DISABILITIES

                        SEE

                        PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Library Access -- http://www.rit.edu/~easi
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of joe redman
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 1:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Another call for positive language
>
>
> Hi All,
>     A comment if I may. The Library of Congress' decision is a
> logical one.
> The terms fit their classification scheme.Their use would make finding
> subject matter easier. The term people can be sub-divided
> indefinitely. This
> alone makes it technically impractical.
>     That said... The LCSH has always been an imperfect tool. Its revisions
> reflect changes in American society. i.e. Colored, to Negro, to Black. In
> this case they are only ten years behind the times in their use of
> "disabled" for "handicapped." The use of the term "people" first would not
> necessarily invite swarms of groups hungry for the term. In fact,
> use of the
> term "with," and exclusion of terms such as "of" and "who are," will make
> the field virtually exclusive. It is especially feasible because
> this group
> is a subset of all other groups.
>     While librarians are concerned with  finding things, they are also
> involved in cultural advancement. Use of the term "People with
> Disabilities"
> will make the subject harder to find but it also serves to notify
> everyone,
> especially those looking into the subject, that this country considers
> persons with a disability as people first. (In theory at least.) In the
> "spirit" of ADA, LC should adapt to persons with a disability instead of
> having them try to fit into pre arranged categories.
>     This would be a pro active step that would have immediate positive
> impact on librarians and their patrons everywhere. I have full confidence
> that both the ALA and LC will adopt this policy within the next
> fifty years.
> Sincerely,
> Joe
> "The History of American Libraries Disservice to Persons with a
> Disability."
> http://www.infinex.com/~jr/welcome.htm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SCLS-TB+ Julie Klauber" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 10:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Another call for positive language
>
>
> > Ellen,
> >
> > I am a great supporter of "people first" language; I use it
> when I write,
> > talk, do presentations, and, most importantly, I think it. And I deplore
> the
> > term handicapped, which, aside from its negative connotations,
> is totally
> > misused.
> >
> > That said, the librarian in me thinks it that it is unrealistic for the
> > Library of Congress to use the term "People with Disabilities" as a
> subject
> > heading.  First of all, most library users seeking information about
> people
> > with disabilities are unlikely to think of "people..." as the first (or
> even
> > second or third) term to search.
> >
> > In addition, imagine if other interest groups felt the same
> way. We'd have
> > hundreds of subject headings like "People of Color," "People of Italian
> > Descent," "People Who Are Women," "People Who Are Blind" (or
> "People with
> > Blindness"), and so on and so on and so on.
> >
> > Our job as librarians is to make finding information easier.
> As much as I
> > support people first language, I think its use in a catalog or similar
> > finding aid is not practical and will not help our patrons find
> information
> > easily.  I, too, do not like the terms "handicapped" and "disabled
> persons."
> > I don't know what the right answer is (if indeed there is one), but I
> > certainly think its impact on library users warrants some more
> > consideration.  Neither we nor the Library of Congress should jump into
> this
> > kind of change without considerable discussion among both librarians and
> > people with disabilities.
> >
> > Julie Klauber
> > Suffolk Cooperative Library System / Talking Books Plus
> > http://www.suffolk.lib.ny.us/tbp
> > Disability Resources, inc.
> > http://www.disabilityresources.org
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ellen Perlow <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:08 PM
> > Subject: Another call for positive language
> >
> >
> > > Dear Accessibility Advocates:
> > >
> > > 1. Item: The Library of Congress Cataloging Policy and Support Office
> > [CPSO]
> > > has decided to change THIS SUMMER the LC Subject Heading "Handicapped"
> > (bad) to
> > > "Disabled persons" (much worse) - unless we successfully advocate NOW
> for
> > > people-first language.  What was LC CPSO's authority? LC CPSO
> based its
> > > decision on the reading of an American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton
> > Mifflin,
> > > 2000) usage note  - rather than the reading of the
> people-first language
> > that
> > > the U.S. Congress, the agency that LC serves, has enacted into U.S.
> > law-The
> > > ADA, etc.) or checking with members of the community in question.
> > >
> > > Write NOW to advocate for people-first language ("People with
> disabilities
> > or
> > > Individuals with disabilities" - the standard descriptors in
> the A.D.A.
> > and
> > > other U.S. post-A.D.A. legislation/amendments) to:
> > >
> > > Mr. Paul Weiss
> > > Cataloging Policy and Support Office
> > > Library of Congress
> > > 101 Independence Avenue S.E.
> > > Washington, D.C. 20540
> > >
> >
>