Grades deducted due to insufficient wokeness

A week ago, the “Inside Paradeplatz” portal reported that the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW) had developed a language guide for inclusive language use. The NZZ also reported on corresponding efforts in the spring. Since then there has been a lot of excitement. In fact, the level of detail with which the school attempts to control language use is sometimes remarkable.

Some of what is found in the guide has long since been taken for granted – for example that the use of the N-word is taboo or that travelers are no longer referred to as gypsies. In other areas, however, the social debate about the meaningful use of language is not over. The extent to which the use of inclusive language is desirable or necessary is highly controversial.

Also a question of your own preference

For example, inclusive short forms, such as “colleagues” or “professors”, have so far – and at least have been – a matter of taste. Personal preference in dealing with language is affected. One can argue without a guilty conscience about a guideline that wants to ban the term “dodgers” and replace it with “passengers without a valid ticket”. It is not entirely clear where the term comes from, and it tends not to have a racist background. And it’s true that the headline “Family drama ends 20-year marriage” linguistically hides the violence behind it. But wouldn’t it be desirable if university graduates developed their own feel for the language instead of consulting a guide?

However, the guide goes beyond such considerations where it links the correct use of language to the assessment of school performance. The paper, which was drafted by the ZHAW’s diversity department and signed by the rector of the university, does not do this directly – but it does allow it. The guideline says that the use of the generic masculine is not desired “and must not be prescribed by the teachers”. Conversely, this means that the generic feminine is theoretically required and that gender-neutral language may be introduced by the teachers.

In extreme cases, the inclusive use of language should even be included in the assessment. “If the teachers do not set their own assessment criteria for inclusive language, the current ZHAW language guide provides orientation for written work,” it says. In this case, neither the application nor the non-application of the guide by students should result in a lower rating. However, this gives teachers the freedom to define gender-appropriate language as an evaluation criterion, as a ZHAW spokesman confirmed to the “Tages-Anzeiger”. Grades deducted due to weekness deficit? Is gender-appropriate language used here to achieve a breakthrough with gentle force?

A language usage like in the Federal Chancellery

A written request to Felix Uhlmann, Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law, provides clarity. He considers the Guide to be untenable on this point. «Exam grades reflect the performance of the candidate. Common usage, such as that used by the Federal Chancellery, must not be viewed negatively,” writes Uhlmann.

The school has “as far as can be seen” neither a sufficient legal basis for the introduction of a different obligation, nor can it refer to the special status relationship with the students. “The conduct of the ZHAW also takes no account of the students’ freedom of expression, which is protected by fundamental rights.” Of course, unlawful statements by students would have to be assessed differently, concludes Uhlmann.

The excitement surrounding the ZHAW’s language guide may have been exaggerated in its extent. A sensitive handling of the language with a view to what is hidden behind certain forms of expression is definitely desirable. A conscious handling of the rights of the language users, however.