Discord vs. awareness
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, March 31, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Discord vs. awareness
In response to the letter “Help autism locally” (March 22 and TribLIVE.com) by Jen Forsyth, Autism Center of Pittsburgh fundraising director: My husband and I have two children, both diagnosed with autism. They have received a variety of services for the past 11 years and we are grateful to all of the agencies and organizations that have helped our family. We have also been volunteers for Autism Speaks for eight years (I am a 2013 Pittsburgh Walk for Autism Speaks chair).
It breaks my heart when someone talks down this organization, which has done so much to promote research, public policy, awareness and community services. It is especially troubling when someone does this in the name of autism awareness, when all it does is sow seeds of discord within our community.
To be clear, Autism Speaks supports local initiatives through a variety of grants, and in Pittsburgh, we have quarterly service provider meetings. These meetings bring our community together to learn from and support one another as we build a better world for all people with autism.
How one spends one's own money is a personal choice, but it should not be presented as supporting either local or national groups. There is plenty of overlap, and for many of us, that support is both local and national.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Saved her life
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Drought answer?
- Not reviled abroad
- Conspicuous by absence
- Weakness shows
- Guzzardi for guv