Editor,
I received a text that left me both confused and offended. It stated that there was an “armed gunman” on campus. I was especially appalled to find out that it was an official text from my very own University. What did they mean by “armed gunman”? Had they confirmed that it was a man? Is “armed gunman” not redundant? Or could they possibly be referring to the fact that he has both a gun and a pair of arms? If the latter, why would they not call him legged as well, unless he had no legs? Should I be suspicious of anyone in a wheelchair? Furthermore, the automatic assumption that it was a man left me bewildered. Surely they cannot be assuming that a woman is incapable of carrying a gun, I thought. Surely we moved past that mind-set decades ago.
Alas, the report itself had been unconfirmed. Given this fact, the term “gunperson” was most appropriate. The last thing we want to do is offend a person with a gun.
This obvious affront to female
empowerment, the obfuscation of the situation through the use of confusing terms, and the lack of any sort of effort to correct these atrocities left me enraged. To think that this could come from my own town, let alone university, is disturbing to say the least. We need to move past this archaic mind-set, belittling female capability and befuddling critical situations through shoddy wording. Until then, we cannot be considered a world-class education institute.
Dan McClure
UNM student
