This syllabus (link below), which I found by searching “writing about disability”, describes the course "Topics in Literature and Society: Writing on Disability" at Columbia University. It follows none of RTC guidelines or any other guidelines that we have encountered. In this paragraph, the professor repeatedly ignores RTC’s suggestion on people-first writing by using "eccentric bodies" in conjunction with "disability". He does mention the historical shift from viewing disability as "heroic”, but then uses the word "cripple" with no quotations. His blatant omission of following the guidelines led me to examine the appropriateness in this context - an introduction to a literary course on just that: writing about disabilities.
In reading the professor’s profile at Columbia University (see link below), I noticed his emphasis on medieval literature and that "He has approached these issues through the optic of original manuscripts" and his "new research on the cultural imagination of disability in the Middle Ages". I concluded that the professor uses these negative terms in order to familiarize students with the portrayal of people with disabilities in literature. After all, the titles of required reading included "On Being a Cripple" and "Sideshow USA: Freaks and the American Cultural Imagination."
We have discussed the importance of context in evaluating the best language to use in a given situation. If the purpose of using words such as “cripple” is to educate students through literature, then this may change the intent associated with using this terminology ─ as long as this distinction in usage is emphasized. As with the educators in Michael's topic, this professor also needs to consider that students with disabilities may be in the class. However, the difference here is choice since this course is at the college level. Considering that the context of this professor’s writing, does this constitute a justifiable omission of guidelines? Or should this professor have adhered to the guidelines in posting this syllabus at least?
Syllabus: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/syllabi/4917baswell.pdf
Faculty Profile: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/fac_profiles.htm
Despite some of the disability-language issues, this class seems like a good way to introduce students to a history of representing disabled people in various ways.
ReplyDeleteMeghan, your introductory note suggests something about access to language. I don't know if this professor even knows about RTC or its guidelines, so I wouldn't expect that he follow them. But that's one of the points: we have to know that conversations about language change are going on before we can change the way we change our own use of language. If RTC isn't getting the message out beyond editors, reporters, and other writers, then there's a chance others might not know about RTC's cause.