A new law in California bans the use, in official documents, of the term "At risk" to describe youth identified by social workers, teachers, or the courts as likely to drop out of school, join a gang, or go to jail.
Los Angeles assemblyman Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, who sponsored the legislation, explained that "Words matter." By designating children as "At risk," he says, "We automatically put them in the school-to-prison pipeline. Many of them, when labeled that, are not able to exceed above that."
Contrary to Jones-Sawyer's characterization of "At risk" as consigning kids to roles as outcasts or losers, the term originated in the 1980s as a less harsh and stigmatizing substitute for "Juvenile delinquent," to describe vulnerable children who seemed to be on the wrong path.
The idea of young people at "Risk" of social failure buttressed the idea that government services and support could ameliorate or hedge these risks.
Usually we call people about whom we're hopeful "Promising." The language of the statute is contradictory and garbled, too.
"For purposes of this article, 'at-promise pupil' means a pupil enrolled in high school who is at risk of dropping out of school, as indicated by at least three of the following criteria: Past record of irregular attendance ... Past record of underachievement ... Past record of low motivation or a disinterest in the regular school program." In other words, "At-promise" kids are underachievers with little interest in school, who are "At risk of dropping out." Without casting these kids as lost causes, in what sense are they "At promise," and to what extent does designating them as "At risk" make them so?
"EDP calls," the standard designation for emergency police calls involving an "Emotionally disturbed person," are now officially called "Mental health calls." This change, it's reported, is meant to reduce the stigma associated with calling police when someone is suffering from untreated serious mental illness-as though how the police refer to these calls affects their prevalence or severity.
https://www.city-journal.org/progressive-elected-officials-abuse-language
Los Angeles assemblyman Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, who sponsored the legislation, explained that "Words matter." By designating children as "At risk," he says, "We automatically put them in the school-to-prison pipeline. Many of them, when labeled that, are not able to exceed above that."
Contrary to Jones-Sawyer's characterization of "At risk" as consigning kids to roles as outcasts or losers, the term originated in the 1980s as a less harsh and stigmatizing substitute for "Juvenile delinquent," to describe vulnerable children who seemed to be on the wrong path.
The idea of young people at "Risk" of social failure buttressed the idea that government services and support could ameliorate or hedge these risks.
Usually we call people about whom we're hopeful "Promising." The language of the statute is contradictory and garbled, too.
"For purposes of this article, 'at-promise pupil' means a pupil enrolled in high school who is at risk of dropping out of school, as indicated by at least three of the following criteria: Past record of irregular attendance ... Past record of underachievement ... Past record of low motivation or a disinterest in the regular school program." In other words, "At-promise" kids are underachievers with little interest in school, who are "At risk of dropping out." Without casting these kids as lost causes, in what sense are they "At promise," and to what extent does designating them as "At risk" make them so?
"EDP calls," the standard designation for emergency police calls involving an "Emotionally disturbed person," are now officially called "Mental health calls." This change, it's reported, is meant to reduce the stigma associated with calling police when someone is suffering from untreated serious mental illness-as though how the police refer to these calls affects their prevalence or severity.
https://www.city-journal.org/progressive-elected-officials-abuse-language
No comments:
Post a Comment