What is ableism?
Ableism is manifested in our society in a variety of ways. Thomas Hehir, a disability activist and scholar describes ableism as “the devaluation of disability that, resulting in societal attitudes that uncritically assert that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell independently than use a spell-check, and hang out with non-disabled kids as opposed to other disabled kids” (Hehir, 2002).
Whether certain langauge and actions are used unconsciously or consciously doesn’t reduce the impact. Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso (2001) explain this using their term “microaggressions,” which are the unconscious, automatic, and subtle insults. The cumulative effect of microaggressions can negatively impact both individuals and communities. Pierce (1995) explains that, “In and of itself a microaggression may seem harmless, but the cumulative burden ... can theoretically contribute to a diminished mortality, augmented morbidity, and a flattened confidence.”
Person first vs disability first language
When creating communications, one simple rule is to acknowledge if identification of disability is necessary, then decide what standard to us. Person first language recommends “Person with a disability” rather than “Disabled Person.” Person-first language has been prescribed by many as a linguistic norm; however its use has faced criticism. C. Edwin Vaughan states, “Many blind people are proud of the accomplishments of their brothers and sisters … blind is no longer a symbol of shame. To say, "I am blind" or "I am a blind person" no longer seems negative to many” (Vaughan, 2018). Disability first language acknowledges that disability is inherently in part created by society, so it may be more linguistically proper to say "disabled person."
There is no hard and fast rule, though it is always best to learn individual preferences when writing about an individual. When writing about disability broadly, we recommend using both interspersed, as we are at an inflection point with this topic.
Terminology
The following table presents some terms and language considered derogatory. More resources for further reading are included as well.
| Non-inclusive language | Inclusive language |
|---|---|
| Any derogatory language |
Recognize that you are speaking about/with a person. In many cases, there is no need to address disability terminology/identity. If you do, realize why you want to use identity language and define it. Often referring to someone in name only is best. |
|
“special” “special needs” “special bus” “special treatment” |
Frames accommodations for a disability as “special treatment,” indicates that accommodations are a nuisance, a hassle, or something that isn’t really necessary. Inclusive terminology: Person(s) with disabilities, accommodations, education for people with disabilities, adapted programs. |
|
“wheelchair bound” “confined to a wheelchair” |
It’s important to remember that not all people who use wheelchairs use them all the time. Confined/bound frames using a wheelchair as a negative/constricting experience. Inclusive terminology: “Julie is a full time wheelchair user,” “Julio is a part time wheelchair user.” |
|
“Suffers from/sufferer/victim of” Example: “Consuelo suffers from depression.” “Gunther is a victim of a traumatic brain injury.” |
We shouldn’t assume that a person with a disability is a victim or is suffering. Someone can be suffering and have a disability, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the person is suffering because of the disability. Inclusive terminology: “Consuelo has depression.” “Gunther has a traumatic brain injury.” These framings are value neutral. They provide information on the disability a person has, without turning victimizing them. |
|
“mentally disabled” "mental disorder" |
This term I vague, do you mean an intellectual or cognitive disability? “Mentally disabled/disorder,” in addition to often being read (and used) as a slur, is not terribly accurate. Any number of disabilities can involve the brain. Inclusive terminology: Cognitive, intellectual, or psychological disability. |
|
“physically challenged” |
Disability is often framed as a “challenge” that must be “overcome” pressure is put on people with disabilities to be “brave.” Inclusive terminology: Person(s)/people/individuals with physical disabilities. |
|
“crazy” |
Can be a destructive word, used to hurt people. It’s used to discredit, to marginalize, and to shame people with psychological disabilities. Discourages people who have psychological disabilities to self-identify. Inclusive terminology: Person(s)/people/individuals with mental health conditions. People who have intellectual or psychological disabilities. |
|
“lame” “gimp” “retarded” |
The use of the words lame, gimp, or retarded reinforces an underlying assumption that people who have a disability are also lesser and worthy of scorn, which in turn reinforces the underlying assumption that people with disabilities are inherently less than those without disabilities. |
Written by Disability Access Services and Equal Opportunity and Access.
References
Disability Language Style Guide, National Center on Disability and Journalism.
Disability Etiquette (PDF), United Spinal Association.
Language Guide, Syracuse University Disability Cultural Center.
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1-33.
Pierce, C. (1995). Stress analogs of racism and sexism: Terrorism, torture, and disaster. In C. Willie, P. Rieker, B. Kramer, & B. Brown (Eds.), Mental health, racism, and sexism (pp. 277-293). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.
Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate. The Journal of Negro Education, Winter 2000(69), 60-73.
Vaughan, C. E., & Schroeder, F. K. (2018). Social and Cultural Perspectives on Blindness (Second Edition). Springfield, Il: Charles C Thomas.