Respectful Communication
PJ: “Planning for ALL means respectful language. What you say reflects your attitude, doesn’t it? Carrie, you mentioned shopping at the mall before. Have you ever experienced patronizing language at the mall?”
Carrie: “When I was at the mall, one of the store clerks said goodbye and ‘bless your heart’ in a certain tone. I felt talked down to and disrespected. I have a usual response when someone says something like that. But my daughter was with me and freaked out.”
?Terrye, how would you have responded to this kind of disrespectful remark?
- Smiled and moved on quickly
- Told the clerk people with disabilities don’t like being talked down to
- Given a bad online review to the store
- Glared and walked away
Carrie’s Response
“There’s no one right way to respond to something like this. It depends on the situation. We’ve found it helpful to share disability “etiquette” resources with local planners.”
Carrie: “Take a look at a respectful language tips on my smart phone. No need to take notes. On your last Disasterville visit we’ll give you a resource list.”
PJ: “Carrie, what a crummy experience. It really highlights the need for people to realize that inclusion starts with respect.”
Carrie: “The work of inclusion acknowledges the need for equity and does that in a respectful way. We’ve talked about the negative impacts of emergencies on People of Color, Black people, and indigenous people. 4ALL means being respectful of all facets of identity.”
EM: “Words matter! Words reflect attitudes. We’ve trained our emergency management and public health preparedness staff, first responders and other local government officials about respectful language.
“For instance, some people prefer to use “identity-first” language, and say they’re disabled. Other people prefer to identify themselves as a “person with a disability.” This is person-first language. Terrye, in Disasterville you’ll hear both used.”
Which of the following descriptions would NOT be an example of person-first language?
Person who uses a wheelchair
Deaf woman
Person with Down syndrome
Person without a disability
Feedback
Person-first language puts the individual at the front of the description, showing that the person is not just their disability. Putting the “person” first also emphasizes their humanity. For instance, a person with Down syndrome may want to be described by other attributes, not only Down syndrome. The description of the “Deaf woman” is an example of identity-first language, because many Deaf people consider Deafness to be a culture and part of who they are. Other examples of identity-first language are “autistic man” or “disabled person.” Individuals who prefer to be identified this way would say that their autism or disability is central to who they are, and they are proud of that.
Carrie: “I was just talking to Sondra about this- Sondra is a college student who is helping us develop public education materials on person-first and identity-first language. Let me call her and get her take on this.”
“Sondra? Hey girl! I’m going to put you on speakerphone for a minute. Tell our trainee Terrye what you were telling me about your disability awareness materials!”
Character #6: (Sondra): Sure, Carrie. I’m right between classes. When we developed our materials, we made sure to check with representatives from the disability community on whether we were using disability language correctly and respectfully. Different folks had different views on this, but they all agreed it was important to emphasize those differences. Just like emergency planning, disability is not a one-size-fits-all. For our materials, it was about how people with a condition or disability preferred to be described, and we deferred to them.”
Carrie: “Thanks a ton, Sondra! I’ll let you get to your next class!”
EM: Disability organizations are familiar with respectful language. The issue is how to handle it if you’re at a meeting with an emergency planner or you read a planning document and you sense bias, misconceptions or lack of respect.
Read these lines from a MA local emergency plan. This is the part of the plan that describes how residents will receive COVID-19 vaccines. Reflect. What do you notice about this language?
People with Disabilities
“Those who have mobility limitations or difficulty following directions should be assigned an escort throughout the Emergency Dispensing Site process”
“Is at least one Emergency Dispensing site in this municipality or a neighboring community compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act?”
Feedback
EM: “Sometimes bias is clear and sometimes it’s more nuanced. Both sentences are disrespectful.
Sentence 1: There is an assumption that everyone who has a mobility disability will need to be helped to move through an emergency dispensing site to receive their vaccine. This is biased and not accurate. Some people with mobility disabilities may need this kind of help and some may not. The words “difficulty following directions” could apply to anyone with or without a disability. The language is here because the plan’s author has made another assumption about people with disabilities. A more inclusive way to think about this would be to have EDS staff available to provide help, whatever that help might be.
Sentence 2: This sentence also makes an assumption. The planner implies that it’s ok to send someone with a disability to another community to receive their vaccine. To do so would be a civil rights violation. Every community is responsible for its residents. If you don’t send everyone to another community to receive the vaccine, then you can’t just send people with disabilities to another community.”
EM: “ Take a look at an emergency policy from Faraway County. A Prepared4ALL policy would be bias free, without assumptions, and inclusive.”
Read the policy. Is the policy for ALL?
Feedback
This policy makes inaccurate assumptions. The policy assumes that people with disabilities will be at home when disaster strikes. People with disabilities, like everyone else, might not be home during a disaster. They might not even be in the community where they live. The policy also assumes that people with disabilities do not drive or own their own cars. Like other Disasterville residents, people with disabilities may have cars or have a ride to evacuate and don’t need transportation. Something is missing here too. Many people with disabilities have essential equipment and resources (like wheelchairs, assistive technology, oxygen, service animals, etc.). Planners should assume that people with disabilities will bring resources with them and should plan for the extra space needs.