The NAS under my spotlight.

[Lucas]

On June 6th the first of the 'Only Human' series screened it's first hour long episode: Make Me Normal.

 

The programme portrayed the lives of four pupils attending the Spa Special Needs school in London, made up entirely of Autistics. It contained scenes of questionable judgement and placed a slant on situations which would skew the view of any person watching who did not have a better experience and knowledge of Autism. The programme repeatedly made associations between Autism and violence whilst glossing over the questionable methods of the school. The NAS says the response it recieved was "mostly positive" as they had many donations and offers from volunteers afterwards. It also says there were a "few" complaints about the portrayal of Autism from "parents and friends".

 

The NAS response to Make Me Normal is here: http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=253&a=7044

 

This was released on June the 8th. The toll of both the programme and NAS response made me physically ill. I wrote to the NAS to complain. The crux of my point was that the NAS blank support for the programme contradicted the NAS view that Autism does not cause aggression. I informed them that their response or lack of it would be circulated widely.

 

They have not replied. The reply has come in the form of questions in interviews released recently with the Headmistress of Spa school and the Director of Make Me Normal. They are here:

 

http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=591&a=7099

 

http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=591&a=7101

 

The way in which the relevent questions and answers were asked were slippery and disingenous. They did not answer how the NAS could support the documentary AND hold the view that Autism does not cause aggression. What is shown in Make Me Normal also completely contradicts the views expressed by the head and director that aggression was caused by misunderstanding. In the documentary, a clear contrast was made where intelligence, creativity and charisma displayed by the students was portrayed as them 'overcoming' their condition whilst violence and weirdness were directly attributed it, with support to the notion from the director making comments in voice overs. The difficult question of why a brawl in the very small playground went on for over a minute before any staff intervened, was not asked and avoided completely.

 

The NAS will be recieving yet another e-mail from me demanding real answers to the questions, not fudge.

[Infojunkie]

Good on you Lucas. I entirely agree and will help badger them as and when I am able to find the time. This makes me really mad too

[Jericho]

Well done, Lucas. :clap:

[Lucas]

This is Lucas McCarty writing to you again.

 

In the last e-mail I asked questions which I and others thought were important about the Channel 4 documentrary and I ended the letter with "This e-mail and your response(or lack of) will be widely circulated" .

 

A direct response never came. The e-mail was pasted onto various sites and many who read it weren't holding out for a response which only came in the form of interviews done with the director of Make Me Normal and the headmistress of Spa school. Considering the number of Autistic people who had read the NAS response to the programme and my e-mail, this was interpreted as avoidance by the NAS. The NAS response asserted that a 'few' complaints were made and they centred on how the programme didn't represent 'the full spectrum of the condition', giving the slant that the 'parents'(I'm pretty sure plenty of Autistics spoke for themselves) were hoping to see an even bleaker portrayal of those at the low-functioning end, as those shown were the school's most high functioning. The opposite was in fact true and almost every parent I had contact with were criticising the negativity, not the lack of severely hanidcapped children on display.

 

Now some of the questions(asked to both the director and head) appeared to be almost copied and pasted from my e-mail, so either they were or the NAS was less than honest about who was complaining and what exactly they were complaining about. The interviews themselves manage to avoid the questions asked about the NAS and it's response to the programme, such as how the NAS can blanketly support the programme when it's position has always been that Autism does not cause aggression. So only a response can be made to the interviews with two people(who are unlikely to be interviewed again in response to this) until the NAS says something directly. I can start with Jude Ragan.

 

Needless to say that Jude Ragan's assertion that people's view needed widening from the 'Rainman' point of view by showing student with a different response to their Autism has a slight but telling error: the fictional Raymond Babett did not have any response or expressed opinion on being Autistic, unlike her own students who are not taught about it, but a para-observation of it. I would call it a small thing if it weren't for everything else I have seen telling me that Ms(Mrs?)Ragan isn't very good at objectively observing Autistic people. I also make a special note about those who opted out of taking part because they were involved in out of school activities and didn't want anyone to know they were Autistic(now where did they get those little notions from?).

 

I should also draw attention to the comments made about Roxanne and how the staff 'learned not to physically intervene', which tells me that they did not try this method as a first resort but took some time to 'learn' it. Anyone that understand more about Autistics than what a leaflet can tell should know this anyway. How long did Roxanne have to put up with this until they worked out that 'talking calms her'. Would a Neurotypical be treated this way?

 

I am beginning to wonder how long Spa has been open, as if they have been open for more than a few years and have 100 students, they should have cottened onto these lessons long before Make Me Normal started filming. Now onto the questions relating directly(sort of directly) to what I asked the NAS.

 

NAS: " There has been some criticism of the fact that three of the students were filmed being violent and swearing profusely and could lead to stereotyping. What would be your response to this? "

 

Jude Ragan: "I think you can only stereotype if you are saying these four students are absolutely typical of all people with ASD. And of course the film wasn't saying this - it was saying here are four lovely young people who have ASD and this is their story as they see it and this is how a specialist school helps them. "

 

I say: a convenient way of ignoring how the voice-over narrator insisted that Autism was causing the behaviour as it was shown.

 

NAS: "Some viewers felt that there was a general attitude throughout the documentary that autism was 'causing' the students to be naughty, violent and bad. In the commentary no-one ever suggested that these traits are true of most teenagers instead some people felt that the disability was shown in a negative light. How would you respond to this? "

 

Jude Ragan(edited because of length): "They have very low self-esteem, a very low opinion of themselves, some are quite despairing, and some have suicidal thoughts. We need to raise their self esteem, and we do not do this by blaming the autism, but by explaining to them that their bizarre/odd/unacceptable behaviours came out of their misunderstanding because of their autism. This does take the blame away from them and gives them an incentive to improve so that they can get on in the outside world.

 

Remember that this is a long-term strategy. I have not had to talk to Moneer or Roxanne about their autism this term at all. "

 

I say: This is completely contradicted by the narrator's comments during the programme, but that only speaks about the programme makers. Here Ms/Mrs Ragan is simply playing with semantics to justify the school's approach, if something is caused by a misunderstanding caused by Autism, then Autism is the cause. It would have been more accurate to say that problems were caused by misunderstandings and the misunderstandings were mutual, but that wouldn't be representative of Ms/Mrs Ragan's opinion. The same thing is done with 'person-first' langauge in Autism(person with Autism VS Autistic person), where blame for everything is piled on the Autistic with no one else taking responsibility and then this is excused by seperating semantically the person from their Autism. This is highlighted with Ms/Mrs Ragan's comment on how as the Moneer and Roxanne have improved, she hasn't had to talk about their Autism, which is equated with the problems. In every way blame is placed on 'Autistic misunderstanding' as if the Autistics are entirely at fault.

 

And no questions were asked at all about how a fight was allowed to carry on in a very small playground for over a minute without any staff intervening, how the headmistress handled Moneer kicking his lunchbox and some of the confusing and vague langauge used with the children(which I have no doubt none of them understood. What does "co-operate with enthusiasm" mean?).

 

The director Zac Beattie wasn't anymore open.

 

NAS: "Why was the title 'Make me normal' chosen? "

 

Zac Beattie(edited for length): " 'Make me normal' is a quote from Roxanne. Roxanne says this to the camera within the first 60 seconds of the film.

 

It was a sentiment that the all of the students involved in the documentary either stated directly or alluded to while we were filming with them. This particular group of autistic students have the ability to understand their condition and often seemed frustrated by the difficulties it brought to them in their adolescence. As film-makers we felt it was important to reflect this feeling. "

 

I say: Which makes me wonder why Jude Ragan didn't object to it if she doesn't believe Autism to be a direct cause of problems(but she does). The school teaches them a very skewed strawman of Autism and the film makers simply record the result.

 

Zac Beattie: " As a title, borrowed directly from Roxanne, it seemed to beg a useful question from the audience who watched the documentary about 'normalness'. Does society's ignorance of autism and its intolerance of difference make some young people with autism feel more uncomfortable about their difference? "

 

I say: So while the film overtly and repeatedly shows teens as freakshows that hate themselves because of their Autism, this is supposed to be balanced out by a slight(some could call it non-existent) suggestion about what is 'normal'?

 

Zac Beattie: "In contrast to that sentiment, we hope that the film in the end answers the question begged by the title: despite the differences that autism brings, of course these students are normal! They have many of the same hopes and fears that most young people do: they want happiness, security, a loving family, friends, relationships, respect, independence, a job and so on. The stories of each of the four students were about universal themes of life: making friends, wanting independence, bereavement, finding a girl/boyfriend. "

 

I say: the film very much showed four teens who were 'normal' on the inside but trapped by their Autism. The film doesn't answer anything otherwise there wouldn't have been so many complaints(and I know there were more than the NAS admit).

 

NAS: "There has been some criticism of the fact that three of the students were filmed being violent and swearing profusely and could lead to stereotyping. In hindsight would you have selected a broader range of students? "

 

Zac Beattie(edited for length/stupidity/avoidance): "There were moments in the documentary where we reflected challenging behaviour in some of the students. This sort of behaviour is part of the experience of many adolescents who because of their autism have not stayed in mainstream education and we agreed with the school, with parents and with the students that it was important to reflect this so long as it was balanced with other material. "

 

I say: That balance came in the form of a subliminal message provoking thought in those easily open to suggestion, not an explicit comment stating that the other comments made about Autism causing behaviours isn't really true and is actually a gross over-simplification.

 

Zac Beattie: "We also filmed and used material where the students demonstrated extraordinary warmth, tenderness, intelligence, understanding and self-awareness. "

 

I say: Which they couldn't bring themselves to say that was caused by Autism too or that Autism in no way impairs these traits as is commonly believed. The narrator that couldn't help commenting on how Autism makes people lose control of themselves never did a voice-over saying anything positive about Autistic people.

 

Zac Beattie: "We stated in the programme that we chose to film with some of the more able students at Spa School, a specialist school, and made it clear that they were not reflective of a full cross section of the school nor for that matter of the autistic spectrum.

 

Intelligent viewers would not therefore, I don't believe, form stereotypes of all autistic youngsters based on those in the programme. "

 

I say: He's resorting to the same deceitful tactic used by the NAS in it's response to the programme; implying that there are Autistics who do not act in the way shown. Actually, as I have already said, ANY Autistic will act like that when placed in an enviroment like Spa school. And of course intelligent viewers wouldn't form steretypes; they're the ones who have actually complained, it's the ignorant masses that I'm worried about. The feedback from the press and viewers is irrelevent because it focuses on the people who have semantically seperated from Autism, so their feedback will not be about Autism(otherwise the taught-ignorance would stand out).

 

NAS: "Some viewers felt that there was a general attitude throughout the documentary that autism was 'causing' the students to be naughty, violent and bad. In the commentary no one ever suggested that these traits are true of most teenagers, regardless of their neurological status, instead some people felt that the disability was shown in a negative light. How would you respond to this? "

 

Zac Beattie: "I think that it is true that a lack of understanding that comes from autism is at times the reason for some of what would be said to be inappropriate behaviour, though of course not all. Of course not. "

 

I say: In the film as now, Mr Beattie believes he is abled to distinguish the difference.

 

Zac Beattie: "An important line of commentary mid-way through the film reminds viewers that despite autism, these young students want many of the same things that we all do in life and I hope that many viewers will have recognised some of the challenges facing these young people as universal. "

 

I say: Mr Beattie is having trouble actually recognising the problem pointed out to him and staring him in the face. He is saying that these are 'normal' children who want 'normal' things and Autism is getting in the way.

 

Zac Beattie: "I am confused by the idea that in the programme 'the disability was reflected in a negative light'. "

 

I say: Then perhaps he should actually read about disability rights and representation and the social model of disability. The programme did show the disability in a negative light, but he avoids answering this by semantically seperating the disability from the person.

 

Zac Beattie: "We made a film that was above all about four young people, who all happened to have autism. We felt that their personalities and their experiences shone through and that the viewers would see beyond the disability to the individuals. "

 

I say: And he still doesn't understand what the problem is? When you imply that the disability needs to be 'seen through' so you can see the person, it DOES put a negative cannotation on the disability. He's a journalist so he understands very ###### well what people are talking about but he's still playing ignorant.

 

Zac Beattie: "Certainly autism brings with it a huge number of difficulties and talents, all mixed up together and I believe we reflected them both. "

 

I say: At no point in Make Me Normal was a strength or positive trait attributed to Autism. When any example of these were (accidently?) shown, a negative slant was placed on it. The film makers show every sign that they are against the idea of Autistics as a distinguished part of society that use their Autism for benefit. They could just as easily named it 'talking from a box'(a neutral term) instead of 'Make Me Normal'(deliberately used because it's emotionally loaded).

 

In all, these two people have answered nothing, just side-stepped everything. Do they really think people didn't record it and can play it back to check these things? Jude Ragan and Zac Beattie are poor substitutes for the NAS non-response, they have contradicted themselves and each other, regurgitated a semantically altered version of what everyone already knows and the more sensitive questions have been ignored completely. Why didn't even the film crew intervene in that playground fight? Would they have just stood their filming while one of the boys was picking up his teeth?

 

Now I know a lot of people who want a real response from the NAS and clarity on it's position(an explaination for the contradicting statements would be nice too). I'll never be able to meet Jude Ragan and Zac Beattie in person to ask them questions and make them answer them directly without dodging, but I can e-mail you and circulate it wether you respond or not. My questions are the same as last time; they haven't been answered.

 

Lucas.