[nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls

[John Heim]

I don't know what the big deal about using PC language is. I don't see why 
anybody would care if RFBD changes its name. If African Americans want to be 
called African Americans from now on, that's fine by me.   If a woman refers 
to herself as over weight instead of obese, what's wrong with that? This 
whole PC language thing is a tempest in a teapot  dreamed up by people who 
like to mind other people's business.

The surest way to tell people that you're more interested in your own 
convenience than their feelings is to refuse to use whatever label they've 
chosen for themselves.  Its not going to hurt you to call African Americans 
by that name if that's what they want. It might not change anything but it 
won't hurt you either. Just do it and quit whining.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls


> Frankly, I don’t think it matters one bit what language they use—it does 
> not and will never change people’s ideas in an of itself.  We all know 
> what "special" means (with quotes) in "special" education right?  And 
> "exceptional" (again with quotes) in "exceptional" learner fixed this how? 
> It didn’t.  It never will.
>
> The conflict-adverse (and usually progressively-minded) people behind such 
> things seem to be under the impression that if you reduce language that 
> that which cannot possibly be offensive, then nobody will ever be 
> offended.  Yet I have seen people refer to people with disabilities as 
> "crippled and handicapped folks" and do so with the utmost respect, 
> preserving our dignity as few ever bother to do.
>
> I have already demonstrated twice the converse.  No matter what term you 
> apply, if the user of that term has the intent of saying something that is 
> offensive, they will do it.
>
> No problem has ever been solved by redefining language.  Attempts to do so 
> are at best panicked attempts to hide a problem someone can’t figure out 
> how to solve.  At worst, redefining language is used as a willful and 
> malicious means of redefining an argument to allow for something that 
> would be seen as reprehensible in plain language.
>
> Take blatant and unabashed discrimination against a blind college student 
> on the basis of his disability—to the extreme of willful sabotage of field 
> experience work.  Astonishing, disgusting, and it happens far more than 
> any of us would like to admit, right?
>
> Let’s redefine some language.
>
> A blind person is simply a diverse learner.  We welcome diversity!  Our 
> campus and the program in question feature a very diverse background of 
> students!  Of course there are a few extreme cases where someone who is 
> clearly not cut out for a given field, despite solid grades, enthusiasm, 
> and skill both innate and acquired.  In such cases, the faculty feel it is 
> their duty to act as gatekeepers to the profession, particularly when the 
> profession is one in which there might be some risk.  You understand our 
> caution, yes?
>
> The fact that up until the time in question not one single person with a 
> disability has ever successfully completed the program and gone on to be 
> employed in the field in at least a six year time span I am aware of in 
> this case proves nothing, right?  There are a handful of such students 
> every year.  They fail out of the program, or they just can’t seem to get 
> hired they finish.
>
> Of course, nobody will call it what it is, because if you rock the boat, 
> you could wind up in trouble with the unions—er, I mean, with your 
> colleagues.  Even colleagues who are generally disliked by most   and 
> known to be doing wrong to all.  Solidarity!  So nobody is willing to 
> stand up and say, "These two people actively discussed how to ensure that 
> this student fails the program," even if they will report such details 
> privately.
>
> So people go about pretending there is nothing to see.  We don’t look too 
> deeply, because we don’t like what we will find.  All it takes to cover 
> the whole thing up is a simple facade.  Just redefine a few words and you 
> don’t even have to lie.
>
> But even when it isn’t something that onerous, it still is an attempt to 
> hide a problem.  I’ve heard that "Learning Ally" came about because people 
> who are dyslexic don’t want to be classified as having a disability.  But 
> they want their disability to be accommodated, they just don’t want to 
> have to admit they’ve got one.
>
> Why?  What is so wrong with having a disability?  In the Federation, we 
> understand this one quite well.  It’s the reason our training centers don’t 
> allow people to use folding canes they can stuff out of sight at a moment’s 
> notice (aside from the innate superiority of a rigid cane when actively 
> using one and how that superiority aids in training.)  People are ashamed 
> of their disability, and that is the problem.  Does changing the language 
> allow them to NOT be ashamed?  No, it simply allows them to pretend, as 
> long as everyone else goes along with the game.
>
> But you ARE blind.  And people ARE going to notice.  Either that or else 
> they’re not going to know, and instead they’re going to just think you’re 
> stupid.  Same thing with dyslexia.  As a dyslexic myself, I would rather 
> people think I was dyslexic than stupid.  Of course, we didn’t know about 
> my dyslexia until I was an adult because people had previously chalked my 
> difficulties up to blindness and the use of visual techniques (which were 
> all I learned as a child.)
>
> Changing the language doesn’t fix the problem, it only hides it.
>
> Joseph
>
> (If this isn’t my most coherent email ever, I’m up past my bedtime.)
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:57:19AM -0700, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>Ryan,
>>
>>I like your friends and what they had to say.
>>
>>I hate political corrections!
>>
>>Thanks for sharing!
>>
>>
>>Gloria Whipple
>>Corresponding Secretary
>>Inland Empire chapter
>>nfb of WA
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>Behalf Of Ryan O
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:37
>>To: 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
>>Subject: [nfb-talk] Learning Ally and PC Pitfalls
>>
>>Hi all. The recent name change of Recordings For the Blind and Dyslexic 
>>has
>>fostered a very interesting debate on a friend's facebook page. It put me 
>>in
>>mind of a speech by Dr. Jernigan some years ago. I decided to post some of
>>the debate here and see what others think.
>>
>>I will begin by posting the release from RFB&D, followed by some random
>>comments from my friend's Facebook page. Since I am posting the comments
>>without the permission of the various authors, I am changing their name.
>>
>>Here is the press release from RFB&D.
>>
>>Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic - Learning Ally For Blind Students
>> April 12th, 2011
>>Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D), a 63-year old nonprofit
>>organization serving over 300,000 individuals across the U.S. with 
>>learning
>>differences and reading disabilities, announced that it has officially
>>changed its name to Learning AllyT- effective April 11, 2011.
>>
>>The new name is accompanied by a tagline - Making reading accessible for
>>allT - and was selected after months of research and focus groups were
>>conducted with hundreds of RFB&D student members, parents, volunteers,
>>education professionals and other stakeholders.
>>
>>"Changing the name of a long-established national institution such as 
>>RFB&D
>>is not something we entered into lightly," says Andrew Friedman, Learning
>>Ally's President and CEO. "Our members themselves were the key driver of
>>this transformation. For one thing, our mix of users today includes
>>individuals with diverse learning differences that are outside the scope 
>>of
>>our former name.
>>
>>"Most important of all," adds Friedman, "our members have expressed loud 
>>and
>>clear that they don't wish to be labeled or typecast with a specific
>>'disability.' They just want the same opportunities to succeed that others
>>enjoy. Our new name goes to the heart of supporting their desire to learn
>>and achieve."
>>
>>Background: Recording for the Blind was founded in 1948, with a mission to
>>provide equal access to the printed word for veterans and others with
>>blindness and visual impairment. Early volunteers recorded textbooks onto
>>vinyl discs and tape reels. During the 1990s, RFB extended its mission to
>>include access for people with dyslexia and learning disabilities, and
>>changed its name to RFB&D. As its library grew to become the largest of 
>>its
>>kind in the world, RFB&D made audiobooks accessible on cassettes, CDs and
>>downloadable formats with extensive navigation capabilities for students
>>with reading disabilities. Users accessed their books with specialized
>>assistive technology devices from a variety of vendors.
>>
>>In 2010, RFB&D embraced the latest mainstream technology, making its 
>>content
>>accessible on Mac and Windows computers for users at home or in school. 
>>And
>>in February 2011, a new application was released enabling its entire 
>>library
>>of downloadable audiobooks to be played on Apple iOS devices including the
>>iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. All of this is good news for the widening 
>>base
>>of students, parents, teachers and schools that Learning Ally serves.
>>
>>"We truly cherish the values of our founders and stand on the solid
>>foundation built by countless RFB&D volunteers and donors," says Andrew
>>Friedman. Today we recognize that as many as one in five individuals learn
>>differently. Now as Learning Ally, we continue to support our blind and
>>dyslexic members, while positioning the organization to be even more
>>inclusive - as an advocate and friend to people for whom access and 
>>reading
>>are barriers to learning."
>>
>>About Learning AllyT
>>
>>Founded in 1948 as Recording for the Blind, Learning Ally serves more than
>>300,000 K-12, college and graduate students, as well as veterans and
>>lifelong learners - all of whom cannot read standard print due to 
>>blindness,
>>visual impairment, dyslexia, or other learning disabilities. Learning 
>>Ally's
>>collection of more than 65,000 digitally recorded textbooks and literature
>>titles - delivered through internet downloads and various assistive
>>technology devices - is the largest of its kind in the world. More than
>>6,000 volunteers across the U.S. help to record and process the 
>>educational
>>materials, which students rely on to achieve academic and professional
>>success. Learning Ally, a 501(c)3 nonprofit, is funded by grants from the
>>U.S. Department of Education, state and local education programs, and the
>>generous contributions of individuals, foundations and corporations. For
>>more information, call (866) 732-3585 or visit 
>>http://www.LearningAlly.org.
>>
>>>From Facebook:
>>
>>Starbuck
>>cannot believe that RFB&D is changing their name to, "Learning Ally." 
>>Stupid
>>politically correct society!
>>
>>Weatherman
>>Politically correct or just shorter to say?
>>
>>Starbuck
>>Based on their own article about it, I'd say PC. They took a very 
>>roundabout
>>way of saying they don't like to place labels on people. The B and D in 
>>this
>>case standing for blind and dyslexic.
>>
>>Weatherman
>>Really? Racial slurs are ok then? Sexist remarks are perfectly acceptable?
>>PC can definitely go overboard and I always advocate clarity in
>>communication, but I think individual groups have a right to decide how
>>they'd like to be addressed or described.
>>
>>Starbuck
>>I dont' think either Dana or I are saying that racist/sexist remarks are 
>>all
>>right. But when we get so very touchy about offending someone, it goes
>>overboard. People in today's society are afraid to use the word, "blind,"
>>for example. I can't tell you the amount of euphimisms I've heard for 
>>that.
>>When I refer to someone as being black, rather than "African American," 
>>God
>>knows I'm not trying to put them down. Racism makes me angry, to put it
>>mildly. But it seems our society is so very afraid of stepping on toes now
>>that we've swung to the other extreme of what you're saying.
>>
>>Weatherman
>>I agree with you Alicia, and perhaps "we" have swung to far. I was 
>>probably
>>causing a bit of trouble :). I just don't think being PC should be 
>>outlawed.
>>It is rooted in something quite sensible.
>>
>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>Weatherman, you are right in the fact that pc was probably rooted in good
>>intentions. But what is it they say about the road to hell...
>>
>>Starbuck and I are all too familiar with political correctness gone to the
>>extreme. Neither she, or I, or any blind person I've ever heard of or
>>encountered asked to be called, "visually impaired." Yet, here we are in 
>>the
>>21st century, where every agency and service for the blind uses the term,
>>"visually impaired." Where did the term come from? I can't answer it, but 
>>I
>>can hazzard an educated guess. The sighted professionals in the
>>rehabilitation field came up with that term to soften the blow of 
>>blindness
>>upon the public. But I can tell you that the only thing that has changed 
>>in
>>my 30 years of living has been the language used to address our issues.
>>People are far more careful about what they say and how they say it, but 
>>the
>>careful maneuvering through the minefield of sensitivity only serves to
>>high-light the fact that the problems still remain.
>>
>>I'm not a black guy, or gay, or female or a lot of things, but the 
>>softening
>>of the language over the past three decades or so has done nothing to
>>convince me that political correctness serves as a means to foster any 
>>sort
>>of meaningful form of dialogue between groups. The labels are still there.
>>they are just a lot more fancy than they used to be.
>>
>>Perry Mason
>>Harry, I saw your comment after posting my first one. I don't want to
>>monopolize this topic but had to respond to it. In my experience, the 
>>label
>>of visually impaired versus blind actually makes a difference. When
>>interviewing for jobs, or talking with professors about accommodations, 
>>the
>>term visually impaired seems to get you less resistance from them. They 
>>seem
>>to ask fewer questions about how you do X, Y, and Z, and seem to be more
>>willing to trust you when you explain that you have the situation under
>>control. Perhaps this is because the term "visually impaired" allows them 
>>to
>>think you have more vision than you do, but whatever the reason, I like 
>>the
>>results. That being said, you know I'm not a fan of our ultra PC society.
>>
>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>Perry, you are making my point for me. If your professors are in deed less
>>resistent to the term, "visually impaired," as opposed to the notion of 
>>you
>>being, "blind," then that speaks more to their discomfort with your
>>disability as a whole, rather than the phraseology.
>>
>>Perry Mason
>>Harry,
>>I don't think we can separate people's discomfort with a condition from 
>>the
>>way in which it is discussed. The terminology you choose when talking 
>>about
>>traits you have provides important context for others. Specifically, it
>>helps them interpret the significance and quality of that trait to the
>>person speaking. This is especially true if the audience has not 
>>experienced
>>the trait in question themselves. Suppose a woman were to say that she was
>>not slim when discussing her physical appearance. Doesn't that have a
>>different connotation from obese? And if so, can you be faulted as a
>>listener for coming to a different set of conclusions about her depending 
>>on
>>the terminology she uses? As a hypothetical, this woman is describing the
>>exact same body with both sets of phrases.
>>You could argue that this means people are more uncomfortable with obesity
>>than they are with an overweight person. I'm sure that's true to an 
>>extent,
>>but a lot of people don't know what to think before she starts talking. 
>>They
>>have no personal experience with being heavy. Thus, the next thing to do 
>>is
>>to utilize language the speaker chooses as a guide for understanding what
>>and how she thinks about it. Her thoughts then act as a guide for the ways
>>in which I should react accordingly.
>>I think this is the same with blindness. The word "blind" has a lot of
>>negative connotation surrounding it, and some of it does not have to do 
>>with
>>disabled people at all. Examples include being blind drunk, being robbed
>>blind, blindsided, etc. These common expressions do not deal with the
>>physical condition but are used to discuss crappy events in every day 
>>life.
>>Thus, by using the term "blind", a speaker is associating himself with
>>negatives, indicating to others that he views his lack of vision as such.
>>The next logical reaction is to approach the condition with fear and
>>distrust.
>>I therefore conclude that phraseology helps people decide how 
>>uncomfortable
>>to be or not with the actual substantive issues. Granted, it's only one
>>factor, and we should not use language that entirely hides the plain
>>realities of life.
>>Just some food for thought.
>>
>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>Perry, once again, you have succeeded in making my point for me. Ironic 
>>that
>>you are employing fanciful wording and logical contortionism to make your
>>arguments, while all the while high-lighting the real problem. To me, this
>>is the essence of political correctness. *grin*
>>
>>Interesting that you use the example of an obese female as a comparison,
>>since society tends to stigmatize obese women in the same way that it
>>stigmatizes blind people. A woman may choose to refer to herself as "not
>>slim," "obese," or "fat," but in the end, the person she is talking to 
>>knows
>>she is overweight, whether he/she is fat or not.
>>
>>You are correct when you say that the obese woman has no power over the
>>person's reaction to her self-description, but the cumulative effect of 
>>her
>>condition still has an impact on the person in question. He/she still 
>>knows
>>that this person is overweight, and whether we couch this in harsh or
>>euphemistic terminology, the end result is the same. The imagery 
>>associated
>>with obesity; ugliness, gluttony, laziness, still lingers. The fat jokes
>>still remain, but now they are whispered and snickered at privately rather
>>than being trumpeted in public. No, I can't experience life as a fat lady,
>>but I can witness the societal evidence around me that indicates that she 
>>is
>>still viewed with contempt.
>>
>>Life is the same when you are blind. You can contort yourself to more 
>>easily
>>operate within the comfort level of your professor, potential mate or
>>perspective employer, but in the end, did it make a difference in being
>>hired whether you used the word, "blind," or "visually impaired?" Most 
>>blind
>>people will answer with a resounding, "no!" That is evidence enough to
>>illustrate the fact that political correctness has not helped us get where
>>we need to be.
>>
>>Perry Mason
>>Hi Harry,
>>In your previous message, you wrote something that I want to respond to.
>>"A woman may choose to refer to herself as "not slim," "obese," or "fat,"
>>but in the end, the person she is talking to knows she is overweight,
>>whether he/she is fat or not. This is correct, but the goal was never to
>>hide her weight issue. It was, instead, to frame it in a less threatening
>>and negative light. Next, you write: You are correct when you say that the
>>obese woman has no power over the person's reaction to her 
>>self-description,
>>but the cumulative effect of her condition still has an impact on the 
>>person
>>in question. He/she still knows that this person is overweight, and 
>>whether
>>we couch this in harsh or euphemistic terminology, the end result is the
>>same." I have to disagree with your conclusion. Your own language 
>>indicates
>>how you feel about yourself. This, in turn, effects how others perceive 
>>you
>>and treat you. So, if a woman says "I'm obese", and another says "I know 
>>I'm
>>overweight or not thin"," they are likely to get different sociological
>>reactions from their peers and employers. Yes, it's correct that others 
>>will
>>still joke about this physical imperfection. Everything else can be made
>>into a joke, so obesity doesn't escape that unfortunate fact. There's one
>>more aspect I wanted to respond to. In the last line of your message, you
>>talk about jokes being whispered to one another, instead of trumpetted in
>>public. You seem to say that this, too, winds up with the same cumulative
>>effect. I'm not sure this is the case either. If someone knows they will 
>>get
>>in hot water by making fat jokes, they will be careful who they say it to.
>>We still have bullies, but this potentially means that others, who have 
>>not
>>yet made their minds up about how to treat the woman in question won't get
>>the idea that it's acceptable and socially appropriate to laugh at her.
>>Instead, she has a better chance of introducing herself, humanizing her 
>>and
>>the condition, and being treated more normally by many people. She will 
>>not
>>convince the prick who would have laughed openly in our non PC society, 
>>but
>>she very well could influence those not contaminated by such drivel if it
>>was not openly allowed. You may think that people are going to do what 
>>they
>>want, regardless of regulations and any degree of political correctness.
>>However, people are astoundingly seceptable to peer pressure, even as
>>adults. In fact, a sociologist conducted an experiment where a person in
>>authority commanded people to shock a volunteer who made mistakes 
>>completing
>>a task. Each time a mistake was made, the voltage was increased. Even as
>>high as 320 volts, nearly three quarters of people pushed the button, 
>>simply
>>because someone else said so. Can you imagine this effect if we allowed
>>jokes about those we perceive as ugly to be trumpetted? It would be like 
>>the
>>Milgram effect on steroids. Can political correctness hide one's condition
>>and perceived flawes? No it cannot. However, I am of the belief that it 
>>does
>>change the ways others view you and them.
>>
>>Hieronymus Bosch
>>Perry, it appears we're going to have to agree to disagree about this 
>>issue.
>>You are approaching it from an idealistic perspective, while I am viewing 
>>it
>>from a more practical standpoint. Your analogy with the electroshock study
>>is interesting, but ultimately, it only amounts to a hypothetical that can
>>never be quantified in a social framework.
>>
>>My original premise was that political correctness has not aided the blind
>>in our quest to overcome many of the stereotypes facing us. Our 
>>staggeringly
>>and consistently high unemployment rate bolsters my argument. I don't know
>>what your current employment situation is, but I look forward to 
>>revisiting
>>this debate with you in a decade or so.
>>
>>Cheers, my friend.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>nfb-talk:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%40webba
>>nd.com
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>>nfb-talk:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net