The Washington Post published an interesting opinion piece on the word Retard and the effort of the Special Olympics and others to eliminate its use in everyday speech (The case against banning the word “retard”). Within the piece, the offense and harm the word causes is overridden with an argument for free speech, an assertion that it can be “friendly” depending on context, and a claim that it was historically neutral.
These arguments are hollow. Just because you can open your mouth and utter what you want, it doesn’t mean you should. The word is crass and demeaning to the uneducated. That it has a positive meaning to some is a matter of questionable personal taste, and comparing it to the acceptability of words such as “gay,” “queer,” and the N-word within some social circles is a desperate reach to rationalize its use. I doubt the author of the opinion piece had a lifetime worth of epithets launched at him, and I hope the Post publishes several reactive letters from people who will detail their experiences. Finally, the evolution of the term within institutions doesn’t make the word sacrosanct. Margret Winzer details its use as a negative category of difference to justify segregation and even elimination of the “feebleminded.”
Choosing not to use the word because we can choose our speech, because it isn’t positive if we feel true empathy for those it harms, and because the future can be better than the past through our willingness to speak differently are excellent reasons to take the Special Olympics pledge and reflect on how our words effect others.