After years of insisting that women not be called "girls," that female students be included in the alma mater and that every student aim to be a pillar of political correctness, it is baffling that most people on campus continue to use the word "freshman" day after day.
Just looking at the word "freshman" makes its origins clear; it refers to men who are the "freshest" addition to an institution. The College has finally achieved an almost gender-balanced student population but it still fails to recognize the female half in a way so basic as a title.
The argument that the word "freshman" should be kept because it is a tradition can hardly be taken seriously. And the reasoning that no one has offered a catchy alternative is equally ridiculous. The Outing Club recognized the inherent sexism in the word when it changed the name of the DOC Trips from Freshman Trips two years ago.
The College sets a bad example by continuing to use the word, including its naming of the position Dean of Freshmen. And students who otherwise claim to be blazing a new path of equality are blindly following an old road to sexism through distinction.
The '97s next year should be called first-years rather than freshmen. The Dean of Freshmen ought to be referred to as Dean of First-year Students. And everyone should start questioning why the word "freshman" remains in what should be a gender-neutral vocabulary.
To insure the new terms designed to take the place of male-dominating words like "freshman" are inclusive, rather than distinctive, people must understand the reasons behind the rules, not just memorize the unwritten PC handbook.
Not enough people have gone beyond the surface of the words to insist on the respect that accompanies the word "woman" but not the word "girl." They have not stopped to think about exactly why women must be mentioned in the College's song, for more than aesthetic reasons. And they have not realized the importance of gender-neutral, rather than gender-specific, speech.
Had the alma mater read "students of Dartmouth" instead of "sons of Dartmouth," no one would have called for the inclusion of "daughters of Dartmouth" in the song.
It is only because today's vocabulary is filled with yesterday's sexism that words like "Congresswoman" and "spokeswoman" are demanded. But if people would actually think about the motive behind the call for these words, a gender-neutral rather than gender-specific vocabulary would have emerged.
The goal of the shift in vocabulary is not "separate but equal" terminology; it is an equally all-inclusive way of referencing people. Does it really matter if a spokesperson is a man or a woman? Will it affect their comments or how they are viewed?
Specifying the gender of the person in a given position only leads to a heightened separation of the two genders -- clearly not the goal of those who originally pushed for a new and improved vocabulary.
