[lg policy] Prince-ton, you’ve got a problem…..

Harold Schiffman hfsclpp at gmail.com
Sun Aug 21 16:23:02 EDT 2016

 Prince-ton, you’ve got a problem…..

[image: Princeton1]
<http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Princeton1.jpg>In an attempt
to advance the cause of political correctness on college campuses,
Princeton University adopted guidelines last year for a new “gender-inclusive
language policy
that attempts to end the usage of “*gender-based* *words”* like “mankind”
and “freshman” to be replaced by “*gender-inclusive words”* (more
accurately described as *gender non-specific, or gender-neutral words*)
like “humanity” and “first-year students.” The gender inclusive
*non-specific* language policy at Princeton apparently first appeared on
the university’s HR website in March 2015 (see the bottom of each page in
the HR document “Guidelines for Using Gender Inclusive Language
but just recently received a new wave of media attention, see recent
article here <http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28540/>, here,
here <http://heatst.com/culture-wars/princeton-man/>, and here

>From the Princeton guidelines:

Gender-inclusive *non-specific* language is writing and speaking about
people in a manner that does not use gender-based words. Gender binary is
the traditional view on human gender, which does not take into
consideration individuals who identify as otherwise, including and not
limited to transgender, genderqueer, gender non-conforming, and/or intersex.

>From the section on *Tips*:

Use gender-neutral occupational titles and gender-neutral generic terms
instead of the generic term *man*, generic words, and expressions that
contain the word *man* and the use of man as an adjective or verb. Avoid
expressions like *career woman*. Instead, be specific: *artist*, *director*,
*doctor*, *professor*, etc. The top table above (“Occupations”) provides a
list of gender-inclusive generic terms to use instead of the generic term
*man*, generic words and expressions that contain the word *man*, and the
use of *man* as an adjective or verb.

The bottom table above provides additional examples of the new preferred
“gender-inclusive language” for “Generic Terms and Expressions,” e.g.
“spouses or partners” instead of “man and wife.”

And in the section on *Job Postings*, the Princeton language police now
require the use of “gender-inclusive language in all job postings.”
Traditional terms in job postings like he/she, he or she, h/she, and
his/her are now banned, to be replaced with “gender-inclusive *neutral*
language*.*” See examples below of how job postings are expected to be
revised to become “gender non-specific.” Actually, what it is about the
terms he/she, he or she, h/she and his/her — terms that include both
genders — that are not “gender-inclusive”?
[image: Capture] <http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Capture.png>

But, I’d have to say….. “*Princeton, we have a problem.*” Actually,
Princeton has several problems, some minor ones and one very big one.

The minor problems are that many of the new “*gender non-specific/**gender
inclusive*” terms that are supposed to be stripped of all “
*gender-specificity*” still contain *gender-based, male references*: per
*son*, chairper*son*, businessper*son*, foreper*son*, layper*son*, *man*ager,
salesper*son*, hu*man*ity, hu*man*kind, hu*man*s, hu*man* beings,
and per*son* hours.

Those terms still seem pretty “*gender-based*” to me….

And who issued the gender inclusive language guidelines? It was Princeton
University’s Office of Hu*man* Resources! That’s a pretty *gender-based*
name of the office that wants to end *gender-based* language?

But there’s an even much bigger problem for *Prince-*ton University…… Need
I say more? The irony here is very, very deep and very, very rich.


N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20160821/40c02013/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list

More information about the Lgpolicy-list mailing list