Neutral Terminology

I am writing in response to “Show a Triumph for Dedicated, Special Cast” (Jan. 23, Calendar). As editor/publisher of “Mainstream, Magazine of the Able-Disabled,” and a disabled individual, I am always pleased and more than excited to read articles giving exposure to the abilities, as opposed to the disabilities of individuals. Society’s views and expectations of persons with disabilities are often molded by the media, whether it is a disabled character on television or a newspaper article. The perceptions that readers go away with may very well have a large impact on the behavior of people I come in contact with every day.

We feel strongly that disabled characters on television, on stage and in film should be portrayed by actors who are disabled. Therefore, the idea and intent of the article--helping actors with disabilities get experience and an opportunity--is something we support.

However, we have also tried to change much of the terminology from the past that plagues us still. The content of the article should have been properly edited for current disability terms.

People “use” wheelchairs, they are not “confined” to them. Without a wheelchair, actor Jack Robertson would certainly be confined. People do not “suffer from” arthritis, but “have” arthritis.

Individuals who are not disabled are “non-disabled,” not “able-bodied,” (creating disparity between the two). Or, if you were mentioning everyone who had a disability, was it necessary to single out those who are not disabled?

We have put a great deal of effort toward having a more linguistically neutral terminology used. We only hope that future articles can keep us in that light, not in a light that shows us as poor, crippled children entertaining on stage, or wonderful, courageous individuals who are an inspiration to all they meet--but individuals, who happen to have a disability, living their life.

It may be true that these actors are determined individuals, but they are not superhuman. Each person’s story is different, and some of us may have worked harder and longer than the next guy, but that is no different than anyone else, disabled or not. We are not to be looked at as a miracle in living color. Throughout the story, it was implied that people are in awe of individuals with disabilities.

Note for example the reference “that everyone pitched in, including Robertson.” My definition of everyone is that it means all . It already included Robertson; unless, of course, it meant everyone except Robertson. The author is also surprised that he actually carried lumber. Jack Robertson is a long-distance, rough-water swimmer. He may well have been in better physical shape than anyone else there.

Hopefully, in the future, articles such as “Show a Triumph” would be written as a theater review with a valid critique of the performance, rather than the invalidity of the performers.

CYNDI JONES

Editor/Publisher

Mainstream