Racism v. Racialism?

Of course, racism is bad. To prejudge or limit others based on what one perceives to be their race(s) undermines their self-determination—affronts their human dignity. And the fact that an individual may derive a significant chunk of his or her identity from a chosen racial identity is fine and good—so long as that's a choice (although racism sometimes finds egress through such articulations).

But what about an idea of race based on something less culturally constructed? Even if we can’t transcend language, some statements seem more empirically-based, yes? Science strives—asymptotically, admittedly—for fact, and biology speaks to us about genes and natural selection. Humanity is a species, which means we’re all basically the same. But within every species is genetic variation.

Physical anthropologists used to classify humans into three basic races—then five, then seven or nine, then twelve or fifteen, then twenty-two… Then they gave up. Since observed variations in “racial” characteristics aren’t discrete, drawing hard-and-fast lines doesn’t seem to have a biological basis.

But if we think of race in terms of geographical-genetic nodes, it might still make scientific sense. Humans didn’t always move around quite as much quite as quickly, and more-or-less isolated populations had time to adapt genetically to particular environments, even if, at their geographical edges, they flowed genetically into other human populations.

Racialism is the idea that particular, primal human populations developed particular adaptations to particular environments. Unfortunately, it suggests the politically incorrect possibility that those different populations may have had particular strengths and weaknesses, relative to other human populations.

We are too close to this problem to study it effectively; due to a cultural-observer effect, the historical unpacking of racialism has typically trailed off into racism. And that’s a darn shame, if we want to know our whole story.

Culture in Elementary Schools

One of the most important things my mother has taught me thus far in life is to never become an elementary school teacher. This is partially because she knows I'm not good with kids, but also partially because she says that so little of what she does anymore is actually the teaching aspect of being a teacher. The school that my mom teaches at is diverse. The number of languages spoken there are in the double digits, and is not matched by the school's staff. In fact, parent/teacher conference are becoming a struggle. There have been times when a translator wasn't available, and the student had to sit in on the meeting/conference in order to translate for both the teacher and the parent.

If I had to define a the "culture" of the school, however, it would technically be an "English" school. The school has a program for what they call "ESL" kids- or, English as a Second Language. The children of each grade level that do not speak English at all or as their first language get together at certain parts of the day and are taught as one group. This way, an instructor can spend more one-on-one time with each student so he or she can learn the material. Having an "ESL" program is good in theory, but interesting to look at in terms of what we've been studying in class. The school does not offer different classes or instructors depending on the student's native language. Therefore all of the students who do not fall into the "English" category are grouped into one non-descriptive group. They are not considered "Hispanic" or "Asian" or any of the other terms we've talked about in class. Instead, they are all clumped together into one "English is not my first language" culture. Their class is known as the "ESL" class. In a way, it's defining them by what they aren't, instead of defining them by what they are. I realize that there aren't many solutions, due to funding issues and the like. It isn't feasible to have separate teachers for each and every language being spoken in the school. And I also don't think that the students feel offended being called the "ESL students" (although I can't speak for them). But it is an interesting topic to look at based on what we've talked about.

Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?

http://www.sesamestreet.org/parents/diversity

During our Culture Unit, we've discussed race and not much else. There is more to a person's culture than the color of their skin or what ethnicity they choose. Yes, I said choose for a reason. I took a Language and Society course during my undergrad and we discussed that race and ethnicity are based on a person's perspective of themself. I could call myself Black/African American if I wanted to, but then during converstation I would need to be prepared to say why I associate myself with this race. On to Sesame Street. Sesame Street has a section within their website dedicated to Diversity. Some of the different topics include who makes up your family, what holidays you celebrate, and why we all look different. These factors, along with others, create diversity between all individuals. There are non-traditional families (single parent, adoption, and interratial, etc). We celebrate different holidays (Easter, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, Rhamadan, etc). Physically, we all look different- even identical twins have individual features and personalities for others to tell them apart. Ernie explored why we all look different. He used an example with 4 red, identical, ball-shaped "people." Ernie couldn't tell them apart, and they couldn't identify who the mother, father, son, or postman was. Each "person" knew his or her own identity, but it was not apparent to anyone else. Ernie's point through this was if we all looked exactly the same, how would I know if the person next to me was my mom, relative, friend, or a stranger? Diversity and culture create our identities. Sometimes these identities are positively perceived and sometimes negatively. You can't change who you are (well.. you could but that's more related to the Gender Unit or Michael Jackson).

The Road to Hell . . .

On the first day of our gender-and-sexuality unit, I startled everyone by smacking myself in the face mid-discussion with one of the style guides that Professor Lunsford had brought for our perusal. I regret having caused the disturbance—not least because the gesture had nothing to do with the topic at hand—but I reacted on pure instinct to an example of good intentions gone bad. Permit me to explain.

The problematic word? Concertmaster (the principal violinist of a symphony orchestra).

The preferred alternatives? Concert leader or Concert director.

From the perspective of gender neutrality, the substitution makes sense: why preserve a seemingly antiquated, clearly masculine term if a gender-neutral option exists—particularly if the individual thus titled is a female? As Paula Treichler and other feminist linguists emphasize, language both reflects and shapes culture, so linguistic and cultural change must at some point join forces on the march toward utopia. But history and precision, it seems, risk becoming casualties of the more militant movements for equity (of gender, ability, and race). The distinctive (sub-?)culture of Western classical music holds as negative a record toward gender parity as perhaps any other institution. As a woman and a musician, this fact dismays me. As a historian, I have tried to create a more complete historical record by writing and teaching about women in music. I do heed gender considerations as I work; I try, for example, to avoid the phrase “woman composer,” since it suggests an exceptionalism that the historical record does not necessarily support. Yet, I cannot fathom the circumstance in which I would employ concert leader or concert director. Concertmaster, for all its masculine connotations, is as historically accurate as foreman (of a jury; of a plantation; of a construction project). Moreover, it is also accurately job-specific in a way that neither of the suggested alternatives can match. A grain of historical truth accompanies concert leader, in that the concertmaster actually did lead the orchestra before the advent of the modern conductor in the early nineteenth century. Concert director, however, invites confusion with the role of conductor (or director, as a wind ensemble leader occasionally is called) and with the various organizational support positions attached to a professional orchestra. For the sake of historical accuracy and contemporary clarity, I would no more call a 21^st-century woman principal violinist a concert director than I would an 18^th-century male in the same position. Nor would I tolerate an editor who insisted on changing my terminology to align with a personal (ahistorical) agenda, no matter how well intended.

Style guides and “alternative” dictionaries have a place, but the responsibility to gauge and prioritize sensitivity and accuracy lies with the end user.

Starting Early

I came across an interesting article in searching for some topics for this blog. The article, titled "Gender Bias Still Exists in Children's Literature," states that gender bias is still common in many children's books. A duo at Centre College surveyed over 200 childrens books and found that they were still very gender-biased and showed an under-representation of female characters.

The kicker? Most of the books were from 2001, except the seven-year Caldecott winners, which were still recent. We're not talking classic children's literature that ranges from fables to Winnie the Pooh to Where the Wild Things Are, but we're talking modern-day women-can-work-and-make-as-much-as-men, don't-write-he-because-it-could-be-she children's books.

So what all did this entail? Well, as a short summary, and directly from the website, "There were nearly twice as many male as female title and main characters... Male characters appeared in lillustrations 53 percent more than female characters... Female main characters nurtured more than did male main characters, and they were seen in more indoor than outdoor scenes... Occupations were gender stereotyped, and more women than men appeared to have no paid occupation."

Nature versus NURTURE, anyone?

The duo also did studies on books from the 80s and 90s, and found no reduced sexism in the books from the year 2001.

Two other intersting facts: First, in these 200 books, "more than twice as many had more male title characters than female (75 versus 32) and more male main characters than female (95 versus 52)." But, possibly more intersting is the The People = Male and Animal = Male phenomena, or that there exists in us a tendency to assume an animal or a person is male unless there's strong information to the contrary.

And what all does this mean? According to one of the researchers, "Modern children's picture books continue to provide nightly reinforcement of the idea that boys and men are more interesting and important than are girls and women."

It's interesting that, for the most part, I doubt these authors sat back and said "Hm, how can I make this as gender-biased as possible?" but we're still giving children the hidden implications of male-reigning society. Why? Because it's still subconsciously in our heads as well, perhaps. Either that or the authors really are sitting around trying to figure out how they can make it as gender-biased as possible.

See the article at http://www.collegenews.org/x6773.xml

"Why I am a Feminist"

I’m a man, and I’m a feminist. Not only do I perceive no contradiction there, but I cannot understand how it should be otherwise. Let me explain what I mean, starting with a simple definition. Dictionary.com is not considered a feminist (much less a radical) resource, and its first definition of feminism is: “The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” It’s tempting to say it would take a Neanderthal to disagree with such a doctrine, but that would be an insult to Neanderthals!

I perceive the essence of feminism to be a logical expression of our Enlightenment-democratic / egalitarian impulse. To paraphrase Jefferson, we hold this truth to be self-evident: that all people are created equal. The fact that our Founders were inconsistent in their application of this principle has not been an argument against it, but rather it has been an incentive to realize its full unfolding (a fact not appreciated by those who ungratefully bask in emancipations painfully secured for them by others).

I believe that, to paraphrase MLK, a threat to freedom and dignity anywhere is a threat to freedom and dignity everywhere. From Blacks to Womyn to Queers, groups historically disenfranchised by “The Man” have struggled to acquire the “Rights of Man”—which is to say their human rights (thus I justify the paraphrasing of men here). And recognizing that the smallest minority is the individual, I affirm the rights of minorities not just as a matter of fairness—although it is that—but as a matter of self interest.

And that is why I am a feminist.

Sexism in Comedy

In the world of humor, comedians push the boundaries of taste. They confront uncomfortable issues head on. Today is no different. Daniel Tosh’s television show, Tosh.0, is one of the most popular programs on basic cable. In the show, Tosh gives a scathing commentary about viral videos found on the Internet. Tosh claims, “I’m not a misogynistic and racist person, but I do find those jokes funny, so I say them.” As a result, many of his punch lines are racist, sexist, or homophobic.

http://http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/web-redemption---cartwheeling-goalie

In one of the episodes, which ran June 30, 2010, Tosh featured a clip, the Cartwheeling Goalie. During the video, Tosh interviews a goalie, known for a viral video where he performs cartwheels before penalty kicks. Throughout the clip, Tosh belittles soccer. In one scene, he suggests the goalie try out for a more masculine sport, American football, and, in another, Tosh parodies the famous celebration when Brandi Chastain scored the game-winning goal in the 1999 Woman’s World Cup.

But, is this ok?

Comedy provides an outlet for taboo subjects to be discussed. Bill Maher, host of Real Time, explains, “There are a lot of issues you need to tread carefully on, but sometimes the best disinfectant for a messy topic is sunlight, and it's comedy's job to be that sunlight.”

Personally, when I hear a joke that goes too far, I think to myself: is that how that sounds? It makes me more aware. By forcing us to confront the elephant in the room, comics like Tosh may be doing us a favor.

Looking at it the other way

Throughout this unit, we've been focusing on gender equality from the feminist perspective. That is, we've been looking at the ways our society is sexist against women by using language in certain contexts to "put the man first." For years we've been using this language but recently there have been some situations where this type of "sexist" thinking is reversed. What I mean is, there are jobs, hobbies, occupations, activities, etc that are specific to women and when men do them, they are addressed by putting "men's" first to distinguish that they are a man in a woman's world. When we think of gender equality, we think about making it equal for women. But the same goes for the other direction as well.

Typically, the nursing profession is a female dominated profession. When a man becomes a nurse, they are referred to as a "male" nurse whereas a woman is just referred to as "nurse." The same thing happens for the word "widow." When we have a gender specific word (actor, steward, waiter), the male version is always the root and the female version has the added letters to make the difference between the genders. For widow, the female version is the root word and "widower" is the adapted version. (This goes back to the time when women were more often widowed because of the men's travels, work, wars, etc.).

Another example is the sport, volleyball. Volleyball is traditionally a woman's sport and the net height is set at 7' 4 1/8''. Men play on a net that is at 7' 11 5/8''. Only recently did they begin to distinguish between "men's volleyball" and "women's volleyball." Originally it was called "volleyball" and "men's volleyball."

The position of stay-at-home-dad is also a term that has popped up recently. More and more men are staying at home with their children while their wives work. Sometimes, men in these positions are often called "Mr. Mom." In most societal settings, it it okay for women to stay at home and take care of their children and household, but when men do it, they run the risk of ridicule from their male friends.

9 times out of 10, we look at gender issues based on making it equal for women and removing "masculine" dominated language. My argument is that that 1 time out of 10, it goes both ways and we need to be editing for both sides of the equality. Though these instances rare and only occuring in certain situations, we need to edit in both directions in order to be completely equal.

Gender-Neutral Housing

We recently discussed the issue of gender-nuetrality during my weekly meetings within the Orientation Office. The issue is that the NEw Jersey state university has taken steps towards allowing male and female students to share rooms in an effort to become a more inclusive community for gay students. In a statement made by the university, they layout their plan for implementing this decision, "Starting this fall, all students – whether gay, lesbian, transgender or heterosexual – can choose either male or female roommates under the pilot program. Men and women will share bathrooms." This pilot program was created after the highly publicized suicide of a gay student last year at Rutgers. The student killed himself after his roommate invaded his privacy by recording him during sexual interaction with another man via webcam. Since many other universities are following suit and offering similar housing options (University of Maryland, Columbia University, George Washington University) it seem pertinent that we discuss the option being made available at JMU. During the meeting we couldn't really come up with a consensus. Many people agreed that yes, it "seemed" like a good idea in a perfect world but how would you be able to control whole gets access to mixed sexed dorms? Wouldn't this cause further discrimination by delegating a specific section of housing to gay and transgendered this pilot program is among the campus and how the university plans on monitoring or "screening" individuals that apply for the housing.ed individuals? Although this is a step in the right direction for creating a more inclusive campus, I am curious to see how well reci

Gender Neutrality in the Bible

The newest editions of various versions of the Bible, including the New International Version and the New American Bible, contain changes including attempts at converting the typical historical language with more modern language. “According to the Rev. Joseph Jensen, executive secretary of the Catholic Bible Association, the new edition uses more "inclusive language" by rearranging words so that masculine pronouns do not appear when referring to both men and women. It also replaces "He" with "God" in many places” (taken from an article from the Duquesne Duke).

The changes have received some backlash, and I can understand both sides of the argument. One of the main goals of the editors was to make the Bible easier to read by using modern language. Their argument was that we do not “technically” know what sex God actually was. Keeping things gender neutral would actually make things more accurate. They also wanted to equally represent both males and females in the passages. The passages that were directed specifically toward males were edited as such, while passages directed toward everyone were edited from masculine-derived words to all-inclusive words (“humankind,” for example).

I think as editors, part of our job is to make sure that what we are saying as being represented as accurately as possible. Therefore it could be necessary to edit something from “man” to “humankind” if, in fact, the phrase was meant to be all-inclusive. The problem (well, there are more than one) with editing a text as historic as the Bible is that the text has already gone through a number of edits, including translations from language to language. Things get lost in translation easily, especially after being translated over thousands of years. Furthermore, when translating something from one language into another, there often times is not an exact word or phrase for the translation, and the meaning is slightly altered. Going back to my original point of making things gender neutral- it’s hard to judge when things are supposed to be gender neutral and when one specific sex is being referred to when the original meaning of the text is not clearly known to begin with.

There also comes a point where historical rhetoric has to be taken into account. We use “slang” gender terms today (for example, “man, that was a tough loss” does not refer to a “male,” but instead is a common phrase) that do not link the gender reference to the actual sex. Who’s to say that thousands of years ago they did not do the same thing? At that point, editing for gender neutrality could alter the meaning as well. The editors were attempting to edit for clarity, which can be accomplished by using modern language. But at the same time, they are also making assumptions about the text that may not be true, therefore changing the meaning of the original text. I can also see the benefits of changing the “He” references to “God,” because the meaning is not lost and could actually make things clearer in terms of who is speaking. I can see some benefits of editing the Bible to be gender neutral, but I can see the setbacks and issues as well.

Editing Speech for Gender and Sexuality

I actually have had first-hand experience editing my speech with gender and sexuality. A fraternity brother requested to be referred to as "Nathan*" and "male" within the fraternity because he was considering a sexchange. For the past four years, I have referred to my friend as Nathan and never questioned the choice.
His facebook was set as Nathan, later changed to W.N., but is now set as Wendy*. (There is no gender specified on his facebook, but I don't have one specified on mine either.) We took a motorcycle course together the summer after we graduate from VT and she made sure that while we were in class to refer to her as "Wendy."
During our senior year, she actually decided that she wanted to remain female and keep her name as Wendy, but did not bring this request to the fraternity because she did not want to raise any further confusion (I only found out about this last week).
Over spring break, I went to Hampton to visit Sarah* and Nathan with Rachelle*. (Sarah, Rachelle, and I were roommates and Nathan is now roommates with Sarah, but we're all really good friends). Before Rachelle and I left my mom's house in Richmond we raised the question to each other, "How do we refer to Nathan? Is he still Nathan, or is she Wendy?" I voted we just not make a direct name mention until we figure out one way or the other. Luckily, Sarah immediately began reffering to Nathan as Wendy and our question was answered. I brought up our questin to Sarah in private and she informed us about Wendy's choice to remain female and how she decided this while we were still in college and it made entering the professional world much easier.

Editing myself to write the above blog entry was difficult. To edit, I referred to Nathan as him when he was Nathan to me. But once I found out she decided to remain female and Wendy I respected it by referring to her as she. This scenario is similar to Donald vs Deirdra McClosky that we talked about during class. My theory is to define the person in the context in which you knew the gender. When Nathan was known as Nathan, I refer to him as him. This past week, when I was made aware Nathan chose to be Wendy, I refer to her as her.

*Names have been changed for privacy purposes

Return to Reverse Disability

I've already posted, but two things:

1. I spelled Asperger's incorrectly (no "b").

2. Today, I heard an individual (allegedly) with Asperger's refer disparagingly to someone without as "a neurotypical." Her contextual meaning was clear: neurotypicals (kind of like muggles) are an occluded lot, while individuals with autism (kind of like magical folk) are in the know. When I suggested this to the individual in question, she told me the term was technically accepted; when I pointed out that her use of the term seemed more slang than technical, she said: "You wouldn't understand"!

Disability and/as History

To edit language about disability is, to some extent, to edit the disability itself—to shape for a reader the identities and experiences of individuals for whom a “disability” is the norm. From Riley to the RTC, we have sampled the (often conflicting) demands that a conscientious editor must satisfy: fidelity to the author’s voice, the audience’s expectations, and advertisers’ agendas; conformance to house style and/or external guidelines; concerns of layout and location; and, not least, the subject’s own experience. What additional challenges arise when the individual under consideration is not a contemporary celebrity like Christopher Reeve, but a cultural touchstone from the distant past? A short list of issues might include how or whether to “translate” historical terminology for a modern audience (either from a foreign language into English or from antiquated expressions into contemporary euphemisms); how to accurately assess the extent of a disability and/or the individual’s experience thereof; and the role allotted to the disability in shaping the overall narrative.

Consider the following excerpt from a recently published music appreciation textbook:

“Beethoven cut a strange, eccentric figure as he wandered the streets of Vienna, sometimes humming, sometimes mumbling, and sometimes jotting on music paper. Adding to the difficulties of his somewhat unstable personality was the fact that he was gradually losing his hearing—a serious handicap for any person, but a tragic condition for a musician. Can you imagine a blind painter?”[1]

The passage goes on to describe Beethoven’s progression into total deafness and his consideration of a suicide attempt; subsequent passages describe the music Beethoven composed in the years following his realization that the hearing loss would be irreversible (1803-1813, his so-called “Heroic” period). As an example of modern standards for writing about disability, the excerpt fails miserably; I can imagine Charles Riley recoiling in abject horror from the textbook, and the reference to the “blind painter” strikes a sour note even to my less acutely sensitive ear. Yet, the romanticized discussion of Beethoven’s deafness participates in a well-established historiographic tradition: for reasons not exclusive to his personal challenges, Beethoven long has been considered the first (and, by some, the greatest) exponent of the “Romantic” era of Western classical music history.

Graduate students in music history read—in German—the historical documents from which the language of this excerpt is derived: contemporaneous descriptions of the composer by his friends and associates, as well as his own accounts of his condition. They come to understand as well that the designation “heroic” refers less to Beethoven’s personal challenges than to his outlook on contemporary politics (the rise and fall of Napoleon Bonaparte) and his choice in dramatic texts (the opera Fidelio, about a political prisoner and his wife). I would even venture to suggest that, for many historians, Beethoven’s deafness ultimately becomes more a piece of trivia than the central concern that it appears to be in the excerpt above (admittedly, only one paragraph out of an entire chapter devoted to the composer).

Too much emphasis on Beethoven’s auditory issues risks descending into caricature; too little ignores the certain fact that his condition mattered to him and to his art. Is there a “right” approach to writing about Beethoven’s deafness?

---

[1] Craig Wright, Listening to Western Music, 6^th ed. (Boston: Schirmer, Cengage Learning, 2011), 214.

Reverse Disability?

Recently, I’ve become aware of a trend in the perception of autism (this awareness is based on scattered and informal observation, as opposed to deliberative research). Traditionally, autism has been associated with varying degrees of what could be considered left-brain isolation; while a person living with autism might display competencies related to logic and memory, they exhibit deficiencies related to communication and social interaction—and these deficiencies have defined the disorder.

The number of autism cases is on the rise (i.e. its rate of diagnosis has increased) and the reason for that is unclear. While I sympathize with those living with autism, I’ve noticed that the less extreme form—Aspberger’s Syndrome—has become almost hip. Especially in high schools and on-line, people have been using their alleged condition as an excuse to behave poorly and dismiss their critics as intolerant jerks. At the same time, I’ve seen people claim that autism represents the next phase of human evolution. Persons with autism are actually enlightened; since they are not obsessed with primate politics, they are less petty, deceitful and cruel.

At first I thought they can’t have it both ways: either autism is a disorder that can excuse otherwise inexcusable behavior, or it’s a different set of competencies that can show us new ways. But then I realized that autism—or at least Aspberger’s—could be both a set of deficiencies and a set of competencies, based on a different cognitive emphasis. And I don’t know how I feel about that…

Disability Community and Spending

In the espionage community, there’s a word for harmful, unintended consequences: blowback. For example, in 1980s, the United States armed Afghan warlords in their fight against the Soviet Union. Years later, those same warlords used American–made weaponry to fight US soldiers.

Today, the United States could experience blowback of a different kind. Across the country, federal, state and local governments are embroiled in bitter disputes to balance budgets. Right now, it seems all kinds of services are in danger of being eliminated. Even though coverage of the political battles has been thorough, the consequences these cuts will have on certain communities has been underreported.

Up until 1990, with the passage of the American with Disability Act, the disability community has been a marginalized group. Even though ADA prohibits discrimination against the 54 million Americans living with disabilities, many of the proposed cuts target government services for persons with disabilities. In Texas, lawmakers are considering 25 percent reductions to health and human service spending, which would greatly affect the disability community. Disability advocates in Minnesota fear cuts could limit the independence of persons with disabilities. And in Florida, lawmakers are considering cutting mental health services. All of these cuts would impact many people.

In the short–term, budgets would be balanced, but what blowback would these proposed cuts? Right now, the immediate concern is fiscal responsibility, but, if history’s any indication, we need to look to the future as well.

Disability Guidelines and Sports Articles

The guidelines set forth by AP and RTC articulate very specific (and often contradictory) ways of writing about a person who has a disability. They state that the writer should not refer to the disability unless it is pertinent to the story. The person should be focused on, not the disability. The person should be living with the disability, not suffering from it. And the person should not be considered as a superhuman for living with the disease, merely a person going about his or her everyday life. Regardless of my personal opinion of the guidelines, I have seen many articles succeed in following them and many that fall short. Where I think writers fall shortest of those guidelines, however, is with stories focused on sports figures.

In 1998 at the Goodwill Games, Chinese gymnast Sang Lan was performing a warm-up vault when she miscalculated where she was in the air and landed directly on her head. After being rushed to the hospital, doctors determined that the damage done to her spine was irreversible and, at least until further medical discoveries arose, she would be paralyzed from the waist down. Sang spent 13 weeks in the hospital until finally being able to leave, although she would permanently be in a wheelchair. Multiple articles were published about Sang’s accident following the event. One article in particular was published by the New York Times. It detailed Sang’s journey as an athlete up until her accident. However the focus of the article was not on the actual event- it was, instead, an emotional build-up of her emotional story as an athlete (being taken from her family at age 6, training every day for hours on end, finally reaching the highest level, etc.) just to have it all taken away from her when she became paralyzed. The article, as many others did, focused on how her dreams were taken away from her and her life would never be the same because she would now be living with a disability.

The issue with this is that the writers of sports pieces often portray the person as being an athlete and only an athlete, not a person. So when they do become disabled and cannot participate in their sport, they are portrayed as though there life is now over. When I looked through the articles following Sang’s accident, words like “devastating” and “catastrophic” were used more often than not. But putting so much emphasis on one’s sports career ending because of a disability is identifying that person as their disability in a fairly obvious way- something that goes against the “person first” guideline. They are portrayed as being defeated because they can no longer continue in the sport, yet the guidelines state that the writer should not depict a person as being held back by their disability. I think it is fairer to focus on the person and how they are living with the disability instead of focusing on how the disability affected one part of their life.

R-Word

I know I've already blogged once, but one of my best friends is at GMU for her Masters in Special Education and specializing in children with autism. One thing I've learned from her is it takes a special type of person to continually work with a person with autism because each child is different. Today, I found this on her Facebook and wanted to share with everyone.

Spread the word to end the word.

http://www.r-word.org