|
October 29, 2007
As members of
the human race, we look to our capacity for language to elevate our
communication skills above all other members of the animal kingdom.
Civilizations are separated by archaeologists based on their languages
and their ability to create sophisticated writing systems for
recording the spoken word.
Creating words
to say what we mean has inspired the thesaurus, where subtle
connotations can dictate the use of one particular synonym to mean
exactly what one wants to say. Every fifth grade teacher has
struggled to expand the vocabulary of budding writers. How many times
does a student use “pretty” in her story when “gorgeous, comely,
lovely, ravishing, sightly or elegant” would paint a better picture?
Costume
designers and actors can create ten different people who are “rude”
based on the author’s choice of words. He may be rude…but is he
audacious, bold, brazen, cheeky, forward, impertinent, insolent,
disdainful, nervy or sassy?
The
sophistication of our language points to the premium we place on
communication. Whenever a relationship is deteriorating, the first
place we look to is the couple’s ability to effectively communicate.
Almost seven million…six million nine hundred and fifty thousand, to
be exact…links are reported by Google search engines looking for
“improving communication in relationships.”
With so much
emphasis on improving communication, it defies human intelligence to
understand the logic behind the decision of the California legislature
to retract language back to caveman status. This month Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 into law. When it takes effect it
will prohibit any instruction or school-sponsored activity that would
promote discrimination against gender. That means terms like "mom and
dad" and "husband and wife" cannot be used in California textbooks
because they suggest that heterosexuality is the norm.
“Suggest”…to hint, to imply…that heterosexuality is the norm…this is a
bad thing? If we are not to consider the particularity of our sex,
then why does every form we fill out have two boxes for us to
check…male…female. One imagines “neutral” forms of the future where
we instead will check either…human…or…other.
This
restriction of communication comes at a particularly interesting time
in human civilization. More and more boxes have been added to the
forms we fill out, an attempt to fully communicate whether we are
Caucasian, Hispanic, African-American, Pacific Islander, American
Indian, Eskimo, Asian…or for lack of specific descriptors for our
origins…Other.
This
attention to diversity is required even for second graders and is a
headache for every teacher who must help thirty seven-year-olds to
properly record their ethnicity in less than an hour. Librarians are
guided by diversity to ensure that their choice of books includes
stories for every ethnicity and representing cultures worldwide.
Now,
suddenly and legally, under the terms of SB 777, diversity has become
a bad thing. No longer can children be exposed to women and men who
are moms and dads inside of marriages where they committed to one
another as husbands and wives. And why?
Because this form of diversity is offensive to people who have chosen
not to express their heterosexuality in traditional ways…people who
describe themselves as homosexual, gay, lesbian and transgendered.
Depending on your choice of words, this conundrum is either puzzling,
confusing, challenging, mysterious or problematic.
Even
as we keep giving people more and more ways to describe themselves, we
are taking away the ability of children to describe their moms and
dads. We are asking children to ignore the fact that their moms and
dads are husbands and wives.
Do we
think that by legislating language that children will fail to pick up
on the heterosexual realities of the world they live in? Do we think
that requiring children to describe the adults in their homes as
parent, parent or parent, will keep them from noticing their parents
are of different sexes and wear wedding rings?
What
has happened to the premium we place on honoring diversity? Honoring
different ways of living? Honoring cultural values…even if they are
the values of the very culture we live in?
With
so many words to say what we mean, to describe the variety of life
around us, what in the world has led us to make laws removing words
from the dictionary for the very purpose of not saying what we know is
true? Dear Governor Arnold, if you can find the proper words...say it
isn’t so.
**********
July 9, 2007
Teaching Denial and Ignorance
July 3, 2006
m...m...m...Married?
See Archives
for past editorials.
_____________________ |
