Is/ought
A thing I often wonder: why is the subjunctive so taboo in the UK even when it’s necessary for meaning?
I ask because I’ve just happened on an example of the kind of thing.
From a statement issued by Durham University:
While individuals and groups within the University community may express lawful views on any issue, we insist that this is done in a safe and respectful way.
See that’s not what they mean. By not using the subjunctive they said something they’re not trying to say. They say they’re insisting that this is in fact done in a safe and respectful way, when what they’re trying to say is that they insist it should be done in a safe and respectful way. It’s a counter-factual subjunctive. Why is it anathema?
Maybe because the writer thinks “should” sounds tentative and grovelling, whereas “is” is forceful and direct. Never mind that they can’t see the resulting distortion of the intended meaning. How often do you put your foot down and shoot it off at the same time.
Well but “should” isn’t the subjunctive, it’s the conditional – I used it so as to explain why the subjunctive is needed. The subjunctive would be “be” – which I think can sound odd, because it’s rare, rarer than “if she were” for instance. But if they shy away from the subjunctive they could at least use the damn conditional. But “we insist that this is done in a safe and respectful way” is just not what they mean, and it’s absurd to say it that way.
They identify as it being done in a safe and respectful way. Poof! Magic.
Ha!
It is nothing to do with the correct usage of English, and more to do with how many UK education institutions are really run. There is nothing conditional, all are subject to Terms & Conditions that are Orders and non-negotiable. Statements such as the one by Durham University will be interpreted by staff as a directive they had better follow, lest their employment ends. The legal departments of too many UK schools and colleges issue such demands and word them them this way: it is used to enforce and trap staff. It is NOT encouraging free speech, far from it. The wording is deliberate.
One one hand, upper management/board of directors are supposedly champions of freedom of speech and in public, openly state they they allow their staff (paid or voluntary) to discuss whatever topic they chose and how they chose.
However, the reality is very much the opposite: lessons, materials, lectures, written text, social media posts, indeed any form of communication, public or private (posts on facebook, this website, twitter), can be used in evidence. “We insist” becomes policy and over rides any thoughts of freedom of speech. “is done in a safe and respectful way” is determined by the policy setters alone. And they can make up the rules, determine the hurt/damage/truthfulness of anything, not the person accussed.
Statements such as the DU one are common, but are longwinded versions of: Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
When it became clear that such a policy was being enforced at my former workplace, I quit working in Education for good (it had even resisted the Gender Borg until after my resignation). The senior management were increasingly terrified of anything that might cause offence, upset or trigger students (treating students as immature, incapable shrinking violets). Yet staff had decreasing rights to say what we wanted, as college policy tightened every term. Many experienced staff left at the same time.
Aha. So the conditional and the subjunctive are rendered superfluous and thus non-existent. Innnteresting.
I’ve noticed that too, and it bugs me even though I realize it shouldn’t. I think one factor may be that because of the poverty of English verbal morphology, the subjunctive and indicative are usually identical. In the present tense, the only differences are in the verb “be” and the third person singular of other verbs. So, for example, the verb “come” in “I insist that he come on time” lacks the third person -s ending, but in the second person it’s identical (“I insist that you come”). And in the past tense it’s only the first and third person singular of the verb “be” that differ (“If I were…”).
So it could just be further leveling of the morphology.
I put it down to lack of awareness that there even is a special way to distinguish between things that are and things that are not. One would think this such an important distinction and something of a priority to learn and teach, but …