Schafer Report Defames Autistic Researcher

[Guest guest]

April 12, 2004, a " Special Edition " of the Schafer Autism Report is issued

in the sole aim of misrepresenting and defaming Dawson. Mr Schafer

illustrates his disregard for basic courtesy and fair play by refusing to

publish Dawson's reply:

http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson-response.html (and below)

Following our long standing effort to be heard rather than silenced, the

autistic community expresses its support for the work and voices of

autistics in the following pages:

In Support of Dawson and Her Work

http://www.autistics.org/library/dawson.html

Past, Present, and Future - by A M Baggs

http://www.autistics.org/library/time.html

ABA Proponents Attack Autistics: Showing Their True Character - by Klein

http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/attacking-autistics.html

Response to A Mother's Response - Connie Baker

http://www.autistics.org/library/bakerresponse.html

Critical analysis of Kit Weintraub's personal attack on Dawson,

seen on the ASAT pages - by N. s, BA-status, AEPiT (U Bham),

Applied Educational Psychologist/Psycho-educational Consultant

http://dna1fi.tripod.com/intropage/id2.html

The Sub-Human Life - from Ragged Edge Magazine - by Cal Montgomery

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/mediacircus/leland.html

Ralph - biography - by Ralph

http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/bio.html

A message from Alyric RE:consumer driven services

http://www.PlanetAutism.com/AuSpin/mdalyric.htm

Links Page - by Jane Meyerding

http://staff.washington.edu/mjane/links.html

These links and others can be found at:

Autistics Reject Disrespect and Defamation

http://www.PlanetAutism.com/AuSpin/disrespect-defamation.htm

_____________________________________

Is One Allowed to Respond?

Dawson Responds to Defamation of Her Character

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:41:25 -0400 (EDT)

From: naa canada <naacanada@...>

Subject: From Dawson: Is one allowed to respond?

Lenny Schafer <edit@...>, schafer@...

Mr Schafer:

Though I'm easily available through email on my webpage, no one seems to

have consulted me before defaming me.

I was also defamed on the ASAT website. I responded to that briefly and

politely, but ASAT has not seen fit to correct the false and defamatory

information they have published about me.

The information you have published about me personally is utterly false.

You are also calling the Supreme Court of Canada incompetent. You are

calling the people who have diagnosed me incompetent.

Sir, I have learned to treat people with respect. I am always surprised

when others have not learned this simple lesson.

I have a large appetite for criticism, but your report has not offered any.

Instead, you have indulged in baseless and, by my standards, cowardly

character assassination.

I have little but good things to say about Dr Mulick, who I was very

impressed by. He decided I was a journalist, and insisted on this, even

when I corrected him. He said I was a " good journalist " when I uncovered,

at the start of my research, an interesting ethical problem I so far have

chosen not to write about. Somewhere in my inbox is an email from him

telling me to " keep truckin' " .

Dr Green and I spoke for five hours, and I have great respect for her also.

I agree with neither Dr Mulick nor Dr Green. I have criticized their work,

while showing respect for their positions by accurately reporting them and

verifying them through their own published work, and while thanking them

for their time.

I quoted Dr Mulick properly in context. My questions were directly based on

Dr Mulick's spontaneous description of autism as a " psychiatric construct " .

This idea was familiar to me from Dr Lovaas' description of social

construction. I don't imply that Dr Mulick believes autism is a hilarious

accident. I sourced Dr Mulick and his work correctly throughout.

I did not present myself to Dr Mulick as an expert in anything; in the time

we spoke, I had yet to be taken seriously in my own work. I did not present

myself as anything but an autistic researching to write about behaviour

therapies in autism. I was made aware of Dr Mulick through my interest in

ABA legal cases in Canada, which have had an impact on all autistics

because of the forums used for these battles. I accurately stated my wish

to intervene in Auton, as no representation from an autistic exists in the

proceedings.

Dr Mulick is not careful in what he says (as in what he writes) and I had

to be very cautious and conservative in quoting him. Many things he said

were incendiary. I enjoyed this and learned from him and would never show

contempt for him.

Dr Green does not deal with the content of my article. I am very critical

of the criticisms of ABA in my article, and give examples in my sources of

criticism that were neither accurate nor useful. I say nowhere that ABA

must be banned. I suggest applying the kind of ethical concern that, for

instance, the late Dr Baer showed in his response to Dr Lovaas' work with

feminine boys (who were described by Dr Lovaas as desperate and doomed to

isolation and self-mutilation). I point out that ethical standards which

have improved the circumstances of all other persons would equally benefit

autistics, and would also improve the state of the science.

As I indicate in my sources, I did get support for the idea of ethical review.

In my ABA work, I was repeatedly struck by the generosity of the behaviour

analysts in speaking with me, and in, I thought at the time, taking me

seriously.

I know, sir, I am not allowed to speak in your world. Either the autistic

speaks, and therefore is not autistic, or the autistic doesn't speak, and

is autistic, but has no voice.

However, in my work I'm required to respect the existing diagnostic criteria.

Here is my letter to ASAT. It is not equal to the assault you have launched

against me, but it may be instructive.

____________________________________

To those responsible at ASAT:

I have been made aware of a response ASAT has posted on its website,

http://asatonline.org/resources/library/moms_perspective.html , re the

article " The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists " . In this article, I accurately

describe some of ASAT's positions, as well as ASAT's stated dedication to

science-based research and treatments in autism.

My article includes no personal attacks, except perhaps the reported and

sourced attacks against autistics that I use as illustrations.

I am very open to criticism. I am not, however, open to personal attacks

that falsely represent me and constitute defamation of my character.

If ASAT has problems with this article, ASAT should respect its own values

and attack the weaknesses and errors in the article on the basis of the

science. This is possible and would be welcome. For instance, I didn't know

until after I wrote the article that one of the Rett syndrome girls was in

Lovaas' Control Group One. This was sloppy research on my part, as was my

failing to notice that the Rett syndrome study was not conducted in the

early nineties, as evidenced by the previous sentence.

If you find my article misleading and harmful, you have the perfect right

(even the obligation, if you are taking me seriously) to contest the

article on the facts. That is, read the studies, read the court records,

read the media reports. I did use personal communications as sources, but

as little as possible. Personal communications are used by people on the

ASAT Advisory Board in peer reviewed science (eg, Mulick).

If you are claiming that this article is full of animosity, you should

justify this. If you are claiming that I am accusing parents of not loving

their children, you must justify this. If you are claiming that I am

accusing parents of abusing their children then you must justify this

serious claim. If you believe that my diagnosis, whatever it is,

automatically invalidates my work, you must justify this position.

Instead, you have published a personal attack on me and my work that is

unrelated entirely to the work in question, and therefore is demonstrably

gratuitous and in violation of your own stated principles.

My article is not a personal memoir or anecdote. In some articles I've

written, and some work I've done, my diagnosis is an important element. In

the ABA article, it is not mentioned until later in the article and has

little bearing on the contents. You assume I'm dishonest and irresponsible

because, among other things, you don't believe my diagnosis. Now you can

tell me when exactly it became good science to diagnose a person via the

Internet.

While it is none of ASAT's business, I have been diagnosed as autistic by

some impressive diagnosticians, including one on ASAT's Advisory Board.

My work has been accepted in many places, including IMFAR, and must survive

the scrutiny of a research group known for its precision. It has been

accepted, so far, by the Supreme Court of Canada, which would be unlikely

to allow the individual intervention (they are not often granted) of a

person hurling strident and malicious accusations.

ASAT's decision to attack me personally is a disgrace to ASAT and its

values. I expected a serious argument on the facts. You have disappointed

me and you have done your own members a great disservice.

I fail to understand the motivation for ASAT's decision to attack my

character and not my science. Perhaps my article really is dangerous to

those who have nothing but invective with which to address a scientific and

legal argument based on the ethical consideration of autistics.

Now I will find out if ASAT is rigorous and scrupulous enough, and honest

enough about your own stated ideals, to add this letter to your own website.

Sincerely,

Dawson

Clinique spécialisée de l'autisme, Hôpital Rivière des Prairies, Université

de Montréal

_____________________________________________

I will add only that I've received a great deal of support for my work from

parents who have autistic children. My ABA article has been posted since

January. There is a comment board attached, in which real discussions have

broken out in a spirit of learning and discovery. My webpage is a democracy.

Finally, were my work worthless, and myself a pathetic basket case, you

would not have wasted two millimetres of your very important Report on me.

Seeing as you have gone all out, I should be permitted to respond.

Sir, your standards and values, unlike those clearly stated by ASAT,

mystify me. So I don't know if it's possible for you to disgrace yourself.

I had not seen " festering " before. I don't think it's autism that's

festering here.

Best regards,

Dawson

naacanada