Law Prof Backs First Amendment Over Ban of R-Word
A law professor who researches taboo language is taking issue with a campaign to discourage use of the word “retarded.”
In a Washington Post column, Ohio State law professor Christopher Fairman notes a campaign by the Special Olympics to eliminate derogatory use of the word and promote understanding of people with intellectual disabilities. Fairman says he sympathizes but he isn’t on board.
“It’s not that I’ve come to praise the word ‘retard’; I just don’t think we should bury it,” Fairman writes. “If the history of offensive terms in America shows anything, it is that words themselves are not the culprit; the meaning we attach to them is, and such meanings change dramatically over time and across communities.”
He notes that “mentally retarded” was introduced to replace terms such as “idiot,” “imbecile” and “moron” that had come to carry negative connotations. “This illustrates one of the recurring follies of speech restriction,” he says. “While there may be another word to use, a negative connotation eventually is found. Offense—both given and taken—is inevitable.”
According to Fairman, 48 states have voted to remove the term “mental retardation” from government agencies and state codes, and legislation is pending in Congress remove it from all federal statutes, including the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
Fairman prefers public awareness campaigns to word bans, so that the public can consider the consequences of their word choices. “Words are ideas, and we should be reluctant to surrender any of them,” he says. “Freedom of expression has come at a dear price, and it is not worth abridging, even so we can get along a little better. That’s one F-word we really can’t do without.”
Fairman answered readers’ questions about his column in a Washington Post online chat, including one from a reader who is “chronologically challenged” and had no idea that some consider the word “retarded” to be offensive.
