Putting the use of chair on the table.

IF ASKED TO DESCRIBE the contemporary acolyte of political correctness, the great satirist Ambrose Bierce might have chosen the same words he used in The Devil's Dictionary to define the politician: "An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice."

At the risk of incurring Bierce's posthumous calumny, last year I embarked on my own wriggling effort to rid the language -- or at least my corner of the newsroom -- of a term that long had irritated me. The word is "chairman," applied by habit or tradition to men and women, filled and unfilled positions, in specific titles and generic references.

In launching my modest campaign, I harbored no illusions about making any edifice tremble. Rather, my goal was to open space for what seemed to be a much more sensible word -- "chair" -- and get beyond the gender-specific hurdle.

I soon was reminded that hell hath no fury like a wordsmith scorned. A short memo I typed into "PSST," our electronic bulletin board here at The Post-Standard, unleashed a flood of responses, rejoinders, witticisms, and vituperation. No, the edifice didn't tremble. But the electrons sizzled!

What follows is more or less a transcript of that lively "conversation," starting with my humble proposal (initials are used as a courtesy).

Dear PSST:

A modest request to consider a style change ...

For some time I have been wrestling with the proper way to refer to the person in charge of a committee. In the "bad old days" we just called the person "chairman," whether it's John Smith or Mary Jones. Variations have included "Chairwoman," "Chairperson" and the oxymoronic absurdity, "Madam Chairman." The need for a better way was brought home at a recent conference when a friend and NCEW colleague who is every inch a proud, emancipated woman, was introduced as "chairman of the Outreach Committee."

One proposed solution is to call the man a "chairman," the woman a "chairwoman." Sounds simple, but it's not. For one thing, the awkward mouthful "chairwoman" nearly looks and sounds like "char-woman." For another, this arrangement is no help when the gender of the individual is not known, when the position is vacant or being filled or referred to in the abstract. The fallback of "chairman" fails the gender-neutral test.

Which leaves "chairperson," a loathsome word to my way of thinking -- hard to pronounce, awkward, sterile, ugly.

Much better, I think, would be simply to refer to the position as "chair." To literalists who point out a person is not a chair, I suggest: why not? A journalist can be a "pen" and a soldier a "sword" so that the "pen" is mightier than the "sword." The "Old China Hand" does not end at the wrist, but is connected to the body of a foreign policy expert. Other examples: speaker, whip, gumshoe, hired hand, hired gun, crown, right hand, mouthpiece, "the chair recognizes...."

F.F., Editorial Page, 1/27/93

Dear PSST:

A literalist responds to F.F.'s comments about "chairman/chairwoman":

As a victim of Jesuit education, I instinctively cringe when I read of people as chairs. However, in the evolving discussion of gender-inclusive language (not, in my opinion, gender-neutral), Fred makes a good point. If we agree to eliminate using words like "policeman" and "firewoman" (and we do, don't we??!), the same should apply to words like "chairwoman" and "spokeswoman" and "assemblywoman." All are exclusive and therefore violate our policy of inclusion -- i.e., specifying either a chairman or a chairwoman is exclusive.

The basic idea of gender-inclusive usage is to eliminate sexist stereotypes by using language that does not specify one sex or the other. I don't favor creating new words, and I tend to agree that words like "chairperson" are clumsy. That clumsiness tends to draw attention to the effort to be inclusive, which may defeat the purpose.

My Jesuit professors may be disappointed, but I'm beginning to think "chair" may simply be a better choice for the troublesome words. I also advocate for "assembly member" and "representative."

The debate goes on, but a ruling would help....

R.R., Regional Desk, 1/28/93

Editor's Note:

Any other comments? A ruling approaches....

1/28/93

Dear PSST:

To chair is human....

I vote for "chair." It's short, simple, neutral. But I have a question: Can we use it as a verb?

J.A., City Desk 1/29/93

Dear PSST:

This desk finds nothing wrong with being a chair.

However, it brings to mind Dave Barry's favorite rock song:

"'I am,' I cried/to the committee there/and no one even heard me/not even the chair."

B.C., Telegraph Desk 2/1/93

Dear PSST:

If this is still open for discussion....

Did anyone notice a glaring omission from the discussion about whether to use the word "chair" to refer to the man or woman (or boy or girl) who heads a committee?

The Jesuits got a nod, but our readers didn't.

Are our readers confused? Do they clamor for change? Have we erred?

Where's the problem? On what basis would one object to the following:

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., may be chairwoman one day. That will depend on whether the majority of the committee decides she should head the panel, preside over it, run it, lead it, oversee it, etc.

What is the source of this need for ever more rules of usage? Why must everyone write exactly the same? Isn't the point to be understood? What message do we send to our readers when we use graceless words such as "chair" to refer to human beings?

Isn't that why one instinctively cringes? Isn't that the point the Jesuits tried to get across?

C.H., Newsroom 2/2/93

Dear PSST:

A response to C.H.'s comments on my comments (got that?):

The traditional Jesuit education makes a strong case for avoiding graceless terms like "chair." The Jesuits value good, clear writing, it's true. And so do good journalists. I hope we always will.

But other Jesuit ideals also parallel the mission of good journalism: honesty, fairness, truth. Sexist usage is dishonest, unfair, untrue. It reinforces outdated and incomplete images of women and men. It's not good journalism.

This is precisely the sort of conflict the Jesuits love. I can see the essay question: "Using the Socratic method, apply the ideas of Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard to determine which is of greater value: graceful writing or fairness and elimination of stereotypes. Use both sides of the paper if necessary."

It's a tough question. But I am convinced, after much thought and debate and reading and rethinking, that the more important value is fairness. And usage changes all the time. It wasn't so long ago that "recyclable" was just an adjective.

Now, whether we language purists accept it or not, it's all over the place as a noun -- even in our pages. I don't believe in changing words just to change them. I think avoiding sexism is a higher good than adhering to rigid rules of usage. And I don't think our readers -- even the least educated -- will have a hard time understanding what we mean by "chair."

R.G. Regional Desk 2/5/93

Dear PSST:

My worthy and witty critics contend that "chair" is an awkward title. One points out that while it denotes position, even the action (as in "to chair a committee"), it doesn't signify the actor (cf. director, legislator, teacher, bricklayer).

But those criteria also apply to these other titles:

Football: center, tackle, guard, end, quarterback, halfback, fullback.

Basketball: center, forward, guard.

Baseball: shortstop.

None of these titles refer directly to the actor, but rather to the position, action, or purpose. The link to the actor is implied and readily understood. So, too, with "chair." With time and frequent usage, I am convinced our readers would get as used to it -- and also appreciate this logical, economical solution to a minor gender dilemma.

F.F., Editorial Page 2/9/93

Dear PSST:

I can't take it any more.

All this philosophizing about the Jesuit education and its relevance to word usage has IMPACTED me severely.

It makes me want to get out of my pretty mauve ergonomically correct swivel CHAIR and throw it!

I agree with Charlie: Using the word "chair" to describe a person and his/her position is graceless.

You are in a SEAT of power.

Please CUSHION the blow for our readers and don't adopt a hard and fast rule on this issue.

M.M., Metro Desk, Chairwoman of the Bored 2/8/93

Dear PSST:

A passage in a story April 24 rekindled frustration over our "chair" debate. Here's an example of its potential for absurdity: "Mary Kay Ash, founder and chairman emeritus of Mary Kay Cosmetics...." Ash may be a chairwoman or a chair, but I highly doubt she's a chairman.

R.G., Regional Desk 4/26/93

Editor's Note:

It's chairman (for a man), chairwoman (for a woman) and, if it's indeterminate, default to the title used by the organization.

4/27/93

Dear PSST:

I'm disappointed by our decision to continue using "chairman" and "chairwoman" in place of the neutral, all-purpose term, "chair."

Here was a chance to move a small step toward gender-inclusive language, toward simplicity and economy in our usage, and we're unwilling to take it.

By the way, if we defer to the organization's practice when sender is indeterminate or not applicable, does that mean we will say "chair" if THEY say "chair"? For example, "chairman" of the Mothers' Club?

What about a person whose gender is not readily obvious by his/her name? Sounds like extra work for the reporter or editor. Surely we'll blow it sooner or later.

How to refer to two or more committee heads of mixed gender? Does "chairmen" prevail, as in the old sexist clinker, "mankind"? Or do we jettison that as sexist as well?

The principles involved in this small affair are inclusiveness and acknowledgment of the full integration of women into work and society. I still look forward to the day when it is not necessary or relevant to know or identify the gender of an office-holder.

F.F., Editorial Page 4/29/93

Editor's Note:

Chair, as a noun referring to a person, is not only neutral; it's inanimate. It's not gender-inclusive. It excludes all gender.

If you dislike the clumsy chairman/chairwoman construction, write around it by using "chair" as a verb: She chairs the chairman selection committee. He chairs the chairwoman selection committee.

Even if we changed our style to "chair," how do we get around the fact that "chairman" and "chairwoman," often are formal organization titles, especially in business news? We can't pretend that a title is "Chair of the Board" if that's not what it is.

"Chair" may solve the chairman/chairwoman problem, but it's no help for fireman/firewoman, doorman/doorwoman, bellman/bellwoman and numerous other -man/-woman constructions. If shortening to the inanimate noun that describes the person's work doesn't work generally, why adopt it for just one case? Just to make a political point?

The alternative is imperfect and clumsy, but it works as a general rule.

4/30/93

Dear PSST:

Re: Today's item on gender-specific titles: Fireman/firewoman is one gender dilemma we shouldn't have to worry about if we follow the AP stylebook, which says "firefighter" is the preferred term for one who fights fires.

C.B., Metro Desk 5/10/93

Dear PSST:

This exhaustive debate over chairman, chairwoman, sonny and chair, is getting frightening. Give these people something to do.

B.S., City Desk 5/10/93

Dear PSST:

A belated bravo to B.S. for calling for an end to the foolish debate over "chair/chairman/chairwoman!"

To those who can't get it out of their minds, however, I offer this historical perspective:

In the 1970s, at the height of the women's lib movement, the official title for someone serving on the Syracuse Common Council was councilman. Then-Councilor Rosemary Pooler had the law changed to make councilor the official title. Unbeknownst to council members -- and I haven't told them, so I presume they're still operating in blissful ignorance -- "er" and "or" endings are inherently masculine. Witness actor/actress, murderer/murderess, aviator/aviatrix, executor/executrix. So the council-ors didn't really make the title genderless after all.

Let that be a lesson to those who would personipulate the language for the sake of political correctness.

J.W. 5/18/93

Appendix:

(From The Bias-Free Word Finder, by Rosalie Maggio)

There is much linguistic support for "chair"; it was, in fact, the original term (1647), with "chairman" coming into the language only later (1654). The verb "chair" is highly preferred to the rarely seen "chairman." ("He chairmanned the committee"?) Using "chair" as both noun and verb nicely parallels the use of "head" for both noun and verb. (People who are upset about being called "a piece of furniture" apparently have no problem with the gruesome picture of a "head" directing a department, division, or group.) Note, too, the longstanding noun use of "chair" in music ("First chair").

NCEW member Fred Fiske is editorial page editor of The Post-Standard in Syracuse.