Its Time To Stop Even Casually Misusing Disability Words – Forbes

Words Have Power

Content warning: This article mentions and discusses offensive words related to people with disabilities.

Its not oversensitive, or too new of a concern for organizations and businesses to take a hard look at reforming ableist language. Ableism itself is not a new phenomenon, even if ableism is a new word to some of us. And avoiding offensive language throughout organizations isnt just about preventing bad publicity. Curbing use of stigmatizing and problematic language makes workplaces safer for diversity, more productive for employees, and friendlier to customers and clients.

This should certainly include identifying and ending use of universally offensive disability slurs, like the word retarded. Few would seriously argue that it is okay for any organization to tolerate either intentionally insulting or casual use of this word, now widely referred to as The R Word. But the effort to reduce ableist language should also include rethinking more commonly-used and traditionally-accepted disability words and expressions that while not always offensive, tend to reinforce ableist thinking.

Start with abusive, corrosive slurs to avoid in all cases, effective yesterday.

These words are peppered throughout some peoples everyday conversation, and have many different shades of contextual meaning. However, they are all terms that have historically been used to label people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. And while these and similar words were at one time considered technical or scientific labels, they have always also carried a heavy social stigma and power to inflict real harm. Most people with these disabilities have intensely painful experiences being called retarded, moron, or idiot in clearly insulting ways. The fact that a people still use such terms without intending to hurt disabled people doesnt matter. They are harmful in all cases.

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities, particularly those actively involved in self-advocacy, are strikingly clear that they do not accept use of these terms, especially retarded, under any circumstances. That should be reason enough for any of us to banish these words from our vocabularies.

Other disabilities are widely stigmatized too, including physical and mobility impairments, and mental illness. When we use cripple, invalid, crazy, insane, or stupid to refer to a person, either face to face or indirectly, there is really no way to interpret it as neutral or socially acceptable, particularly in anything like a public or professional environment. So we should stop using them to refer to any person, no matter what we think of them.

True, there are exceptions where people with certain disabilities use derogatory terms among themselves like a disabled person referring to themselves with irony or pride as a cripple or crip, and people with mental illness calling themselves mad. But even when we reclaim such terms for ourselves, we do so with a great deal of care and discretion. And this is not a privilege open to people outside our disability communities.

As a general rule, these are words that should never be applied to a person, certainly not in public and professional settings. Organizations can feel confident adopting a zero tolerance policy on these terms, with no need for elaborate nuance or justifications.

Next, rethink how we use more casual, everyday disability words.

But what about disability words that are used in more ordinary conversation when youre not even talking about a person?

Until fairly recently, even disability advocates typically agreed to an informal deal. The general public would stop using a small handful of the most harmful disability slurs, while more causal disability adjectives and metaphors would be regarded as acceptable because of their long use and relative lack of personal offense.

That may have been a workable deal 25 years ago. Now is a good time to revisit that bargain. And this is where things become a little more complex and open to interpretation. Its also where examining disability language provokes the most pushback.

Is it really offensive or harmful to call a damaged ship or a slumping economy crippled? Is it really a problem to call a chaotic situation crazy, a futile or badly designed routine as stupid or insane? Whats wrong with calling a questionable excuse lame, or an oblivious or obstinate person deaf to criticism?

The harm of terms and uses like this is indirect, but no less real. They all reinforce the idea that a good way to describe bad things is to compare them to disabilities, or to disabled people. They may not be personally offensive against any particular disabled person. But they contribute to ableism, which harms disabled people by validating discriminatory assumptions about disabled people. At the very least, we should rethink how we use these terms, including in situations where it may seem harmless.

Attempt at a general rule ...

Language is flexible and fluid by nature. But many people crave rules, and organizations seem to thrive on them. So here is a shot at a general rule for use of disability words and expressions:

First, dont use the small handful of terms that disabled people themselves consistently tell us are entirely off limits. Dont argue the point or try to come up with logical inconsistencies. Just do as asked, because its the decent, respectful thing to do.

Second, try not to use disability-related words to describe any person, thing, idea, or situation as in any way bad. Doing this reinforces the ableist habit of thinking that disabilities are always negative. This is harmful even if the specific use of these words isnt directed at a person, or intended to offend or insult anyone.

Alternatives and cautions ...

All of this will inevitably raise the question often expressed with some exasperation or resentment If we arent allowed to use these words anymore, what can we say?

Two helpful resources by disability justice advocate Lydia Brown offer practical answers. In a 2012 blog post titled Ableism/Language, updated in June, 2020, Brown thoroughly explores the subject of ableist words and expressions, and offers a helpful list of alternatives for a wide variety of words and situations. A followup pos from 2014t, Violence in Language: Circling Back to Lingusitic Ableism,revisits the first essay, reflecting on its reception, use, and potential for misunderstanding and misuse.

In both articles, Brown emphasizes that the listed ableist terms and suggested alternatives should not be considered definitive, or grounds for denouncing people. This partially answers the most common objection to the entire conversation, which is that it is all just language policing designed to create grounds for canceling people we dont like or disagree with, for common things that most people say everyday. But whether or not this is true for some who criticize use of ableist language, it is decidedly not true for Brown. And it doesnt have to be part of good-faith efforts to reform how we use disability words and expressions.

Lydia Brown writes:

If you find yourself using this ableist language, please take a minute to re-examine how your perspective has been informed by ableism. This isn't an accusation or an insinuation that you are automatically an Evil Person. We have all participated in ableist structures, and are all continually learning and unlearning.

An added benefit of consciously reshaping our use of disability words and expressions is that it forces us to think more deeply about what we are talking about, and express our thoughts and feelings more precisely, maybe more humanely. Crazy, insane, idiot, and moron arent just offensive to people with mental illness or intellectual disabilities. They are also cliches that allow us to write people off without having to contend with their ideas and actions. Worse, they stand for value systems in which people are judged based on arbitrary notions of intelligence and rationality. These criteria deserve to be questioned, at least now and then.

Finally, it makes sense to ask what we are really losing in any organization if we stop calling each other, our colleagues, or our clients and customers stupid, insane, or lame? What value do these negative value judgements and name-calling ever really have?

Person with a disability or disabled person?

Well-meaning people, including many with disabilities, disagree over which of these is the most respectful and accurate terminology. Both approaches have valid arguments in their favor. Person First language, in which person is always placed before the disability is intended to emphasize personhood over any impairment. On the other hand, those who prefer Identify First argue that disability is an important part of a disabled persons identity, not merely a characteristic and that in any case its simpler and less fussy. For organizations, the best strategy may be to allow both terms, while respecting the preferences of actual disabled people as they come, including individual employees, colleagues, and customers with disabilities. Meanwhile steer away from euphemisms like differently abled, physically challenged, or special needs. These are well-meaning but anxious and tortured terms that few actual disabled people use or prefer.

Getting started ...

Dont ignore ableist language because its unfamiliar, or because you fear a backlash. Businesses and organizations should work now to overcome their nervousness and skepticism, and discover how they tolerate and use disability language, starting with three steps:

1. Consistently discourage negative uses of disability-related words in everyday interactions inside the organization.

This means clearly declaring zero tolerance for the most heavily stigmatized ableist words. It might be an employee calling a customer retarded, referring to them as retarded while commiserating with a coworker, or simply calling a new procedure retarded as a way showing disapproval. All should be prohibited and addressed when they occur. Likewise, in no case should any person inside the organization, or any client or customer, be called or referred to as crazy, insane, stupid, moron, or any disability label in a context that would be likely to insult or denigrate them.

2. Identify individuals who make a personal habit of using disability-related words in negative ways, and specifically insist they stop and reassess.

People who call other people or situations retarded, lame, crazy, or idiotic usually do it a lot. Its a habit that reflects a generally negative and judgmental mindset and personality thats corrosive and harmful even when disability words arent used. Such toxicity can be a real drag on internal cooperation and business success. And its not only fair to pick on specific people for actually using ableist disability words, it often makes sense from a Human Resources standpoint to focus on repeat offenders, who inevitably stand out anyway.

3. Review internal and public documents and media, and replace disability-adjacent words with less stigmatizing alternatives.

Ableist language is probably less common in formal communication, like internal memos and training materials, or press releases and advertisements. But it is still important to review these things occasionally, simply because ableist language both severe and more casual is still so pervasive and habitual. Its also easier to correct even the mildest problematic wording when you find it in writing, because there is more time to come up with better alternatives.

For example:

Conclusion

Dont be deterred by arguments about good intentions, free speech, or political correctness. While not every ableist word is equally offensive, ableist language is harmful. And the good news is that its also unnecessary. A reasonable amount of effort and creativity put towards eliminating ableist words and expressions can make any business or organization a more welcoming and healthier environment, both for the people that work in them and for the people they serve.

See the article here:

Its Time To Stop Even Casually Misusing Disability Words - Forbes