[QUOTE=""]
If someone wants to find a reason to be offended, they can do it every time.
[/QUOTE]
Welcome to college. Where one’s mind is expanded so wide that it falls out.
[QUOTE=""]
You didn’t read the phrase “House Master” correctly.
It has two words, “House” and “Master”.
The mastery is over the HOUSE, not other human beings or group of human beings. The hint is the fact that the word “House” is in the phrase “House Master”
The idea is that person understands and enforces the rules and norms of the house. And, here is the good news, you don’t like it, then you are free to leave. Absolutely no mastery over other people.
If this is what your student worries about all day, pull them out of that expensive private college. You are wasting your money.
@skyoverme Sure, the term “House Master” is used to mean mastery over the house. But it also implies mastery of the people who make up the house, does it not?
Or do you believe that when someone is awarded a title to an institution, the title applies only to the institution and not to those of whom it comprises. Take, for example, the title “President of the United States of America.” The President, by your logic, is president only of the land that makes up the nation. He is not President of the people who make up the nation.
A title is not always used literally. Now, here is an article from the Harvard Gazette, in case you feel that I am speaking unfoundedly: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/12/qa-on-changing-house-master-title/
“In our country, with our history, I can’t call someone in an oversight role “master” without having images of human subjugation come to mind. But I don’t have this association when I congratulate a student on attaining a master of arts or on the mastery of a subject. Mastery over people is what is at issue here.” - Michael D. Smith, Edgerley Family Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
My response to this:
Did someone personally complain about this, or did Harvard staff take it upon themselves to remove this “offensive” term?
@schroscat “Removing political figures names from buildings/structures/etc. (imo) is not a matter of taking away this “honor”–that this recognition provided–due to their actions, but rather, an attempt to erase what occurred in history before us.”
How so? I don’t think the removal of such figures is always appropriate or even logical, but the fact that the people trying to get rid of these symbols are the same ones staging frequent protests (which many on CC are quick to denounce, often without any reason other than discomfort at their status or preconceptions being challenged) demonstrates that erasure of history is not at all a goal of these activists. If these students are constantly drawing attention to what they argue are perpetuations of historical injustice, how can you so easily say that they are attempting to “erase” history when in fact that they are doing everything in their power to cast light on the things others are comfortable ignoring? I don’t disagree with criticism of these movements, and certainly don’t think we should simply get rid of symbols and ideas that make us uncomfortable for the sake of creating “safe” spaces, but many here are far too easily satisfied with arguments that sound nice, but don’t always stand up to scrutiny.
If you’d like to expand on your points I’d be glad to hear them– you make a number of good ones. I just think that you need to back up your argument I quoted, since right now it doesn’t really follow from the information you’ve presented.
Sums it well why @juillet is misguided. Nowadays the internet is full of a bunch of people who want to declare how “cool” they are by being “anti-PC”.
@blue147 This change is NOT a big deal. Also it’s an elitist term reserved from colleges in the 1700s and really has no place. If they want to change it THEY CAN. You’re just deciding to get upset about it because you don’t like their reason, but if it was any other reason it wouldn’t be news to the faux outrage crowd like you. Colleges rename buildings literally every month.
It looks like you’re the one looking riding on trendy outrage and undeserved indignation. Nowadays I notice a lot more angry guys on the internet complaining about other people then these actual “sensitive” people they talk about.
Look in the mirror.