Re: kids together inc/ another usefull link

August 19, 2006

http://wps.ablongman.com/ab_na_onthenet_02/0,4240,65743-,00.html

kids together inc

>

> Kids Together, Inc.

>

> To ensure Inclusion, Freedom, and Respect

> for all, we must use

> PEOPLE FIRST LANGUAGE

> A commentary by Kathie Snow

>

> Who are the so-called " handicapped " or " disabled " ?

> According to stereotypical perceptions, they are:

> People who suffer from the tragedy of birth defects.

> Paraplegic heroes who struggle to become normal again.

> Victims who fight to overcome their challenges.

> Categorically, they are called retarded, autistic, blind, deaf,

> learning disabled, etc., etc., etc.-ad naseum!

> Who are they, really?

> Moms and Dads. . . Sons and Daughters . . . Employees and Employers

> Friends and Neighbors . . . Students and Teachers. . . Leaders and

Followers

> Scientists, Doctors, Actors, Presidents, and More

> They are people.

> They are people, first.

>

> People with disabilities constitute our nation's largest minority group.

It

> is also the most inclusive and most diverse: both genders, any sexual

> orientation, and all ages, religions, socioeconomic levels, and

ethnicities

> are represented. Yet people who have been diagnosed with disabilities are

> all different from one another. The only thing they have in common is

being

> on the receiving end of societal misunderstanding, prejudice, and

> discrimination. Furthermore, this largest minority group is the only one

> which any person can become part of, at any time! Some join at

birth-others

> in the split second of an accident, through illness, or during the aging

> process. If and when it happens to you, will you have more in common with

> others who have disability diagnoses or with family, friends, and

> co-workers? How will you want to be described? And how will you want to be

> treated?

>

> The Power of Language and Labels

> Words are powerful. Old and inaccurate descriptors, and the inappropriate

> use of these descriptors, perpetuate negative stereotypes and reinforce an

> incredibly powerful attitudinal barrier. And this invisible, but potent,

> attitudinal barrier is the greatest obstacle facing individuals who have

> disability diagnoses. When we describe people by their medical diagnoses,

we

> devalue and disrespect them as individuals. Do you want to be known

> primarily by your psoriasis, gynecological history, the warts on your

> behind, or any other condition?

>

> Worse, medical diagnoses are frequently used to define a person's

potential

> and value! In the process, we crush people's hopes and dreams, and

relegate

> them to the margins of society. If we know about (or see) a person's

> diagnosis, we (mistakenly) think we know something important about him,

and

> we give great weight to this information, using it to determine how/where

a

> person will be educated, what type of job he will/won't have, where/how

he'

> ll live, and more. In effect, a person's future may be determined by those

> with authority over him, based on the diagnosis. Today, millions of

children

> and adults with disability diagnoses are effectively " incarcerated " behind

> the walls of " special (segregated) places: " special ed classrooms,

> congregate living quarters, day programs, sheltered work environments, and

> more-all because of the diagnosis that's been assigned. When incorrectly

> used as a measure of a person's abilities or potential, medical diagnoses

> can ruin people's lives.

>

> Inaccurate Descriptors

> " Handicapped " is an archaic term-it's no longer used in any federal

> legislation-that evokes negative images (pity, fear, and more). The origin

> of the word is from an Old English bartering game, in which the loser was

> left with his " hand in his cap " and was thought to be at a disadvantage. A

> legendary origin of the " H-word " refers to a person with a disability

> begging with his " cap in his hand. " This antiquated, derogatory term

> perpetuates the stereotypical perception that people with disability

> diagnoses make up one homogenous group of pitiful, needy people! Other

> people who share a certain characteristic are not all alike; similarly,

> individuals who have disability diagnoses are not alike. In fact, people

who

> have disabilities are more like people who don't have disabilities than

> different!

>

> The " handicapped " descriptor is often used for parking spaces, hotel

rooms,

> restrooms, etc. But most accommodations so designated provide access for

> people with physical or mobility needs. These modifications may provide

> little or no benefit for people with visual, hearing, or cognitive

> diagnoses. This is just one example of the inaccuracy and misuse of the

> H-word as a generic descriptor. (The accurate term for modified parking

> spaces, hotel rooms, etc. is " accessible. " )

> The difference between the right word

> and the almost right word

> is the difference between lightning

> and the lightning bug.

> Mark Twain

> " Disabled " is also not appropriate. Traffic reporters frequently say,

> " disabled vehicle. " (They once said, " stalled car. " ) In that context,

> " disabled " means " broken down. " People with disabilities are not broken!

>

> If a new toaster doesn't work, we call it " defective " and return it for a

> new one! Shall we return babies who have " birth defects " ? The more

accurate

> and respectful descriptor is " congenital disability. "

>

> Many parents say, " I have a child with special needs. " This term typically

> generates pity, as demonstrated by the, " Oh, I'm so sorry, " response, a

sad

> look, or a sympathetic pat on the arm. (Gag!) A person's needs aren't

> " special " to him-they're ordinary! I've never met an adult with a

disability

> diagnosis who wants to be called " special. " Let's learn from those with

real

> experience, and stop inflicting this pity-laden descriptor on others.

>

> What is a Disability?

> Is there a universally-accepted definition of disability? No! What

> constitutes a disability depends on who you ask and what services a person

> receives. First and foremost, a disability label is a medical diagnosis,

> which becomes a sociopolitical passport to services or legal status.

Beyond

> that, the definition is up for grabs! The " disability criteria " for early

> childhood services is different from vocational-rehabilitation which is

> different from special ed which is different from worker's compensation,

> etc. Thus, disability is a social construct, created to identify people

who

> may be entitled to specific services or legal protections because of

certain

> characteristics.

>

> Disability is Not the " Problem "

> Because society tends to view disability as a " problem, " this seems to be

> the #1 word used about people with disability diagnoses. People without

> disabilities, however, don't spend a lot of time talking about their

> problems. They know this would promote an inaccurate perception of

> themselves, and it would also be counterproductive to creating a positive

> image. A person who wears glasses, for example, doesn't say, " I have a

> problem seeing. " She says, " I wear [or need] glasses. "

>

> What is routinely called a " problem " actually reflects a need. Thus,

> doesn't " have a problem walking, " she " needs/uses a wheelchair. "

doesn'

> t " have behavior problems; " he " needs behavior supports. " Do you want to

be

> known by your " problems " or by the multitude of positive characteristics

> which make you the unique individual you are? When will people without

> disabilities begin speaking about people with disabilities in the

respectful

> way they speak about themselves?

>

> Then there's the " something wrong " descriptor, as in, " We knew there was

> something wrong when... " What must it feel like, to a child, to hear his

> parents repeat this over and over and over again, throughout his

childhood?

> How would you feel if those who are supposed to love and support you

> constantly talked about what's " wrong " with you? Let's stop talking this

> way!

>

> The Real Problems are Attitudinal and Environmental Barriers

> A change in attitude can change everything. If educators believed children

> with disability diagnoses are boys and girls who have the potential to

> learn, who need the same quality of education as their brothers and

sisters,

> and who have a future in the adult world of work, we wouldn't have

millions

> of children being segregated and undereducated in special ed rooms.

> If thought corrupts language,

> language can also corrupt thought.

> Orwell

> If employers believed adults with disability diagnoses have (or could

learn)

> valuable job skills, we wouldn't have an estimated 75% unemployment rate

of

> people with disabilities! If merchants saw people with disabilities as

> customers with money to spend, we wouldn't have so many inaccessible

stores,

> theaters, restrooms, and more. If the service system saw people with

> disabilities as " customers, " instead of " clients, " " consumers, " or

> " recipients, " perhaps it would focus on meeting a person's real needs

(like

> inclusion, friendships, etc.) instead of trying to remediate a person's

> " problems. "

>

> And if individuals with disabilities and family members saw themselves as

> first-class citizens who can and should be fully included in all areas of

> life, we might also focus on what's really important (living a Real Life),

> instead of a Special Life governed by services that often result in social

> isolation and physical segregation.

>

> A New Paradigm

> " Disability is a natural part of the human condition... "

> U.S. Developmental Disabilities/Bill of Rights Act

>

> Yes, disability is natural, and it can be redefined as a " body part that

> works differently. " A person with spina bifida has legs that work

> differently, a person with Down syndrome learns differently, and so forth.

> And when we recognize that the body parts of people without disability

> diagnoses are also different, we'll know it's the way these differences

> affect a person and/or her qualifying for services, entitlements, or legal

> protections which mandates the use of a disability descriptor.

>

> A disability, like gender, ethnicity, and other traits, is simply one of

> many natural characteristics of being human. One in five Americans is a

> person with a disability diagnosis! People can no more be defined by their

> diagnoses than others can be defined by their gender, ethnicity, religion,

> sexual orientation, or anything else!

>

> Additionally, whether a person has a disability is often a consequence of

> the environment. Why are many children not diagnosed until they enter

public

> school? Is it because their parents or physicians were ignorant or " in

> denial " ? Or is it because as toddlers, they were in environments that

> supported their learning styles? But once in public school, if a child's

> learning style doesn't mesh with an educator's teaching style, we may say

he

> has a " disability. " Why do we " blame " the child, label him, and segregate

> him in " special ed " ? Why don't we simply modify the regular ed curriculum

> (per Special Ed law) to meet his individual needs?

>

> When a person is in a welcoming, accessible environment, with the

> appropriate supports, accommodations, and tools, does he still have a

> disability? I think not. Disability is not a constant state. The medical

> diagnosis may be constant, but whether or not the condition represents a

> " disability " is often more a consequence of the environment than what a

> person's body or mind can or cannot do.

>

> Using People First Language is Crucial

>

> People First Language puts the person before the disability,

> and it describes what a person has, not who a person is.

> Are you " myopic " or do you wear glasses?

> Are you " cancerous " or do you have cancer?

> Are you " freckled " or do you have freckles?

> Is a person " handicapped/disabled " or does she have a disability?

>

> If people with disability diagnoses are to be included in all aspects of

our

> communities-in the ordinary, wonderful, and typical activities most people

> take for granted-and if they're to be respected and valued, we must use

the

> ordinary, wonderful, typical language used about people who have not yet

> acquired a disability diagnosis. (If you live long enough, your time is

> coming!)

>

> Children with disability diagnoses are children, first. The only labels

they

> need are their names! Parents must not talk about their children in the

> clinical terms used by professionals. The parent of a child who wears

> glasses (diagnosis: myopia) doesn't say, " My daughter is myopic, " so why

> does the parent of a child who has a diagnosis of autism say, " My daughter

> is autistic. " ?

>

> Adults with disability diagnoses are adults, first. The only labels they

> need are their names! They must not talk about themselves the way

> professionals talk about them. An adult with a medical diagnosis of cancer

> doesn't say, " I'm cancerous, " so why does an adult with a diagnosis of

> cerebral palsy say, " I'm disabled. " ?

>

> The use of disability diagnoses is appropriate only in the service system

> (at those ubiquitous " I " team meetings) and in medical or legal settings.

> Medical labels have no place-and they should be irrelevant-within

families,

> among friends, and in the community.

>

> We often use diagnoses to convey information, as when a parent says, " My

> child has Down syndrome, " hoping others will realize her child needs

certain

> accommodations or supports. But the outcome of sharing the diagnosis can

be

> less than desirable! A diagnosis can scare people, generate pity, and/or

set

> up exclusion ( " We can't handle people like that... " ). In these

> circumstances, and when it's appropriate, we can simply describe the

person'

> s needs in a respectful, dignified manner and omit the diagnosis.

> The greatest discovery of my

> generation is that human beings

> can alter their lives by altering

> their attitudes of mind.

>

> Besides, the diagnosis is nobody's business! Have individuals with

> disabilities given us permission to share their personal information with

> others? If not, how dare we violate their trust! Do you routinely tell

every

> Tom, Dick, and Harry about the boil on your spouse's behind? (I hope not!)

> And too many of us talk about people with disability diagnoses in front of

> them, as if they're not there. We must stop this demeaning practice.

>

> Attitudes and language changed as a result of the Civil Rights and Women's

> Movements. The Disability Rights Movement is following in those important

> footsteps, and similar changes are occurring.

>

> My son, , is 18 years old. More important than his diagnosis are

his

> interests, strengths, and dreams. He loves history, burned fish sticks,

> classic rock, and writing movie reviews, and he's great at mimicking

actors

> and politicians! He's earned two karate belts, taken drama classes, and

> performed in five children's theater productions. Benj wants to major in

> journalism and be a movie critic. He has blonde hair, blue eyes, and

> cerebral palsy. His diagnosis is only one of many characteristics of his

> whole persona. He is not his disability. His potential cannot be predicted

> by his diagnosis.

>

> When I meet new people, I don't disclose that I'll never be a prima

> ballerina. I focus on my strengths, not on what I cannot do. Don't you do

> the same? So when speaking about my son, I don't say, " Benj can't write

with

> a pencil. " I say, " Benj writes on a computer. " I don't say, " He can't

walk. "

> I say, " He uses a power chair. " It's a simple matter of perspective. If I

> want others to know what a great young man he is-more importantly, if I

want

> him to know what a great young man I think he is-I must use positive and

> accurate descriptors that portray him as a whole, real, wonderful person,

> instead of as a collection of " defects, " " problems, " or " body parts. "

>

> A person's self-image is strongly tied to the words used to describe him.

> For generations, people with disabilities have been described by negative,

> stereotypical words which have created harmful, mythical portrayals. We

must

> stop believing (and perpetuating) the myths-the lies-of labels. We must

> believe children and adults who have been diagnosed with conditions we

call

> disabilities are unique individuals with unlimited potential to achieve

> their dreams, just like all Americans.

>

> People First Language isn't about being " politically correct. " It is,

> instead, about good manners and respect (and it was begun by individuals

who

> said, " We are not our disabilities! " ). We have the power to create a new

> paradigm of disability. In doing so, we'll change the lives of children

and

> adults who have disability diagnoses-and we'll also change ourselves and

our

> world.

>

> Isn't it time to make this change?

> If not now, when? If not you, who?

> People First Language is right.

> Just do it-NOW!

>

> Examples of People First Language

> Say:

> People with disabilities.

> He has a cognitive disability (diagnosis).

> She has autism (or an autism diagnosis).

> He has a diagnosis of Down syndrome.

> She has a learning disability (diagnosis).

> He has a physical disability (diagnosis).

> She's of short stature/she's a little person.

> He has a mental health diagnosis.

> She uses a wheelchair/mobility chair.

> He receives special ed services.

> She has a developmental delay.

> Kids without disabilities.

> Communicates with her eyes/device/etc.

> Customer

> Congenital disability

> Brain injury

> Accessible parking, hotel room, etc.

> She needs . . . or she uses . . .Instead of:

> The handicapped or disabled.

> He's mentally retarded.

> She's autistic.

> He's Down's.

> She's learning disabled.

> He's a quadriplegic/crippled.

> She's a dwarf/midget.

> He's emotionally disturbed/mentally ill.

> She's confined/wheelchair bound.

> He's in special ed.

> She's developmentally delayed.

> Normal or healthy kids.

> Is non-verbal.

> Client, consumer, recipient, etc.

> Birth defect

> Brain damaged

> Handicapped parking, hotel room, etc.

> She has problems/special needs.

> Keep thinking-there are many descriptors we need to change.

> This document may be photocopied and shared with others. Please let me how

> and when

> you use it (kathie@...). Download the PDF version

below.

> Please don't violate copyright laws; inquire before reprinting in any

> publication.

>

> Visit the Revolutionary Common Sense page for other new ways of thinking!

> You may copy and distribute in its entirety. Rev. 01/05

> As a courtesy, please notify the author, Kathie Snow at kathiesnow@...

>

> See Also:

> Pennsylvania's Executive Order

> " All Commonwealth agencies, boards or commissions under the Governor's

> jurisdiction shall use 'People First' language... "

> The following are links to other websites, use the back button on your

menu

> to return to the Kids Together, Inc's website.

>

> Web link to: President's Committee on Employment of People with

> Disabilities

> Communicating With and About People with Disabilities

> Web link to: RTCIL Home Page

> Guidelines for reporting and writing about people with disabilities

>

> Copyrighted 2005 Kids Together, Inc

>

August 19, 2006