By James T. Brett, Special to the Reporter
Words matter, especially when words are used as labels.
Such is the case with the so-called “r-word” (retarded) to describe people with disabilities. For far too long, derogatory terms like the r-word were part of common discourse in communities, among civic and political leaders, and media.
Words like “retarded”, “disabled,” and “handicapped” made it easier to label people as “other,” and less than. Leaders could avoid focusing on equitable treatment or inclusion, and basic respect for fellow human beings.
Words have power and influence, especially when spoken often enough in the mainstream or by people in power. Words shape perceptions, public opinion, and policy.
In Massachusetts, we are closer than ever to permanently retire the “r-word” in one of the largest collections of legal documents – Massachusetts General Laws.
An “Act Relative to Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities” – introduced by state Reps. Sean Garballey (Arlington) and Michael Finn (West Springfield), and state Sen. Patricia Jehlen (Somerville) — is close to being finalized and will hopefully be signed into law soon.
During the ongoing session, advocates for the bill secured a major victory when it passed both the House and the Senate. The two chambers are currently working to finalize the bill amid small differences and send it to the governor’s desk for signature and implementation.
As noted by the ARC of Massachusetts, a long-time advocate of the legislation, the bill would replace offensive phrases regarding people with disabilities, including words such as “retarded,” “handicap,” “disabled,” and other terms in Massachusetts General Laws with more widely accepted and appropriate language, such as “person with an intellectual or developmental disability.”
Keep moving forward
It took decades of work to effect this change. People with disabilities are part of all aspects of our community. We’ve seen the evolution of community residential programs. With the support of research, advocacy and technology, more people with disabilities have access to employment opportunities with competitive wages.
The focus on language and the damaging use of pejorative words fueled the people-first movement in the 1980s. Broad adoption meant we now look at people first and not the disability. “Disabled people” became “a person with intellectual disabilities,” for example. Organizations released style guides to support the broad use of people-first language.
And of course, the landmark civil rights law of 1990 – the Americans with Disabilities Act – was a watershed moment, creating an environment of fairness, and codifying under the law equity and inclusion for people with disabilities in all aspects of life – quality of life, education, employment, access to public spaces, health care and more.
Why this is important
Rep. Garballey sums it up this way: “We are talking about human beings. They are part of our society and in every community. For individuals with disabilities to hear these words, or read these words, it is unacceptable. And these words certainly should not be used in the text of Massachusetts General Laws. We can do better.”
It’s important because words matter! Words influence thought leaders, policymakers, public speakers and our neighbors. Words can enrich our lives or damage our sense of value or wellbeing. We cannot afford to lose ground on our values and reverse the work that has been done to treat all our neighbors with equality and dignity.
It’s time to finally retire the “r-word” and other pejorative terminology.
Jim Brett of Dorchester is the president and CEO of The New England Council. He the former chairman of the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities.
