By Mansfield Frazier
A few weeks ago the Plain Dealer ran an editorial lauding Gov. John Kasich for signing a bill that will make the transition from prison back into the community a bit easier for those returning home from periods of incarceration. While I was appreciative of the sentiments expressed in the editorial, I nonetheless was a bit troubled by the language used and wrote the following Letter to the Editor… which was published a few days later:
While your editorial “A Real Chance for Ex-Cons” was meant to be helpful, your language, unfortunately, was not. The term “ex-cons” is pejorative and conjures up images of someone still dangerous, or not worthy of society’s trust. We in the reentry movement have, for the last seven or so years, been attempting to move media — as well as the public —away from using such terms.
When society was ready to treat the mentally ill with respect, the first thing that happened was the terms used to describe such individuals changed… no longer were words such as “lunatics” or “morons” acceptable.
Similarly, in the reentry movement, the terms “ex-cons” and “ex-felons” have been replaced with the more accurate “returning citizens.” The faster we can make the linguistic shift and drop the pejorative and hurtful terms… the faster the problems of employment, housing and health care faced by this demographic will be solved.
My letter caused Michael Klingensmith of Cleveland to write his own Letter to the Editor in response, which was published a few days later:
Little did anyone know that the problem facing ex-convicts as they attempt to become productive, law-abiding members of society is merely society’s use of the term “ex-convict.” Apparently, all of the ills facing these individuals stem from those of us who refuse to use the Orwellian Newspeak “returning citizen.”
Unfortunately, this is just the most recent example of political correctness. The movement to redefine our language in order to remove any real meaning from words ultimately results in a reduction of critical thinking. To wit, “returning citizen” has no real definition and could mean any handful of things.
That said, the effort to modify Ohio’s laws to better accommodate ex-cons’ re-entry and assimilation into society should be applauded, since it holds many benefits. However, that effort should not come at the expense of the English language and the ordinary, everyday meaning of words.
My response to Mr. Klingensmith’s response is that he’s certainly entitled to his opinion — no matter how specious and ill-conceived it might be, but I, nonetheless, am somewhat dumbfounded (and slightly amused) that the PD would publish a letter that twisted my thoughts, meanings and words out of context to the degree this writer did. I would have thought the letters editor would have spotted this bit of linguistic legerdemain by Mr. Klingensmith.
At no point did I say, or even hint, that the problems facing returning citizens’ lie “merely” with how they are defined by language. That would be akin to my saying that once we changed the manner in which we address those with mental illnesses their problems somehow were all solved. What utter and sheer nonsense.
The complete oversimplification of my position by Mr. Klingensmith essentially misrepresents the purpose of my letter. The challenges facing returning citizens are far, far more complicated and deeply rooted than the titles they’re known by, but changing how they are defined is a requisite starting point if society seriously cares to ameliorate the problems faced by this demographic.
Mr. Klingensmith purportedly was writing in defense of the accurate use of language (to somehow keep the language “pure” if you will) — which, as a writer myself, I’m completely in accordance with and supportive of. Language does matter… a lot. But he distorted my words to make his point. He assigned additional meanings (his own) to my words simply to carry his argument, which, in and of itself is the kind of abuse of language his letter supposedly takes to task and rails against.
I assiduously refrain from picking at every nit; as a writer my words and thoughts should be (and certainly are) scrutinized and held up to the light for critical examination on a routine basis… and I’m cool with that. I only ask that the light used not be a false one.
Indeed, I welcome other opinions and points of view (even smarmy or snarky ones) since they can help me sharpen my thinking. I simply ask that the criticism at least be honest, well conceived, and if it’s not asking too much — original.
While the author of the letter has somewhat of a middling faculty with the English language, he nevertheless obviously fails to comprehend the bigger picture: that all languages of the world are in constant flux. True, this might disturb the sensibilities of some latter-day Luddites and present-day reactionaries… those who continue to pine away for the “good old days” but change happens nonetheless. And, as civilization advances, language by necessity must advance to reflect new-found enlightenments. This is neither “Orwellian” nor kowtowing to political correctness… it’s called progress.
Would Mr. Klingensmith prefer we go back to using ugly, pejorative terms to label those fellow citizens who happen to suffer from mental illnesses? The fact society has quit using derogatory terms for this population “come(s) at the expense of the English language and the ordinary, everyday meaning of words” does it not, Mr. Klingensmith?
Methinks this gentleman would prefer to be selective in regards to which demographic he does or does not care to demonize with language. Again, changing the way in which we label disadvantaged individuals certainly won’t solve their problems. But if Mr. Klingensmith is sincere when he stated he “applauded” the effort to assist this population (and I have no reason to believe he was being disingenuous), logic would dictate that we start with changes that move the agenda forward while costing us nothing… except giving up outmoded language, outdated thinking and old prejudices.
From Cool Cleveland correspondent Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com. Frazier’s From Behind The Wall: Commentary on Crime, Punishment, Race and the Underclass by a Prison Inmate is available again in hardback. Snag your copy and have it signed by the author by visiting http://www.neighborhoodsolutionsinc.com.
One Response to “MANSFIELD: Language Matters”
IndyCA35
Gimme a break. “Returning citizens” sounds like they were on vacation in Europe or something.
How about “recovering felons?” It denotes they did something very bad but are trying to get better.
Another thing: I am familiar with another state, not Ohio. In that state, ex-cons are not allowed to have drivers’ licenses. Makes no sense because it hinders them from getting jobs. What’s the law about this in Ohio?