CHANGING THE NAME OF THE
ASSOCIATION
In
Favor Of A Name Change
by Steven F. Warren,Ph.D.
Inmediate Past President of AAMR
Chair, Nominations and Elections Committee
On March 25th the Board of Directors of
the American Association on Mental Retardation voted unanimously
to recommend to the membership that the organization's name be
changed to the American Association on Intellectual Disabilities.
The board also voted unanimously to "encourage the use of alternative
terms to "mental retardation", but "acknowledges that this term
will continue to have relevance the diagnostic, legal, and public
policy arenas".
Rationale
The
unanimous actions of the Board of Directors follow three years
of debate on this issue within our organization. At the 2001
convention in Denver, the Board of Directors voted to change
the name of the organization, but did not specify what the new
name should be. At the winter board meeting in Washington, D.C.
this past December, the Board together with the broader leadership
of the association (i.e. representatives of the Assembly of
Regions, Chapters, and the Divisions) devoted a total of five
hours of debate and discussion to this issue. At the Executive
Committee's February 14th conference call meeting, the name
"American Association on Intellectual Disabilities" was unanimously
endorsed. This led to the unanimous action taken by the full
Board of Directors on March 25th.
Why
the American Association on Intellectual Disabilities?
In
1998 at the Association's strategic planning retreat in Baltimore,
this name was very nearly endorsed by the Board. Because of
that meeting, the mission statement of the organization now
reads, "The AAMR promotes progressive policies, sound research,
effective practices, and universal human rights for people with
intellectual disabilities." Thus, we already have a history
with the term intellectual disabilities. It has been a contender
in this contest from the beginning of the process. But more
to the point, this term has a number of positive attributes.
1.
|
This term has a broader
history of use due in part to its adoption a number of years
ago as part of the name of the International Association
for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities (IASSID).
IASSID is our sister organization and the president of this
worldwide association is an ex-officio member of our board
of directors. |
2.
|
Intellectual
Disabilities has also been adopted by the World Health Organization.
The W.H.O. web site states: "The worldwide promotion of
the scientific study of intellectual disabilities and related
developmental disabilities and of the conditions of persons
with such disabilities and their families. (Intellectual
disability is intended to include a significant intellectual
deficit present from birth or at an early age)." |
3.
|
The term "intellectual
disabilities" has also been used in a number of other contexts
(journal names, book titles, etc.) all with a clear connection
to "mental retardation". |
4.
|
The name
"American Association on Intellectual Disabilities" is short,
which is important in terms of maintaining the organization's
identity. |
Why retain the term "mental retardation"
for legal and diagnostic purposes?
There
is no need to banish the term "mental retardation". It is in
the process of dying its own death, of becoming an archaic term
as others have before it. In the meantime, it continues to have
value in terms of federal legislation and entitlements, and
in terms of issues like the imposition of the death penalty.
Attempts to banish it could easily do more harm than good. Throughout
the U.S. the term is being replaced by several other terms such
as cognitive developmental disability, cognitive impairment,
developmental disability, intellectual disability, etc. In a
recent meeting, I counted the frequent interchangeable use of
the terms mental retardation, cognitive impairment, and intellectual
disability. Everyone knew what we were talking about in the
meeting, but no one appeared to use any one term consistently.
It
has been argued by some that if the organization changes its
name to anything that has a direct connection to the disability
in question, that this name will inevitably be seen as a direct
substitute for the term "mental retardation", and that this
could then endanger entitlements and other benefits for individuals
with this condition. I reject this argument. Why can't we continue
to use the term "mental retardation" when there is a clear reason
to do this? Why would we want to strike it from legal precedents,
or from entitlement legislation? We can change the name of our
association without endangering entitlements and legal protections
for people with mental retardation.
In
Summary
- The Board of Directors voted unanimously
on March 25th to recommend to the membership that the association's
name become the American Association on Intellectual Disabilities.
- The Board of Directors also voted
unanimously on March 25th to encourage the use of alternative
terms to "mental retardation" while acknowledging that this
term will continue to have relevance in the diagnostic, legal,
and public policy arenas.
The
motion to change the association's name requires a change in
the constitution of the organization. To
change the constitution now that the Board has acted, the following
steps must be taken.
1.
|
The change
(i.e. the change in the name of the association) must be
submitted to the Assembly of Regions and the Conferences
of Divisions for discussion and debate. |
2.
|
The new
name must be presented to the membership for discussion
via an official publication or by a mailing to all members
that includes a pro and con position statement. |
3.
|
The new
name may be vetoed if, at their next meetings and following
appropriate discussion (in this case, at the upcoming convention
in Orlando), 2/3 of the qualified voting representatives
of either the Assembly or Conference vote against the change
in name. |
4.
|
If the Assembly
and Conference uphold the name change, then this change
must be presented to the full membership via a mail ballot.
The new name will be ratified if it is approved by a majority
of the members voting on the proposal. |
The
Board of Directors and the AAMR central office are now working
to implement the constitutional change process in a deliberate
and responsible manner. Voting members of the Assembly and Conference
should come to Orlando convention ready to discuss this issue.
A large amount of discussion and many written articles have
already been devoted to this topic over the past three years
including the recent publication of a special set of articles
relevant to the topic in the association's journal Mental
Retardation. Other members of the association are urged
to discuss this change with their representatives on the Board
of Directors, and the Assembly and Conference.
Click
here for "In Opposition of a Name Change"
|
