English professor promises to deduct points for this ridiculous reason

If you needed another reason to keep your money from going to an “institution of higher learning,” here’s one.

Northern Arizona University English Professor Dr. Anne Scott has a particular set of rules for classroom assignments that had one student, Cailin Jeffers, scratching her head. After the class turned in an initial round of essays, Scott informed students that terms like “mankind” would no longer be acceptable and demanded more gender-neutral wording.

Jeffers didn’t think she was serious, so, when she turned in her next assignment, she used “mankind” instead of the suggested “humanity.” And guess what? Dr. Scott deducted one point as promised.

The professor then sent out the following e-mail to the class:

I would be negligent, as a professor who is running a class about the human condition and the assumptions we make about being “human,” if I did not also raise this issue of gendered language and ask my students to respect the need for gender-neutral language. The words we use matter very much, or else teachers would not be making an issue of this at all, and the MLA [Modern Language Association] would not be making recommendations for gender-neutral language at the national level.

In an e-mail to the student, Scott offered Jeffers to revise her essay with the updated language and earn back some points, and told her:

I will respect your choice to leave your diction choices “as is” and to make whatever political and linguistic statement you want to make by doing so. By the same token, I will still need to subtract a point because your choice will not be made in the letter or spirit of this particular class, which is all about having you and other students looking beneath your assumptions and understanding that “mankind” does not mean “all people” to all people. It positively does not.

Jeffers then requested a meeting with Dr. Scott but it’s unclear if anything came of it in regards to her grade. However, she said she told her professor that “mankind” has always meant everyone and so, it doesn’t sound like she was willing to change it in her paper. Good for her!

After their meeting, Scott sent another message to the class claiming she was not being PC, but just trying to follow the MLA:

The issue goes beyond “political correctness,” for my colleagues and I recognize that words help to create our reality, power dynamics, and relationships among people. You are welcome to make a statement about your politics, or conscience, or beliefs by using gender-specific language in your papers, and in many cases gender-specific language is called for, when you can discern with certainty the gender of the characters and author you’re discussing. However, I’ll still have to subtract a point or two for any kind of language that refers to all people as “mankind” or readers as “him/he”, for the reasons I’ve outlined carefully above.

Boy (girl?), college sounds miserable.

H/T The Blaze