“Honey, you have to see the interview on Colbert from last night. The CEO of Special Olympics was on talking about person-first language!” my husband excitedly said to me one morning last week. I had fallen asleep while we were watching it together the night before. And, no, I didn’t fall asleep during it’s 11:30pm timeslot. I am (just a little) embarrassed to admit that we were watching our DVR’d version at about 8pm!

I did watch it. And then I watched it again. And then I tweeted it and posted it on my Facebook wall. And I kept thinking about it and talking about it with anyone who would listen. Here is the clip, in case you haven’t seen it. Watch it and then meet me back here and we can discuss.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Tim Shriver
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

OK. Pretty good, right? By “pretty” I mean, I love to see this kind of advocacy taking place on a show with such wide influence. Also, I do love the R-word campaign. But, by “pretty,” I also mean that I do have some criticisms. With no disrespect meant to Tim Shriver, President and CEO of Special Olympics, I think he got a little lost in his message. Here is what I mean:

The clip is about the “R-word” campaign. However, Mr. Shriver talks about person-first language and the importance of putting the person before the disability. In my opinion, that doesn’t have much to do with the R-word campaign, which is focused on stopping people from using the word “retard” as a slang insult. The campaign is beautiful and effective in its simplicity. Instead, Mr. Shriver talked about how mental retardation was a term that was used in the past and that now the term is intellectual disabilities. Which is true, but not really related to the R-word campaign. Which brings me to my next point…

· Mr. Shriver said that, although he knew that others didn’t like it, he likes the term “intellectual diffabilities” (a mash-up of the word “difference” and the word “disability”). I, personally, have a strong negative reaction to that term. It is one of those cringe-inducing, overly euphemistic terms like handicapable or differently-abled.

· I also didn’t love how he explained person-first language. I sat there thinking that I could do a much better job. Of course, being interviewed by Stephen Colbert may be one of the hardest things to do on television, so I shouldn’t be so judgmental. And I am really not trying to be judgey. I know Mr. Shriver was trying to poke fun at Colbert when he called him a “person with goop in his hair,” but I don’t know if it really helped viewers develop any new understanding of people with disabilities.

Again, no disrespect intended to Mr. Shriver and the incredible work he and his family have done for people with disabilities.

I think that the most important sentence in that entire interview was the one that Colbert delivered as a spontaneous PSA at the end. I thought it brilliantly summed up the point of the R-word campaign in a way that was light, funny and important.

What are your thoughts?

Share |