We communicate primarily with language, and language is composed primarily of words. Journals such as this one rely on the power of words to communicate ideas, concerns, hopes, and even fears, among a myriad of other concepts. My interest here is specifically on the effect that words have on the quality of human life when they are used to label disabilities. With the emergence of postmodern thought, we are experiencing a new way of life as it relates to education, learning, and mental health. This is particularly true as it relates to the meaning of words used to label so-called disabilities in educational settings. I do not intend here to enter into a study of word derivations. Rather, I intend to provide several examples of how words that once had relatively innocuous meanings in education and psychology have brought about unintended results. Because of the sociological impact of cultural phenomena as concrete as legislation and available funding and as abstract as the possible assignment of responsibility, a change in the meaning of these words - either by decree or by default - has taken place. The following three examples illustrate the point: Example 1: Reading disability. Much is made in the United States, if not throughout the world, of a child's need to learn to read. As long as literacy has been associated with success in life, the need to learn to read has been promoted. Over time, a number of words have been associated with the lack of reading ability. Perhaps the three most common such terms are illiterate , nonreader , and dyslexic , each with its own specific etymological derivation. Although each of the words may have a nuance of meaning, essentially all three of them describe the same condition: a person who cannot read. With full realization that I am oversimplifying to make a point, I will posit the following differentiation between illiteracy , nonreader , and dyslexic - at least as they are used in English. I suggest that we have need of these three words in order to affix responsibility - perhaps even blame - for the condition that they define. If we fail to teach our children to read on a massive scale, the inability to read is referred to as illiteracy , and the government bears the responsibility for the problem, launching large-scale assaults on what some claim are diminishing levels of literacy - at least in the United States. The inability to read, however, typically is isolated to a given school or classroom on the basis of cumulative scores on standardized, norm-referenced tests. Then the nonreaders , thus identified, become the responsibility of their teachers. The teachers are blamed for not having used the right teaching techniques or for not having been sensitive to the learning needs of the students whose reading skills are found wanting. But wait! There is a word that relieves everyone of responsibility for the problem. If the students who are unable to read are found to be dyslexic , then the fault lies not with the schools or the teachers but with the genetic makeup of the student so diagnosed. In this example, the choice of the word, or label, used to describe a condition can have dramatic repercussions in society, in schools, and in families. I have worked in schools for 50 years and have rarely encountered a truly dyslexic student. What I have encountered are hundreds of nonreaders who were thought to be (and in fact diagnosed as) dyslexic - until they were taught to read, at which point their "dyslexia" disappeared. Example 2: Learning disability. In the early 1970s, the state of Texas had a disproportionately high representation of minority students who were diagnosed as mentally retarded . Such discrimination was common nationally, so no one was surprised that such a condition existed in this state. Those of us who worked for the state department of education there were especially concerned about what seemed to us an obvious misappropriation of justice. …