It's increasingly easy to cause offence in these sensitive days, but if you bend over backwards to be PC it can result in totally unreadable documents. Giulia De Cesare gives some advice on how to get the balance right.
Imagine this: you're in a hurry to get a document out and you quickly check that the grammar and punctuation are correct, the content is just what the reader wanted and in logical order, and you've used the right template.
So you print it and post it, or hit 'send'- and get an angry reply or no reply at all. Your cherished customer took offence at something in the document. Not only was all your effort wasted, but you now have to undo the damage to a good relationship.
"Most people think that having to be 'politically correct' is just a frustrating joke."
Most people think that having to be 'politically correct' is just a frustrating joke. The press frequently makes fun of po-faced pronouncements about avoiding expressions like 'the man in the street' or having to call your cat your 'companion animal' instead of your pet. A quick internet search finds lots of anti-PC websites claiming that it's almost the end of the world as we know it.
This isn't the place for such a debate. Businesses just need to avoid offending customers and staff. So let's look at ways to do that while also writing readable documents.
Make it clear and inoffensive
'He/she' or, even worse,'s/he' is distracting to a lot of readers, as is alternating 'his' and 'her' throughout a document. Rewording clunky sentences can sidestep the whole issue.
Here are some examples:
Dubious original
Better alternatives
The help desk will be manned between the hours of 09.00 and 17.00 daily.
The help desk will be staffed between the hours of 09.00 and 17.00 daily. The help desk will be open between the hours of 09.00 and 17.00 daily. Help desk support will be available between the hours of 09.00 and 17.00 daily.
Each staff member should complete his/her expenses by the end of the month.
All staff members should complete their expenses by the end of the month. (using the plural) You should complete your expenses by the end of the month. (using the second person singular) All expenses should be completed by the end of the month. (using the passive) The end of the month is the deadline for everyone’s expenses. (changing the order)
Avoid the gender trap
You can't avoid male bias by just substituting 'person' for 'man' wherever you hear it. The story that feminists lobbied to have a large British city renamed 'Personchester' is entirely apocryphal.
Sensible alternatives depend on the context. Here are some possibilities:
Fireman
Fire fighter
Policeman
Police officer
Postman
Post carrier
Middleman
Intermediary
Grandfather clause
Exclusion clause
And that classic: manhole
Access hole
Respect religions
Referring to peoples' names can be daunting. Most of you would know to avoid 'Christian name' and 'surname' but what do you use instead? 'First name' and 'last name' worked for a while but there are some cultures that put these in a different order.
"You can't avoid male bias by just substituting 'person' for 'man'. The story that feminists lobbied to have a large British city renamed 'Personchester' is entirely apocryphal. Sensible alternatives depend on the context."
Safest is to use 'family name' and 'given name'. On a similar note, it's best to avoid BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini) in dates. Instead, use BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era).
Put people first
The accepted usage for people with disabilities is to emphasise that they are people first, thus 'people with disabilities' rather than 'disabled people'. Basically, the rule is that the condition should not define the person, so someone 'has diabetes' rather than 'is a diabetic'.
How to get it right
You need to help your staff avoid writing things that are offensive, while still getting things done in a reasonable time. One way to achieve this is to think carefully about the things that you have to put into writing often and create a shortlist of suggested wordings for staff to refer to. Such a list shouldn't be more than a page long or it will be impractical. Staff should know that you expect them to use it.
Ask people to contribute, including the sorts of things they would find offensive. They will see the point, and have some ownership of the whole idea rather than thinking it is just another way for management to make their jobs harder.
The important thing to ask them is to consider their reader. This is vital in business writing, but it can get lost in the rush to send something out to a deadline. You're lucky if writing gets spell-checked.
But anyone who stops to think about their reader would have avoided a mistake we recently heard about. A document describing something as a 'legal minefield' was sent to a client in a war zone...
Giulia De Cesare is senior trainer at professional authoring and training company, Plain Words. Or email
Giulia De Cesare , 23 October 2008 @ 16:47 PM Comment from Giulia
It has been fascinating going over the comments this article has generated. Use of language is obviously a sensitive area, and the variety of responses shows just how difficult it is to please everyone all the time. I would hope nobody in business sets out to be intentionally offensive, but this happens in other walks of life—certain popular comedians of days gone by come to mind.
It would be nice to think that, as long as offence is not meant, none is taken. But some of the respondents’ anecdotes show that this does not happen. It doesn’t help that the goalposts keep moving—the latest I heard, can’t remember where, is that ‘black’ or ‘white’ coffee are no longer acceptable terms. You have to say, with or without milk. When that level of sensitivity is displayed, it becomes impossible in practical terms to account for all the ways in which someone somewhere might take offence.
However, I personally feel that having to put up with some of the extremes of ‘PC gone mad’ is an acceptable price to pay for not having to live with the kind of deliberate, or at best, unthinking, blatant rudeness that was typical of many social interactions as little as a generation ago.
Regarding the use of ‘manhole’ in an article on our company website—yes, I’m afraid, guilty as charged. That article was posted about four and a half years ago, but that isn’t so long ago that one can argue for its belonging to an earlier, less-PC age. I can only apologise.
Rory Heap , 23 October 2008 @ 14:59 PM brief and very much to the poinnt
Thanks Julia for your succinct and constructive postings, signposting people to wisdom and good common sense. The radio four programme is in fact a series, and if people have missed it, it's well worth a trip to the BBC IPLAYER!
Regards
Rory
Juliet LeFevre , 22 October 2008 @ 20:02 PM Prescient
I wonder if the origins of being PC lie with people who think that others will be offended by expressions used in everyday language and consequently label them as 'bad words' without actually asking the 'offended parties' what they really think.
I am a myopic, diabetic, left leg amputee with Aspergers syndrome, I think that makes me 'disabled' according the the DDA. I, as Nik, do not mind being called disabled and sometimes smile or cringe at the attempts some make to make disabled more PC. A local supermarket has 'Special needs' parking for instance.
As a final thought, does anyone know of anyone taking offence to the following word when used in the context of a well loved and cuddly toy, Golliwog? Mike Abbott
rus slater , 22 October 2008 @ 07:32 AM where does it all come from....?
Sadly, in my experience, it is seldom the people who are actually effected who take issue....it is a "well meaning" third party;
As an HR manager we recruited an young web developer from India....his technical skills were unsurpassed but his grasp of English was distinctly lacking....HE asked me if I could ask people to be considerate of the language barrier. I did so in a carefully worded email to all staff.
I received two bristling "Reply all" responses from white, British, female staff members accusing me of "blatent racism".....it took a personal visit from myself and the new gentleman to point out the error of judgement they had both made. The "reply all" nature of their comments took several months to die down.
One disabled person doesn't speak for all disabled people (my mother in law hates the word "disabled"; she insists that she is "lame"), similarly one gay person cannot really claim speak for all gay people and so on.
Sadly the establishment of "Equality and Diversity" as a job role has probably created as much of the current "problem" as it has helped to further sensitivity. On that note I will wait for the furore of accusation to descend upon my head. Rus
Juliet LeFevre , 21 October 2008 @ 21:10 PM How far do you take respect?
The problem with religion is that fundamentally it doesn't respect the atheist's point of view, however the atheist is expected to respect the religious perspective.
NK Wrote: "Come back to this debate when everyone in the world has clean water to drink and enough food to eat - then it might be more relevant, though I very much doubt it."
I agree; there are much worse things in this world to be concerned about than PC language. If we have to wait for these weightier issues to be addressed before we should discuss anything else on this forum it’s going to fall very quiet for a very long time.
I completely and totally accept Nick that you do not feel pigeon holed by being called an epileptic. That doesn’t alter the way the people I was working for felt about the issue. The group percieved the issues differently and I respected their feelings and values whilst not necessarily agreeing with them, just as I am respecting your crystal clear opinions now.
At present we have not found ‘Utopia’ – the perfect world.
“You can please some of the people some of the time but you cannot please all of the people all of the time”
Sometimes I believe in this day and age we seem to be getting carried away far too much by ‘labels’.
Incidentally, my pet hate – most forms these days state male or female, what about the transgender population. At present I am transitioning from male to female so what box should I be ticking?
Nik Kellingley , 21 October 2008 @ 11:27 AM We are defined by these things
I am a man.
I am white.
I am agnostic.
I am libertarian.
I am epileptic.
I am middle class (like it or not).
I am disabled.
I am a heavy metal fan.
And so on...
Being defined as one thing does not prevent us from being defined by others. My being eplileptic does not preclude me from being a man. My being a man does not change the fact that I believe in god or not.
By refusing the pigeon hole - we are in fact pigeon holing. Nobody in the whole world can be defined in one word or two. That's the important fact but we can all be described partly in one word or two - it's just that description does not define any other aspect of us.
Again I say - if you are offended by "un-PC" language you are not ready to live in the real world. There are many injustices to rally against in this world - but the proper use of language is not one of them. The fact that we can waste time on this kind of nonsense should tell us what a pampered and spoilt society we are.
Come back to this debate when everyone in the world has clean water to drink and enough food to eat - then it might be more relevant, though I very much doubt it. Nik Kellingley
Rory Heap , 21 October 2008 @ 09:54 AM I rest my case!
The flurry of comments on this article supports my earlier point that language is organic and living; those who use the term PC or Political Correctness to raise objections to words or phraises which they think are inappropriate or just plain daft are, in my experience, seeking to avoid discussion by shortcutting debate by the use of an inadequate and negative descriptor. The author was (helpfully) drawing attention to the benefits of avoiding offense; at the same time she (unhelpfully) fell into the trap of attempting to discuss the issues in terms of 'Political Correctness'. Actually, it has nothing to do with either politics or correctness. As with the question of what to call people with particular access requirements (my preferred phraise), there clearly is not one correct way; it is a judgement call, which is best informed by discussing the matter with people who, if they were to be recipients of a particular documennt, might have a helpful (rather than correct) view on phraseology .For example, I would totally agree that is never wise to describe people as 'epileptic' because it defines the person by their impairment. Disabled people, on the other hand, is a term which many disabled people have chosen to draw attention to the fact that they are disabled by the barriers we face in living our working and personal lives. I hope this is helpful. Rory
Garry Damant , 21 October 2008 @ 09:25 AM PC Policing
I am fed up with being told how to speak to people. We all have our own internal speech police and mine has done me proud. Of course I've dropped some clangers (apologies to Clangers), however it has always opened up an interesting conversation with my participants. On some occasions I even slip them in on purpose to spark up the group, I truly believe it's how you handle those moments that makes the difference.
On a lighter note (apologies to fatties), look at the wonderfully un-PC movie Borat.
It was nominated for an Academy Award, broke all box office records and highlighted how bloody (apologies to hemophiliacs) stupid we've all become.
BC, AD, CE, I’d like a vowel please Carol. . . .
Garry Platt , 21 October 2008 @ 07:17 AM Right or Wrong?
Nik Kellingley wrote: “For the record I'm disabled and I'm not offended if people say so. I'm an epileptic - that's the right word, person with epilepsy makes me want to spew with indignation at the wasted wordage.”
The group to which I was referring were also people with epilepsy and they did find it offensive. They weren’t going over the top about it but they just commented that they didn’t like being pigeon holed by their condition. I think nobody can say outright what is appropriate or correct. And I don’t think there is an absolute wrong or right reaction to this, it’s a personal and subjective issue. The conclusion I draw from this is that we should be aware that other people might have different views and reactions. How we might respond or deal with these reactions can sometimes be dependant upon circumstances, context plays its part. They were my paying client and in this instance I responded to match their values as I didn’t and don’t see their position as particularly vexatious or problematic.
Nik Kellingley wrote: I work in a Muslim country where religion is commonly identified in every conversation - and this is Saudi Arabia and they aren't afraid of using the BC dating denomination so I'm not sure why the British are."
Personally I don’t think the British nation are frightened of using AD or BC, I see these definers all the time, but neither should we be frightened to use CE if we so wish.
Nik Kellingley , 20 October 2008 @ 20:19 PM A nation of perpetual childhood
There's nothing like wrapping people up from disappointment and anxiety to form the blandest nation of individuals the world has ever known.
For the record I'm disabled and I'm not offended if people say so. I'm an epileptic - that's the right word, person with epilepsy makes me want to spew with indignation at the wasted wordage.
I work in a Muslim country where religion is commonly identified in every conversation - and this is Saudi Arabia and they aren't afraid of using the BC dating denomination so I'm not sure why the British are.
Man is not just an indicator of gender, it's a contraction of human (which includes women the last time I checked - huwoman would be even more ridiculous).
So manned is an offensive term? Utter tosh.
And the term minefield when used to define legal terms - is a metaphor, and if someone in a warzone couldn't interpret this, then maybe they need lessons in the use of English.
It's sad to see this profession desperate to embrace the bland corporatisation of our language - I abhor discrimination in the workplace but this kind of thing is a step too far. If it really upsets anyone - then they need counselling because if they can't handle the appropriate use of language then they really aren't up to facing life head on. Nik Kellingley
Rory Heap , 20 October 2008 @ 14:02 PM Is it a conspiricy?
So, once again the old chestnut rears its extremely ugly mmedia-inspired head! and is it a co-incidence that a programme with exactly this title is due to go out on Radio 4 tomorrow (with a repeat as well?)? Every so often the topic of the sensivities of the English language gets rolled out and misrepresented under the pernicious banner of 'Political Correctness'. My (humble) opinion is that people who are genuinely concerned about and interested in our responsibilities to promote equality in whatever area would avoid the use of this devisive term when discussing what is basically nothing more or less than etiquette. As a Disabled Person (please note my deliberate use of the term - it is my identity so please don't tread all over it, and if you don't believe me, check out the Employers' Forum on Disability website), I do not appreciate linguistic sensitivity being reduced to the slurr of 'PC'. Actually, if you describe me as a person with a disability (or should it be disabilities, how do you know how many impairments I have?) you wont insult me, you'll just not understand why I see myself as a Disabled Person. If you ask me, I'll tell you. The problem with the use of the term 'political correctness' is that it is both lazy and demeaning - a bit like describing the most serious malfunctioning ever of the global capitalist system in terms that might better describe a Breakfast Energy Bar! I personally accept that language is an evolving and organic feature of human interaction, and I do not approve of any kind of thought police. I do, however, recognise that the use and abuse of language play a significant part in shaping social attitudes. Managers should advise their staff to write with their own sensitivities in mind, and to check anything they have doubts about. They won't always get it 'right', but the basic rule is quite simple: don't use personal attributes negatively and don't stereotype. Beyond that, the details will always be fluid, and, as Abraham Lincoln (or was it Bob Dylan) once said 'you can't please all the people all of the time'. Rory Heap (a blind person - not visually chalenged, or even visually impaired). Don't worry, you'll get used to it!
Garry Platt , 20 October 2008 @ 13:49 PM Walking the Talk?
I’ve just visited Plain Words web site (Giulia De Cesare's Employer) and what should I read at the top of one of their recent eletters? Check out the top strap line for your self, just below the title graphic :
Adam Gray , 20 October 2008 @ 13:36 PM Post Carrier?
It's political correctness gone mad! As the papers would say. But Post Carrier? Seriously?. Some cultures have their names in different orders? I sincerely doubt whether one of these folk is going to be mortally offended by me saying "first name" or god forbid (can I say god?) "surname" Adam Gray
Garry Platt , 20 October 2008 @ 13:26 PM PC or not PC?
One person’s nonsense is another ones meat or falfafel if you happen to be a vegetarian.
Paul Sloane wrote; "Some of the early advice here is good but then the article slides into PC nonsense. What is wrong with BC and AD for heaven's sake?"
Hi Paul - I didn’t read that reference as nonsense not being a Christian and not believing that this or any other supernatural entity ever existed it always stuck in my throat that I had to make this reference. But do I care if someone uses CE, BC or AD, not particularly. Should I be afraid of using CE just as you suggest we should not be afraid of using BC of AD? I don’t think so.
Derek Ive wrote: “I for one wouldn't take offence if someone asked if I was a Diabetic, I would be pleased that they were concerned enough to check. Yes I do have Diabetes.”
I concur, I don’t think I would either, if I were diabetic, but sometime ago I was working with a group of people who experienced epilepsy and we were discussing the political correctness or otherwise of the term ‘Brainstorming’. They universally agreed that the term ‘brainstorming’ was not offensive which seems to bare out the findings reported here:
Derek Ive , 20 October 2008 @ 13:14 PM A few Questions
I can understand that you might want to avoid Christian name but what is wrong with using the term Surname? If I was to use the terms BCE and CE for dates then nobody would know what I was talking about! I think sometimes the desire to avoid what "might" cause offence results in poor communication. I for one wouldn't take offence if someone asked if I was a Diabetic, I would be pleased that they were concerned enough to check. Yes I do have Diabetes.
Paul Sloane , 20 October 2008 @ 13:04 PM Before Common Era????
Some of the early advice here is good but then the article slides into PC nonsense. What is wrong with BC and AD for heaven's sake? BC means before Christ and it is clear and exact. Before Common Era means nothing to most people. Let's not be afraid of our language, culture and heritage. Paul Sloane
Garry Platt , 20 October 2008 @ 13:02 PM Interesting and Useful
What an interesting and pragmatic look at PC issues within a business context. I enjoyed the focussed approach and the pragmatic nature of the advice and content. Garry Platt
Juliet LeFevre , 20 October 2008 @ 11:19 AM Business has a part to play
>>This isn't the place for such a debate.>>>
Why not? Business is part of society and has responsibilities within that society.
>> Businesses just need to avoid offending customers and staff.>>>
How convenient, lets allow business to forget its corporate and social responsibilities. We are all on this planet together and we all need to play a part, including business, businesses can choose to lead or follow.
It's increasingly easy to cause offence in these sensitive days, but if you bend over backwards to be PC it can result in totally unreadable documents. Giulia De Cesare gives some advice on how to get the balance right.
"Most people think that having to be 'politically correct' is just a frustrating joke."
