posted
TO: Office for Civil Rights Senior Staff FROM: Jeanette J. Lim, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights SUBJECT: Language Reference to Persons with a Disability
As you know, the October 29, 1992, Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 replaced the term "handicap" with the term "disability." This term should be used in all communications.
OCR recognizes the preference of individuals with disabilities to use phraseology that stresses the individuality of all children, youth, and adults, and then the incidence of a disability. In all our written and oral communications, care should be given to avoid expressions that many persons find offensive. Examples of phraseology to avoid and alternative suggestions are noted below.
* "Persons with a disability" or "individuals with disabilities" instead of "disabled person."
* "Persons who are deaf" or "young people with hearing impairments" instead of "deaf people."
* "People who are blind" or "persons with a visual impairment" instead of "blind people."
* "A student with dyslexia" instead of "a dyslexic student."
In addition, please avoid using phrases such as "the deaf," "the mentally retarded," or "the blind." The only exception to this policy involves instances where the outdated phraseology is contained in a quote or a title, or in legislation or regulations; it is then necessary to use the citation verbatim.
posted
I don't find it odd, really. It's a bit cumbersome, but the shift places emphasis on the person, not the disability. I.E., that a given person is MORE than their disability.
In addition, blanket terms such as "deaf", "blind", or "disabled" are grossly unspecific, and lump all such persons into one category, when really disabilities occur across a wide spectrum, and no two people ever have the same abilities. "Retarded" is not only such a blanket term, in recent years it has gathered a severely negative connotation, a dehumanizing meaning. And if anybody needs to be treated as a human being, it's the people who so rarely are.
I find it a good trend. I just wish it would become more widespread.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Old news, but I find this plenty stupid. I was "visually impaired" before I got LASIK: I had vision but it was impaired. My grandfather, on the other hand, was blind.
The worst "PC term" I've heard is the claim that "little people" is more PC than "midget." "Little People" sounds like the Lollipop Guild or dolls or something, far more condescending IMO.
posted
I don't find it stupid at all. The only reason the old phraseology sounds less stilted is that we're more used to it. Soon enough, it'll sound odd to hear someone called a "deaf person."
I know that some will think this is all Political Correctness run amok. But really, I think there's a note of sensitivity to the pejorative nature of some phrasings that it is hard to change once they enter the vernacular. It's easier, and more likely to be noticed, if you make an issue of it by changing the phraseology.
Some of them are rather stilted, but really, shouldn't it take extra effort to categorize people based on their disabilities? Wouldn't it be nicer if we thought of people with disabilities as people first? Not, "the deaf" etc.
Oh well...
In general, I do prefer to find out what phrasing a member of the group would find least objectionable. In general, it's probably best to just not have to refer to the disability if it isn't important for the discussion at hand.
But the main thing is that it SHOULD sound awkward to refer to the person as if their disability were a defining characteristic.
"My friend Steve" "My blind friend Steve"
I hope there's more use for the first and not the second...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know many who cannot hear prefer the term Deaf, as they regard it as a cultural designation, not a description. Maybe I'm behind the times, though, and someone can correct me.
On a different topic, it's certainly easier and more convenient to refer to people by an acronym. (i.e. SPED or ESL students) It's also important to rephrase it (if only in your own mind) as "my student whose first language is Farsi" (or whatever). Because that student's needs are QUITE different from "my student whose first language is Spanish but who reads English fluently." Or whatever.
Nonetheless, I've definitely used the "useful terms." Last year I referred 50% of my Hispanic students to an honors class. (That represented 1 student. I referred the second student after her completion of 7th grade.) Both of those recommendations were genuine and merited by the talents of the girls in question . . . but it's also one of the goals of my county. Am I keeping track? You betcha.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enigmatic, I believe that Little People is a monikor that they claim for themselves (hence Little People of America and other similar organizations). I don't know if that makes it better; it may be along the lines of the NAACP, where the name is a holdover from earlier times.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is not the words, it is the prejudice, bigotry and discrimination that they represent. So we can call 'em crippled, lame, handicapped, disabled, differently abled or challenged. But it makes no difference what folk call other folk if all the folk aren't given the same opportunities and respect.
My husband is severely disabled. He is unable to move his body at all, except for his head a little bit. He is dependent on a ventilator to breathe. His speech is barely audible.
But, He has earned his Masters Degree in Computer Science, and his Doctorate in Mathematics. He works a full-time job for a major telecommunications company doing programming research and development. He is a good father to his son and a good husband to me. He is active in his community and is well-respected at our synagogue.
Do I call him a person with a disability? Differently abled? Physically challenged?
No, I say that he is a cripple. But I have always treated him as the equal to anyone else.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is not the words, it is the prejudice, bigotry and discrimination that they represent. So we can call 'em crippled, lame, handicapped, disabled, differently abled or challenged. But it makes no difference what folk call other folk if all the folk aren't given the same opportunities and respect.
Hear Hear!
Your husband sounds like a man I'd like to meet, and whom I'm quite certain I'd respect.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I do. I agree with the use of terms as removing a disability as defining a person's, well, personhood.
To use Bob's example, it could also be expressed as "My friend steve who is also blind" and not "my blind friend steve."
Or even with the use of blanket terms saying "persons who are mentally disabled" rather than "the retarded" gives those persons their personhood instead of being identified and defined by their disability.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The worst "PC term" I've heard is the claim that "little people" is more PC than "midget." "Little People" sounds like the Lollipop Guild or dolls or something, far more condescending IMO.
But it's the term that they themselves came up with, and the one they themselves prefer. Shouldn't you respect that? If you must, you can say "dwarf", which is at least a medically correct term in most cases.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I call my TBI (traumatically brain injured. for those who aren't up on the acronyms) brother "Gimpy." Sometimes -- and only because he's my little brother and I'm SUPPOSED to call him names. But really he's my brother Winston, a unique and valuable individual, and if you can have patience with his aphasia, he's funny and smart and fun.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dwarf is more humiliating than midget if you ask me. It reminds me of Gimili or something.
And those connontations are why "little person" is preferred. But "midget" is NOT technically correct in most cases, while "dwarf" is.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you follow the LPA link in my post above, they talk about the condition of dwarfism and its variations quite a bit, I think.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I wasn't clear on a point there: I know that some little people chose that term, and for those that do prefer it I respect that. I'm also aware of others who prefer the terms "dwarf" or "midget" or simply "short." What I was trying to say is that I think the term that was chosen here just doesn't sound like it conveys as much respect as the supposedly "non-PC" alternatives. It's like if some people of African ancestry decided they wanted to be called "Choco-licious": I respect their right to choose their preferred designation, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it sounds silly.
The real problem with any sort of PC labels for any state of being is that not everyone existing in said state of being are going to agree about what term is most respectful.
--Enigmatic (Off for the evening)
Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
