by Hayley Brittingham Staff Reporter _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ The “R-word” video was shown in homeroom on March 17 to promote respect for the mentally disabled. The word “retarded” is used about 28,400 times on the Internet alone, according to rwordcounter.org. Because its use is so widespread, recent publicized attempts to abolish it are laughably pointless. The video began with an endorsement by “Scrubs” star John C. McGinley, who advocated for the abolition of the “R-word” in modern conversation on the basis that it makes those with mental disabilities “feel like less valued members of humanity.” The video then introduced perspectives of various Atholton students who told of their experiences with bullying and stated halfheartedly that the “R-word” should be eliminated. Although the campaign had admirable intentions, it was poorly designed and certainly not handled in the right manner. Any attempt to eradicate a word is generally fruitless. People will always be made fun of and bullied; it is a sad fact of life. Of course, there is no harm in trying to spread awareness of bullying, perhaps by making people more sensitive about what they say, but getting rid of the “R-word” would not solve anything, even if it were successful. If people stopped using “retarded,” they would simply move on to other abusive language that in all probability would be equally offensive. Whatever word they chose, it would be made into something that alienates a certain group, because that is the way profanity amongst modern teens works. Rather than trying to eliminate the word, the campaign should focus on awareness of such abusive language. The campaign does point out that the “R-word” is particularly offensive to those with mental disabilities. This may be true, but the campaign was not presented in a way that many Atholton students could relate to. For instance, the students in the video were not chosen very wisely. Many student viewers thought that the student speakers were being phony and had no real experience with the “R-word” or the like. There are plenty of students at Atholton with relatives or close friends with disabilities who could have had more of an effect on the audience. Atholton, however, is not the only one having problems relating to their audience. Attempts to change the “R-word” are worldwide. Efforts are sponsored by the Special Olympics and the campaign is endorsed by over 200 organizations, most of which are dedicated to promoting rights for people with disabilities. Campaign managers fail to recognize that most people cannot relate to this approach because they are not acquainted with anyone who is disabled. Because so many people use the word, managers should try to relate to a much larger audience if they aspire to remove an entire word from the English language. There is an abundance of offensive language towards other minority groups that the campaign could have also focused on in addition to the “R-word,” which would have made it much more effective. These words all alienate their respective targets, and combined, they insult far more people than just the “R-word.” More people would have been interested in the video, because more people would have friends or family members that have been targeted by these types of offensive language. According to “The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words,” by Timothy Jay, profanity accounts for 0.5 to 0.7% of all spoken words according to tape-recorded conversations. Though this may not seem like a lot, in comparison, the studies found that plural first-person pronouns (i.e. we, us, our) account for 1% of all spoken words. As mentioned above, the “R-word” alone is used only 28,400 times on the Internet, which has an estimated 100 trillion total words. The word “retarded” accounts for less than one three-trillionth of a percent of all the language on the internet. Assuming that the “R-word” is used about the same amount on the internet and in conversation in relation to other profanity, it accounts for less than one two-billionth of a percent of all profanity. Therefore, had the school’s campaign focused on abusive language as a whole, they would have encompassed a much larger audience. Instead, all the campaign succeeded in doing was causing people to say “retarded” much more than they had previously. One student even stood up during the video and proclaimed, “This video is retarded,” much to the class’s amusement. The campaign would have been more effective had it focused on all offensive language and simply encouraged students to be more sensitive to others, rather than attempting to abolish the “R-word” altogether. |