Harvard abolishes 'master' in titles in slavery row

"Spinster of Science"

SpSc(Hons) It'll happen eventually.To appease the dungaree-wearing feminist campus crackpots.

I wonder if the people arguing for changes in job or position name would also have to have the word master struck in other usages such as degree classification.

I don't think so. A qualification is very different to a job role/title (and in my experience the only people in the UK who talk about "Bachelors" or "Masters" are people who're fairly unfamiliar with HE qualifications. Generally people refer to "a degree" for a UG degree or "a postgraduate qualification" for PG).

The only people who seem to be going on about the use of Masters in other contexts are people using it as a straw man to mock the situation. It's like the silly "wearing goggles to play conkers" ******** myths that get trotted out to try to undermine efforts to improve health and safety.

Who cares either way.

I can;t get angry about this either way :-/

At best you might be subtly playing a small part in breaking hierarchies. At worse nothing happens.

At worst you make the most prestigious university in the world somewhat contemptible.

There is no best.

If you are just a poser and place more importance on titles than intellectual content then maybe.

But that is exactly what these campaigners do!

Place undue importance on a title. Finding something there that isn't there and making the whole institution look foolish.

It reminds me of the guy who was sacked by the Mayor of Washington DC for describing a budget as niggardly.

If you think I am exaggerating google it. To me the guy who complained should have been sacked himself for not knowing what the word meant and the Mayor barred from Office for stupidity.

Wiki tells me he was reinstated, or rather they wanted to reinstate him but he opted for a different role in the same Major's office.

Yes, and?

Are you suggesting that the mayor's aide, Marshall Brown, was correct to insist he be fired for racism and for "offending" him in the first place?

Or that the Mayor acted in a manner consistent with his office in firing Mr Howard even after the meaning of the word had been explained to him?

Perhaps you applaud a working culture that is so obsessed with racial sensitivity and the causing of offence that this loss of livelihood would be possible in the first place?

Or maybe you think after it became a national scandal and the Mayor had been forced to backtrack the offer of his old job back made amends? Even though working relationships had become so poisoned by the dispute that Howard no longer considered it possible to work there?

No none of that. You said to google it so I did. Chill dude...

Or maybe I should just unrep your original post.

Are you such a twit to everyone you meet?

Fair enough.

The internet is difficult at times. You can't gauge facial expressions or tone of voice so communication is harder. It leads to misunderstandings, and getting the wrong end of the stick.

Although I am a twit to most people I meet all the same.

Yes, and?

Are you suggesting that the mayor's aide, Marshall Brown, was correct to insist he be fired for racism and for "offending" him in the first place?

Or that the Mayor acted in a manner consistent with his office in firing Mr Howard even after the meaning of the word had been explained to him?

Perhaps you applaud a working culture that is so obsessed with racial sensitivity and the causing of offence that this loss of livelihood would be possible in the first place?

Or maybe you think after it became a national scandal and the Mayor had been forced to backtrack the offer of his old job back made amends? Even though working relationships had become so poisoned by the dispute that Howard no longer considered it possible to work there?