Pitfalls of Political Correctness

Pitfalls of Political Correctness

THE PITFALLS OF POLITICAL
CORRECTNESS: EUPHEMISMS EXCORIATED

by Kenneth
Jernigan

FROM THE VOICE EDITOR: This article
appeared in the BRAILLE MONITOR, August 1993, published by the National Federation
of the Blind. Five years is a long time, but I've had some experience with "PC"
myself. A few years ago, a large diabetes organization attempted to chastize
me for my use of the word "diabetic." I find their stance odd, as
the vast majority of diabetics I have encountered don't mind the term, or prefer
it to some trendy euphemism. Even more surprising, this same group, while attempting
to re-engineer its members' speech, accepts advertisements (worth thousands
of dollars each) from corporations that use "diabetic" in their text.
Of course I responded to this group's silly accusations--but they did not bother
to reply.
As civilizations decline, they become
increasingly concerned with form over substance, particularly with respect to
language. At the time of the First World War we called it shell shock--a simple
term, two one-syllable words, clear and descriptive. A generation later, after
the Second World War had come and gone, we called it combat fatigue. It meant
the same thing, and there were still just two words--but the two syllables had
grown to four. Today the two words have doubled, and the original pair of syllables
have mushroomed to eight. It even has an acronym, PTSD--post traumatic stress
disorder. It still means the same thing, and it still hurts as much or as little,
but it is more in tune with current effete sensibilities.
It is also a perfect example of the
pretentious euphemisms that characterize almost everything we do and say. Euphemisms
and the politically correct language which they exemplify are sometimes only
prissy, sometimes ridiculous, and sometimes tiresome. Often, however, they are
more than that. At their worst they obscure clear thinking and damage the very
people and causes they claim to benefit.
The blind have had trouble with euphemisms
for as long as anybody can remember, and late twentieth-century America is no
exception. The form has changed (in fact, everything is very "politically
correct"), but the old notions of inferiority and second-class status still
remain. The euphemisms and the political correctness don't help. If anything,
they make matters worse since they claim modern thought and new enlightenment.
Here is a recent example from the Federal government:
United States Department of Education
Washington, D.C.
May 4, 1993 Memorandum
TO: Office for Civil Rights Senior Staff
FROM: Jeanette J. Lim, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights
SUBJECT: Language Reference to Persons
with a Disability
As you know, the October 29, 1992, Rehabilitation
Act Amendments of 1992 replaced the term "handicap" with the term
"disability." This term should be used in all communications.
OCR recognizes the preference of individuals
with disabilities to use phraseology that stresses the individuality of all
children, youth, and adults, and then the incidence of a disability. In all
our written and oral communications, care should be given to avoid expressions
that many persons find offensive. Examples of phraseology to avoid and alternative
suggestions are noted below:
"Persons with a disability"
or "individuals with disabilities" instead of "disabled person."
"Persons who are deaf" or
"young people with hearing impairments" instead of "deaf people."
"People who are blind" or
"persons with a visual impairment" instead of "blind people."
"A student with dyslexia"
instead of "a dyslexic student."
In addition, please avoid using phrases
such as "the deaf," "the mentally retarded," or "the
blind." The only exception to this policy involves instances where the
outdated phraseology is contained in a quote or a title, or in legislation or
regulations; it is then necessary to use the citation verbatim.
I hope this information has been helpful
to you. If you have any questions about any of these favored and disfavored
expressions, feel free to contact Jean Peelen, Director, Elementary and Secondary
Education Policy Division, at (202) 205-8637.
That is what the memorandum says, and
if it were an isolated instance, we could shrug it off and forget it. But it
isn't. It is more and more the standard thinking, and anybody who objects is
subject to sanction.
Well, we of the National Federation
of the Blind do object, and we are doing something about it. At our recent national
convention in Dallas we passed a resolution on the subject, and we plan to distribute
it throughout the country and press for action on it. Here it is:
Resolution 93-01
WHEREAS, the word blind accurately and
clearly describes the condition of being unable to see, as well as the condition
of having such limited eyesight that alternative techniques are required to
do efficiently the ordinary tasks of daily living that are performed visually
by those having good eyesight; and
WHEREAS, there is increasing pressure
in certain circles to use a variety of euphemisms in referring to blindness
or blind persons--euphemisms such as hard of seeing, visually challenged, sightless,
visually impaired, people with blindness, people who are blind, and the like;
and
WHEREAS, a differentiation must be made
among these euphemisms: some (such as hard of seeing, visually challenged, and
people with blindness) being totally unacceptable and deserving only ridicule
because of their strained and ludicrous attempt to avoid such straightforward,
respectable words as blindness, blind, the blind, blind person, or blind persons;
others (such as visually impaired, and visually limited) being undesirable when
used to avoid the word blind, and acceptable only to the extent that they are
reasonably employed to distinguish between those having a certain amount of
eyesight and those having none; still others (such as sightless) being awkward
and serving no useful purpose; and still others (such as people who are blind
or persons who are blind) being harmless and not objectionable when used in
occasional and ordinary speech but being totally unacceptable and pernicious
when used as a form of political correctness to imply that the word person must
invariably precede the word blind to emphasize the fact that a blind person
is first and foremost a person; and
WHEREAS, this euphemism concerning people
or persons who are blind--when used in its recent trendy, politically correct
form-- does the exact opposite of what it purports to do since it is overly
defensive, implies shame instead of true equality, and portrays the blind as
touchy and belligerent; and
WHEREAS, just as an intelligent person
is willing to be so designated and does not insist upon being called a person
who is intelligent and a group of bankers are happy to be called bankers and
have no concern that they be referred to as persons who are in the banking business,
so it is with the blind--the only difference being that some people (blind and
sighted alike) continue to cling to the outmoded notion that blindness (along
with everything associated with it) connotes inferiority and lack of status;
now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation
of the Blind in convention assembled in the city of Dallas, Texas, this 9th
day of July, 1993, that the following statement of policy be adopted:
"We believe that it is respectable
to be blind, and although we have no particular pride in the fact of our blindness,
neither do we have any shame in it. To the extent that euphemisms are used to
convey any other concept or image, we deplore such use. We can make our own
way in the world on equal terms with others, and we intend to do it."