Your point?
Are you saying that measures should have been instituted to give Scott a "lower profile?" Should he have been, e.g., somehow "hushed?" Would you have been right to make a judgement call and simply not relay Scott's off-topic or irrelevant questions? Were the other students right to be annoyed? Were Scott's inappropriate questions evidence that he really shouldn't have been in college at all? Are you arguing against this so-called "mainstreaming?" Was it a farce?
Your statement that you had volunteered to be a Personal Assistant to a handicapped person suggests that you felt (and still feel?) sympathetic towards these people - yet your posting seems to indicate that you view their participation in college with ambivalence.
I "get it" that the professor may have been "pandering" by giving undue attention to Scott's off-topic questions - was that the entire point of your posting?!
Regards,
Thank you for correcting the sentence where “still” was less appropriate than “already”. And I am sorry the story meandered too far in an attempt to describe a situation that has marginal relevance in this thread in the first place. The point of the story was the ending.
“The local paper wrote a long mostly fictional article about how great the former football star was doing in college.”
Most of those who didn't live with Scott knew only what was in the newspaper article which was fiction. Those of us who attempted to assist him knew the situation was not accurately described. And yes, I am ambivalent about Scott's situation. Many of those who I have helped care for over the years were amazing people who despite their infirmities managed to share a great deal with others. I am not going to go into further detail about Scott to make my point or try to portray my actions in a more attractive light. I have already wasted enough space.
It is wrong to view disabled people with rose colored glasses. That in itself is demeaning. There are some that are good and others who are not so good. The politically correct virtue signalers here pretend that everyone who has a problem is good. My wife was a board member for years for a state funded facility which cared for mentally disabled people. Many of them had down's syndrome. Most of them were agreeable to interact with, but not all.
I have learned a great deal from people who have had cognitive difficulties and physical difficulties. Some of the situations that I have gotten myself into helping people have gone way beyond the point where most reasonable people would have called it quits. At my retirement party while others were thanking the chiefs, the council people, the mayor, etc. etc... I thanked my wife for putting up with me and all the outrageous situations that I got us into trying to help people. I then told the story of a person with cognitive difficulties whose aid my crew and I came to who eventually ended up staying at our home for weeks with my wife providing the majority of his care.
I do not care if you felt my story was pointless doo doo with bad grammar. I put up with and assisted Scott the best that I could, I have no regrets and am making no judgement as to his actions or how his behavior might have been handled better. I simply gave details about the situation; you can make your own judgement.
I have little respect for transparent virtue signaling especially from corporations but also from individuals. Most people have no actual experience and are merely competing with others to demonstrate that they are better than others by making flowery statements. It is kind of a joke to those who actually have hands on experience.
And to help you... the paragraph immediately ahead of this one is the point.