The English Department’s chairman, J.I. Miller, is a most agreeable person with whom to have disagreement—a real gentleman. He’s someone I’ve known for a number of years and have come to regard with some great esteem. That doesn’t mean he’s not a formidable opponent.

All this is by way of saying I could not disagree with him more on this business of “inclusive language” under consideration by his department’s Freshman English Committee and his defense of it published recently on these pages.

He seems to espouse a kind of “situational grammar” that, like situational ethics, would render any and all encompassing rules or values utterly useless. There would be no rules except those that suit the situation. Because situations are always changing—in a state of flux—rules of any sort would have a half-life of zero.

Everything would be right and nothing would be wrong. Under such rules as these, any gibberish handed in NIU’s freshman English classes from now on would merit an “A”, unless, and here’s the rub, it were to offend someone.

That, an overriding desire to be inoffensive, is what, ostensibly, “inclusive language” is all about. But, in the quest of agreeableness, spoken and written communication is rendered meaningless.

If speakers and writers communicate this way to that audience and that way to this one all in the name of pleasing everybody, somebody, most likely everybody, will end up confused and nothing of substance would ever be conveyed. This, is after all, what we’ve accused politicians of doing from time immemorial and is precisely the reason we hold them in ever declining regard.

Abraham Lincoln said it about as well as could be when he said, “You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but not all of the people all of the time.” If memory serves, he was moved to make the observation in response to criticism from political hacks of the day because he made his views known too well and too forcefully for their comfort.

Begging your pardon, Dr. Miller, but give me plain, old-fashioned straight-talk, the kind everybody understands perfectly well, the kind that says the same thing to everybody. That would seem to be a better way to communicate and exchange ideas and persuade than to dance around every sensibility, real or perceived.

A postscript for all who’ve labored to this point: While I’m certain this little tone has brought offense to some by its content and construct, be assured that none was intended, most of all to the good Dr. Miller.

Jerry Thompson

Adviser

Northern Star