Column on judicial language sets bad example

The Dec. 29 column, "Disability terminology: The California Supreme Court sets the tone," by Thomas Coleman of the Spectrum Institute is mislabeled. It should have said, "Sets a Stupid Example."

Forgive me, but as I write this, I suffer from a headache, a cold, and feelings of irritation. Under the regimen prescribed by Thomas Coleman in his recent article, however, I should have described myself as a man "with a cold," a man "with a headache," and an "irritated man." Thanks to Mr. Coleman I now realize that in my use of the word "suffering" I misunderstood the pain I have caused myself -- and probably him and his tribe.

"Suffer the little children." Poor Mr. Coleman must have been horrified when he first read (or heard of) this Biblical injunction. I gather he never considered the possibility that to suffer means to endure and that it frequently implies personal character. For him the word is an invidious but "subliminal conveyance" of condescension or offense. And imagine the feelings of worthlessness felt by a litigant who is described as "restricted to a wheelchair" when his feelings of inferiority could be banished by the simple use of the lilting phrase "a person who uses a wheelchair."

I would wager that more than one appellate opinion has retroactively embarrassed its author by describing an unfortunate (whoops!) litigant as "suffering from the birth defect spina bifida." What to do? Depublish? Unfortunately in this birth defect example, Mr. Coleman gives a writer no alternative usage. But let the robot writer at least show "respect" and banishment may be avoided.

My own solution to defective writing comes from E.B. White's Elements of Style: Use the active voice, omit needless words. Also: tell the truth. 

-- Derek W. Hunt

Judge, Orange County Superior Court