Ignorance? Or knowledge of the fact that that particular word is rarely used to refer to a female dog anymore? Is reluctance to use what can be considered curse words a bad thing?
Would not the idea here of "not causing a brother to stumble" (Romans 14:13-18, 1 Corinthians 8:9-13). Even if cursing causes us no moral problems, it might others. Instead of looking down our noses at them, perhaps we should be sensitive to the needs of other Christians, no?
Perhaps the thinking behind avoiding using words like "bitch" is that of avoiding the appearance of evil.
We say that the Christian community should not be so quick to judge. Should not the same apply to us? I think there is some kind of ideological middle ground here, and we really need to work towards it.

Ignorance? Or knowledge of the fact that that particular word is rarely used to refer to a female dog anymore?

But that's exactly how it was being used. And that fact was obvious in the review. There was no possible way to mistake the fact.

Is reluctance to use what can be considered curse words a bad thing?

A great many words can be considered curse words under some circumstances. But we are discussing the literal, proper usage of a word. Should I stop using "hell" to refer to that unpleasant place prepared for the Devil and his angels, because it is so often used profanely?

Would not the idea here of "not causing a brother to stumble" (Romans 14:13-18, 1 Corinthians 8:9-13).

Because reading the word bitch, used in its technical sense, is going to cause so very many adults to stumble. See comment above, regarding "hell."

... perhaps we should be sensitive to the needs of other Christians, no?

No. Not when they are infringing upon our ability to communicate effectively and properly. It's time for them to start talking about something valid.

Perhaps the thinking behind avoiding using words like "bitch" is that of avoiding the appearance of evil.

And perhaps we should stop being so worried about appearances. There are verses about that, too.

We say that the Christian community should not be so quick to judge. Should not the same apply to us?

As far as I can tell, I'm defending someone against judgment. Can I not ever critique current evangelical practices without being accused of judgmentalism? Is the majority the only group allowed to exercise discernment and persuasion at all?

"As far as I can tell, I'm defending someone against judgment."
"It is degrading. It is degrading because it implies an incredible ignorance and weakness of mind on the part of our readership. It is degrading because we are subjecting excellent staff writers to the sensitivities of an imaginary sanctimonious crank -- one highly unlikely, actually, to care about this novel. In a larger sense, it is degrading because it keeps us from interacting with our culture respectfully. We evangelicals love to make a show of putting conversational perfumed handkerchiefs to our noses, avoiding the odors of our neighbors."
That sure sounds judgemental to me.
Ok, here's my point. Even though this word was perfectly fine in context, how many people don't know what the actual definition is? And that's precisely because of "interacting with our culture". That word no longer carries the same meaning, barring unusual circumstances. Yes, you used it correctly. But you know what? If it's not let in, we're not talking a major infringement on your rights. We're talking a judgement call on the part of the editor.
*Sighs* Ok, and then there's this: "... perhaps we should be sensitive to the needs of other Christians, no? No." That's pretty harsh.
This whole post, and your response to me, smells faintly of intellectual snobbery. You have effectively regulated people who watch their language more carefully than us to a lower "intellectual" tier. Essentially, you're saying they're dumber than us. I don't agree. I think that after a point, this becomes an issue of conscience. Also, considering the stance of my parents and grandparents, you've just implied that they're stupid and need to get smarter. I don't like that mojo, buddy. Don't like it at all.

It's a book review, KD. Its job is to raise the intellectual tone of the paper, inviting people to learn and grow. That's what good book reviews do. And yes, sometimes book reviews are controversial and offend people. Gasp.

I wasn't talking about the book review. I pretty much stand with you on the book review, though I won't have a fit if they take it out.
What I was addressing is the underlying attitude present in your writing. Notice how most of what I wrote is fairly general? That's because I'm addressing a general topic.
The offense is not in your book review. It is in your implications about people who wish to avoid curse words.

Sharpton, I'm just not sure what to do with you sometimes . . . You're starting to sound like a troll around here, swooping in to rant about something that is, at best, only tangential to the main point, which you claim to agree with.

This whole, "Wilson, you stated an opinion about someone else. You're judgmental," is getting very tired. Not only that, but every time you use it, you're doing the SAME BLASTED THING. How about you stop dropping the "j-word" on us and actually tell us what is so wrong with the statements made.

Wilson outlined his feelings about the personal consequences of the decision, and made a VERY valid point about the foolish prudishness that many people practice. You can't deny such people are out there, and since Wilson didn't name any names you can't accuse him of insulting personal relations.

Ok, here's my point. Even though this word was perfectly fine in context, how many people don't know what the actual definition is? And that's precisely because of "interacting with our culture". That word no longer carries the same meaning, barring unusual circumstances.

This reveals a profound ignorance on your part and a very scary attitude about language. A quick check with the OED reveals that "bitch" has had its vulgar connotation since the 1400s. It has meant two different things for about 600 years now, and that hasn't stopped people from being aware or using it in its original meaning.

What you're suggesting is the total immasculation of our language. Imagine (to use a Martinez example) that I say, "I just got a pinprick," and you hear "I just got a pin, prick," and become offended because I called you a prick, and you don't know it means anything else. Do we drop it out of the vocabulary just because you're an ignoramus? NO!

YOU want to give in, roll over, and wuss out in the face of the forces of ignorance and prudery, saying that we should pander to what people don't know rather than teach them the truth. Next thing you know, you'll say we should stop witnessing to people because we might offend their religious sensibilities (it's the same logic!). You can't avoid offending people, Sharpton, you can only avoid giving them a valid reason to be offended. When we use an acceptable word in its proper context, they have no valid reason to be offended.

Also, considering the stance of my parents and grandparents, you've just implied that they're stupid and need to get smarter. I don't like that mojo, buddy. Don't like it at all.

*rolls eyes* Is that your cop addressing a juvenile delinquent voice? Why don't you tell us what the stance of your parents and grandparents is, exactly? If it is, in fact, that referring to a female dog as a "bitch" is unacceptable in any context, then we do indeed take issue with it and believe that they should change their view because it is nonsense. But this isn't a "stupid/smarter" issue, and no one but you is using those terms. Playing the relatives card is a shabby trick and won't get you anywhere. In effect, you have implied that we should defer to the opinions of your father and mother, either because to say they are wrong when they are, in fact, wrong is a personal insult to you, or because they are always right.

The offense is not in your book review. It is in your implications about people who wish to avoid curse words.

Yeah, uh . . . You just said that the term isn't offensive, but saying that people who are offended by an offensive term (which you just said yourself ISN'T an offensive term) are ignorant and wrong is. You're being self-contradictory, AND misinterpreting the original post at the same time. Wilson's implications were that the word is, in fact, NOT a curse word, or profanity, or obscenity, or vulgarity, or anything other than a word that means precisely what it says. His implications are entirely about people who wish to avoid words that AREN'T curse words, AND who wish to impose this avoidance on those around them, making it impossible for us to speak our own language as it was meant to be spoken. Nowhere in the original post was a word said against anyone who wishes to avoid actual obscene terms, leaving you with no basis to object. Why did you?

I had more, but this is way too long. Maybe someday I'll learn to be upset AND concise at the same time. I'm going to close this comment with an acknowledgement of its vitriolic nature. In replying to it you needn't point out that I am being harsh, judgmental, critical, the holder of very strong opinions on this issue (going beyond merely a distaste for being censored), or that a few insulting or demeaning statements might have slipped in somewhere. I am well aware. Should you desire further information regarding our reasons for wanting to keep the word in, a mere request from you will prompt me to forward to you the message I wrote to the editors on the subject.

I find this all profoundly entertaining now. I just noticed that the most recent post at Knight's Disciple's blog has a whopping big "Damn you!" directed at a Christian production company.

and while we are at it, we should avoid rainbows because the homosexuals use that as their symbol. and we should enjoy the word baptism because it's a common name for water sex or an orgy in a pool. Maybe we should stop using the work christian because so many people refer to a christian as just someone who does some good things. maybe we should stop wearing crosses because they ahve become nothing more than a cool piece of jewlery. MUST AVOID CULTURE AT ALL COSTS.

*wonders if there are unrelated issues fueling this most interesting discussion...*

In the meantime, "Gallagher, my man, x=...uh...z(a+b)=...um....hmmmm....."

"I bow to your superior wisdom." -Batman, Kingdom Come

Ok. Let's see if a hard-restart helps. I'm completely starting over with my comments, folks. I'll try to reiterate my points here. My above posts were obviously too emotional, and frankly, too fractured.
1. Concerning the issue of leaving or taking the word: is this not one of the major realms of an editor?
2. Has the editor done this purely out of knee-jerk reaction, or out of careful consideration of the situation and all factors present?
3. Did anyone mayhaps try the following compromise: "seeing-eye bitch [female dog]"? Here, there is absolutely no mistaking the definition of the word, the editor ensures that they are following school regs, you keep your precious word and educate the unwashed masses as to its use. Or was this an either/or argument you had?
4. Is it really that big of a deal? It's one word. Now, I've heard rumblings that another writer was trying to get a piece on differing political views in the paper. If it is not included for reasons other than space, etc., I will be one of the ones fighting for it to be left in, even if I don't agree with the actual article. Pick your battles.
I think I'll leave it at this for now on the specific issue of the paper and the article. Next come general issues I see present.

General Issues
1. Concerning using curse words at all. This is not, to me, an issue of prudishness, at least not all the time. It is an issue of conscience. Some people, in their conscience, and through study of the Scriptures, honestly believe it is wrong to swear in any way. This is perfectly valid. It is a similar situation to the verses I referenced in my first post, speaking of eating meat to idols. Some would be sinning by doing, because they believe it is sin. Others would not, because they believe it is not sin. Those who believe swearing is sin are naturally going to be more sensitive to the use of words that are more commonly used today as curse words, and not to reference what they originally meant.
2. We should be sensitive to this. Primarily, this comes into play when we are around them, or in publications. In our own private writings, it doesn't matter. On the issue of blogs....I suppose I need to reconsider this.
(Subnote) Please note, I am still trying to sort out my exact stance on many of the present issues. My reason for speaking up is that I saw what seemed to be an almost hateful speaking out against fellow Christians.
3. Which brings us to the next point. Are we not the Body of Christ, and not the Bodies of Christ? If the hand stabs the foot, what has been accomplished. Surely, it's "point" has been presented. The hand has functioned fine. It has performed a legitimate function. But it does the rest of the body absolutely no good. I see echoes of that here. You may have a valid point. But your delivery methods and intonations are often that of the hand stabbing the foot. the communal aspect of the Christian life cannot be denied. (I'm not saying you're openly denying it).
Because we are all members of the Body, should we not be more sensitive to other members? Instead of treating them with distaste and hate, and merely ranting on your blog, why not try and go out and help more of them to understand, or to "educate" them as you would put it? Ultimately, the decision to use curse words will be down to the individual. We can no more force someone to accept our view on this than we can our view on drinking.

My point in all of this?
Take a deep breath. Calm down, and try not to look at this as some horrid violation of your first amendment rights. Try to see the perspective of others who hold different views. Keep in mind that the word "bitch" is more commonly used to swear than to describe a dog. Thus, it is conceivable, though not likely, that someone could see it as such when reading this article, even in all of it's glorious context.
Instead of being hateful, we need to be sensitive to our fellow Christians. Instead of worrying about "ability to communicate", worry about helping fellow Christians to understand without banging them over the head with it.
Ease up, guys.

1. Concerning the issue of leaving or taking the word: is this not one of the major realms of an editor?

Sometimes. The final decision is up to the general editor, certainly. But I as copy editor also have a say in the process, as do the authors of the review (whose opinion counts most, because they have actually read the book).

2. Has the editor done this purely out of knee-jerk reaction, or out of careful consideration of the situation and all factors present?

As a matter of fact, I don't think she cares for her own sake; I think she's afraid of a knee-jerk reaction on the part of her readership. It's that knee-jerk reaction, not hers, that I was addressing in my post.

3. Did anyone mayhaps try the following compromise: "seeing-eye bitch [female dog]"?

No. I don't think that ever has been or ever will be on the table. It would be insulting to our literate readership, and it would not keep the cranks from complaining.

4. Is it really that big of a deal? It's one word. ... Pick your battles.

I addressed this in the original post as well. This controversy is important to me because it exemplifies the broader problem within evangelical culture. It is that broader problem that I was addressing in the second half of the post.

If the political column were censored, I would resign my post. But it has not been. Thus, this is the only battle I have to deal with right now. There's nothing to "pick." This is the battle that is happening, and I'm going to take part in it.

Some people, in their conscience, and through study of the Scriptures, honestly believe it is wrong to swear in any way.

KD, you're the only one who has said anything about the morality of swearing, one way or the other. The only one. This word is not swearing -- not by any stretch of the imagination. Those who are that sensitive to its use have no right to keep the rest of us from using it properly.

You may have a valid point. But your delivery methods and intonations are often that of the hand stabbing the foot.

And you are more than happy to retaliate. KD, stop being offended on other people's behalf. If they have a problem with my "intonations," they can say so.

Ease up, guys.

Ironic. KD, stop being a troll. This is my personal blog, and I can use it to express the intensity of my feelings if I so choose. You didn't have to treat this as a debate at all, because it wasn't one until you came along.

You didn't have to call me arrogant. You didn't have to call me judgmental. You didn't have to call me a snob. You didn't have to accuse me of disrupting Christian community. You didn't even have to patronize me with a term like "buddy." And you didn't have to be hypocritical about it all, by accusing me of insulting your parents and grandparents even as you used language that would absolutely horrify them.

1. Concerning the issue of leaving or taking the word: is this not one of the major realms of an editor?
Sometimes. The final decision is up to the general editor, certainly. But I as copy editor also have a say in the process, as do the authors of the review (whose opinion counts most, because they have actually read the book).

Yes, the author has a say in the matter: she wrote the review as she thought it should be read. The editor disagreed, and so removed a word. It doesn't matter if that word is "bitch" or "mayonaise," the editor has the prerogative to remove anything based upon her judgement.

2. Has the editor done this purely out of knee-jerk reaction, or out of careful consideration of the situation and all factors present?
As a matter of fact, I don't think she cares for her own sake; I think she's afraid of a knee-jerk reaction on the part of her readership. It's that knee-jerk reaction, not hers, that I was addressing in my post.

Her "readership" includes the staff and board members of the University both funding and approving this publication. It would be stupid for those readers to have a "knee-jerk" reaction, but it is very likely that they would. If they did, the author and editors would be disciplined and the paper would be either have those people replaced, be suspended, or have printing stopped completely "until further notice."

3. Did anyone mayhaps try the following compromise: "seeing-eye bitch [female dog]"?
No. I don't think that ever has been or ever will be on the table. It would be insulting to our literate readership, and it would not keep the cranks from complaining.

KD, that compromise actually proves Wilson's point. Wilson, stop being offended on other people's behalf.

4. Is it really that big of a deal? It's one word. ... Pick your battles.
I addressed this in the original post as well. This controversy is important to me because it exemplifies the broader problem within evangelical culture. It is that broader problem that I was addressing in the second half of the post.
If the political column were censored, I would resign my post. But it has not been. Thus, this is the only battle I have to deal with right now. There's nothing to "pick." This is the battle that is happening, and I'm going to take part in it.

Wilson, it doesn't matter how many battles are happening, you can still choose whether or not to participate. Yes, this battle is the only one that is, but you "picked" it by choosing to take part in it.

Some people, in their conscience, and through study of the Scriptures, honestly believe it is wrong to swear in any way.
KD, you're the only one who has said anything about the morality of swearing, one way or the other. The only one. This word is not swearing -- not by any stretch of the imagination. Those who are that sensitive to its use have no right to keep the rest of us from using it properly.

People who are sensitive to profanity, even when used by a non-vulgar definition, have no right to keep you from using it. However, the editor has an obligation to keep those allowing the paper to exist from being offended. You may disagree with those in power getting offended, but chances are good that they would.

You may have a valid point. But your delivery methods and intonations are often that of the hand stabbing the foot.
And you are more than happy to retaliate. KD, stop being offended on other people's behalf. If they have a problem with my "intonations," they can say so.

Wilson, you call KD a troll, then give him emotionally charged words that will most likely incite him to stay. You have no one but yourself to blame for his continued comments, because you continually speak down to him. His opinions, while they seem illogical and immature to one so wise as yourself, are perfectly valid and deserve to be respected as much as your own.

Ease up, guys.
Ironic. KD, stop being a troll. This is my personal blog, and I can use it to express the intensity of my feelings if I so choose. You didn't have to treat this as a debate at all, because it wasn't one until you came along.
You didn't have to call me arrogant. You didn't have to call me judgmental. You didn't have to call me a snob. You didn't have to accuse me of disrupting Christian community. You didn't even have to patronize me with a term like "buddy." And you didn't have to be hypocritical about it all, by accusing me of insulting your parents and grandparents even as you used language that would absolutely horrify them.

Wilson, KD did not even begin "trolling" until you disrespected his opinion and derided him for a poor choice of words. Read his first post again. He's calling for compromise, not debate. Your actions both began and fueled the argument we see here.

You both have been acting decidedly childish. It is sad how you both choose to argue with each other over a matter upon which you will clearly never agree. KD, you cannot win against Wilson because he will continually disrepect your opinion and think of you as less mature than himself. Wilson, you cannot win against KD because he argues emotionally rather than logically.

So, it comes to this: Wilson, you're an idiot for beginning a fruitless argument with KD. (Remember that "Pick your battles" thing? It would have worked nicely here.) KD, you're an idiot for vehemently arguing back against Wilson on his own blog (He should have the freedom to post his own opinion without having it questioned.) Me, I'm an idiot for posting this with the vain hope that you'll both manage to read it and not deconstruct it. (We're all still in college, we're all immature, and, no matter how much we want to act the part, none of us are as grown up as we think.)

Well, I think you've been reasonably fair in addressing both sides of the problem . . . Although I notice that I didn't get my fair share of lambasting. For my part, though I still hold to every aspect of my actual position, I confess to being unduly harsh in the communicating of it.

Nevertheless, I don't think you're going to get very far, in the end, by declaring everyone an idiot for sticking to their guns on an issue they feel strongly about. It's not entirely true, and you have to know that it's just going to make everyone balk and ignore everything else you had to say. Pointing out problems and flaws is excellent, and you did that. Getting preachy and talking down to them is not, and you did that too. As a side note, I also don't think it's particularly fair to say that Wilson started this argument simply because he decided he'd post his opinion on his blog.

That aside, what we haven't been communicating at all (and so it keeps coming up) is how we've gone about addressing this. All of us who are directly involved in this "controversy" (both authors and copy editor) have registered our official protest with the editors over their proposed change, and given them our reasons why as clearly as possible, and as we have the right to do. Once we had done that, however, we also clearly stated our respect and support for their authority to have the final say in the matter. It's up to them. We know it. We've let them know that we know it.

Having accomplished that, Wilson posted his feelings on the matter on his blog. I happen to know for a fact that he was slightly nervous about doing so, because (whether or not this is evident to everyone) he doesn't want to cast our hard-working, talented editors (of whom we are both very fond) in a bad light. In fact, he personally discouraged me from posting anything about it (as I was also tempted to do) and I followed his advice because my own feelings were inclined in that direction as well. You'll notice he doesn't really mention the editors directly in the post, and he certainly doesn't insult or demean them. The fact that the question came up simply drew to his attention a very general problem which he has noticed and wished to have his say on.

All of this considered, it was a bit frustrating to have someone rush to defend our editors and their reasoning against our onslaught (an onslaught that didn't exist), after we'd been over it all with them and essentially left it in their hands. We saw disapproval of our handling of the situation without full knowledge of how we had handled it, and were naturally a bit upset. Whether or not we were entirely appropriate in our response (and I'll reiterate that I was quite rude, and probably wouldn't have posted anything remotely like that had I stopped to count to ten first), I would say that that was the chief reason behind our vehemence.

Hopefully this doesn't come across as a deconstruction, because I don't mean it to be. Speaking for myself, I would like to note that I have learned a great deal through this entire situation: through the goings-on on this blog, and through discussions with others (like Doug and Ashley), for example. I can see the perspective of the other side much better than I could previously, and I would indeed like to be sensitive to it to a reasonable degree. As co-writer of the piece in question, I still firmly believe that the word should stay where it was put. However, I have expressed that desire to all relevant parties as well as a can, and I can assure you that, if it is taken out, I will not be throwing a temper tantrum. I will be a bit disappointed that I cannot count on my fellow believers, students, and adults to respond in what I consider to be a reasonable fashion to this, but I still reserve the right to feel however I wish to feel about it. In short, I don't intend, and haven't intended, to press the point any further.

Dang . . . longer than I meant it to be again. *sigh*

I think that answers for me fairly well. The "middle ground" KD told me to look for had already been reached with the editors before I made the original entry. My remarks were aimed at a general mentality, not even one I ascribed to the editors. I regret not making this clearer.

Wilson...*Sighs*. Fine. I realy wasn't trying to start an argument, but I did. I geuss I just can't measure up enough to do so on your blog. I'll leave you alone. I'll try not to comment again, perhaps forever. Or at least only when the comment will carry no controversy.

Her "readership" includes the staff and board members of the University both funding and approving this publication.

This is what it came down to for us. The YellowJacket is a university publication, and as such, there are certain limitations placed on our freedom of speech.

I have probably learned more through this situation and through the reading of this discussion than I ever planned on learning as an editor. Thank you for the intelligence, professionalism and respect with which you have dealt with the issue. We are honored.

"We evangelicals love to make a show of putting conversational perfumed handkerchiefs to our noses, avoiding the odors of our neighbors."

This is a gem of a line. I must confess may it describes my own reaction to the line --- I would basically wince just a little, even though my mind can do the mental translation that bitch == female dog in this context.

I suppose, in the end, there must be a merry truce between those who wince (not to show it), and those who say it (not to say it too often). I can see parallels to Paul's discussion of the "weaker brother" who can eat only vegetables and the "stronger one" who understands that evil does not reside in food. Paul makes the point that the stronger one should try to keep from troubling his brother ... but I think he well could have warned against the tyranny of the easily offended brother attempting to destroy the freedom of his stronger kin.

My 2 cents says that this was a time for those who wince to hide it and not trouble others.

This comment is not intended to start an argument and if one develops; I shall seriously regret making it. There's been enough of it already on this thread.