Baylor > Lariat Archives > News


+Politically correct+ language fills all areas from school to church

March 5, 1997

'Politically correct' language fills all areas from school to church

The issue:

'PC' langauge

His view:

Politically

correct

language demeans the English

language.

Ryan Riggs

campus columnist

Everyone gives the 'P.C.' crowd some grief, most of it deserved. For those of you unfamiliar with those initials, it stands for 'politically correct,' the term used to describe those people who have butchered English grammar by placing restraints on it under the guise of inclusiveness, forcing the use of terms one may not want to use in order to feel better about themselves. I had an English professor who gave me, despite having straight A's in her class, a failing grade on the final paper with the admonition that it was not for the quality of the paper that I received that grade but for my lack of inclusiveness.

You see, about 20-30 years ago, when the women's libbers became 'feminists,' there was a big push to rid the English language of sexist terms.

Decades later, this is still raging, and make no mistake, the anti-free speech crowd has progressed. Try using the word 'infantryman' next time you're on Microsoft Word and do a grammar check. It will tell you the word is gender specific and you should use 'infantry-person' instead. It matters not that women do not serve in the infantry.

And on the topic of gender, what is with Baylor's new 'Gender Studies' program? I have rarely seen anything as misleading as this in my life. Once again, for those of you in the dark, Baylor has entered the 1990's.

About a year and a half ago, at a conference here on the place of religious institutions in a pluralistic society, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, the distinguished philosopher/theologian at Yale Divinity School, (who called me a Mexican, incidentally) humbled the faculty in attendance when he declared that it was his opinion that no serious university can exist if it does not have a women's studies program.

And that is precisely what the Gender Studies program is. Look over the brochure and you will find the words 'woman' or 'women' in the title of each and every course. There is nothing 'gender' about it. It is a cloak to disguise what it truly is. Why don't they just come out of the closet, so to speak, and call it what it is? Some of the faculty I've spoken to believe it never would have gone through University channels if it had been gender specific. In the meantime, a blind monkey can see through this facade (no offense to the blind or to simian-Americans).

Let me tell you what I call it: ridiculous. Not just the program (although I don't think that everyone's pet project is worthy of being granted academic worth), but all of this nonsense.

A few weeks ago, a local pastor was trying to relate to a congregation about being overworked and overpressured. 'You're not supposed to be Superperson,' he said. Superperson? What in the name of all that is good and holy is Superperson? I believe 'Superman' is who he meant.

After all, Superman brings to mind a character with a particular nature, representing certain ideals and values. If he wanted to add another gender to it, he could have included Wonder Woman (who brings to mind the always beautiful Lynda Carter).

Even God isn't immune to the PC- fungus. Go and ask the grad students that cannot say 'God, and His son Jesus' without catching some kind of grief, because 'His son' excludes women. This is an atrocity, seeing the letter of the language over the spirit of the language.

Who are They? We know who They are. They are the ones who want 'Our Father who art in heaven' to become 'Our Mother-Father Creator.' They are the ones who think America is sexist and believe in things like 'sister-choice.' They are the ones who demand rights They already have, and disparage those who disagree with Them. The fact that 'son of man' in many modern biblical translations is now 'human being' or worse yet, 'mortal,' is more than just theological significance.

Imagine if Shakespeare or Chaucer were saddled with this absurdity. Nothing could be more egregious than to demand that the language be changed to satisfy the insecurities of a loud and cranky bunch of egotistical academics. It is the systematic manipulation by academia to perform an incredible wrong: to change the English language because they feel oppressed, not that they actually are oppressed. You want oppression? Stick them in a Gulag, then they'll learn oppression.

Copyright © 1997 The Lariat

Comments or Questions can be sent to The Lariat