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
> >
>