DCC Resources

Some individuals may feel that using language considered polite or inoffensive is unnecessary. However, it’s important to keep in mind that offensive language is offensive for a reason; various words and concepts used to describe disability all have their own histories and implications for people with disabilities. Being “politically correct” does not make a term automatically inoffensive to a group of people; indeed, many “politically correct” words and phrases used to refer to disability can actually be insulting to some of the people to whom these labels are attached.

Saying “differently abled” or “special,” for instance, may seem on the surface to convey that someone with a disability has positive qualities about them. However, terms like these tend to be euphemistic, and are not frequently used by the people to whom they refer.

“People-first” or “person-first” language is a way of describing disability that involves putting the word “person” or “people” before the word “disability” or the name of a disability, rather than placing the disability first and using it as an adjective. Some examples of people-first language might include saying “person with a disability,” “woman with cerebral palsy” and “man with an intellectual disability.” The purpose of people-first language is to promote the idea that someone’s disability label is just a disability label—not the defining characteristic of the entire individual. Many guides on disability language and etiquette may likely emphasize using person-first language, except perhaps when discussing certain disability cultural groups that explicitly describe themselves with disability-first language. Thus, while it is generally a safe bet to use people-first language, there are members of certain disability groups in the U.S. who prefer not to use it, such as the American Deaf community and a number of Autistic people/Autistics. The basic reason behind members of these groups’ dislike for the application of people-first language to themselves is that they consider their disabilities to be inseparable parts of who they are. Using person-first language, some also argue, makes the disability into something negative, which can and should be separated from the person.

When members of a group “reclaim” a word, they take a term that was previously used against them as a slur and give it a positive meaning, within that particular group, as an expression of solidarity and pride in one’s identity.  Some members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities, for example, have reclaimed the term “queer,” a longtime degrading term for LGBT peoples. Similarly, some disability cultural groups have reclaimed negative terms like “crip.” Syracuse University’s disability-themed comics symposium, “Cripping” the Comic Con, use “crip” in a reclaimed way. However, in some cases, reclaimed terms may be very context-dependent, continuing to retain their original, negative connotations outside of the communities that seek to reclaim them.

While it may be appropriate for someone who is a member of a group to use a term in a reclaimed way due to having the personal experiences that allow them to understand when, why and how to use such a term (and the implications of using it the wrong way), it may not be appropriate for someone outside of the group to do so.

In the context of certain disabilities, the same word or phrase can have different meanings depending on how certain letters are capitalized and whether the words or phrases are split in unusual ways, such as with slashes or parentheses. One of the classic examples of this is the difference between “big D” Deaf and “little d” deaf; whereas the term “deaf,” with a lowercase “d,” refers to one physically being deaf, when spelled with a capital “D,” it refers to membership and/or affiliation with respect to Deaf culture and Deaf communities. Members of some other disability communities also use capitalization at times to emphasize their cultural identification with these communities.

Check out the list below! This list will be revised periodically.

Guides to Language Use/Etiquette

Note: These tend to emphasize person-first language.

• Disability Etiquette Guide: Tips on Interacting Respectfully With People With Disabilities

Discussions on Language Use/Disability Studies

Note: The resources listed below are written by self-advocates and/or disability studies scholars.

• “Ableist Words and Terms to Avoid”
• Autistic Hoya (Personal blog by Lydia X. Z. Brown that has a number of instructive posts on disability language from the perspectives of members of the Autistic community.)
• “Blackness and Disability: Critical Examinations and Cultural Interventions”
• Disability Awareness Toolkit
• “The Language of Disability”
• “Let’s Stop Saying ‘Mental Illness’!”
• “Mad at School: Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life”
• “Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill”
• “New Words for New Purposes: A Challenge for the AAMR”
• Planet of the Blind: It’s Not as Dark as You Think… (Personal blog by Stephen Kuusisto, an author, poet and Syracuse University professor known for his work on depicting disabilities, specifically blindness.)
• “Reassigning Meaning”
• “The Significance of Semantics: Person-First Language: Why It Matters”
• “The Social Model of Disability”
• “Why I Dislike ‘Person First’ Language”

Other Resources

• American Heritage Dictionary Entry: “deaf”
• “‘Beyond the Pale’: Tainted Whiteness, Cognitive Disability, and Eugenic Sterilization”
• “The Case Against ‘Special Needs’”
• “Cripping” the Comic Con
• “For Many, Use of the R-Word Hits Painfully Close to Home”
• “Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language”
• Language and Disability
• “No Pity: People With Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement”
• “Resource on Person-First Language: The Language Used to Describe Individuals With Disabilities”
• “Respectful Disability Language”
• “To Ensure Inclusion, Freedom, and Respect for All We Must Use People First Language”
• “What ‘Cripping’ Means”

“Building Pedagogical Curb Cuts: Incorporating Disability in the University Classroom and Curriculum” is a book published by students in Syracuse University’s disability studies program. The editors and major contributors are leaders of the Beyond Compliance Coordinating Committee. The book, which reflects the mission of the group, is remarkable because it was conceived and created entirely by students. The book recognizes that compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other anti-discrimination laws is important, but that often those measures do not go far enough to ensure that universities acknowledge and value the contributions of all students, including students with disabilities.

This PowerPoint presentation enables you to use principles of Universal Instructional Design (UID) to reach potential students/audience members with a broad range in ability, age, reading level, learning style, native language, race, ethnicity and other characteristics.

• Accessible Syracuse
• Beyond Compliance Coordinating Committee
• BIPOC Student Success
• Burton Blatt Institute
• Center for Disability Resources
• Center for International Services
• Center on Human Policy
• ‘Cuse ASL
• Disability Law Society
• Disability Rights Clinic
• Disability Student Union
• Disability Studies at Syracuse University
• LGBTQ+ Resource Center
• Mid-State Early Childhood Family and Community Engagement (EC-FACE) Center
• OnCampus
• Taishoff Center for Inclusive Higher Education