Just under a year ago, a criminal investiga tion was launched in a Texas institution for individuals with intellectual disabilities after police found some disturbing images on a worker's lost cell phone. The Department of Justice investigation found that workers had been rounding up the residents at night and forcing them to participate in what Texas State Senator Eliot Shapleigh called "human cockfighting."
In addition, NPR reports that the Department of Justice found evidence of more than 450 instances of abuse at Texas institutions just in the past year.
This is an obvious case of discrimination and mistreatment of people with intellectual disabilities, and it is pretty easy to recognize behavior like this as dreadfully hurtful and destructive.
Such instances are extremely disturbing and fortunately they are rare, but they are also only a small part of a larger problem of discrimination against individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Many people assume that because we live in a society where such acts are not tolerated, discrimination and intolerance are not a problem. But prejudice goes deeper than the rare extreme acts of violence.
Case in point: Earlier this month, Rahm Emanuel came under fire for using the term "retard" to describe a special interest group he was frustrated with. The reactions to his comments played out along the expected party lines, and the collective public conscience uttered a rather distracted "who cares." Emanuel apologized to Special Olympics CEO Tim Shriver, and now a month later the episode is remembered more as an instance of partisan bickering than as a slight against people with disabilities.
Most people simply don't understand what the big deal is about using the word "retard" or "retarded."
This illustrates an interesting dynamic in the way many Americans understand discrimination and prejudice.
Most people can look at the Texas incident and see exactly what is wrong, but, on the other hand, many people have no problem with making a demeaning joke in the security of a circle of friends or describing something that annoys them as retarded — so long as they aren't around anyone with a disability.
We've convinced ourselves that because these things don't directly harm people with intellectual disabilities, there is nothing to worry about.
Another perfect illustration comes from a recent episode of "Family Guy" that centered on a highly negative and highly stereotyped character with Down syndrome. The show's producers defended their decision to address this topic as merely "offending equally." Even the actress with Down syndrome who provided the voice-over for the character defended the episode in an e-mail to the New York Times saying, "It's not really an insult. I was doing my role, I'm an actor. I'm entitled to say something. It was really funny. I was laughing at it."
In other words, it's no big deal. It's just a joke, all in good fun and not meant to hurt anybody. If you don't like it, just don't watch the show.
It reminds me of that old playground saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." It all sounds great, but at some point we have to stop acting like we're 8 years old. We don't live in the dark ages where such adages define reality. While we might tell young children something along those lines to help them deal with bullying, modern psychological research does not allow us to be so ignorant as to assume that the words people use are harmless.
is a member of the 
3 comments