my home and life, but it was sterile and
clinical. It is only in the past generation that the medical term
turned into the slang "retard" and gained power as an insult.
The shift is even apparent in popular movies. There was little
public controversy when Matt Dillon tried to woo Cameron Diaz
in the 1998 hit comedy "There's Something About Mary" by
confessing his passion: "I work with retards." (Diaz's character,
Mary, had a mentally disabled brother.) But 10 years later, in
the comedy "Tropic Thunder," Robert Downey Jr.'s use of the
phrase "full retard" led to picketing and calls for a boycott.
What happened to make the word a target for extinction?
All cultures have taboos. Western culture, particularly in the
United States, has several taboos surrounding sexuality,
grounded largely in a subconscious fear of the parade of
horribles -- adultery, unwanted pregnancy, incest, venereal
disease -- that might befall us because of some sexual
behaviors. Sometimes the taboo extends to even uttering the
words that describe certain behaviors. You can see word taboo
at work in the way Emanuel's blunder was reported: "[expletive]
retarded." It's still okay to print the R-word. The F-word?
Forget it.
For years, I've been researching taboo language and its
interaction with the law, and I have written a law review article
and recently a book, both titled with the unprintable four letter
F-word. The resilience of word taboos, the multiple usages and
meanings of a single word, the rise of self-censorship, and the
risks of institutionalized taboo and ultimately censorship are all
core issues surrounding the F-word, and they help explain what
is happening -- and may happen still -- with the R-word.
Mental disorders also carry cultural taboos. For centuries,

mental illness and disability were poorly understood; as
recently as the 1800s, they were thought to be the work of
devils and demons. Because the origins of mental illness were a
mystery, fears that such conditions could be contagious led to
isolation through institutionalization. Shame was often attached
to individuals and their families, and the result was stigma.
Fortunately, we've come a long way from those days. It's
precisely the new enlightenment and openness about mental
disabilities that allow Palin to launch the controversy over
"retard." But at a subconscious level, the underlying taboo may
explain why we constantly seek new terms for this type of
disability, new ways to avoid the old stigmas. Invariably,
negative connotations materialize around whatever new word is
used; "idiot" becomes an insult and gives way to "retardation,"
which in turn suffers the same fate, leading to "intellectual
disability." This illustrates one of the recurring follies of speech
restriction: While there may be another word to use, a negative
connotation eventually is found. Offense -- both given and
taken -- is inevitable.
Whatever future offensiveness may emerge, though, are we not
better off by purging today's insulting language and making our
discourse a little kinder? That is the argument of self-censorship
advocates such as Palin, who draws parallels between the use of
the R-word and the N-word -- the most powerful and insulting
of all racial epithets. In some respects, the comparison seems
overblown. The N-word invokes some of the foulest chapters in
our nation's history; "retard," however harsh, pales in
comparison. But there still may be some guidance to be gleaned.
While the N-word endures as an insult, it is so stigmatized that
its use is no longer tolerated in public discourse. This is a
positive step for us all, of course, but its containment does not
come without costs. As Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy
described in his 2002 book on the subject, stigmatizing the word
has elicited new problems, including an overeagerness to detect
insult where none is intended and the use of excessively harsh
punishment against those who use the word wrongly.

I've coined a term for overzealous or extreme responses to
insulting words: "word fetish." Those under the influence of
word fetish aren't content to refrain from using a certain word;
they are set on eradicating any use by others. A classic example
was the plight of David Howard, a white employee in the D.C.
mayor's office in 1999. Howard told staff members that because
of budget cuts, he would have to be "niggardly" with available
funds. Wrongly believing "niggardly" was a variation of the N-
word, black subordinates lobbied for his resignation. Howard
ultimately resigned after public protests, though he was soon
reinstated. If the campaign against "retard" is successful, an
identical risk of word fetish exists. (Imagine that Emanuel had
spoken of "retarding the opposition" -- would that be
unacceptable?)
Like virtually every word in our language, the N-word has
multiple uses. While its use as an insult has decreased, there has
been a resurgence of the word as a term of identification, even
affection, among some African Americans. But should certain
groups of people, to the exclusion of others, be allowed to
reclaim certain words? If "retard" or "retarded" were similarly
restricted, could intellectually disabled individuals appropriate
the term for self-identification, essentially reclaiming its
original use or developing a new one?
Over time, word fetish can evolve into censorship among
private organizations and ultimately direct government control
of language and institutionalized word taboo. During the 1980s
and 1990s, for example, many colleges and universities sought
to reduce discrimination by developing speech codes, often
targeting racial hate speech such as the N-word. Even with the
most combustible insults, however, there must be some
accommodation to their continued use; freedom of expression
surely embraces unpopular, even insulting, speech. Luckily,
speech codes that have been challenged in court have generally
lost because they violated the First Amendment.
The risk of direct government censorship of the word "retard" is

real. The New Zealand chapter of the Special Olympics is
already calling on the country's Broadcasting Standards
Authority (equivalent to our Federal Communications
Commission) to deem the word "retard" unacceptable for
broadcast. This plea is based upon a single incident involving
New Zealand television personality Paul Henry, who described
the runner-up in the "Britain's Got Talent" competition, Susan
Boyle, as retarded. It is not difficult to imagine calls for a
similar broadcast ban emerging here.
The current public awareness campaign surrounding the use of
the word "gay" offers better lessons and parallels for the R-
word debate. Advocacy groups contend that the phrase "that's so
gay" fosters homophobia and that anti-gay language is directly
related to violence and harassment against homosexuals. At the
same time, there is recognition that much anti-gay language is
uttered carelessly and isn't necessarily intended as hurtful -- as
is probably the case with uses of "retard." The Ad Council and
the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network have
developed a Web site, ThinkB4YouSpeak.com, that, much like
R-Word.org, encourages the public to sign a pledge to cease
using the phrase. (The slogan: "Saying that's so gay is so
yesterday.")
By increasing sensitivity and awareness, the campaign hopes to
encourage people to think about the possible consequences of
their word choices. Such reflection would presumably lead
individuals to censor themselves once they understand that
others can be hurt by their language.
Inherent in this idea is the realization that words have multiple
meanings and that those meanings depend on the context and
circumstances surrounding any particular statement. For
example, "gay" is a term of identification for homosexuals, but
it also can be used as an all-purpose put-down: "That's so gay."
Those using it as an insult don't intend to say "that's so
homosexual," nor do they necessarily make the conscious leap
that homosexuality is bad. (Indeed, the success of the
ThinkB4YouSpeak.com campaign depends on this distinction.)

Similarly, the R-word has multiple usages. When Emanuel calls
fellow Democrats "retarded" for jeopardizing a legislative plan,
the term is a stand-in for "stupid" or "misguided" or "dumb" --
it obviously does not mean that they meet the IQ diagnostic
standard for intellectual disability. It is quite another thing to
look at a person with Down syndrome and call him or her a
"retard." So, if there are readily identifiable alternate meanings,
what is the reason for censorship?
Differing usages also give rise to reclaiming -- when words that
have an offensive meaning are deliberately given a new spin.
The putative slur is captured, repurposed and owned by the
target of insult. We see this when an African American uses the
N-word as a term of identification for his friends, or when the
word "queer" is reclaimed for TV shows such as "Queer Eye for
the Straight Guy" and "Queer as Folk," and for queer studies
and queer theory in university courses. Reclaiming the word
"retard" is an option that should involve no risk to freedom of
expression.
If interest groups want to pour resources into cleaning up
unintentional insults, more power to them; we surely would
benefit from greater kindness to one another. But we must not
let "retard" go without a requiem. If the goal is to protect
intellectually disabled individuals from put-downs and
prejudice, it won't succeed. New words of insult will replace old
ones.
Words are ideas, and we should be reluctant to surrender any of
them. Freedom of expression has come at a dear price, and it is
not worth abridging, even so we can get along a little better.
That's one F-word we really can't do without.
Christopher M. Fairman is a professor at the Moritz College of
Law at Ohio State University. He is the author of a book
subtitled "Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment
Liberties," whose title is unprintable here. Fairman will be
online to chat with readers on Tuesday, Feb. 16, at 11 a.m. ET.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the
discussion.

5
“The B-Word? You Betcha.”
By Andi Zeisler
The Washington Post Sunday, November 18, 2007
When you work for a magazine called Bitch, the phone tends to
ring a lot when the word pops up in the news.
When the New York City Council announced a symbolic ban on
the word several months back, the phone rang. When New York
Knicks coach Isiah Thomas defended his use of the term toward
Anucha Browne Sanders, a former Knicks marketing executive
who won a sexual harassment suit last month, it rang some
more. And since one of Sen. John McCain's supporters used the
B-word to refer to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in a question
last week, it has been ringing like crazy.
People want to know whether it is still a bad word. They want
to know whether I support its use in public discourse. Or they
already think it's a bad word and want to discuss whether its use
has implications for free speech or sexual harassment or
political campaigns.
The other thing about working for a magazine called Bitch is
that you really can't cop to being totally sick of having this
conversation. But I am. Still, I'll continue to say the same
things I always say, partly because talking about the word is an
occupational responsibility/hazard and partly because, despite

the fatigue, I believe them.
So here goes: Bitch is a word we use culturally to describe any
woman who is strong, angry, uncompromising and, often,
uninterested in pleasing men. We use the term for a woman on
the street who doesn't respond to men's catcalls or smile when
they say, "Cheer up, baby, it can't be that bad." We use it for
the woman who has a better job than a man and doesn't
apologize for it. We use it for the woman who doesn't back
down from a confrontation.
So let's not be disingenuous. Is it a bad word? Of course it is.
As a culture, we've done everything possible to make sure of
that, starting with a constantly perpetuated mindset that deems
powerful women to be scary, angry and, of course, unfeminine -
- and sees uncompromising speech by women as anathema to a
tidy, well-run world.
It's for just these reasons that when Lisa Jervis and I started the
magazine in 1996, no other title was even up for consideration.
As young women who had been bombarded with the word for,
say, daring to walk down the street in tank tops, we knew what
kinds of insults would be hurled when we started publishing
articles on sexism in consumer and popular culture.
When Lisa and I were on tour with a 10th-year anniversary
anthology, men wandered up to us after several readings to ask,
nervously, whether we hated men -- or whether men were
"allowed" to read the magazine. We always told them the same
thing: If you actually read the magazine -- which includes
everything from essays on racism in the modeling industry to
columns on the marketing of the HPV drug Gardasil -- you'll
find that it's not about hating men but about elevating women.
But too many people don't see the difference. And, at least in
part, that's why the B-word is still such a problematic term.

In fact, we hoped that we could reclaim it for mouthy, smart
women in much the way that "queer" had been repurposed by
gay radicals. As Lisa wrote in the magazine's mission statement,
"If being an outspoken woman means being a bitch, we'll take
that as a compliment, thanks."
I'm guessing that Hillary Clinton, though probably not a reader
of our magazine, has a somewhat similar stance on the word.
After all, people who don't like Clinton have been throwing the
slur at her since at least 1991. So everybody else in the room
laughed knowingly when a woman at a campaign event in South
Carolina last Monday asked McCain, "How do we beat the
bitch?"
In fact, the most surprising thing about the whole dust-up
(available on YouTube for the world to see) is that something
like it didn't happen sooner. Sure, it was disrespectful of
McCain to laugh off the insult. (Rather than admonishing the
questioner, he called it an "excellent question," then added, "I
respect Senator Clinton.") And sure, the woman who asked the
question was transparently courting sound-bite fame.
(Congratulations, faceless woman! Stay classy!) But for
Clinton, this episode has to be pretty much a case of another
day, another insult.
These days, the people hurling the term at Clinton are her direct
opponents: Republicans, social conservatives, assorted Schlafly-
ites and Coulter-ites, and that sludgy, amorphous pool of
across-the-board woman-haters.
Their hatred for Clinton has nothing to do with whether she fits
the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition: "a malicious,
spiteful, or domineering woman -- sometimes used as a
generalized term of abuse." It certainly has nothing to do with
her stance on particular issues. When these people call Clinton
(or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or Sen. Dianne Feinstein or

former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro) a bitch, or
even the cutesier "rhymes-with-witch," it's an expression of
pure sexism -- a hope that they can shut up not only one woman
but every woman who dares to be assertive. Simply put: If you
don't like Clinton's stance on, say, health care or Iraq, there are
plenty of ways to say so without invoking her gender.
Plenty of people are lukewarm on Clinton, for a variety of
reasons: her support for the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act,
her ham-fisted attempts to put forth a clear position on Iraq, the
fear that she would be just as beholden to corporate interests as
her predecessor. Then there are the women who chafe at the
idea that they're expected to vote their sex rather than their
specific politics. But very few of these people seem to worry
that Clinton isn't warm enough, or that she's too dowdy or
mannish or whatever can't-win descriptor is lobbed her way
daily.
So the word remains as incendiary as ever. (Sorry, Sen.
McCain.) Back in 1996, a time when the word was just barely
squeaking past the censors on network TV, I would never have
thought it could get any more loaded. (Same for the word
"feminism," but that's a whole other story.) But the rise of the
first serious female front-runner for the presidency has proved
me wrong.
On the street, in music and in the boardroom, it's the word that
won't go away. Isiah Thomas's somewhat bumbling claim during
his sexual harassment trial that casual, off-the-cuff usage makes
the term less problematic when done within the black
community didn't fly with the judge, and it doesn't fly with
plenty of other folks.
A few years ago, the New York Times reported on the
phenomenon of men using the term to describe other men, a use
that has roots in the social dynamics of prison populations but

has since spread to the realms of sports, rap music and junior
high schools everywhere. The article reasoned that the term was
becoming, if not respectable, then increasingly no big deal. I
disagree -- it's simply another way to denigrate women.
I'm all for a lively discussion of how the word is used in daily
life: by men, by women, in jest, in earnest. But I don't foresee
that dialogue taking place in a political arena that considers
mere femaleness a deficiency. Talking about the use of the word
-- against Clinton, Browne Sanders or everyday women
everywhere -- just isn't helpful if we don't also address the
many unsaid words that follow in its wake.
My own definition of the term being what it is, I can
confidently say that I want my next president to be a bitch, and
that goes for men and women. Outspoken? Check.
Commanding? Indeed. Unworried about pleasing everybody?
Sure. Won't bow to pressure to be "nice"? You bet.
And guess what? I'm not even sure that person is Hillary
Clinton.
[email protected]
Andi Zeisler is a founder and editorial director of the magazine
Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture.
table 1
Slang Swearwords
Indexical of obligatory affect + +
Affect that is inappropriate in formal contexts + +

Widely used—not associated with a subgroup – +
Usually enduring for at least a number of decades – +
Semantically linked to specific cultural values – +
Taboo by virtue of this semantic link – +
他妈的
俚语
table 2
Number of Respondents Identifying
the Swearword as Slang
motherfucking 29 (44%)
pissed 25 (38%)
goddamn 23 (35%)
shit 20 (30%)

酷
酷
table 3
Ordinary Basic
Slang Slang Swearwords
Indexical of obligatory affect + + +
Affect that is inappropriate in formal contexts + + +
Widely used—not associated with a subgroup – + +
Usually enduring for at least a number of decades – + +
Semantically linked to specific cultural values – + +
Taboo by virtue of this semantic link – – +
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/455336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00031283-79-3-281

http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00031283-79-3-281
http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00031283-79-1-59
http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00031283-79-1-59
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3774095
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00453.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00453.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1156093
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1156093
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01077.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1935.37.3.02a00100
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1935.37.3.02a00100
Questions over “Ascent of the A-hole”
1) How old is it as a derogatory term for a person? Who first
started using it that way?
2) What’s the difference between profanities and obscenities?
3) What does Nunberg mean when he says that some of the
obscenities stopped being used for what is considered obscene?
4) How does ‘f—‘ differ from ‘a-hole’ in terms of the type of
meaning it conveys?
5) What does it mean to say that the word ‘a-hole’ is sui
generis? How does it differ from, say, ‘phony’?
6) How do Tom Cruise’s movie characters come into this?
7) Why do we not call kids ‘a-holes’?
8) What is the ‘moral logic of assholism’?
9) Women aren’t called ‘a-holes’ as regularly as men are. Why?
10) Would we be as concerned/obsessed with the concept behind
the qualities of being an ‘a-hole’ if we didn’t have the word for
it?
Questions over the the ‘f-word’
1. How did ‘faggot,’ which earlier meant a bundle of sticks
most likely come to be used to refer to homosexuals in a

derogatory way?
2. What is metonymy? Give an example. Try to think of one
other than they give.
3. When was ‘faggot’ first recorded as a term for a gay man?
4. Today a use of “faggot” or “gay” has taken on a more
general meaning as an insult, one that is not about sexuality.
What does Zwicky say about the acceptability of that use?
Questions over “The B-Word? You Betcha” by Andi Zeisler
1. What does she say the general public intends to convey by
the use of the term ‘bitch’?
2. Why did they choose the term for the name of the
publication?
3. Describe the McCain episode that Zeisler discusses. How do
you think McCain (a presidential nominee at the time) should
have responded?
4. Do you think the word ‘bitch’ can be used for other men in
a way that doesn’t make some comment on women and their
proper role?
Grammar of expletives
Some expletives (words used to express strong emotions) are
much more flexible grammatically than others; that is, some
terms can fit different can work as nouns, verbs, adjectives,
adverbs in certain sentence frames. Sometimes they can do so
with derivational endings and sometimes without. Sometimes,
they don't take such endings. Let’s look at these words:
d--n, p--s, bas---d, f--k, h--l, a-hole, s-t, c--t. Which of the
following frames can they fit it?
1 Personal Direct Address You + _______. Direct address
2 Personal Reference The _______. or What the __________?
Said about someone or something that may or may not be
present.
3 Destination _________ off! Telling someone to take
themselves somewhere else

4 Cursing _________ you! Direct
5 General expletive of anger, annoyance and frustration
_________!
6 Explicit expletive of anger, annoyance and frustration
__________ it!
7 Can be used as phrasal verb. __________ around, up
8 Adjectival extension (possibly with –ing ending or –y ending)
___________ driver
Tuesday, Sept 30. Not meeting today in class.
Discussion Forum Homework (4 points total; 2 pts for long
submission; 1 pt each for two shorter submissions)
There are three Discussion Forums coming up. You will be
expected to respond to one of them. That response should be at
least 300 words long. You also must make at least 2 replies to
the responses or replies that others make (in the same or
different forums). Those replies can be shorter but at least 100
words long. Late responses will not be graded. Short responses
will be heavily penalized so do a word count before making
your submission (AND SHOW the word count at the end of your
submission).
The long response should be submitted by Tuesday 9:30am.
The shorter replies should be completed by Wednesday 1 pm.
You are encouraged to make earlier submissions.
Materials for Discussion Forum 1
1) Read “The case against banning the word ‘retard’
2) Listen to podcast “The other f-word”
Assignment Discussion Forum 1
Make reference to the arguments made by the authors of the
pieces you’ve read or listened to and state your position on the
use of phrases like “She’s so retarded,” “That’s so gay,”
“You’re such a faggot.” Give reasonable arguments for the

position that you’ve taken. You may want to include the
response to these expressions by people in the public eye (Kobe
Bryant, Rush Limbaugh, Rahm Emanuel, among others). You
can focus on one of these phrases or all. You can also consider
the importance that you think should be placed on the intent of
the speaker.
Materials for Discussion Forum 2 (3 things)
1) Listen to podcast “From wetbacks to illegals to
undocumented to…”
2) Listen to or read the transcript of “Which is acceptable:
‘Undocumented’ vs. ‘illegal.’
3) Read the article by Ruben Navarette “’Illegal immigrant’ is
the uncomfortable truth”
Making reference to the arguments made by the authors or
participants in these pieces, discuss which arguments you think
are stronger or weaker for the various positions taken. Do you
think that the use of particular naming terms in this context
matters? Do you think one can identify the worldview of a
speaker/author who uses a particular reference term? You can
do a search of the terms to provide evidence for your point.
This forum is not meant to be a venue for your political
opinions on this topic. The focus should be on the arguments for
and against these particular reference terms.
Materials for Discussion Forum 3
all the materials for 1 and 2 above
Making reference to the arguments made by the authors of or
participants in the segments addressed in DF 1 and/or 2, discuss
the power and/or limitations of the censorship of what may be
considered “offensive” language. Do you think the public
consciousness about language (often derisively or neutrally
called ‘political correctness’) leads to a more civil society or a

society in which sensitive topics go unexplored (i.e., does it
stifle sincere debate)? Feel free to refer not only to the
arguments made by the voices in the pieces you’ve been
assigned here, but to other sources that you reference.
Netiquette (online etiquette): Following these rules will
improve the readability of your messages and will help others
handle the large volume of information in the forum.
· Stay on topic. While discussion is encouraged in online
classrooms, rambling and tangential conversations may not be
conducive to a quality learning experience.
· Add multiple comments directly into messages in your replies.
While a straight-forward reply is usually appropriate,
interspersing your comments throughout an original posting
may be more effective if you wish to respond to multiple points.
· Avoid ''I agree'' and ''Me, too!'' messages. Spending time
reading messages without substance can be frustrating for all
parties.
· Avoid the use of all caps. (IT'S LIKE SHOUTING!) Use caps
occasionally for strong emphasis, but only for individual words.
· Avoid writing errors, even when "talking" with one another.
Messages in the discussion forum are conversational and often
informal; thus, they are prone to occasional grammatical,
spelling, and typographical errors. Be sure to consistently post
intelligible messages despite the informality of the
environment.
· Carefully choose the format for your messages. Long
paragraphs are difficult to follow on-screen. As a general rule,
limit each paragraph to five to seven lines. Avoid fonts that are
difficult to read because of style, color, or size.
· Avoid responding when emotions are running high. For
example, if you are angry, put your message aside. Remember,
the ability to write and save messages for later review is one of
the advantages of asynchronous learning.

High Quality Discussion Posts
High quality posts present sophisticated food for thought. These
contributions to the discussion indicate mastery of the materials
assigned, provide thorough answers to questions in the prompt,
or respond to peers’ responses in a complex manner. These
responses might integrate multiple views and provide added
insights that go beyond obvious information in the text. These
responses may provide a link to another related, credible source
of information. The writing, although not necessarily flawless,
is clearly edited. (90-100 range)
Average Quality Discussion Posts
Average posts are intelligent, but digging deeper into the issues
could improve the responses. These responses reflect an average
understanding of the material and adequately address
assignment questions, or satisfactorily respond to peers. Ideas
for improving these responses include acknowledging
conflicting perspectives, the greater context, or articles outside
of the assigned reading. In addition, average posts might
demonstrate confidence with the materials, but may be just a bit
off target in one area or another. This could be that the writer
misunderstood a portion of the reading or prompt, or may have
had a breakdown in communication. The writing, although not
necessarily flawless, is clearly edited. (75-89)
Poor Quality Discussion Posts
Poor quality posts represent limited meaningful interaction with
ideas in the text, the discussion question(s), or others’ posts.
The writer may agree or disagree without including a thorough
explanation of what is disagreed or agreed upon and why.
Observations may be obvious. The writer of poor quality posts
may appear to have done only a cursory reading of the text,
leaving responses underdeveloped. All aspects of the prompt
may not be adequately addressed. It is also possible that
although these posts are lengthy, the writing seems to ramble,
showing no sign of having been re-read and refined before
posting, suffering a lack of clarity and comprehension. (0-74)

The case against banning the word retard”By Christopher M. Fa.docx

The case against banning the word retard”By Christopher M. Fa.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de mattinsonjanel

Mais de mattinsonjanel (20)

Último

Último (20)

The case against banning the word retard”By Christopher M. Fa.docx