Neutrality as a moral standpoint, conceptual confusion and the full inclusion debate

Opposing perspectives on the full inclusion debate reveal a fundamental dis juncture between underlying conceptual frameworks. Advocates contend that f ull inclusion is a moral issue that cannot be resolved from a supposedly ne utral scientific stance. Defenders of the traditional continuum of placemen ts argue, to the contrary, that scientific research should be the dominant factor in arbitrating between separation and inclusion. In this paper, I ex amine the concept of scientific neutrality and its lack of tenability as a foundation for sorting out the full inclusion debate. Subsequently, I explo re how the assumption of neutrality plays itself out in the context of spec ific argument against full inclusion and offer some clarification on the mo ral nature of the debate.