Iz Ze Rite?

Academe has really become extreme.

News reports cascade about politically correct rulings of university administrators.  Admittedly most dispatches are carried by print, cable and some broadcast outlets often labeled conservative.  But one’s political leanings should not deter discernment of illogic.

George Will recently devoted an entire column to the growing wont of so-called educators to control speech.  One of his paragraphs begins: “The University of Tennessee’s Office for Diversity and Inclusion, worried that gender-specific pronouns (‘he,’ ‘she,’ ‘him,’ ‘her’), suggests gender-neutral noises (‘ze,’ ‘hir,’ ‘xe,’ ‘xem,’ ‘xyr’).”  Will, without commenting on his sentence, immediately goes to another university and its example.

He and we might note that the Tennessee neologists have done nothing more than promote substitute “words” for the identical meanings of English pronouns.  These are not new words that avoid gender.  No, masculine and feminine are recognized still.  “Hir” might even sound like “her” and both obviously refer to feminine gender.  So how logical is that?

But “male” and “female” are examples of “‘derogatory/oppressive language,’”  according to a syllabus written by a Washington State University female teacher, also cited by Will.

One person Will refers to in his column teaches “advanced feminist studies.”  She resigned from the University of Missouri, but a safe bet is that she -- excuse, please -- xe would approve of the suggestions from the UT diversity/ inclusion people.  

By the bye, doesn’t “diversity” “include” by its very definition?  The third meaning of “diverse” in the dictionary on this computer reads: “including representatives from more than one social, cultural, or economic group, especially members of ethnic or religious minority groups.”  Its example: “a diverse student body.”

A liberal arts college is included in nearly every university.  In the middle ages, universities concentrated on what were called the seven liberal arts: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music (the quadrivium) and grammar, rhetoric, and logic (the trivium).  All of these studies trace their developments to the philosophers of ancient Greece.  Those “lovers of knowledge” or “philosophers” found truths that are -- well -- still true.  These truths are ignored by today’s tyro scholars to their intellectual peril.

“Higher education brought low” was the headline for Will’s column in The Washington Post.  He asked in his final sentence: “What, exactly, is it higher than?”

Real Debates Better?

Something has got to change if televised debates for presidential hopefuls are to help voters choose.

Political debaters usually are challenged by their interlocutors to be specific in proposing national policies.  Even five minutes instead of, say, ninety seconds to answer would be insufficient.  Tax plans can be outlined in a manner of a few flickers of a digital clock, but explaining how a 1040 can be manipulated to make filing easier and still protect mortgage interest and support for charities along with some consideration of medical expenses --- that takes a chunk of time and semantical skill.

Besides, will those offering their services for the highest office in the land actually calculate the revenue to be generated if their proposals were enacted?   Any plan would affect every person living in the country and every business.  Hired experts would make such calculations.  The task of the candidate is to select proposed policies on big issues from expert ideas hashed out with advisers and then presented in outline in campaign appearances.

And such outlines with varying degrees of illuminating rhetoric are presented to debate audiences.  

One of the nominees selected at party conventions will be elected president.  Probably his or her tax proposal will go to Congress, which will produce other plans.  Bills will be written that will include line after line stricken through to indicate repeal of current tax language, and more and more lines will be added citing chapter and section numbers.  Most debate moderators without law degrees would struggle to ask pithy questions in ordinary English if they had such detailed proposals available.  Might even be difficult for candidates without public accounting certification.

An unamended, major tax reform bill would be unlikely to clear even a Congress and a

White House held by the same party.  Changes to a president’s plan likely would be done piecemeal.

Let’s just yawn when specifics are demanded.  Let’s pay attention to the outlines as presented.  These can indicate who might be worthy of a primary vote.  

No president should be permitted to dictate a tax bill or any other policy.  Leadership requires persuasive skills to meld opposing viewpoints.  And, yes, the Congress is supposed to be of utmost importance, theoretically protecting the commonweal of a 320 million people with a tangle of wants and desires.  The president’s job is to consider the bills passed by Congress, and making most of them law with a signature. The president’s duty follows: Execute those laws as written.

Candidates’ proposals for various policies, including all-important foreign affairs, need to be examined for overall effect, not to be nitpicked to burnish egoes.  Unintended as well as intended consequences must be contemplated.

Elections are meant to choose presidents that can find workable solutions to widespread problems.   Elections are not meant to choose dictators.

Either TV debate moderators should change their methods, or the format should be changed to better reflect the reality of the presidential office.  Perhaps old-fashioned debates between two candidates chosen at random, followed by similar matchups till the field is covered would better the need to winnow the wanna-bes.  In case of an uneven number of candidates, the last in line would go against the winner of a previous matchup.  

Winners might be chosen by a large panel of citizens of varied backgrounds, blue collar to scientist.  Maybe as many as 101 leaders from business, retired military, professional organizations, news media, clergy, academia --- a modern, expanded version of the three estates --  could be selected by the party heads.  

A sizeable panel would tend to make fair choices between participants in further debates. Twelve-person juries generally render just verdicts.  A 52-vote majority or better would make the call.

All debates have been scheduled for this cycle.  Time permits a new system to be devised for 2020, an appropriate year for clear vision.

Not to be forgot is the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private organization established in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties for meetings between the two presidential candidates and separate ones for their running mates.  The commission does allow for other  candidates if their parties garner 15 percent support in five national polls.  The commission has bipartisan co-heads and a 13-member board.  This commission also could opt for the traditional debate format, obviously without the affirmative/negative sides.  Winners still would be selected at the polls on the first Tuesday in November.

Trying real debates could be no worse than the current “debates.”