Don't use "differently abled" in college: IHE article

[polly_mer]

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/11/04/why-labeling-disabled-students-just-differently-abled-does-disservice-them

[mamselle]

I can't read the article right this minute, but my understanding has been that this is the preferred term of reference by the individuals so affected/afflicted for a decade or more.

Viewpoints may be evolving, I'll look forward to seeing if that's so, but the title sounds as if someone just doesn't want to get woke on the matter.

M.

[Hibush]

The bottom line:

Linguistically turning a blind eye with "differently abled" -- pretending these challenges aren't real, but only different -- does not help these students and perhaps does a shameful disservice to them. Learning to read with dyslexia or doing math with dyscalculia is exceptionally hard, but it has to happen if one hopes to navigate the world. Calling one differently abled doesn't achieve this.

The author identifies as disabled, and is a successful professor despite the challenges his disabilities create.

[marshwiggle]

I can't read the article right this minute, but my understanding has been that this is the preferred term of reference by the individuals so affected/afflicted for a decade or more.

Viewpoints may be evolving, I'll look forward to seeing if that's so, but the title sounds as if someone just doesn't want to get woke on the matter.

M.

From the opening of the article:

A department chair recently announced at a meeting that students challenged by cognitive, psychological or emotional issues are to no longer be referred to as "disabled." We must henceforth call them "differently abled." The change is well-meaning but harms many students it was aimed at helping. I know this because I am not only the adviser to Phoenix Rising, our college's support group for students with learning challenges, but I am myself learning disabled.

So not "someone [who] just doesn't want to get woke on the matter".

[wareagle]

In ten or fifteen years, "differently abled" will come under fire and some other term will evolve.

[marshwiggle]

In ten or fifteen years, "differently abled" will come under fire and some other term will evolve.

Of course, because the underlying reason for the distinction remains. And as the author points out, the fact that it does represent some sort of disadvantage means that whatever term is used is still understood in the context of that disadvantage. No matter what new term is introduced, it will have a similar shelf life for the same reason.

[polly_mer]

In ten or fifteen years, "differently abled" will come under fire and some other term will evolve.

I'm pretty sure that we're already 10+ years of 'differently abled' and the fire has already started, at least in places I regularly read.

[phi-rabbit]

It is also my understanding that "differently abled" is no longer a generally preferred term in that community.

[namazu]

It is also my understanding that "differently abled" is no longer a generally preferred term in that community.

I don't think it ever really was.  And I say this as someone who, in my college years, was involved in the disability awareness/activism community.

Similarly, "person-first language" (i.e., "a person with visual impairments" vs. "a blind person") has also been divisive and is not universally preferred among people with disabilities (/ disabled people).

[Parasaurolophus]

It is also my understanding that "differently abled" is no longer a generally preferred term in that community.

I don't think it ever really was.  And I say this as someone who, in my college years, was involved in the disability awareness/activism community.

Similarly, "person-first language" (i.e., "a person with visual impairments" vs. "a blind person") has also been divisive and is not universally preferred among people with disabilities (/ disabled people).

That was my understanding as well. I'm all for changing the way we talk about things, people, or communities to better reflect what we want to communicate, but those efforts do have to be informed by up-to-date consideration of those affected.

[wareagle]

It is also my understanding that "differently abled" is no longer a generally preferred term in that community.

I don't think it ever really was.  And I say this as someone who, in my college years, was involved in the disability awareness/activism community.

Similarly, "person-first language" (i.e., "a person with visual impairments" vs. "a blind person") has also been divisive and is not universally preferred among people with disabilities (/ disabled people).

That was my understanding as well. I'm all for changing the way we talk about things, people, or communities to better reflect what we want to communicate, but those efforts do have to be informed by up-to-date consideration of those affected.

I agree, but those affected are seldom of one opinion. 

[marshwiggle]

It is also my understanding that "differently abled" is no longer a generally preferred term in that community.

I don't think it ever really was.  And I say this as someone who, in my college years, was involved in the disability awareness/activism community.

Similarly, "person-first language" (i.e., "a person with visual impairments" vs. "a blind person") has also been divisive and is not universally preferred among people with disabilities (/ disabled people).

That was my understanding as well. I'm all for changing the way we talk about things, people, or communities to better reflect what we want to communicate, but those efforts do have to be informed by up-to-date consideration of those affected.

I agree, but those affected are seldom of one opinion.

Which maybe suggests that people should just chill a bit, and not get self-righteous and censorious as they are informing others about what the "new PROPER" way is to refer to <whatever group> many of whom may not care or may even disagree.

[financeguy]

This term was already one of the targets in George Carlin's "soft words" routine in the 90s. I wasn't aware until this section that anyone was still using it. I have generally heard the actual condition referenced rather than disabled, differently abled or any other more general term.

As I have documented here, I have been the target of requests from a serial complainer who uses the disability office to rewrite the requirements of my class and others he has taken. I have a skepticism for any umbrella term that puts someone with a visual or auditory ailment in the same category as people with frivolous claims such as difficulty paying attention or the need to have Fido with them at all times. We all know you get any MD + administrator to sign off on any of these made up conditions no matter how absurd. For this reason I resist anything that gives them an "umbrella" legitimacy such as disabled, differently abled, handicapped, etc. Joe is blind. We'll accommodate Joe in whatever way necessary. Susan can't possible learn physics without her poodle lodged in her purse. We should laugh that out of the building and not put both of these people in the same umbrella term, whatever it might be. 

[smallcleanrat]

This term was already one of the targets in George Carlin's "soft words" routine in the 90s. I wasn't aware until this section that anyone was still using it. I have generally heard the actual condition referenced rather than disabled, differently abled or any other more general term.

As I have documented here, I have been the target of requests from a serial complainer who uses the disability office to rewrite the requirements of my class and others he has taken. I have a skepticism for any umbrella term that puts someone with a visual or auditory ailment in the same category as people with frivolous claims such as difficulty paying attention or the need to have Fido with them at all times. We all know you get any MD + administrator to sign off on any of these made up conditions no matter how absurd. For this reason I resist anything that gives them an "umbrella" legitimacy such as disabled, differently abled, handicapped, etc. Joe is blind. We'll accommodate Joe in whatever way necessary. Susan can't possible learn physics without her poodle lodged in her purse. We should laugh that out of the building and not put both of these people in the same umbrella term, whatever it might be.

Like namazu, I don't personally remember ever seeing "differently abled" in common use. "Disability" or "disabled" I see used often. I wouldn't say those terms have the same problem as "differently abled." The author of the article points out the issue is that "differently abled" is a term that avoids any implication of the challenges living with a disability involves. Similar to those nauseatingly "inspirational" quotes like "the only disability is a bad attitude."

I'm not sure what you mean by "umbrella" legitimacy conveyed by a specific word. If your objection is that the word "disabled" alone isn't informative as to specificity, is this really a problem with that term or is it a problem of using the term where you think it doesn't apply? For administrative reasons alone, I can see value in having a broad term for students who might require accommodations, regardless of the specific reasons. "Umbrella" terms may simply reflect the reality that types of disabilities are variable as are individual experiences within types.

Do you object to terms such as "visually-impaired?" Because "blindness" isn't all-or-nothing. A person can have some sight and still require accommodations (and sometimes these people are accused of being frauds if they appear to react to something visual). People who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids can also get a lot of grief if casual observers decree they aren't "disabled enough" to need them. Like, "Hey, that guy just stood up to get something off a shelf! He doesn't need a wheelchair! Probably faking for benefit money." Because standing for 5 seconds is absolute proof of perfect health.

When you refer to "frivolous claims" and "made up conditions" are you referring to any claim that refers to a cognitive difficulty? Do you lump service animals (distinct from the nebulously-defined, poorly-regulated "support animals") in the same "frivolous" class as the poodle in the purse if those animals are not seeing-eye dogs? Would you object to accommodating an alert dog for someone with diabetes or seizures? How about a service animal for someone with PTSD?

If the "difficulty paying attention" stems from the aftereffects of concussion or from absence seizures, is it still frivolous?  What about ADHD or autism? Are these "made up" conditions? Note: saying that it is too easy to get a fake or faulty diagnosis in order to game the accommodations system is not the same as saying the conditions themselves are made up.

And, while I'm sure you could easily pull up many articles describing outrageous cases of abuses of the system, I'm not convinced "you get any MD + administrator to sign off on any of these made up conditions." It's not like the instances when someone is rejected when trying to get benefits or accommodations with an illegitimate claim make good clickbait. Have you seen any studies beyond anecdotes indicating this is really the norm? Maybe there are; I just haven't seen them.

I remember your thread about the "serial complainer." You didn't give a lot of detail there, but I got the impression that the student was not successful in getting the special considerations he was agitating for. You said the department chair and the program chair knew he had a history of this type of behavior and said they would handle it. Did the student get what he wanted after all or was he thwarted by the administration?

[phi-rabbit]

Like namazu, I don't personally remember ever seeing "differently abled" in common use. "Disability" or "disabled" I see used often.

My admittedly fuzzy recollection is that it was something I heard used fairly often in a well-meaning way around the 1990s (though this may well not have come from anyone in the actual community) but that subsequently, the balance tipped heavily in favor of ironic or snide usage.