[nabs-l] Retraction

[Jewel S.]

I agree that I would not and still do not have a changed opinion based
on the fact that the professor is himself blind. However, I still
question the validity of a survey that only surveys an age range of
two years, and why isn't he surveying sighted students as wel? I know,
it's been done before, but the difference in time, location of the
surveyors and/or students, how many sighted students were surveyed,
and much more could make a difference.

Also, could someone please send me the professors's contact
information? I seem to have lost it, and I'd like to spek with him
about his survey. My main question is: When is it expected that the
approximage two years difference decreases and disappears altogether,
and why not survey older people (20-40) to see what their education is
like, in comparison, to find out where the gap ends?

I am appalled by the ntote that the professor only recieved rude
messages and hang-ups. I may not agree with the survey, but I
certainly did not send him a rude message or harass him. I fear that
whoever did send those messages has lost their sense of self-honour
and honour for the blind movement in general. I'm sure I'm preaching
to the choir here, though (at least I hope so!)



On 2/4/11, Joe Orozco <jsorozco at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I spoke with the professor regarding his sex study of which there's been so
> much discussion.  By way of a summary, there is research suggesting that
> blind people are at least two years behind in their sexual development.
> However, there is no research to fully explain why this is the case.
>
> Last year he attempted to survey students ages 14-18.  Only 3 out of 70
> parents gave consent for their children to participate, and naturally, this
> is an insufficient sample.  If the research above is true, his next best
> option is to interview young adults between 18 and 20, since theoretically
> their sexual development would be at that of a 16 to 18-year-old.  He wanted
> to stay as close to the original age range as possible.
>
> The reason for the survey is to promote equal sex education among blind
> students.  There are schools with no sex education.  There are schools where
> the sex education is fully developed, but even these campuses are not fully
> prepared to go beyond visual exhibits for their blind students.  Blind
> people are therefore left without a real sense of sex, and even more
> importantly, sexual safety.  Take it a step further, and research suggests
> blind people are not fully aware of more serious conditions like signs of
> cancer, a problem that could have been covered in a well-prepared sex
> education curriculum using replicas and other tools.
>
> Ultimately, the current study does not seek to teach blind people how to do
> what would be self-explanatory.  Rather, it seeks to create an instrument
> that teachers can use to educate blind people in a way sighted people are
> educated from photos, diagrams and movies.
>
> Having written all that, I retract my previous post.  I said to the
> professor that his e-mail could have provided a little more information
> without tainting the nature of his research.  He feels the reaction would
> have been more positive if he had included the fact that he is also blind.
> I disagreed with him, pointing out that I took the e-mail at face value.  My
> reaction would have been the same with the information I was provided,
> regardless of visual acuity.  I wish the professor the best in his studies
> and hope its outcome serves of some value to younger students.  No, I do not
> think equal sex education will make or break a blind person's total sexual
> development, but I am looking at this from the standpoint of equal access to
> the classroom.  If sighted people can process this information visually,
> there should be methods to impress the same information among blind
> students.
>
> And, I do not retract my overriding point that as blind people we should not
> feel compelled to defend ourselves on all fronts.  My reference to the study
> was one example, but I think it also applies to mischaracterizations we
> might see on television or come across in general media.  If we make a habit
> of defending ourselves against every misguided notion, we will spend more
> time educating and less time living, and living is sometimes the best method
> of setting an example.
>
> At any rate, it was great to be proven wrong on the study.  Anyone who can
> respond to my loaded points with the poise the professor did deserves my
> respect and public retraction.  It is my understanding that he offered to
> speak to other people via phone to explain himself, and the only response he
> received were rude messages and hang-ups.  I hope the additional information
> will help us all see things from the perspective it was meant to be
> perceived.
>
> Best,
>
> Joe
>
> "Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their sleeves,
> some turn up their noses, and some don't turn up at all."--Sam Ewing
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/herekittykat2%40gmail.com
>


-- 
~Jewel
Check out my blog about accessibility for the blind!
Treasure Chest for the Blind: http://blindtreasurechest.blogspot.com