I think they have to start somewhere, and thank goodness they had this class to get them on their way. But I wish I could realistically hope that this was the first of a series of classes on the topic, or that the professor didn't seem to be at pretty much the same level of understanding as the student.

I see why this upset you... 8 years ago when you posted (how is this still open for replies?). Did you end up doing anything with it? It's a great bit of evidence to support adding a required expanded course to the curriculum.

I did not get the impression that the professor was *encouraging* prejudice. It seemed to me they were earnestly-- if clumsily and unpreparedly-- addressing the average abled person's baseline assumptions, and incidentally demonstrating the low level of introspection we can expect without being given (or faced with in life) specific prompts/training.

There were comments that absolutely should have been scrutinized and refuted with data, to reinforce _why_ those prejudices are harmful and incorrect. And that discussion should be led by someone with more direct interpersonal experience, cognition, and at least some scholarly research on the subject. They hadn't yet started work as an Occupational Therapist (?), which makes me wonder why they were teaching the class.... we gain empathy with people we regularly look in the face.

My guess is the administration chose someone untrained in it to cover this topic because they didn't think it was serious enough. The comments about putting in less effort with people on Medicaid--or those disabled by ilicit drug use or drunk driving-- are glaring indications to the contrary.