What happens with the mother of a boy with Down Syndrome asks a New York Times columnist to apologize? He does—and more.
—
Recently, I wrote an open letter to Chuck Klosterman, The Ethicist at The New York Times. I asked him what are the ethics of using the R-word? I directed that question to him not only because of his role at the New York Times, but as someone who had published offensive statements about people with intellectual disabilities. I wanted to know his answer because I am the parent of a 7-year-old child who has Down syndrome.
His response was completely unexpected. In fact, it was unprecedented. It was profoundly and beautifully simple:
I have spent the last two days trying to figure out a way to properly address the issue you have raised on your website. I’ve slowly concluded the best way is to be as straightforward as possible: I was wrong. You are right.
His apology included a self-imposed penalty. He would donate $25,000 to an organization that made a difference in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities.
As I read the letter I burst into tears. I have heard from many parents of children with intellectual disabilities who have told me they had the same reaction. Many shared a thought I had that day which remains — the world feels better somehow. When I wrote back to thank him I shared:
I believe the world will shift a bit in favor of people like my son because of your response to my letter. The R-word is representative of an underlying hostility towards people with cognitive disabilities. When you say you were wrong in such a genuine way you are helping to erase hatred.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
I am not alone in knowing the pain that word causes my son and our family. Or what it feels like when yet another celebrity, public figure or even a neighbor uses the word. Or what it feels like when the person either refuses to respond to criticism or worse, defend their right to say the word.
At the risk of sounding trite, Mr. Klosterman is who we have been waiting for. People with intellectual disabilities and their families and friends and allies have been waiting for someone of his stature and character to come to the fore.
It would have been easy for him to counter my question with the ever-popular rant-against-political-correctness. You know the one since retired in defense of words like “homo” and “that’s so gay.” The most reasonable explanation is Klosterman responded the way he did because that is what kind of person he is in life. But, he did it at a time when the basic human rights of people with intellectual disabilities are finally being recognized in a world that mostly finds them worthless.
It has become clear to me it is Chuck Klosterman’s character that moved us. Here is a man with an above average intelligence yet that attribute was not necessary to him addressing this situation. He addressed this situation by demonstrating his character. His ability to connect to other people’s suffering and the use of basic language of responsibility and accountability: I was wrong. I am sorry.
Our societal aspirations are often puny. We live in a world that rides high on the smartest guy in the room mystique; gotcha moments and full-on snark. Authenticity. Responsibility. Accountability. These are passé.
Our evolution as social beings still rely more on what kind of car we drive, what we do for a living, where we live, who we are married to and where our children go to school as the standards. But these goals don’t say much about someone’s character. It says nothing about the way someone comports themselves in the world.
Given these standardized measures it is understandable how our son is constantly compared unfavorably to every other person and falls short. He is never perceived as an equal.
Klosterman’s words are a reminder of how we can join with others by simply acknowledging their pain:
“I feel terrible about this and deeply embarrassed. I take full responsibility for my actions and understand why this matters so much to you. I’m truly sorry.”
In the closing of my letter I stated:
“I believe your response to my question could make all the difference in the world.”
That was a deliberate challenge. His comeback was beyond any expectation I could have ever imagined. What he did is a game changer in the narrative to secure acceptance for people with intellectual disabilities.
What if we placed a premium on this ability to take responsibility for one’s actions?
What if how we treated others is our true measure? What if character is our greatness?
Character levels the playing field. On that field my son competes as an equal among peers.
Most days my son would be a champion.
Read Kari’s open letter to Chuck Klosterman, as well as his response, on Kari’s blog.
—
Originally appeared on The Huffington Post
Photo: Flickr/luiginter
I am happy that you informed Mr. Klosterman about how offensive the “r-word” is, but, while owning up to one’s mistakes is unusual in the general population, ethicists are _supposed_ to put a lot of effort into thinking about what is right and what is wrong. He surely holds himself to a standard that when he is wrong, it would be immoral not to admit it. I’m more surprised that his gig allows him to afford the $25k (but then, it wouldn’t be a punishment if it didn’t hurt at all.)
Amazing. Nice work, Kari! Thank you for helping abolish “the R-word.”
When I read this article I felt that it was a nice story of redemption and contrition, where an “ethicist” (I imagined an educated and otherwise erudite man) carelessly used the word “retard” and then had it pointed out to him that this was a hurtful term. I clicked on the link which showed exactly what this man had written. The bilious hatred and viciousness this man seemed to feel towards the disabled was shocking to me. I think he got off very lightly. He asks that you post his reply to make it public, which seems a lot like… Read more »
Dear David, Author here. First I commend you for actually going to my blog and reading both letters. When this was originally posted on HuffPuff there were a slew of people who didn’t even bother to read my post let alone the letters but showed up via comments just to protect the Rword. Second, love your righteous anger. I believe Klosterman is sincere but honestly I do not care his intention. I care that things change. The word reflects a hostility toward a group of people many people think are deserving of hatred. Whatever you think of his intention Chuck… Read more »
I do not support the use of insults or any form of judgment and condemnation of another human being. In essence such condemning thoughts and words are purposeless for they only reflect the lack of understanding associated with the person using them. However, I also must stand for the individual’s ability to choose how he or she is defined by the society at large. Just because someone calls a person a name or hurls a judgment, it does not make this reality. If I genuinely and certainly know my source of power (be it spiritual or personal) no one else… Read more »
Hi Keri,
There’s a world of difference between “retard” and retarded. I agree. I’ve only ever heard “retard” used pejoratively. Usually by subteens. Hank
Hank,
I would ask you to think back and identify that feeling you experienced when that person spoke to you “in a snotty way”. Clearly it still resonates for you. Then think about the emotion my husband experienced when he over heard our son referred to as “retard” at holiday party they attended. Hank, it not a PC thing. It’s a humanity thing. Best, Kwp
I hold a California Psychiatric Technician’s License through the Vocational Nursing Board in the state. I spent around a year and a half caring for severely mentally retarded children, 1976-77. Yes, that’s what they were called in those days. The term had replaced such language as idiot, moron, and so on. Later it was replaced by developmentally disabled, which was fine with me, but this new term was adopted first by organizations that were most distant from direct care. I recall first being informed of the new word (in a snotty way) by a person who worked for a regional… Read more »
It’s time to expose the “political correctness gone crazy” argument. It is not about being “politically correct” or not. Using these terms is about feeling better than someone else. It’s about being able to be hurtful and/or nasty in the guise of humour. The more insecure an individual is, the more they find comfort in laughing at or feeling superior to others.
The test to know if you should use these terms or not?? Not difficult. The old “do unto others as you would have them do to you” sorts it out quite simply.
I run a program for adults with disabilities. Parents like you are a challenge to the complacency that sometimes sets in. A sometimes painful and always welcome challenge.
I suspect that character is an inherited trait, by the way.
What I love is all the goodness colliding here. You’re out there trying to change a stereotype and end bullying, and he’s able to see that goodness. And he matches it by admitting he was wrong. That’s a huge deal. I love it.
Hi Kari
Well said:
“”””What if character is our greatness? Character levels the playing field. On that field my son competes as an equal among peers. Most days my son would be a champion.”””””
This is a great story.
There is always a simple test for word use like this. Is the word or phrase being used pejoratively? If it is, then don’t use it. If it isn’t, it’s probably OK.
We really don’t need any more arguments about “pansy” literally meaning flower or “fag” being a bundle of sticks or “retard” meaning slowed down. Words change, meanings change–and apparently, so does the mind of at least one well-known ethicist.
– Gary Dietz