Shawnee State Pays Professor $400K to Settle Pronoun Lawsuit

[borne_before]

Shawnee State Pays Professor $400K to Settle Pronoun Lawsuit

Insisting a professor call a student by their correct pronouns will cost Shawnee State University $400,000. Shawnee State settled a First Amendment case last week with Nicholas Meriwether, a philosophy professor at the Ohio institution, who was reprimanded in 2018 after he refused to call a...

www.insidehighered.com

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm still trying to figure out how this all went down. I believe I read somewhere that it was a financial decision to pay out instead of see this through to the end. The fact they had to make a statement *and* allow him to not use pronouns in the future seems like a pretty big concession.

 

[PsyDr]

I'm still trying to figure out how this all went down. I believe I read somewhere that it was a financial decision to pay out instead of see this through to the end. The fact they had to make a statement *and* allow him to not use pronouns in the future seems like a pretty big concession.

Arguing semantics with a philosophy professor? Can you imagine the jury trial? I'd pay him to shut up, too.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Arguing semantics with a philosophy professor? Can you imagine the jury trial? I'd pay him to shut up, too.

He sounds like a real peach. I took 1 philosophy class ever and it was excruciating between the pompous professor and even worse students. I'm just surprised he got a statement *and* the money.

 

[tr]

Can we not just get rid of gendered pronouns altogether? It would be easy in English since common nouns are not gendered and the gendered pronouns are just a useless remnant. I'd love to just call everyone 'per' or 'ze' and end this nonsense of everyone having to declare their pronouns. They/them for a singular individual is horrible, it eliminates the (actually useful) distinction between singular and plural and wreaks havoc with verb agreement.

 

[Sanman]

As a first amendment advocate, I am a bit conflicted about this as I hate the reasoning but I abhor impinging on individual rights.

 

[R. Matey]

He sounds like a real peach. I took 1 philosophy class ever and it was excruciating between the pompous professor and even worse students. I'm just surprised he got a statement *and* the money.

The self-importance of philosophers warrants its own diagnostic category, but then again the categorization of syndromes based on observed behavioral evidence is not entirely divisible from one another and thus an artificial classification, rather than a natural one, and therefore, entirely subjective.

 

[borne_before]

1) There are some legit philosophical/religious reasons to not want to play the pronoun game and I think the professor offered a good concession by just offering to use her name.

2) Forcing others or otherwise punishing and compelling speech is so icky to me.

3) A person comes to you after class and asks you to use their preferred pronouns, don't be a dick.

 

[neurotic_cow]

Can we not just get rid of gendered pronouns altogether? It would be easy in English since common nouns are not gendered and the gendered pronouns are just a useless remnant. I'd love to just call everyone 'per' or 'ze' and end this nonsense of everyone having to declare their pronouns. They/them for a singular individual is horrible, it eliminates the (actually useful) distinction between singular and plural and wreaks havoc with verb agreement.

My very first neuropsych supervisor made us write reports that didn't use pronouns at all. We were discouraged from using the patient's name as well. It was a very weird way of writing but it would work well in this situation.

 

[Shiori]

I try to avoid gendered pronouns in my notes and reports as well. I have gently pushed back on supervisors who want the notes to be tailored to "Mr." and "Ms." X, particularly with group work where I don't have a lot of one-on-one time with the group members. It has been well-received. As much as TikTok is a bit of a mess, it's really helped me work on my assumptions regarding how someone presents to the world and their pronouns. I've also been able to spend time with friends as they've made the shift to different pronouns and listened to their experiences. Changing up my language was a little clunky at first, but it becomes natural really quickly.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Wonder what JP's thoughts are about this particular case.

 

[WisNeuro]

Wonder what JP's thoughts are about this particular case.

Peterson? I'm sure he'd tie it in to some sort of incel drivel like usual.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I completely support the current generation’s challenging of gender roles and language around that. That is how change happens. By the same token, it is important for old egotistical professors or others to be able to challenge that. Definitely don’t want the more radical youth to go forward with every change completely unchecked.

 

[JeyRo]

1) There are some legit philosophical/religious reasons to not want to play the pronoun game and I think the professor offered a good concession by just offering to use her name.

2) Forcing others or otherwise punishing and compelling speech is so icky to me.

3) A person comes to you after class and asks you to use their preferred pronouns, don't be a dick.

Legit take. I personally am happy to refer to people however they wish to be referred to if that happens to be important to them, but I don’t want to live in a world where that (or any kind of speech) is compulsory

 

[Sanman]

Legit take. I personally am happy to refer to people however they wish to be referred to if that happens to be important to them, but I don’t want to live in a world where that (or any kind of speech) is compulsory

Pretty much. There are times when addressing a patient or colleague by the correct pronoun can show respect and be the foundation for a trusting relationship. Then there are times where I just don't care what pronouns Brenda in HR goes by, I just want her to stop screwing up my paycheck for the umpteenth time.

 

[borne_before]

BTW - I refuse to use neopronouns. However, if an individual comes to me and wants me to use ze/zer I will politely decline. However, I would make a concession with preference for name and reluctantly use they/them pronouns. The only reason I am willing to do that is because of the show Billions.

I also refuse to use the terms "pregnant person" or "chestfeeding."

 

[smalltownpsych]

BTW - I refuse to use neopronouns. However, if an individual comes to me and wants me to use ze/zer I will politely decline. However, I would make a concession with preference for name and reluctantly use they/them pronouns. The only reason I am willing to do that is because of the show Billions.

I also refuse to use the terms "pregnant person" or "chestfeeding."

I just pull the old man card and the kids are ok with me using whatever language comes out. I'm lucky to remember what day it is. I am the antiquated age of 55 after all.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

"chestfeeding."

This is the first I am hearing of this.

 

[borne_before]

This is the first I am hearing of this.

You must not listen to any NPR podcasts.

 

[WisNeuro]

You must not listen to any NPR podcasts.

I don't listen to podcasts, but NPR is the locked in station in my car, and I can't recall any instances of hearing "chestfeeding" while listening. I've heard it in other contexts, but not NPR.

 

[mypointlesspov]

BTW - I refuse to use neopronouns. However, if an individual comes to me and wants me to use ze/zer I will politely decline. However, I would make a concession with preference for name and reluctantly use they/them pronouns. The only reason I am willing to do that is because of the show Billions.

I also refuse to use the terms "pregnant person" or "chestfeeding."

Why "reluctantly" using they/them pronouns?

 

[borne_before]

Why "reluctantly" using they/them pronouns?

Because I know the hidden agenda behind using those "pronouns," but at least they are real words.

 

[PsychPhDone]

Because I know the hidden agenda behind using those "pronouns," but at least they are real words.

What is this hidden agenda?

 

[bluecolourskies]

What is this hidden agenda?

I think it’s probably similar to the gay agenda /sarcasm

 

[smalltownpsych]

I am also curious about the hidden agenda. I thought the agenda was pretty clear that many want to make gender lines more fluid. Obviously some people are uncomfortable with that and some are openly hostile about it. I don’t know where it is all going to play out in our culture so I just take the stance of trying to help my patients navigate it all. I do find it amusing when people have super strong opinions and they don’t know the distinctions between gender roles and gender identity or sexual genotype vs sexual phenotype and the confuse it all with sexual attraction. Most of my patients have the same gender identity that corresponds with their sexual phenotype. I usually don’t know their genotype except for the one who had Klinefelters or the other with Turners. Some of my patients have a different gender identity than their sexual phenotype. I find it all pretty fascinating and for some reason I don’t get very worked up by any of it and have never really understood why anyone would. To me, we are all people just trying to figure out who we are and how we fit into the world.
On a related note, I have also worked with some kids who began going through hormonal interventions at an early age because they were already suicidal and attributing it to their body dysmorphia. These kids were in a long term residential facility and were some of the sickest non-psychotic kids we had. None of us were ever really sure if the early intervention had made things better or worse.

 

[PsyDr]

While there are clearly homophobes/transphobes, and many people are resistant to social change, I do not think the isolated issue of pronouns is largely fought about those factors.

Rather, I believe that many view the pronoun issue as being put in a situation where the rules amorphously change, so you can't be correct. And if you are incorrect, you are met with hostility.

Weirdly, I am have a reputation as a LGBTQIA friendly provider.

 

[borne_before]

The agenda is about scoring points. To signal "i'm a good one," "I also want oppression/victimhood points," and "I hate being a white woman/man."

 

[Sanman]

This whole conversation reminds me of this (NSFW):

 

[psych.meout]

The agenda is about scoring points. To signal "i'm a good one," "I also want oppression/victimhood points," and "I hate being a white woman/man."

This telepathy must really come in handy as a psychologist.

 

[Temperance]

What do you think gender dysphoria is?

 

[smalltownpsych]

What do you think gender dysphoria is?

A description of a subjective internal state that is difficult to operationally define? Did I get it right?

Wait let me try again, a legacy term from when we as a field pathologized certain non-normative behaviors or subjective feeling states that are not pathological in and of themselves but can be very difficult for an individual to deal with in a specific culture that has norms that are counter to this whereas in some cultural contexts these types of behaviors and feelings are more accepted as within the range of normal.

 

[borne_before]

A description of a subjective internal state that is difficult to operationally define? Did I get it right?

Wait let me try again, a legacy term from when we as a field pathologized certain non-normative behaviors or subjective feeling states that are not pathological in and of themselves but can be very difficult for an individual to deal with in a specific culture that has norms that are counter to this whereas in some cultural contexts these types of behaviors and feelings are more accepted as within the range of normal.

What are you a terf or something?

 

[futureapppsy2]

Honestly, non-binary people have always existed, we just previously haven’t really had the language to describe that in broader society. It’s not something “subversive.” And using gender-neutral they/them pronouns really isn’t a hardship, considering we do it all the time in normal conversations anyway.

 

[ClinicalABA]

My thought is that if somebody has deal with being non-binary in such a binary focused world, the least I can do is try to my sincere best to call her/him/them/zer what she/he/they/ze want to be called. I think that failure to do so is at least a little bit of an implicit suggestion that one does not see "non-binary" as a real thing.

On a practical note, gender specific pronuouns are a real PITA when trying to template out reports or reuse sections of existing reports for new clients. A gender neutral singular pronoun just makes more sense. We do it with the plural already.

 

[tr]

And using gender-neutral they/them pronouns really isn’t a hardship, considering we do it all the time in normal conversations anyway.

Maybe in the same way that people make grammatical errors in common speech all the time, but this usage does cause problems with agreement such that it can't be used in writing or more formal speech without sounding ridiculous. Trying to use they/them/their for a singular individual creates confusing and nonsensical-sounding false plurals.

Conversely, a gender-neutral singular has been needed for a long time, as there has been chronic difficulty with referring to a general singular individual in written English. "One/one's" works but can get repetitive and sounded so formal that it was underutilized. "S/he .... his/her" was always awkward even before the general public acknowledgement of nonbinary individuals. A universal Pe/per/pers or Ze/zir/zirs would solve a several problems at a stroke. Singular they/them/their only creates more.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Maybe in the same way that people make grammatical errors in common speech all the time, but this usage does cause problems with agreement such that it can't be used in writing or more formal speech without sounding ridiculous. Trying to use they/them/their for a singular individual creates confusing and nonsensical-sounding false plurals.

Conversely, a gender-neutral singular has been needed for a long time, as there has been chronic difficulty with referring to a general singular individual in written English. "One/one's" works but can get repetitive and sounded so formal that it was underutilized. "S/he .... his/her" was always awkward even before the general public acknowledgement of nonbinary individuals. A universal Pe/per/pers or Ze/zir/zirs would solve a several problems at a stroke. Singular they/them/their only creates more.

Maybe in theory. Practically, it’s a whole lot harder to get speakers of a language to agree on, let alone use, a universally selected, whole new gender-neutral pronoun than to use an existing one that is already colloquially used, accepted, and understood as a singular, gender neutral pronoun frequently.

 

[Sanman]

My thought is that if somebody has deal with being non-binary in such a binary focused world, the least I can do is try to my sincere best to call her/him/them/zer what she/he/they/ze want to be called. I think that failure to do so is at least a little bit of an implicit suggestion that one does not see "non-binary" as a real thing.

On a practical note, gender specific pronuouns are a real PITA when trying to template out reports or reuse sections of existing reports for new clients. A gender neutral singular pronoun just makes more sense. We do it with the plural already.

Regarding reports, I wholeheartedly agree.

Regarding pronouns, I Iook at this as unrealistic from a cognitive processing perspective. Stereotypes are borne out of cognitive schemas. We don't have the schemas or the heuristics to make these pronoun decisions easily in most everyday circumstances. This makes turns referring someone into a time sucking process and is the reason it will not catch on with much of society. Only those very close to you will adopt it because they are the only ones that care.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Regarding reports, I wholeheartedly agree.

Regarding pronouns, I Iook at this as unrealistic from a cognitive processing perspective. Stereotypes are borne out of cognitive schemas. We don't have the schemas or the heuristics to make these pronoun decisions easily in most everyday circumstances. This makes turns referring someone into a time sucking process and is the reason it will not catch on with much of society. Only those very close to you will adopt it because they are the only ones that care.

The social cognition research (at the time I took the Social Cognition course in grad school soooo many years ago) would suggest that it may be difficult to change our pronoun-use behavior, but not impossible (cf. individuating strategies or superordinate group strategies for schema change. It may be a generational process that leads to lasting, but hope is not lost on us "old guys" if we actually put our minds to it and try. I'd venture that I do lot more effortful but less important things every day. Schemas are not, for instance, a legally accepted excuse for things like employer discrimination.

 

[Sanman]

The social cognition research (at the time I took the Social Cognition course in grad school soooo many years ago) would suggest that it may be difficult to change our pronoun-use behavior, but not impossible (cf. individuating strategies or superordinate group strategies for schema change. It may be a generational process that leads to lasting, but hope is not lost on us "old guys" if we actually put our minds to it and try. I'd venture that I do lot more effortful but less important things every day. Schemas are not, for instance, a legally accepted excuse for things like employer discrimination.

I don't disagree that the work can be done. I just don't believe that the majority will do it. My take as mentioned above is that I will do it in a professional psychotherapy context and in a personal one with close friends and colleagues. Beyond that, it seems like too much effort for the general public with whom I am having superficial interactions. Future generations may have an easier time and maybe I will just be that old guy who is socially inappropriate, like when someone's Grandpa asks if a person is "Oriental" and has no idea why everyone is so mad.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I don't disagree that the work can be done. I just don't believe that the majority will do it. My take as mentioned above is that I will do it in a professional psychotherapy context and in a personal one with close friends and colleagues. Beyond that, it seems like too much effort for the general public with whom I am having superficial interactions. Future generations may have an easier time and maybe I will just be that old guy who is socially inappropriate, like when someone's Grandpa asks if a person is "Oriental" and has no idea why everyone is so mad.

Not arguing with you here! However, can we just acknowledge that a lot of those old guys are just straight up being insensitive a******s because they have always gotten away with it, have never been challenged, and seem to enjoy the offense they cause. I would hope that if i do one of those offensive old guy things purely out of ignorance, somebody would call me on me on it and expect me to change.

 

[Sanman]

Not arguing with you here! However, can we just acknowledge that a lot of those old guys are just straight up being insensitive a******s because they have always gotten away, have never been challenged, and seem to enjoy the offense they cause. I would hope that if i do one of those offensive old guy things purely out of ignorance, somebody woould call me on me on it and expect me to change.

Oh, no argument on this side either. As a racial minority, I have been the receiving end of many of these "accidents" and know that it does not feel great for the other person. As a geropsychologist, I look forward to getting old and occasionally pissing off people who annoy me and blaming it on my age.