Letters to the editor

December 14, 2007

A poor choice of word

November 28, 2007

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the comprehensive updates relating to racial issues. I just had to write, as a Smith alumna, that as a single-sex women’s college, there are no “co-ed’s” at Smith. :>) Regarding the content of the story, I’m proud that Smith continues to openly address all oppression issues as they arise, and that the environment on campus allows expression of all points of view, regardless of how painful some of them may be. As a composite, more or less, of the outside world, there are ample opportunities for these discussions and learnings to take occur. :>)

Carrie

November 28, 2007

Thank you for administering this valuable resource, but in the spirit of creating a more just world, some feedback on language:

The most recent edition of WACAN Update described students at Smith College and Georgetown University as "coeds" (Smith College coed didn't get the message: blackface is wrong; Georgetown white coed heads local NAACP chapter) The use of the word "coed" as a noun is not only factually incorrect (in the case of students at Smith, a women's college), but widely considered inappropriate. Using "coed" to mean a female student, is exclusive language that we, as social justice activists, should not be perpetuating.

As a noun, it is always used to refer not to all students educated in mixed gender settings, but specifically women. (OED: "A girl or woman student at a co-educational institution") It's use therefore premises the normalization of the student-as-male, and sets women students as an 'other'.

(Indeed, the two references in the same edition of WACAN to "students", lead to articles with bylines of Dan, Erik and Noah. [Macalester College white student allies cite privilege in discussion of race. Discussing race labels one racist laments Brandeis student.] Surely WACAN does not mean to imply that students are all male; but such sexist language patterns remain, and contribute to the oppression of women.)

The use of co-ed is not only problematic because it singles women students out as the exception to the norm, but it carries a dismissive/diminutive tone, implying that not only are these women different from "regular" [male] students, but are not really students, they're "just" coeds. WritingAsJo(e) writes: "The term is still used today, often as an insult, as a reminder that colleges were founded to educate men, and that women were admitted later and perhaps shouldn't really be there. Calling a woman a coed is one way to adhere to an outdated and sexist norm." in a blog post about the term and it's sexist connotations. http://writingasjoe.blogspot.com/2006/09/dont-ever-call-my-daughter-coed.html

The importance of such gendered language to perpetuating systemic privileging of men and targetting of women is long established. The appropriate language is simply Smith/Georgetown student. Let us, as we combat racism, not forget to combat other forms of oppression as well.

A.J. Reid

EDITOR'S NOTE: I was inaccurate and exclusive in my use of the term "co-ed" as pointed out so clearly by this week's writers. I will drop the word from my lexicon and I apologize for any bad feelings it may have aroused -- the Editor.

Why white anti-racists need to be vocal

November 28, 2007

The following link is to the New Pittsburgh courier, a newspaper that focuses on the African American community.

Following the article, about racial intimidation at a Catholic school, are some blogs/responses to the incident. The racist rant by the 1st white person is an example of why anti-racist whites need to be vocal within the community. This noose incident is the latest of several to take place in the Pittsburgh area. http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/articlelive/articles/39322/1/Different-day-another-noose-this-time-at-Oakland-Catholic/Page1.html

Mel