CHANGING THE NAME OF THE
ASSOCIATION
In
Opposition To A Name Change
by Richard Garnett, Ph.D.
Immediate Past President Texas AAMR
Chair of AAMR and TAMR LASI
Committees
"What
group do you represent?" "I am here on behalf of AAID's, Senator."
"What does that have to do with mental retardation?" "Oh, we
REALLY (wink wink) only represent people in the field of mental
retardation." "Huh?"
That
scenario sums up one of the major opposing issues in changing
the name of AAMR to AAID. However, before presenting a position
statement in opposition to AAMR changing its name to AAID, it
is important to first clarify what the upcoming vote is really
about. It is only about changing our name to the American Association
on Intellectual Disabilities. It isn't about whether we should
change our name or not, or the definition of the term "mental
retardation" or our mission or alternatives to the acronym of
AAID. It is a thumbs up or thumbs down on changing our name
to the American Association on Intellectual Disabilities. If
the change is voted down, alternatives will then be on the table
for a new proposal and vote (e.g. AAMR without the letters meaning
anything, similar to ING or TASH or The Arc or AMI or NADD or
NISH or the many others who go by initials with no recognized
or publicized acronym meaning).
Retention
of the term "AAMR" (without acronym meaning) was rejected by
the Board in 2001 as being "too confusing". No straw poll or
formal vote has ever been taken from the membership on the many
(at one count, 22) alternative names. Our only sense of the
membership's feelings about a name change has come from anecdotal
interpretation of debates, dialogues, and arguments at convention
meetings or around the water cooler. A quick historical perspective
reveals an interesting process. In 1998, a proposal to endorse
"American Association on Intellectual Disabilities" was rejected
by members of AAMR's strategic planning retreat. In 2000, spirited
debate was held at the Leadership Meeting and among over twenty
alternative names discussed, AAID was not supported.
In
May 2001, at the Denver board meeting, a vote was taken to simply
move ahead and change our name (no specific alternative names
were proposed). The driving goal at that point was to move toward
eliminating the words "mental retardation" from our name. The
proposal to change the name passed with twelve "yes" votes.
In addition, two voted in opposition, two abstained and two
were absent. Had any one of those six voted no, this proposal
would have failed to achieve 2/3's vote for the change. In February
2002, in a teleconference call of the Executive Committee, the
proposed change to AAID was approved. In March 2002, the Board
authorized a vote by the membership regarding changing AAMR
to AAID in the Fall of 2002.
Over
the past four years, from that initial rejection in 1998, over
15 articles and columns have been published by AAMR about the
issue of the name change. It appears that not once was an opposing
voice solicited and/or published to give that public debate
balance. Even in an AAMR special journal section ("What's In
A Name?") where twelve people contributed comments, not one
offered a firm and definitive voice in opposition to the name
change. That was not because there were no opposing and dissenting
voices to be heard.
RATIONALE
for opposing the name change is extensive. Remember, the vote
at hand is about name change to AAID, not the professional use
or definition of the term "mental retardation".
First,
the acronym AAID is distracting and misleading, and was roundly
rejected as a proposed name change alternative when discussed
in open forum at the 2000 Leadership Conference. In fact, at
that meeting there were over 20 different names discussed. It
is hard enough for us to define ourselves even without having
an acronym that is recognized worldwide as referring to a different
and unrelated cause (visualize the letterhead or business card).
Second,
by changing our name to reference a focus on "intellectual disabilities"
we are forced to define our organizational focus by exclusionary
reference ("yes but not THAT intellectual disability"). Otherwise
we become the American Association on People with Problems -
and lose identity via an infinite constituency.
Third,
there are at least six and probably many more "associations
for disabilities - or people with disabilities" or variations
on that theme. By changing our name we would lose our already
established identity and clarity of purpose with a term that
refers to a large percentage of the population (Alzheimer's,
closed head injury, degenerative brain disease, mental illness,
some but not all developmental disabilities, toxic organicity,
FAS, some drug abuse & addiction, autism, etc etc and mental
retardation). This difficulty in organizational definition will
be a nightmare for media relations, requests for funding, and
legislative and governmental efforts on behalf of people with
mental retardation. As AAID, would we as an organization advocate
for "people with intellectual disabilities" being exempted from
the death penalty?
Fourth,
as The Arc found out, a change in name can cause catastrophic,
expensive and long-lasting unintended consequences. Some have
estimated that across systems, the ultimate financial cost alone
of a name change will easily exceed a millions of dollars. Through
the pursuit of excellence and foresight of many outstanding
AAMR leaders in the past, "AAMR" (without acronym meaning) has
almost become a word in itself, a "word" representing an organization
which is recognized as a leader in the field with the highest
quality materials, resources, training and empowerment for professionals
in the field of mental retardation. We have successfully (in
business terminology) "branded" our name (companies spend millions
trying to establish their brand: Swoosh). AAMR is a powerful
and influential voice in the field of disabilities, but specifically
in the field of mental retardation. With the abandonment of
that branded term, "AAMR", we lose that identity and abdicate
our leadership responsibilities in our desire to be politically
correct. The question has been raised "Why don't we at least
retain "AAMR" without acronym meaning and continue to serve
as leaders for the world community?" AAMR has historically represented
a circumscribed field of focus that was clearly defined (the
identifiable syndrome of "mental retardation") as opposed to
a broadly defined field of focus identified by one symptom:
intellectual disability. Will the trend be toward the IQ as
the only important determination of an "intellectual disability"?
Fifth,
when one goes from the term "mental retardation" to "developmental
disabilities", by definition we then exclude a significant number
of our constituents. Why? By definition, 76% of people with
mental retardation do NOT meet the criteria for having developmental
disabilities. 42% of people with developmental disabilities
do not have mental retardation. On the other hand, if we expand
our definition to "intellectual disabilities", I fear even making
an attempt at estimating how many additional disabilities &
groups would be added to our constituent population and our
organizational definition.
Sixth,
there are those who claim that what you call yourself has nothing
to do with who you are. There are even those who claim that
your mission statement is unrelated to what you do and who you
do it for, but that's an argument for another time. An organization
either has a name that reflects its organizational definition,
or its name is a non-specific "symbol" without meaning that
the organization must publicly associate with a particular purpose
or constituency ("branding"). We cannot call ourselves the Association
for Intellectual Disabilities and then only deal with one of
the tens or hundreds of groups who fall under that "label" (the
"yes but not you" position). Can you imagine how many SIG's
and Divisions we might have one day under an umbrella of "intellectual
disabilities"?
Last
but not least, we flee from
the term "mental retardation" because some advocates and their
families (not all, mind you) dislike the term. But we feel comfortable
fleeing to the term "disability" when most self advocates rail
against being called "disabled"? Is this a selective paternalism
that is an organizational form of denial and rationalization?
If we change our name to offer an "intellectually disabled"
focus, how do we respond at our next national convention forum
when self-advocates present their passionate objection to being
called "disabled"? As the father of a 20 year old son who has
severe mental retardation and autism, I do not object to the
clear and meaningful term "Mental Retardation". As President
of The Arc of Texas and a Board member of the Texas Advocates,
I have spoken to many self advocates and family members who
feel the same. There are just as many who do not like being
called "disabled". In fact there are many who hate labels altogether.
Many believe that we should put as much of our efforts into
destigmatizing the term "mental retardation" as we put into
trying to change our name or finding a temporary safe haven.
Stigma and descrimination is what people object to, not words.
One
of the background factors of influence to this process has been
a reference to the International Association for the Scientific
Study of Intellectual Disabilities and its use of the term "intellectual
disabilities" in its name and mission. There has also been notation
that the World Health Organization promotes "…the study of intellectual
disabilities…". Those groups really mean the broad field of
intellectual disabilities, and they do study the many different
subgroups under that term - worldwide! We are not them. I have
been under the impression that our constituent group has been
and I guess still really is people with mental retardation and
related disabilities. AAMR has a focus and an identified constituency.
Those international organizations do not. So to change our name
to be like them strikes me as a "me too" response, and turning
our back on our family. I think we need to leave those broader
studies and multiple subgroup initiatives to the international
organizations, the universities, and the researchers. If we
follow them, we could risk entering that "fragment into oblivion"
slippery slope by trying to identify ourselves with infinity.
At a time when we already are facing a crisis of finance and
membership, it seems like a poor time to water down our identity
even more. "Intellectual disabilities" means what it says, and
what it says is not AAMR. The debate and dialogue over a name
change has been facilitated by some of the most respected and
dedicated people in the field of mental retardation. I hold
them in the highest regard and have the greatest respect for
their ideas and opinions. I simply disagree with the proposed
name change, and think that there is another way to accomplish
our goal of strengthening our field and improving our product
on behalf of people with mental retardation and, yes, related
developmental disabilities and intellectual disabilities. I
think that there is also another way to resolve the name change
dilemma. In my judgment, this vote is not it, and I strongly
encourage a vote against this name change.
Click here for "In Favor Of A Name Change"
|
