THE INFORMER PAGE 6

OCTOBER 29, 19914

Climate Improves

No, this headline isn’t referring to the weather. The
climate involved is the College climate. The 1990/91
Internal Evaluation Steering Committee in its report to
the College states, “The college climate is generally
more positive now than it was three years ago.”

The committee, composed of Pavean Bayzag (stu-
dent), Randi Duke, Jo Dunlop, Nashir Hirjee (student),
Richard Longworth, Janet Mee, Darlene Rentz, Nancy
Ricker, Marie Toompuu, Janet Waters, Dave Woolley
and Louise Krohn (chair), presented their findings in an
Open Forum on Oct. 24. Initial discussion focused on
three areas: the regional centres, program evaluation
and follow-up to the 1989/90 report.

The main recommendation on the regional centres
was to use a resource development approach, which
could get the community involved in specific projects
and help ease funding problems. Other concerns about
the centres, hours of operation and administrative
structure, have already improved.

Program evaluation was seen as a complex problem.
Louise summed up the committee’s findings: “Program
review has to be a higher priority, but there is no easy
solution.”

In regard to the follow-up on the1989/90 report, the
committee suggested 206 recommendations left over
from 1988 be “put to rest.” The main reason for this was
that they are no longer relevant.

Confirmation of the improved climate at Cap came
from the committee’s Climate Survey, undertaken in
November 1990. Faculty saw positive changes in
motivation, communications, decision-making and job
satisfaction. Staff and administrators saw positive
change in leadership and motivation. Interestingly,
while staff saw an improvement in cooperation across
various areas of the campus, faculty viewed such coop-
eration as having declined.

The final aspect of the report was a review of ad-
ministration, which used focus groups comprised of
staff, faculty or students. Staff examined the planning
function, faculty explored budget concerns and students
talked about the bookstore. Suggestions were made for
improvements, but the overall conclusion discussed at
the forum was that the groups themselves improved
communication in the College. Richard Longworth, who
sat in on a staff focus group said participants in the
group “felt more ownership” in the College’s planning
process.

Janet Mee said too many staff and faculty lack
knowledge about the College. More chances for people
from different departments to meet each other would
aid communication, she said.

The committee’s report is part of a province-wide
institutional analysis begun in the late 70s that was to

take place every five years. However, in 1988, Cap
College decided to perform evaluations more frequently.

The power of language

If words are to thought what paint is to canvas,
then the importance of language cannot be overstated.

Words can make women disappear:

Dear Sirs * man to man * manpower ® craftsman ®
working men ° the thinking man ¢ the man in the
street * fellow countrymen ° the history of mankind ¢
one-man show ® man in his wisdom ® statesman °
forefathers * masterful * masterpiece * old masters ®
the brotherhood of man ° Liberty, Equality and Frater-
nity * sons of free men ° faith of our fathers * god the
father ° god the son ® yours fraternally * amen

There are alternatives to sexist language:

Women should be represented as equals, not
different from or subordinate to men. Generic terms
should not be changed to designate the sex of a person.
Terms like “lady doctor”, and “male nurse” can appear
to be condescending; gender should be understoood
from the text.

It would be better to refrain from feminizing gender
terms, as it is usually unnecessary, if not belittling (for
example, “jockette”, and “astronette”).

What can we do?

We can replace

¢ cleaning lady with cleaner

¢ fireman with fire fighter

¢ mailman with mail carrier

¢ stewardess with flight attendant

We can alternate between male and female expres-
sions:

¢ Has she had a chance to speak?

¢ Has he taken the initiative?

We should refrain from specifying the marital
status of women by using ‘Ms.”

Women should be introduced on their own merit:
“Sally Smith, host of the morning show...”

Not, “Sally Smith, wife of...daughter of...”

Replace the masculine pronous with “one, he/she, her/
him,” or “his/her,” whenever possible. Remember, using “he”
to refer to an unspecified gender is as absurd as the use of
generic “man” to include both women and men.

— reprinted with the permission of the

Canadian Federation of Students and submitted
by Carol McQuarrie