 |
 |
I agree with Michael here when he says that it is up to the individual to decide. Often we fall into the trap of being too politically correct and therefore do the people we are trying to help a disservice. I believe it is no longer good enough to talk about our students and staff with disabilities as “people”, with the implication that this gives a sufficient description of their characteristics. Including people with obvious disabilities makes this point very forcefully, and should also lead to educationalists considering less diverse cases as different and worth giving attention to. Making a reference to being wheelchair bound wakes the public up to the fact that wheelchairs do not detract from a persons ability to do the job. ---------------------- Ian Webb - Development Officer - DISinHE Centre Tel: 01382 345598 Fax: 01382 345509 [log in to unmask] http://www.disinhe.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: M.G.Peckitt <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: 21 January 1999 10:33 Subject: Charles Ruff - Wheelchair bound >I find it saddening when terminology like "wheelchair >bound" is used on Television or radio. Since the issue was >on American Politics and not Disability there is no need to >mention the fact that Charles Ruff was in a wheelchair. > >However, interviewees can sometime choose how they wish to >be introduced and in my view in it is not the place of >collectives or groups to enforce a libel on the individual. >If the lawyer in question has no objection then is it our >place to question his choice. > >By enforcing another label on someone are we any better >than those who deem us "wheelchair bound" or "Disabled". >To impose one set of ethics on to another could be >considered unethical in itself. > >Michael > >---------------------- >M.G.Peckitt >[log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%