616
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A new South Dakota policy to stop the use of gender pronouns by public university faculty and staff in official correspondence is also keeping Native American employees from listing their tribal affiliations in a state with a long and violent history of conflict with tribes.

Two University of South Dakota faculty members, Megan Red Shirt-Shaw and her husband, John Little, have long included their gender pronouns and tribal affiliations in their work email signature blocks. But both received written warnings from the university in March that doing so violated a policy adopted in December by the South Dakota Board of Regents.

“I was told that I had 5 days to remove my tribal affiliation and pronouns,” Little said in an email to The Associated Press. “I believe the exact wording was that I had ‘5 days to correct the behavior.’ If my tribal affiliation and pronouns were not removed after the 5 days, then administrators would meet and make a decision whether I would be suspended (with or without pay) and/or immediately terminated.”

The policy is billed by the board as a simple branding and communications policy. It came only months after Republican Gov. Kristi Noem sent a letter to the regents that railed against “liberal ideologies” on college campuses and called for the board to ban drag shows on campus and “remove all references to preferred pronouns in school materials,” among other things.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] casmael@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

No pronouns how are they planning to continue communication this seems like a key element of language

[-] otp@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

Hey now, you can still use punctuation!

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Gigasser@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Sounds like justification to not use gendered language. Might as well go full gender abolitionist on this shiznat.

[-] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Devils advocate, because it is my nature... I work in government. My department has a policy with the formatting of my email signature sent from my work email. My email states my name, rank/position, department, and contact information with the department logo. Nowhere in there does it state my sex or race. And it shouldn't, it is irrelevant. It serves no purpose in a professional capacity.

However, this situation apparently has prior issues. It was apparently fine to do until they made discriminatory statements then shortly after cracked down on it.

Unfortunately I don't think the 1st amendment defense would apply when you are acting in an official capacity. You don't get to say whatever you want while you get paid by the government. On your personal time that is a different story.

[-] Agrivar@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Damn, with a username like that your garbage take makes it even easier to block your ass.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And what about tribal affiliation? How do you make that part ok?

What if you have a gender-neutral name and you're tired of being misgendered in emails?

I also work in government, and nobody would bat an eye if people started doing it. But then again I work in a sane place with generally sane people.

[-] GnomeKat 3 points 1 year ago

Bad take.. truely advocating for the devil here..

[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But that is just describing the current government format of your office. That is not a static thing, it's subject to change for any internal reason for any time. It's a specific policy not applicable outside of your specific government and essentially your workplace.

Even inside your government office if you have groups which are routinely not served by that model then essentially you create additional emotional or mental work burdens for some of your employees but not others. You being fine with that is simply your opinion. Your position in believing that these things are irrelevant are because to you that policy holds no barriers. But imagine if multiple people in your department brought forward that they were legitimately struggling with that policy and it was impacting how much mental fortitude it took to get through their work day. Would you join them in changing the policy? It's a similar question to if your co-worker in a wheel chair needed to take an additional 8 minutes partially outdoors to travel to the bathroom in your building because a set of tiny stairs. To you those stairs do not impact your work experience at all but to the person in the chair they might need to grab weather appropriate clothing for outside and regularly be in uncomfortable temperatures, or get wet in the rain or if they need to rush be forced to painfully hold their innards for the additional time simply because of a set of four stairs. Their experience of life at work requires additional personal fortitude because it's impacted in an outsized fashion because a ramp most people wouldn't even notice isn't there is not seen as needed. How much of your assertion of not requiring a ramp simply because you don't personally need one?

Critically Universities are not your government body and a level of personal comfort in their communications has been largely normalized. Pronouns in emails was common in a number of Acedemic circles and governing bodies long before they were known elsewhere. Universities are where the practice originates from and it's became increasingly normal. Why is it being cracked down on now?

Universities tend to be very much forward in general regarding accommodation policies because they tend to be where the discussions of ethical practice and theory are debated and new culture emerges. Consider that disability advocacy is a legacy of University based protests. Also that pronouns in emails have been a thing in some university campuses emails for almost a decade now. Whenever Universities communicate with each other the practice spread.

There's also a gap in the understanding you put forward about tribal affiliations. In the case of tribal affiliates a lot of them veiw themselves as essentially occupied nations under a foreign government. They aren't simply telling you their race or bloodline they are telling you what nation they actually belong to because the assumption of them as "Americans" (or innour case "Canadians") is incorrect. That visibility is vitality important to the cause of the people's of those nations who literally have faced erassure for centuries.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] mo_lave@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

This measure in a vacuum is not inherently bad, though it is authoritarian and, yes, contrary to a Republican's (theoretical) advocacy to small government. Rwanda also removed legal distinctions between Tutsi and Hutu, but it was done after and because of the genocide.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

What's the point of comments like this? Truly... Are we in a vacuum? No? Then why even continue with whatever inane bullshit that came next?

Yeah dude perfect analogy. These people are doing this to promote solidarity and show that we're all the same and shouldn't be murdering each other. Totally comparable situation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
616 points (100.0% liked)

News

32583 readers
2732 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS