I know today’s world is different than the one I was born into 60 yrs ago - which is generally a good thing. And I generally try to adjust my perception. So thanks in advance.
A friend of me teaches at a HS, and posted some vids of homecoming festivities. One was of the cheep squad/pom poms/dance squad performing. In the front row was a girl with Down’s Syndrome. She was wearing a uniform, and looking around trying to follow the other girls, but obviously didn’t know the routines. Does this “add” to or “detract” from the performance?
I’m coming from a time when pom poms was a competitive activity (for those who cared to participate.) It would be hard to find anyone who is less fond than I of HS/college sports or cheerleading, but I’m unsure how to think of inclusion of someone who clearly can’t perform at the same level as the others. I understand expanding the range of activities available to those less able, but does that include competetive activities: cheer? sports? debate team? theater? Not trying to suggest a slipery slope, but trying to assess what lines still exist - if any.
Since they were not performing at the same level as the others, it seemed almost as though they were participating as a “mascot” - which doesn’t seem respectful of them, or as a social statement - which I wasn’t aware of pom squads issuing.
Thank you in advance for helping dispel my ignorance.
Are you suggesting that the fact that an activity is sometimes competitive means that it must always be so? Should I have been barred from kicking a football around with my friends at break time, even though I was shit at football?
I’m not sure what world you were born in, but I don’t recall one where kids of all abilities having fun together was seen as a problem - except that kids can sometimes be cruel and mock each other. Are you feeling nostalgic for the mockery? We could mock you a little if that would help.
It wasn’t a competition was it? If it’s a performance I don’t see a problem with allowing any student to participate in the activity in the best manner they are able to do so. This is very important when some students don’t have the ability to participate in any other activities with the same skill level as typical students.
I think well meaning stupid people could turn this kind of participation into something painful to behold. But so far I have seen wonderful unselfish acts from the other participants that allow all students the opportunity to experience the benefits of accomplishment, teamwork, and camaraderie.
I think it comes down to what was the purpose of the squad in general and what was the purpose of the specific performance that day?
At one time the purpose of such squads was not seen so much as personal development for the participants; rather it was about providing a polished spectacle for the audience, net of the normal limitations of whatever age group we’re discussing. IOW, back in the day the team / performance mattered and the individuals didn’t. Nowadays that’s largely reversed.
And I’ll also suggest that including the less-than-fully-abled is fully in line with the individual-oriented purpose but not so much with the team-oriented purpose.
Which of these purposes is qualitatively or morally superior is not a fire I wish to stick my hand into. But I think I’ve outlined the issue.
This reminds me of how in junior high they made the volleyball team competitive. It was the first time I ever went out for a sport, and I didn’t make it. How can you ever give people a chance to learn a skill if you don’t let them participate? It’s high school. The stakes are not that high.
The alternative is for less skilled children, including those with disabilities, to never get to do anything ever.
(And I bet those girls are happy to have that young lady as a teammate. Today’s generation appears by several orders of magnitude to have less tolerance for discrimination.)
I think that’s an overgeneralization. I assume I’m from a similar generation to OP, and our school orchestra gave analogous demonstration performances, but the philosophy of our music teacher was to be completely inclusive. He valued excellence, but more in the sense of getting the best out of anyone who showed interest and enthusiasm. He welcomed everyone to learn an instrument regardless of ability. He did occasionally kick people out, but only if they screwed around and just weren’t interested, not for lack of innate musical talent.
I mean, there will be some circumstances where the “team-oriented purpose” is to win a competition against other teams. But in something that’s more of a demonstration, I don’t see why it cannot be seen as a team-oriented purpose to show values other than “win at all costs”, to show that our community is inclusive.
I was deliberately painting the two extremes, and you’re right that reality has rarely (never?) been fully team-oriented, and probably never will become fully-individual oriented. And as with most things in human society, all the bad shit happens when maximizing just one parameter is the only goal.
I was trying to think of analgous situations when I was in high school (I graduated in 1969), and I can only remember some very tenuous ones.
I remember a guy who was a dwarf; he was a senior when I was a freshman. He obviously couldn’t play on the football team, but he was what I think they called a “team manager.” He was a real popular kid and a BMOC, ironically. I don’t remember anyone saying the didn’t want him associating with the team.
One girl had to drop out of 9th grade because she got pregnant. She and her boyfriend got married and kept their baby. She went to a continuation (?) school for two years but returned to “regular” high school for the senior year. She joined the pep team and was the Homecoming Queen. I heard a few grumblings from a few of the more strict Christians, but no one else cared. Oh, and she and her husband were still married and college graduates at our 20th reunion. They had a couple of more kids after they were an established household.
I was happy that attitudes had started to change. A step in the right direction.
We had a band director like that. We had two different bands divided according to ability, one of which was highly competitive and the other of which was just for fun. I was in the competitive one. We got merged during marching band season.
When I was in HS, participation in poms and cheerleading was competitive. Not everyone who tried out made the squad. So I’m happy to hear about how things have changed.
As responders are likely aware, snarky responses are not likely to be terribly persuasive. It is curious - I keep hearing people suggest we ought to “engage in a conversation” with people who think differently than ourselves. But when I attempt to do so here, in an environment ostensibly aimed at dispelling ignorance, several of the first responses seem intended at insulting rather than informing, and signaling their own virtue. If you are achieving this response from someone who is openly seeking to re-examine his perceptions, good luck with those who don’t even question their prejudices.
Our friends are coming over this aft to play music. One is the orchestra director, the other teaches French and directs the HS PRISM organization. I’ll ask them about it. I often find it challenging to raise difficult questions even among friends. I’m hoping they are more open to discussion than some in this thread.
No, this wasn’t a competition, but it was a performance. I’m open to being educated as how this girl’s actions added to the performance. I wonder what the response would be if she or another differently abled student wished to be in the orchestra?
I have seen you make multiple threads on subjects similar to this - usually about something you seem to missing about people with disabilities - and every time people politely engage you and try to educate you, you show no sign of receptivity, you just reiterate your position as if they said nothing at all. So I would say it’s a case of some people not taking you seriously when you claim to be here to learn.
Chances are this wasn’t a squad that required try outs and cuts to get a place on a limited roster. Many kids with physical and intellectual disabilities have been mainstreamed into regular classes from the beginning and are wholeheartedly accepted as part of the student community.