In this lesson, you will learn some tips for speaking inclusively. This information will help you to promote inclusive events and classrooms and communicate with students and staff. Furthermore, it's an opportunity to reflect on the language you use even when not speaking directly to or about disability.
"Nothing About Us Without Us" is a motto of the disability rights movement, and it's important to note the importance of taking every opportunity possible to give people with disabilities an opportunity to speak about their own experiences and preferences. This motto also calls on people with disabilities to embrace their right to guide and contribute to disability conversations.
Listening to people with disabilities tell their stories helps the nondisabled to understand disability from an informed standpoint. As some of the following information demonstrates, the assumption that a nondisabled person understands the experiences of a person with a disability can reinforce stigma and oppression.
"People First" language, that is, a "person with a disability" is the default sign of respect and inclusion. After all, people with disabilities possess many traits, interests, and roles, and one's disability is only one part of their lives. One can experience and identify with multiple social identities tied to one's ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, and more, so it's important to understand that there is no one way to talk about disability. In fact, the study of intersectionality is aimed at understanding how people's experiences with oppression are shaped through a multitude of social and political identities.
However, some people prefer Disability-first language, proclaiming their disability as their primary social identity. For example, the Autistic community is a leader in the disability-first movement. Their argument is that autism is who one is, not what one "has."
Ultimately, it's important to respect a person's preferences. When in doubt, ask.
Disability activist and scholar, Simi Linton (1999), describes "nice" and "nasty" language choices that oppress people with disabilities.
The "nasty" choices are probably the most obvious to you. For example, the campaign to end the use of the R-word with the Spread the Word to End the Word campaign recognized that what originally started out as a medical and legal designation evolved into a vicious insult that diminished the dignity of people with intellectual disabilities. In fact, in 2010, President Obama signed Rosa's law which replaced the language of "mental retardation" with "intellectual disability" in all federal documents regarding health and education regulatory code.
Terms like "crippled" and "spaz" and "psycho" also carry some emotional weight, and make cause you to cringe as you read them. This terminology, especially when used as a slur against a person--disabled or nondisabled-- is ableist and hurtful. Ableist language is language that reinforces disability as inferior and less than nondisabled.
Much like other marginalized groups who recognize the power of language, some (but not all) people in disability circles seek to reclaim negative language and use it strategically to disrupt unspoken and unchallenged norms. The term "crip," for example, is used to announce a distinct disability perspective, political edge, and deep reflection. For example, you may have seen campaigns to "Crip the Vote" during the last presidential election. The intention with this language is to privilege disability voices and experiences.
"Nice" language may be less obvious to you, in part because it is so widely used. The pros and cons of using "nice" language to describe disability are debated by those with and near disability, and our advice to you is to considercontextabove all else.
Oftentimes, nice language is euphemistic, meaning that someone substitutes a word in place of the word "disability" to not sound offensive. But think about the impact of this strategy. When we avoid the word "disability," we are implying that disability is the word that shall not be named. When people substitute words like "challenged," "handicapable," "differently abled," and "special" for "disability," this choice reiterates the idea that disability is something to avoid or ignore. If you use these words, how do you use them? Are you euphemizing disability or speaking about a specific instance or specific accommodation due to impairment? Again, the words themselves are not necessarily negative words, but the context in which you use them may be problematic for people with disabilities seeking equity and/or equality in the workplace, at school, and in their social lives.
Actress Lauren Potter is featured in a video created for World Syndrome Day. In it, she and her colleagues question how the phrase "special needs" is used to describe people with intellectual disabilities. The critique is not that "special" is a bad word, but that its use unnecessarily undervalues basic human needs like jobs, housing, and relationships for people with intellectual disabilities. Watch this video, World Syndrome Day (closed captioning available, 2:00 minutes duration), and apply as it relates to the content within this lesson.
The final advice regarding disability language is to think about how the language you use positions people with disabilities as active or passive. Again, a goal of the disability rights movement is for people with disability to self-determine and self-direct their own lives, and this goal rings especially true for our students at Regis.
Think about these phrases:
Both statements assume that the person is a victim of their disability. This type of language harkens back to the charity and medical models of disability that we discussed in Lesson 1, by inferring that disability is tragic and negatively impacts the life of the person experiencing it.
Try rephrasing these statements to use active language:
Notice how these last two sentences remove judgment and assumption?
Disability scholars and activists often point to language as evidence of how a society consistently devalues characteristics associated with disability. The prevalence of ableist language not only affects nondisabled perspectives of disability, but also impacts the self-esteem and self-worth of people with disabilities.
Our language reflects our values and desires, and changing the way we talk about disability or use disability terminology is an important step toward true equality.
Source: Linton, S. (1998).Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: New York University Press.
Journalists have a responsibility to use language that best represents the people they are describing, and there are excellent resources for journalists to write about disability ethically and accurately. Their guidelines for discussing disability can be helpful for anyone wanting write about disability-related topics.
If you have time, complete the following activity: