The Dignity of "Independent Communication"?

This week, one of my students wrote a blog post that I think is particularly important.  He talked about how much other people’s attitudes toward him affect his ability to control his own body.  He explains that getting yelled at for things he cannot control, only makes his OCD flare. That is, yelling at someone for their OCD will only make that OCD worse. Then he talked about the “secret sauce”:  being happy makes him better able to control his own body. I have heard similar statements from many students over the years.

Recognizing how our nonspeakers were treated all their lives (and continue to be treated by most of the world) hurts my heart - and gets me to thinking about the differences in students from the day they first walk into M2H.  One of my very long-time students, Kyle, came in today for an individual session and started writing a piece for a podcast.  He describes that moment when we were first introduced, “When I first walked in, hatred like you wouldn’t believe hit me: another teacher who thought I was a moron.” His mother had me hide behind a table to keep him from attacking me.  No joke.  

That same student is my big teddy bear now. 

It makes sense, of course.  If someone talked to me the way people speak to them, I’d be murderously angry.  If my experience of other people was nothing but condescension, humiliation and often fear, I would be as filled with hate as my student.  

All this to say, it brings to mind the people who say that communication that relies on someone else for assistance deprives people of their dignity.  
An article by Dr. Naomi Fisher  in the newsletter of the British Psychological Society states:  

“‘Presuming competence' sounds benign but it can pose significant risks. When we presume competence that is not present, we may miss the vulnerable person before us. We may not offer them the protection they need. When we presume competence, we may not help people learn the skills that they need, because we assume that they already possess them. To be inclusive we should presume the capacity to learn and meet the person where they are. Assuming that they are already competent does not do this.  

There are significant dangers to ignoring the words that people say and the way that they move their bodies, because of a belief system that says that these movements are out of their control. FC takes power away from nonspeaking people by discounting the ways that they independently communicate. It means that they may go unrepresented in the conversations that matter most in their lives.”
We are actually being warned that in presuming competence, we are not offering “the protection they need.”  

Let me pause for a moment to point you to the podcast, Amplifying Nonspeaking Voices, specifically the episode written by my student, Anthony.  In it he describes being molested by neurotypical students at his high school, in a case that was well publicized.  Of the 8 students in the class, only the 4 who were nonspeaking were molested.  Coincidence?  

not

Judy, you might say, that is just one anecdotal case…except that it’s not.  Without exaggeration, probably ⅓ of students here at M2H have been abused in some manner, including my son, Alex. But the Dr. Fishers of the world only ever worry about the few cases of false accusations from 40 years ago.  

Which brings me to the 2nd part of Dr. Fisher’s statement above:  “FC takes power away from nonspeaking people by discounting the ways that they independently communicate.”  Exactly what independent communication is she referring to? Not one of my students here had any real means of communication, other than - as Kyle says, physical aggression.  Or perhaps she means we should listen to their frustration at being treated “like morons” as we glorify them banging their heads on walls?  

OH LOOK!  HE’S COMMUNICATING INDEPENDENTLY!

She is right in one thing.  They most certainly “go unrepresented in the conversions that matter most in their lives.”  But it is not typing for communication that leaves them on the sidelines, is it?  

So my final question for those who summarily dismiss all spelling/typing methods with the old “it’s debunked” chestnut:

At this point,  thousands of well qualified professionals are using some type of typing method successfully in their work with nonspeakers.  Typing for communication is only getting bigger because it works.  We, who do this for a living, are well aware of the issues with them and never claim that things cannot be improved upon. (Me, I’m obsessing on our need for better technology.  It’s out there - we just need access to it.  That's a post for another day.)  So rather than dismissing our real world experience, why can we not meet half way and find common ground?  I would work with anyone who wants to help.  
​
Why can’t they?