Return-Path: <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f8PNREf00430; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:27:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:27:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <6e.1088d829.28e26c23@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: BRmidwest@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:285] Re: Reaching your target audience X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 139 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: O Content-Length: 1026 Lines: 18 Actually, I believe that "at risk" was coined when people determined that "disadvantaged" was disparaging (and "poor" sounded hopeless and too sweeping). The idea was to come up with an alternative to "disadvantaged" that did NOT, in fact, ascribe "blame" to or judge the individual. In my opinion, "at risk" is a very vague term, but I do not see that it implies where the risk is coming from. For example, I live in Chicago where it gets darn cold in the winter. Chicagoans are "at risk" for slipping on the ice. There's no moralizing or judgment involved. Kids who live in old houses--whether they be shacks or mansions--are "at risk" for developing lead poisoning from lead-based paint. Again, no judgment--just fact. I think "at risk" is just another "politically corrected" term that inevitably becomes politically incorrect through use. "At risk"'s chief shortcoming, in my view, is that anyone who is not hip to this fleetingly acceptable lingo will logically want to ask "at risk for WHAT?"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:27:43 EST