I’m having a conversation with a professor about something I wrote, in which I said that a certain teacher showed ease at working with disabled students, but betrayed a set of lowered expectations for his black students.
The professor cautioned me that we should refer to the student first, not the descriptor first–that it’s better to say “students with disabilities” and “students of African-American ancestry”, which means that we see their personhood before we see their qualifier.
I responded that this flouted English tradition (in which descriptors appear before that which they describe in normal circumstances, and in which the alternate construction is used only to emphasize the descriptor or when a descriptor must be a phrase instead of a single word). This flouting, I said, tends to emphasize the descriptor, suggesting that somehow the personhood of the person we’re describing is so in doubt that it must be reinforced constantly, and suggesting that they are in a category apart from all other English nouns. This does not, I suggested, foster equality.
However, I’m interested in hearing what y’all think about this. I’ve just begun going back to school to get my elementary education degree, and it’s the second time I’ve been cautioned along such lines*. While I understand the need to follow my audience’s conventions when my audience is grading me, I’d like to be able to understand the issue better, and possible present a cogent argument to my professors that such linguistic structures are patronizing instead of being helpful.
Daniel
The other time was when I described a class as having 4 black students and 20 white students; the professor cautioned me that the correct words were “African American” and “Caucasian.” What, not “Caucasian American”? Is it that the Americanness of the white students is never in question, but that of the black students has to be pointed out? Grrr. And that was from my favorite professor, too.
I would agree, though I hadn’t really thought about it. Its certainyl a very odd and linguistically unpleasant (for English-speakers) formation.
I’ve always disliked the replacement of “black” with “African-American” The latter seems, if nothing else, very silly, like a word that got too big for it’s britches. “Black” is more or less descriptive, and probably more accurate than “African-American” as well.
I think you are correct. That style quickly turns any form of writing into watered-down, jargon-heavy mush. It draws attention to those phrases and makes them seem more euphemistic.
And that’s without even getting into “Caucasian.” :smack:
I happen to personally know multiple black people who are NOT Americans. They are African nationals who are resident aliens in the US. Thus black /= African-American.
Heh. Actually my favorite bit of weirdness is the phrase, “Students of African-American ancestry.” So, if a student moves here from Burundi and gets her citizenship, what do I say? She’s African American, but she’s not of African-American ancestry. Do I need to check on the citizenship status of all students’ parents before figuring out what to call them?
At least “Students of African ancestry” would make sense, although I don’t think it’d be a great descriptor.
I also think that African-American is a poor descriptor because in most cases, it doesn’t get at the issue. If a teacher is having trouble dealing with black kids who grew up in the US, he’s likely (I’d think) to have trouble dealing with black kids who grew up in Ghana, Cuba, or Brazil. Racial prejudice doesn’t normally look at passports.
That said, I don’t object to the phrase African American; it’s used by plenty of folks who are actively involved in civil rights struggles. Those folks also tend to use other words as well, though: for them, African American and black may be used interchangeably. (I looked up speeches and articles by Manning Marable, Jonathan Kozol, and Jesse Jackson to verify that this was true). What bugs me is when a white professor in an entirely white department teaching an entirely white student body tells me what term black students–excuse me, “students of African American heritage” should be called.
Sorry, I’m afraid that got into venting territory. To her credit, the professor is willing to talk about the issue, and has told me that it’s up to me what terminology I use as long as I’m thinking about the issues.
“Student with disability” is the correct term (for now). This does flout normal English usage, but it is used with students that have traditionally been discriminated against. In this day and age, 40 years after Brown v Board of Education, it may be overkill (in most places in the US) to say that African-Americans need to have their student status as the focus; but with all of the discrimination special-ed students face (they can still legally be segregated under certain conditions), I think the “person-first” usage is appropriate until they reach more equality with their non-disabled peers. (note the normal usage of descriptor first)
I got tired of being “caucasian (not of Hispanic origin)” so I now label myself an Anglo-American.
A problem that I would anticipate with ‘disabled student’ is that the word ‘disabled’ is ambiguously either an adjective or part of a compound noun. The alternative avoids any such ambiguity, at the expense of brevity. Which is correct usage depends on the context - in formal writing, such as the OP’s case, I would always opt for clarity. In informal situations, it’s not such a concern.
I think it’s silly. I hate the “people first” crap. I’m disabled. I’m also a lot of other things. If somebody is so dense that they can’t figure that out without a silly PC term being used, then I don’t really give a rat’s patootie about them or what they think about me.
I tend to assume that the people who come up with these euphemistic ways of talking about people either haven’t had much interaction with the people they are describing, or that even if they have they are somehow sooo afraid to be offensive that they will go to silly lengths to try to avoid it. I don’t need somebody tiptoeing around what is glaringly obvious as if to mention it would be a bad, bad thing.
I also think “African-American” is sort of silly, but I’m not sure I’m allowed to think that seeing as I’m white.
I have a very, very strong preference against saying “person who is black (African-American),” and would far rather refer to “a black (African-American) person.” That said, I do understand the reasoning behind your professor’s position, and it is well-meaning, but–eh. Too PC/euphemistic/watered-down, as was said in earlier posts. But at the same time, your professor’s usage has, as I understand it, come into a certain vogue in academia, and perhaps it’s best when in Rome…?
And incidentally, I have never, ever heard of a good way of saying disabled/handicapped/differently abled, etc that won’t irritate/offend somebody. Of course, as some smartass will come along and say,“You can just call somebody with a disability John!” (or whatever), but what about the times when you would need to refer to disabled people as a group, as in “professors who work with the disabled”? Arghhhh.
The problem with “black” is not that it isn’t descriptive, but that it tends to become a noun instead of an adjective, and I do find that somewhat offensive:
Non-offensive: There are a lot more black kids in my AP class this year than last year.
Offensive: There are a lot more blacks in my AP class this year than last year.
Somehow making “black” the noun seems to imply that’s all that is there and it bugs me, but it is a pretty easy linguistic shortcut to fall into. So I stick with “African American”, as it has the adjective-noun format built in.
I do think that putting the descriptor in a prepostitional phrase is completely over the top, but it might be a good thing to be aware of – if some people have a problem with it, then you should probably err on the side of caution in formal written communications. But in spoken English? That’s crazy.
Can you elaborate on this? I don’t understand the difference.
Actually, the professor brought up a point almost like this in her response: her brother-in-law Mark is Choctaw, and when she asked whether he preferred to be called Native American or Indian, he said, “What’s wrong with Mark?”
Thing is, I was writing specifically about how a teacher in a case study responded to students who were black or disabled; I wasn’t writing about how he responded to Kaisha or Leslie. If you’re talking about how someone deals with groups, you kinda gotta refer to the group.
Is his use of “blacks” offensive in the last sentence? If so, could you explain why? If not, could you explain what makes his usage different from the usage in your example above?
For me, as long as the writer isn’t using a pejorative term, it’s more about the content of the passage and not about the specific nomenclature.
Manda, I should add that in your example, I do find the second phrasing (“There are a lot more blacks”) to be irritating, so I agree with you to some degree; I’m just not convinced that it’s the nounulosity of “black” that makes it problematic.
As an adjective-noun construct, ‘disabled student’ means exactly the same as ‘student with a disability’. As a compound noun, it means that the student should be defined according to their disability, and implies that the disability is the single most important thing about that person.
There it doesn’t bother me, though I would have avoided that construction. However, when in casual conversation someone says " There are a lot of blacks living in that neighborhood" it sends up a red flag that “There are a lot of black people living in that neighborhood” doesn’t. In and of itself it isn’t going to cause me to label someone racist–not even close. But it’s a tad troublesome, and it’s a usage I conciously avoid in my own speech/writing.
The nomenclature can indicate pejorative associations. Your example is a case where the use of ‘blacks’ is not any great concern. But how about if a policeman reports a ‘group of blacks’ gathered outside a house? Would this mean nothing other than a group of black people? I would find myself questioning why the policeman chose to describe the gathering in such a way - if descriptions of the people were important, he should be giving other information (male, female, kids, adults?), and a failure to do so suggests the only important thing is that they are black.
Hmm. I don’t think it’s a compound noun after all: a compound noun (cathouse, dogfight, waterhose, asshole, postman, etc.) is so named because it comprises two nouns stuck together into one. “Disabled” cannot be a noun. Maybe you mean that it’s an idiom?
At any rate, I’m not at all convinced that a description of “disabled student” is more vulnerable to such identification-by-disability than “student with disability” is. To take another example, the new phrase for folks who don’t speak English fluently is English Language Learner, or ELL. Is this the most important aspect of a student? Certainly not–yet several of my textbooks use “ELL” as an acronym referring to such students.
And in context, it’s appropriate. A student’s nonproficiency with English isn’t the most important thing about her; but if we’re trying to figure out how to structure a math lesson so that all students have an opportunity to learn effectively, her nonproficiency with English may well be her most salient characteristic in regards to that decision.
Similarly, if we’re discussing how a teacher handles diversity in his classroom, a student’s disability may be the most important characteristic to look at, inasmuch as it would present the teacher with a greater “diversity” challenge than, say, the students love of soccer, fear of costudent Adam, or tendency to to stick out his tongue when reading difficult passages.
I recognize the danger of pigeonholing kids by certain descriptors. The solution, I think, is to use those descriptors sparingly and only when they directly relate to the matter at hand–don’t talk about Fiona’s deafness unless her ability to hear is relevant, and never never just refer to her as “the deaf kid” when you’re telling a story about her behavior in the cafeteria or whatever. But if you follow that rule, then it doesn’t so much matter what specific term you use: “my student with a hearing impairment” doesn’t convey any more respect than “my deaf student.”
I hope my last post answers this, but to clarify, I agree that you shouldn’t be bringing up race unless it’s directly relevant to the conversation at hand. In your example, wouldn’t you be equally irritated if the policeman referred to “a group of people of African American ancestry” outside the house? I definitely would.
You recognise that context is crucial. However, ‘disabled student’ tells you nothing about any specific needs, and is therefore utterly useless by itself in your scenario. (And FWIW, the British terminology for the language situation is “…with English as an additional language”, or “… with EAL”.)