A new South Dakota policy to stop the use of gender pronouns by public university faculty and staff in official correspondence is also keeping Native American employees from listing their tribal affiliations in a state with a long and violent history of conflict with tribes.
Two University of South Dakota faculty members, Megan Red Shirt-Shaw and her husband, John Little, have long included their gender pronouns and tribal affiliations in their work email signature blocks. But both received written warnings from the university in March that doing so violated a policy adopted in December by the South Dakota Board of Regents.
“I was told that I had 5 days to remove my tribal affiliation and pronouns,” Little said in an email to The Associated Press. “I believe the exact wording was that I had ‘5 days to correct the behavior.’ If my tribal affiliation and pronouns were not removed after the 5 days, then administrators would meet and make a decision whether I would be suspended (with or without pay) and/or immediately terminated.”
The policy is billed by the board as a simple branding and communications policy. It came only months after Republican Gov. Kristi Noem sent a letter to the regents that railed against “liberal ideologies” on college campuses and called for the board to ban drag shows on campus and “remove all references to preferred pronouns in school materials,” among other things.
I certainly hope they’re talking to a lawyer about the school’s discriminatory conduct, about whether they might win, and if it’s worth fighting.
Whether the first amendment applies or not is a question worth asking them, I’m not sure it’s quite so simple. If a state told a Muslim employee they couldn’t pray while on the clock, I would very much expect a first amendment claim. I don’t think this is so clear, but a public university telling an employee they can’t include relevant information like their pronouns for discriminatory reasons seems plausible.
I guess, providing someone time to pray, and that person placing “I AM MUSLIM” On their official correspondence as a public servant/employee representing their department are two different things. I am not defending anyone here, just curious how it applies.
As for this situation, it seems if the memo said “you can’t put your pronouns or tribal affiliation on your signature” vs “Please use this official template for your email signature” would make all the difference in how a lawyer could defend it. And it sounds like they did the latter. But we all know the reason they did it.
It depends very much on timing. If this was brought up within the first few weeks? Sure. But if this has been in their signature for months and/or years without issue, and suddenly it’s a problem? Extremely suspicious.
Pronouns are a fundamental building block of the English language. You literally cannot write or speak coherently without them. Equating that to putting “I AM A MUSLIM” on official correspondence is idiotic at best, and disingenuous at worst (well, disingenuous, racist and probably transphobic, at worst).
Stating your religious beliefs isn’t a building block of the English language. Like you get how these are different things right? You could remove the name of every single religion ever from the English language, just poof, and guess what? We would still have no problem communicating.
Now try doing that with pronouns. An entire figure of speech.