When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this month that executing mentally retarded murderers is unconstitutional, The Spokesman-Review ran the story under a front-page headline that said, “No execution for retarded.”
That wording offended at least one reader. Others may have reacted the same way, but Stephanie Ross of Spokane felt strongly enough to call and complain.
“I think the use of that word is atrocious, and that people in the media, I’m sure, can think of better words than that,” she said. “I think this is an embarrassment.”
Is that kind of criticism just one more foray under the flag of political correctness, or is it a signal that the English language is due for one of its periodic course corrections?
What alternative term would be suitable anyway? “Developmentally disabled”? No, says Steve Eidelman, executive director of The Arc of the United States, the terms are not interchangeable. One’s a functional term, one’s a diagnostic term. State and federal laws treat the two differently. It’s very complicated.
Eidelman’s organization and the American Association of Mental Retardation routinely use the phrase “people with mental retardation.” That’s what Sherrie Brown, a research associate professor at the University of Washington, calls “person-first” language. In other words, language that identifies people as human beings who happen to have a certain condition. Labeling people by their condition alone — “the retarded,” for instance — strikes many people as “pejorative,” Brown said.
The Spokesman-Review’s news editor, Kevin Graman, says clarity, not sensitivity, is the driving concern behind headline writing and other copy-editing practices.
“People with mental retardation” is far too unwieldy for headline use.
Still, Graman predicted the word “retarded” is probably headed for a change, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Like hundreds of other newspapers in the United States, The S-R relies on The Associated Press Stylebook and Webster’s New World College Dictionary as references on questions of usage. At present, neither volume cautions against the use of “retarded.”
Moreover, that’s the term that was used in the Supreme Court decision that was reported on June 21. The news story and the headline above it were accurate and clear.
Still, some words take on an unsettling connotation over time, and that erodes their acceptability in conversations. Eventually, “retarded” may become an example.
Spokane is not the only place where the concern exists. Eidelman said he’s had calls like mine from two other U.S. newspapers in recent days.
Norm Goldstein, who edits the AP Stylebook, says he and his colleagues have discussed this question even before the court ruling. However, he says, “retarded” still is used by people who work in the field. That works against its being red-flagged in the AP Stylebook.
Circumstances change, however. Greg Falk, executive director of The Arc of Spokane, says national organizations such as The Arc and the American Association of Mental Retardation are re-examining their own use of the term.
Falk and Dick Boysen, executive director of the Spokane Guilds’ School, both say among their client families there are mixed attitudes about the word.
Sooner or later, such rumblings will come to the attention of Michael Agnes, executive editor of Webster’s New World College Dictionary.
Agnes has employees who do nothing but monitor usage of the English language, collecting hard data on shifts in usage.
Although the dictionary is updated yearly, the publication is conservative in its approach to changes, says Agnes. For example, they don’t include a new word until it’s been in use for at least three years and has shown up in a variety of contexts — both “Scientific American” and “TV Guide,” perhaps.
In issues of political correctness, Agnes says, you can almost always find some people who take offense to a particular term. In such cases the breadth of sensitivity is hard to judge. If the concern becomes widely documented, the dictionary may insert a note explaining that a word is considered offensive by some people.
“I don’t think `retarded’ has made it onto the index of forbidden words,” said Agnes.
In time, it may, judging by the scattered concerns that seem to be gathering momentum. For now, though, newspapers should operate within the language boundaries that are handed down by acknowledged authorities.
When those changes occur, newspapers will follow. It’s not their place to lead.
