This is in response to the editor’s note with the letter from David Forrest ’60 in the Oct. 26 issue of PAW. You really have me confused now. I thought the “purpose” of “gender-inclusive language” was to eliminate gender distinction. Was I wrong? Now you are “streamlining” the list of “words to be avoided”? I’m sorry, but this silly obsession is unbecoming for a supposedly distinguished institution.
Published online November 30, 2016
This is in response to the editor’s note with the letter from David Forrest ’60 in the Oct. 26 issue of PAW. You really have me confused now. I thought the “purpose” of “gender-inclusive language” was to eliminate gender distinction. Was I wrong? Now you are “streamlining” the list of “words to be avoided”? I’m sorry, but this silly obsession is unbecoming for a supposedly distinguished institution.