I witnessed someone use ableist language in a meeting / document. What should I do?

Matthew Salter

What is ableism?

Ableism is is the discrimination of and social prejudice against people with disabilities based on the belief that disabled people are defined by their disability and need to be “fixed”. As with other forms of bias, ableism includes harmful stereotypes and misconceptions about disabled individuals. Furthermore, ableism often leads to disabled persons being assigned or denied certain perceived abilities with the assumption that more typical abilities are superior (Access Living, 2019).

The prevalence of ableist attitudes in society can lead to the phenomenon of internalized ableism in which both disabled and non-disabled individuals absorb and enact prevailing negative beliefs and prejudiced values about disability. This can result in the affected individuals effectively discriminating against themselves, regarding disability as something of which to be ashamed and feeling the need to hide their disability or refuse support or accommodation for it.

What is considered ableist language?

Ableist language can include both outright harmful statements and microaggressions that are prevalent in society such as:

“That’s so lame.”
“You are so retarded.”
“That guy is crazy.”
“You’re acting so bi-polar today.”
“Are you off your meds?”
“It’s like the blind leading the blind.”
“My ideas fell on deaf ears.”
“She’s such a psycho.”
“I’m super OCD about how I clean my apartment.”
“Can I pray for you?”
“I don’t even think of you as disabled.”

Additionally, ableist language can also include statements that on their own would not seem ableist, but when used in certain contexts can take on an ableist meaning e.g. inclusion of the need for a driver’s license in a job advert for a position that does not require driving as a minimum requirement for a position, or being able to lift/push/pull x amount of weight for a role that requires either little to no amount for daily work requirements.

What should I do if I encounter ableist language?

There are several ways of addressing ableist language depending on the specific circumstances in which it was encountered.

If it is safe to do and would likely not result in serious repercussions you could address the issue directly in the moment with the individual concerned. Remember to do so calmly, respectfully and preferably in private. It is possible that due to internalized ableism individual in question was not aware that their words or action could be construed as ableist, and in some situations could be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to put the incident behind them.

In the above case, the actual outcome can depend on exactly what happened, what words were used, and any record of the use of ableist language by the individual concerned. If you have a good relationship with the perpetrator, discussing the incident in an open and frank way and taking steps to ensure that such behaviour is not repeated can be effective. All interactions should be conducted tactfully to avoid triggering “Abled Fragility” in which people without a disability “display anger, defensiveness, or reactive backlash when confronted with the fact that their behavior is harmful to disabled people”.

In cases, where the perpetrator of the incident or unlikely to take constructive feedback in the way it is intended, seeking advice from a colleague with whom you have a good rapport to strategize future action steps is advisable. Depending on the severity of the incident and the person involved, supervisors, other managers, and your organization’s Human Resources department may need to be involved. It is helpful to have appropriate evidence pertaining to the situation such as written documents, screenshots of chats (where applicable), and meeting notes to avoid ambiguity and so that all parties have the relevant information to hand.
In a case of written documents, participants in the drafting of such documents can work to remove any ableist language contained in them and incorporate alternative words and phrases for ableist terms. Furthermore, at an organizational level, there is an opportunity to provide resources to content writers to make them aware of the issue of ableism in written and everyday language, of how some expressions can be interpreted, and how they can be avoided. Some organizations have language compliance processes by which communication materials and marketing, are checked by Human Resources or another relevant department to ensure that ableist language is not incorporated in messaging.

Scenario:

Melody’s department is writing a job description for a vacant position. The Hiring Manager has asked the department for feedback on the draft before finalizing and sending it off to HR. Melody is familiar with the needs of the position. When Melody reviews the document, she notes that one of the requirements of the job description is for the applicant to hold a driver’s license although she knows that such a qualification is not needed for the position.

Melody reached out to the hiring manager to query the reference to a driver’s license in the job description and received the response that the driver’s license was intended to ensure reliable attendance for on-site work. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Melody’s department moved to a hybrid environment and subsequently incorporated the right to work from home in contracts to facilitate the recruitment and retention of high-quality top staff. Under these contracts, employees must be present on-site 2-3 times a week. Melody’s company’s office is located within a short walking distance of a major public transit hub that connected to commuter rail, heavily used bike and walking paths. Some limited garage space was made available as some staff members had previously been obliged to use a paid parking lot in a building down the block and claim reimbursement. Given that there are a range of methods of transportation that employees could take to the office other than driving in, and also that some employees carpool, Melody felt that including the driver’s license as a requirement in the job description could be seen as exclusionary. Many of Melody’s colleagues agreed that the job description as it stood wasn’t inclusive and not in-line with the larger organization’s DEIA values. In reply, the hiring manager raised the concern that public transit does not run on the same schedule for holidays and that this might cause problems with maintaining a year-round service to customers. Other individuals involved in the hiring process noted that no problems of this nature had occurred in the past and suggested that if an issue did arise in future then it could be handled flexibly at the appropriate time. It was also mentioned that using a personal vehicle to commute to work did not guarantee problem-free attendance as periodical problems with vehicle reliability can occur. Having heard the viewpoints of stakeholders, the hiring manager agreed that the requirement for applicants for the role in question to hold a driver’s license was not necessary and agreed to remove it from the job description. The hiring manager thanked Melody and the other participants for holding a civil, positive and constructive discussion and helping the department to live up to its goal of supporting the company’s DEIA policies.

Resources: