Sidebar: Emerson Transgendered
S urrounded as we are by the brick and iron Harvard gates--made distinct, apart, and enclosed from the beating of real life on streets and more complex than the jumble of criss-crossing yard paths that we regularly traverse--we do not come to realize that the centuries-old traditions and time-honored academic excellence that invariably attracted us to the institution are as unstable as Widener is immense. The walls encircling us foretell more than mere property boundaries; this separation, this sectioning-off symbolically threatens to stifle our education in ways so covert that they are daily, and therefore dangerously overlooked.
Gender prejudice has always been deceptive. In recent years, as legal equalities have become readily integrated into our educational standards, the injustices that in th past were so obvious in the past manifest themselves in more subtle, unseen ways. Perpetuated through societal expectations, sex discrimination can be so dangerous because it is often so innate. Without realizing it, we learn here at Harvard how to discriminate in the most basic of ways.
Posing as intellectuals involved in intellectual debates, we readily claim that there is no discrimination against solid ideas, no discrimination when it comes to the voices of the hard fact and informed debate that stew within the campus community. Yet Harvard--indeed, many colleges--is complicit in the perpetuation of gender discrimination through the blatant scarcity of female faculty. Still, even this reality is only the product of what is at the core a solidly male education. All of academia's honorable efforts at attaining a semblance of equality continuously overlook the most pertinent of discrepancies. After all, the most ingrained, culturally-accepted form of discrimination lies at the heart of the collegiate pursuit of knowledge: language. Imbued with masculine usage, references, and assumptions, gendered communication quietly perpetuates sexism even within those academic walls that take pride in claiming autonomy from discrimination.
The most pronounced gendered language problem, the gendered pronoun, relies upon a tradition of masculine language. Throughout centuries of linguistic tradition, "he" was used to signify man. The assumption: that the male role in intellectual and world affairs was so much more profound than that of the female, that only "man" needed to be considered. As years went by, the usage that was originally sexist became commonly accepted in literature and language. As students learning in an academic environment, we read countless texts that assume the reader is a man. Accustomed to its usage, we often glide over the sexist pronoun. We chalk this implicit discrimination up to a tradition that extends beyond our control.
Rather than notice the implications of gendered language, we excuse the words as potentially encompassing all people--we twist "he" to mean "she/he," "man" to mean "people," "mankind" to mean "humankind." Assuming that the male pronoun is neuter enables us to more readily accept the discrepancy between our language and our modern thought. However, by learning to ignore the gender, we merely disregard the traditions underlying the usage. By allowing our eyes to barely pause over an author's discriminatory words, we accept a form of gender subordination that recounts an academic tradition of sexism.
Because of the increasing awareness concerning gendered language, the most common reaction follows the traditionalist rationale: by redefining "he" so that it can apply to everyone, regardless of gender, many people recreate the definition of the word altogether. Through this process of redefinition, the pronouns take on new meanings. While this egalitarian reinterpretation begins to address the distinctions inherent in the language, this approach amounts to little more than turning a blind eye to the injustice for which the usage stands. Masculine language nevertheless remains grounded in the long tradition of gender-discrimination in literature. No matter how much we grow to naturally replace gendered language with our own non-discriminatory connotations, "he" shall always be an inherently masculine form that suggests long-standing inequalities.
In the current debate, the gendered pronoun is certainly a more sensitive issue than it once was; indeed, many professors heed its usage, preferring the non-distinct alternatives, such as the all-inclusive "he/she" or even the grammatically incorrect neuter "their." To the credit of our education, many realize the implicitly discriminatory connotations of non-specific, gendered language and encourage the alternatives. The alternatives to the traditional form directly challenge our assumptions regarding language, and, more importantly, challenge what was for many years a one-sided, dichotomous view of humanity.
Many critics of the non-discriminatory forms, such as "he/she," claim that these pronouns are bulky or call unnecessary attention to themselves. Critics of the use of "she" claim that the usage amounts to little more than reverse discrimination. However, considering the entrenched literary tradition of discrimination against women, it is even better that the new forms make readers take notice of their placement. Only by bringing people's attention to the implicit prejudice in language will we ever come to recognize the imperative of changing what is a grossly inequitable tradition.
While addressing the issue of gender pronouns is the least we can do to reverse a linguistic tradition of sexism, the language merely symbolizes far deeper cultural attitudes. Until we change the status of women within an unequal society, the use of non-specific gender language will remain merely symbolic. Until women can truly claim certain equitable rights, life itself will remain discriminatory. Gendered language is ultimately a symptom, having far greater implications than the works of literature it constitutes. While gendered language must be brought to our attention and actively changed, the societal, political battles that women face must be won if true--not symbolic--equality is to be established.
As students, we hardly sense how gravely discrimination affects our education. At Harvard, we are victims of overlooked prejudice. As a prejudice so intrinsic in our thought that we rarely think to question it, gendered language suggests the far-reaching, inequitable cultural attitudes that continue to permeate the walls of Harvard Yard.