Letters to the Editor
Inclusive Language Important
Dear Editor,
I am writing this in response to
the letter that Ron Peterson wrote
in the March 9 issue of the Lance,
concerning the SAGE 222 sylla
bus' use of the [sic] after "Essay
on Man." I would like to say that
I agree with Ron in that I, too,
believe that the sexes are equal
and that we do need to work
together, and not against each
other.
In the letter to the editor, it was
pointed out that the [sic] was
placed after the title of Pope's
essay, but not after the one called
"The Woman Troubadors, by
Julian of Norwich. In my under
standing, this was not done to
indicate that the word "man" is
bad and "woman" is not. Rather,
the two writings were addressing
different things. The authors of
the SAGE 222 syllabus meant to
point out that Pope's essay was
actually about humanity, not
man, and thus the [sic] indicated
for it to be read as such. The
writing by Julian of Norwich, on
the other hand, was specifically
about women, so there was no
need to indicate any differently.
Still, there is the contention that
the choice of the title is the
author's perogative, and we have
no right to say that it is wrong for
our times. I disagree.
I realize that many of the
people who use exclusive lan
guage do not intend to exclude
women, because in their minds
the word "man" does mean "hu
manity." But, it is important to
understand that in this changing
society, many other people, such
as myself, do not hold that mean
ing for the word "man." The
purpose of language is communi
cation, and when speaking or
writing, we should try to use
words that will communicate
ideas to the people being ad
dressed. If it is known that many
women do feel excluded when
the term "man" is used, and a
person is addressing women as
well as men, in order to effec
tively communicate, the attempt
should be made to respect those
women and use words that share
a common meaning to all con
cerned. I, for one, appreciate the
conscious effort that the SAGE
222 team is making to communi
cate with words that do share a
common meaning to all of us
being addressed.
Language is the primary way
that humans communicate with
each other, and naturally as
people change over the centuries,
so does language. Therefore, in
order to effectively communicate
ideas from earlier times in
history, it is sometimes necessary
to alter the language somewhat
so that it can be applied to
contemporary times. The intent
is not to change what the author
is saying, or to say that what the
author wrote is wrong. Rather, it
is an attempt to better convey the
meaning of the author in lan
guage fits our time, so that the
message is better understood and
more applicable to today. Even
so, I am sure that many people
today would contend that the
word "man" is applicable to our
time. I do not feel that this is the
case.
Language is very powerful and
influential in shaping the mind
sets and images in a person, both
on the conscious and uncon
scious level. Every time exclu
sive language is used, regardless
of whether the person using it
means for it to be exclusive, it re
inforces the image and mindset
of male superiority. Our society
is in the midst of changing from a
patriarchal mindset to one of
equality for the sexes. Inclusive
language is a vital part of being
able to complete that transition.
Until we, as a society, realize that
the word "man" does not mean
"humanity, " we will continue to
promote the mindset of an earlier
time, even if our actions state
otherwise. True, it is the author's
perogative to title a work as he or
she chooses. However, it is our
perogative, as readers, to change
a word when we read it, in order
to be able to apply the reading to
ourselves. And, it is certainly the
SAGE 222 team's right to make a
formal statement that the word
"man" is inapplicable to our
time, therefore informing the
women in SAGE 222 that we are
indeed included in who they, as
professors, are addressing.
Cindy Cushman
Ideas About Forum Discussed
At Wednesday night's student
forum, one issue addressed, as
expected, was the chaplain
situation. It appears that the
overwhelming majority of people
expressing opinions on this topic
would prefer that the plan of
intenm chaplains, with a new
one every year, be forsaken. This
is probably due partiy to our
desire to build a good rapport
with our chaplain, something not
easy to do with a person who will
only hold the position for one
year. I think we are also, on the
whole, quite satisfied with our
present chaplain, and see her as a
good person to build this rela
tionship with, rather than start
ing over next Fall with someone
we do not know. Getting 250+
signatures on the petition relating
to this issue may have been one
thing to strengthen our position
in this debate, but as was pointed
out in Tuesday morning's Bible
Study meeting, having President
Reuschling come to Vespers
Sunday night, and seeing only
five students there, most likely
was not. There is nothing wrong
vwth saying how we feel, but I
don't think it is as effective as
SHOWING how we feel.
Something-olse to come up
Wednesday evening was the
threat of students' well-being and
safety on campus, coming from
people outside the St. Andrews
community. When this was
brought to the attention of Secu
rity Chief Theiron Young, he
stressed the importance of con
tacting security immediately
when we feel that our rights to
privacy, and/or safety have been,
or may be, violated, rather than
tending to other small details
first. Now if that detail happens
to be questioning the person
involved tactfully, but firmly, as
to just why she or he is here, that
is probably a good idea. Other
wise, according to Young, a few
minutes can make-indeed, has
made- the difference between
getting to the bottom of a prob
lem and have the matter pass
unresolved.
Christopher Wood
Editor's Note: A special
thanlcs to Mark Powell and
Toni Griffin, without whom
this issue would not have
been possible.
-M.A.R.
Staff
Michael Roberts
Editor-in-Chief
MaryEllen Hambley
Asst. Editor
Eric Eubank
Assoc. Editor
Staff Writers:
Nancy Often
Krys Wood
Pam Whitfield