Activism - What You Can Do
Whether it’s writing to a university official, holding journalist accountable for publishing pro-FC articles uncritically, writing a review about pro-FC books or movies, or blogging about the harms of FC, you can make a difference.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Board of Ethics
Despite ASHA’s statements opposing FC and RPM/S2C, a number of SLPs, most of whom list their credentials as ASHA-certified CCC-SLPs, appear on public sites as S2C, RPM, and Spellers Method practitioners, with their SLP credentials prominently displayed. We checked with ASHA about their procedures for reporting (potential) ethics violations. If you are concerned about an ASHA-certified CCC-SLP who is using FC/S2C/RPM with your child or student, you can file a complaint with ASHA’s Board of Ethics. Instructions for filing a complaint of alleged violations of ASHA’s Code of Ethics are found here. Their Board of Ethics complaint form is here.
National Down Syndrome Society
In 2019, the NDSS hosted a facilitated communication workshop promoting its use with individuals with Down Syndrome, despite the fact that proponents of FC and its variants have no scientific evidence to support their claims of efficacy.
What you can do: Write NDSS officials expressing concern over the continued support and promotion of the technique. The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) has a position statement opposing the use of FC and RPM.
References:
Vyse, S. (2019, January 16). National Down Syndrome Society Promotes Communication Pseudoscience. Skeptical Inquirer.
Pro-FC and RPM Human Interest Stories
Pro-FC and RPM human interest stories that appear in the news lend credibility to pseudoscientific practices.
What you can do: Check out the list of news articles and write letters of concern to the reporters, editors, and ombudsman of the newspapers. Let them know about the scientific evidence regarding the use of these techniques and the increasing number of organizations opposing their use.
Pro-FC and RPM Movies
Pro-FC and RPM movies normalize the use of these discredited or disproven techniques and give the false impression that words attributed to the individuals with disabilities are not those of the facilitators.
What you can do: Check out this list of movies and write reviews from an evidence-based perspective to be published in reliable sources (reputable newspapers and journals). Contact us when the article is written and we will be happy to consider it for inclusion on the website.
Syracuse University
Syracuse University remains “ground zero” for facilitated communication in the United States, despite criticism from its own student newspaper. Write to university officials asking why they continue to support FC and its variants, despite the scientific evidence that shows it’s the facilitators, not individuals with disabilities, authoring FC-messages.
“It is inexcusable and equal-parts embarrassing for Syracuse University as a research institution to stand behind facilitated communication (FC) despite being a potentially life-destroying practice that has been empirically debunked.” —The Daily Orange Editorial Board
Resources:
Burke, M. (2016, April). Double Talk: Syracuse University institute continues to use discredited technique with dangerous effects. The Daily Orange.
Burke, M. (2016, April). Why experts say evidence cited by facilitated communication advocates is flawed. The Daily Orange.
Editorial Board. (2016, April). Syracuse University’s reinforcement of facilitated communication, inexcusable, concerning. The Daily Orange.
·