Taylor Armerding
Retarded: Slowed or delayed in development or progress.
Developmental: Designed to assist growth or bring about improvement (as of a skill).
Those definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and neither seems overly inflammatory or pejorative to me.
They didn't seem that way to state government either, until a few years ago when the campaign began to change the name of the state Department of Mental Retardation.
That change became official last June, and the agency is now known as the Department of Developmental Services.
Fine, I guess. It sounds much more vague to me, like it could be a department devoted to overseeing building contractors looking to develop everything from downtowns to subdivisions to theme parks.
But hey, if it makes retarded individuals and their families feel better, call it whatever you want. You know, sort of like "independent living centers," which are the exact opposite of what their name says. If the clients were independent, there would be no need for the centers.
That is not enough, however. Now, "retarded" is one more on the growing hit list of terms to be scrubbed from the English language. It is becoming a linguistic pariah, an alleged enemy of sensitivity and affirmation. That is not so fine.
Whatever happened to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
All gone, apparently. Recently, advocates were at the Statehouse trying to get both lawmakers and visitors to sign a pledge to stop using the "R-word."
According to a report on National Public Radio, there is even a move afoot to classify the word as hate speech.
This is necessary, according to those pushing for the ban, because they consider "retarded" an insulting label.
Craig Smith of Brighton, who was born brain-damaged and is founder of the group Massachusetts Advocates Standing Strong told the State House News Service, "I would love to see that word banned. When that word's used, it's a sign of ignorance."
Interesting. I don't like being called "ignorant." I'd love to see that word banned, especially when it comes to me, since a number of my loyal readers tend to use it rather frequently. Should Smith get in trouble for calling people like me (since I'm using the R-word here) ignorant?
President Obama called the Cambridge police "stupid." I suspect they felt insulted. Should we ban that, as well?
Former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been called everything from "airhead" to "bimbo" to "nitwit" and worse. I don't think it is a stretch to assume that she considers those terms insulting. Should they be banned, as well?
You can see where this is going. If we ban one pejorative word, shouldn't we ban them all? Why be so selective?
Yes, "retard" or some form of it is regularly used as an insult. Presidential Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is just one of the more famous people to do it.
But you can do that with any word, or words. Try saying "developmentally disabled" with a sneer, while putting an obscenity in front of it. Is that any less insulting than "retarded"? It is not the word that is the problem. It's the attitude.
Like it or not, banning a word is not going to eliminate prejudice or insults. If we ban one, or a dozen, people will come up with alternatives. You cannot legislate compassion, understanding and sensitivity.
Nor is it going to work to demand that we all put "person" before any other descriptive term. Instead of "retarded," we are supposed to say, "person with an intellectual, cognitive, developmental disability."
I'm so nearsighted I'm half-blind. So, from now on, you must refer to me as "a person who uses contact lenses." Unfortunately, that doesn't change the reality. I'm still half-blind. An allegedly sensitive label doesn't make me feel any better about it.
Yes, "retarded" is also a label. But what is unusual about that? We are awash in labels. Every political campaign makes that abundantly clear, with its strategy to appeal to "soccer moms," "NASCAR dads," "minorities" and any other identifiable demographic slice of the population.
Even when it comes to the nonpolitical, we say things like, "He's tall." How is it dehumanizing to say that instead of, "He's a person of greater-than-average height"?
Finally, such a convoluted description of a condition draws more attention to it, not less. If you substitute seven words for one, you've made somebody think a lot more about the disability than the person.
But more important, history has shown that efforts like this are doomed to fail. Every name carries the potential of stigma.
I have been around long enough to have lived through a revolving list of terms for one minority group. When I was very young, we were supposed to say Negro. Then came colored, then black, then Afro-American, then minority, then people of color, then African-American. None of them changed a thing. They're all labels. It is civil rights and integration that have helped change at least some attitudes.
I'm all for treating people with respect. But suppressing free speech isn't going to do it.
¢¢¢
Taylor Armerding, an Ipswich resident, is associate editorial page editor of The Eagle-Tribune in North Andover. He may be reached at 978-946-2213 or at tarmerding@eagletribune.com.
