This letter is a response to the letter of Oct. 9 by Douglas Broehl. Mr. Broehl chastises the English faculty for their “fleeting concern” with gender-inclusive language, while shortcomings in the writing abilities of NIU students persist.

Mr. Broehl’s argument is predicated upon the unstated assumption that a concern for gender-inclusive language is inimical to the project of improving the writing skills of the students. This assumption has not been substantiated in his entire letter.

In his criticism of the argument, for why one ought to use politically-correct speech, Mr. Broehl has not stated the argument. Assuming the argument to be—(a) if one simply changes the way one writes about something, then one will necessarily change the way one thinks about the same thing, (b) one simply changes the way one writes about something; then it follows that one will necessarily change the way one thinks about the same thing. Surely Mr. Broehl is enough of a logician to recognize this argument as valid.

The soundness of the argument rests on the truth of the first premise. That this premise is unanalyzed does not automatically render the premise false or the argument unsound. Mr. Broehl does not diplay an enviable logical coherence in his argumentation here.

If this is not the argument that Mr. Broehl is “focusing” on, he needs to state his argument clearly and demonstrate its invalidity.

I, admittedly, don’t understand why the term “caveman” must be changed to “cave-dweller,” and in this may share some of Mr. Broehl’s irritation at the extent to how far this concern for gender-inclusive language is carried.

Yet, I am unable to identify with what I can only describe as the arrogant hysteria of his letter. I urge him to strive, in his own writing, towards the coherence that he has so vigorously endorsed in his letter.

Sanjay Kapoor

Graduate Student

Philosophy