Supplement to the “Neurodiversity and the Legal System” Conference
Dr. William Paul Simmons and I spoke at the “Neurodiversity and Legal System” conference on May 20, 2022. Our topic: “How a Pseudoscientific Communication Technique Clouds Issues of Disabilities and Abuse in the Court System.”
I believe the conference was recorded and I will edit this post to include a link if/when that becomes available.
The following is supplemental material for further study. References are listed in order of appearance in the talk. A set of question for courts to consider is provided at the end.
Simmons, W.P. (2011, October 7). Human Rights Law and the Marginalized Other, Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-0511844539
Palfreman, J. (Producer). (1993, October 19). Frontline: Prisoners of silence. Boston, MA: WGBH Public Television.
Boynton, J. (2012). Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6:1, 3-13. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.674680
Simmons, W..P., Boynton, J., and Landman, T. (2021, February). Facilitated Communication, Neurodiversity, and Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly. Volume 43 (1), 138-167. DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2021.0005
Higashida, N. (2016). The Reason I Jump: The Inner Voice of a Thirteen-Year-Old boy with Autism. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN: 978-0812985153
Questions of Authorship:
Fein, D., & Kamio, Y. (2014). Commentary on The Reason I Jump by Naoki Higashida. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 35(8), 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000098
Saloviita, T. and Sariola, H. (2003, November). Authorship in Facilitated Communication: A Re-Analysis of a Case of Assumed Representative Authentic Writing. Mental Retardation. 41 (5); 374-379; Discussion 380-385. DOI: 10.1352/0047-6765(2003)41<374:AIFCAR>2.0.CO;2
Sturmey, P. (2003, October). Typing in Tongues: Interesting Observations on Facilitated Communication Do Not Establish Authorship. Mental Retardation. 41 (5), 386-387. DOI: 10.1352/0047-6765(2003)41<386:TITIOO>2.0.CO;2
Movie reviews:
Boynton, Janyce. (2021, August 22). Behind the slick production values of “The Reason I Jump”, lies Facilitated Communication. The Skeptic.
Escher, Jill. (2021, January 5). The Reason I Jump: D- Documentary, A+ Propaganda. National Counsel on Severe Autism.
Mulholland, Paddy. (2021). The Reason I Jump. Spectrum Culture.
Elizabeth Bonker (Bonker’s book, I Am Here: The Journey of a Child with Autism Who Cannot Speak But Finds Here Voice reveals she is being supported by facilitators using the Rapid Prompting Method)
The Ethical Duty to Know: Facilitated Communication for Autism as a Tragic Case Example
Rosemary Crossley, Founder of FC in Australia
Douglas Biklen, Founder of the “Facilitated Communication Institute” at Syracuse University (now ICI)
Organizations with FC/RPM Opposition Statements
Anna Stubblefield (see Facilitator Crimes)
Works by Stubblefield:
Stubblefield, Anna (2007) “Beyond the pale”: Tainted whiteness, cognitive disability, and eugenic sterilization. Hypatia.
Stubblefield, Anna (2009). The entanglement of race and cognitive dis/ability. Metaphilosophy.
Stubblefield, Anna (Sound and Fury: When Opposition to Facilitated Communication Functions as Hate Speech.. Disability Studies Quarterly.
American Speech Language Hearing Association (ASHA) Statements on Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method
ASHA Statement on Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) Statement on Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method
Syracuse University Inclusion and Communication Initiatives
Syracuse University Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
University of Virginia “The Tribe” (Spelling to Communicate)
University of Virginia Supporting Transformative Autism Research (STAR) Initiative
Penn State AAC Learning Center: Educational Resources for AAC
American Disabilities Act (ADA) Auxiliary Aids and Services
The Hope Source v. B.T. by Troutman, 83 N.E.3d 144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017)
People v. Webb, 157 Misc. 2d 474, 597 N.Y.S.2d 565 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1993)
Hahn v. Linn County Iowa (2002)
Lynch, K. (2016). Willful ignorance and self-deception. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 173(2), 505–523.
Cordero v. Fumero et al. Case number 1:2020cv20975. Florida 2020).
Questions:
Do facilitator-dependent communication techniques (e.g., FC, RPM, S2C) support neurodiversity?
Is criticizing FC in support of or counter to the goals of the neurodiversity movement?
Is opposition to FC the equivalent of hate speech as Anna Stubblefield claims?
Who is controlling FC-generated messages?
Whose voice is represented?
Does FC produce communication independent of facilitator influence or control? (No)
Is FC an accepted form of Augmentative and Alternative Communication? (No)
Are Facilitators held to the same training and certification standards as, say, an interpreter for the deaf? (No)
Is there a conflict of interest for the Facilitator when that person is party to the alleged allegations of abuse and then also a witness in the court of law? (Possibly)
Is there “general acceptance” of the technique in the scientific community? (No)
Can the scientific knowledge be tested or has it been tested? (Yes)
Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication (Yes)
Does the technique have known or potential rate of error? (Yes)
The role of the facilitator is to provide physical and emotional support so the individual can communicate independently. What, then is being interpreted when facilitators say they are acting as “interpreters”? By FC standards, the typed messages are ”independent” and should stand on their own.
If the facilitator is “interpreting” the typed messages, then are they actively and/or selectively manipulating the written output?
How is the court to know if the facilitator is providing undue influence over the typed messages, even if the typing “looks” independent?
Is there a conflict of interest when the facilitator assists with accusations, DHS interviews, courtroom testimony, etc.?
Do courts allow FC testimony?
Are facilitators being willfully ignorant when they refuse to rule in or rule out facilitator control by testing their claims under reliably controlled conditions?
Should educators be held accountable for using unproven or discredited techniques in their classrooms?
Should universities be held accountable, perhaps by accrediting agencies, for granting degrees to people using FC?
Should professionals be held accountable for using FC/S2C/RPM counter to their national organization’s recommendations?
Should lawyers, police, DHS workers be held accountable for moving forward with abuse claims without first determining FC authorship (e.g., completing double blind test using trained personnel)?