I believe that people are generally well meaning when they voice
concern over nomenclature. The whole subject of "identity" is a sticky
one, and most of us don't like other folks putting labels on us without
our permission. That being said, there are many pertinent policy
reasons as to why we must use some labels--albeit with the most
respect. By statute, "a person with a disability" is protected under
the ADA: "a person with a difference" is not. The term
"differently-abled" is similarly ambiguous from a policy standpoint.
This debate may have greater implications than one may think. For
instance, in a 1998 court case in Florida it was ruled that the
plaintiff was not covered under the ADA because in her own testimony
she stated that she did not consider her bipolar disorder to be a
disability (Klien v. Florida, Department of Children and Family
Services, 2d F. Supp. 2d 1367). Much more trouble may be brewing in
the future after the Supreme Court's 1999 decisions in Sutton v. United
Airlines and Murphy v. United Parcel Service in which the which the
court ruled that the use of a "mitigating measure" may preclude someone
from coverage by the ADA because their condition no longer meets the
definition of disability under the ADA. This sound like the beginning
of a paradox to me, and I cannot even begin to consider where this
reasoning could take us if used by folks who would just as soon see the
ADA go away.
So anyway...while I do believe we should be careful how we use
terminology--for instance putting the person before the disability when
we write--we still need to be mindful of the public policy perspective.
To make people realize that a disability does not reduce a persons
ability to contribute to society is very, very important. But to leave
the impression that having a disability is really no different than not
having a disability can backfire on all of us.
Steve Noble
Policy Analyst
Kentucky Assistive Technology Service Network
--- "McCraw, Jackie" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with Susan. In my experience, it is generally the people who
> do not
> have a disability who are most interested in making the term for it
> "positive."
>
> - Jackie McCraw
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SUSAN ALCORN MACKAY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:03 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: People with learning differences
>
>
> I do understand your feelings about the word disabled. however, most
> of the
> population have 'learning differences" which don't begin to quantify
> the
> intense difficulty that some people have with certain processes that
> leave
> them 'disabled' in our world of reading and writing. Legislation
> refers to
> 'disability' in order to indicate the depth of the problem and to
> indicate
> that extraordinary measures are required to level the playing field.
> I don't
> think we will get anywhere by watering down the terminology.
> Just one opinion...
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 08/01/00 10:45 AM >>>
> Dear List members:
>
> May I make a plea to refer to the subject of the current thread
> as software for PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DIFFERENCES.
>
> There's no point in looking FOR ANYTHING for people who are
> "disabled" who by dictionary definition = can't do, inoperable,
> non-functioning, incapacitated, a/k/a as good as dead.
>
> If WE don't say it right=POSITIVELY, who will?
>
> Positive Sells. Positive Wins. EVERY TIME.
>
> Ellen Perlow
> Chair, ALA ASCLA Century Scholarship Committee
> "Celebrating a New Century that Celebrates Diversity"
> http://www.ala.org/ascla/centuryscholarship.html
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Manager of Information Services
> School of Library and Information Studies
> Texas Woman's University
> P.O. Box 425438
> Denton, TX 76204-5438
> Tel.: 940-898-2622 Fax: 940-898-2611
> Web: http://twu.edu/~s_perlow/
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
|
