Bias. Merriam-Webster defines bias as "an inclination of temperament or outlook" but also as " to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to". In today's politically charged climate, bias is a word bandied about both frequently and carelessly. In my certification course, I recently read a section in The Copyeditor's Handbook by Amy Einsohn that specifically deals with helping an editor identify and adjust biased language. There are several examples provided both of biased language and of how a copyeditor might adjust it to be bias-free.
This, of course, got me thinking.
How much of our bias is completely unconscious? How many day to day decisions do we make that are based off biased information? How do we identify them and correct them? And do they always need to be corrected?
For me, it comes down to assumptions. A biased assumption will lead to a biased choice, regardless of whether or not that bias is based on fact. A bias, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. We use bias to teach our children to stay away from random dogs and not walk alone on dark streets at night. We assume bad things happen, whether or not we have empirical evidence to back up those assumptions. In writing, assumptions like those are what lead to accidental and unintentional bias. What was emphasized, however, was that a copyeditor will find it their duty to confront that material.
"Copyeditors are expected to query or revise any material--text, diagrams, or photographs--that promotes stereotyping (based on sex, ethnicity, religion, age, or other group designation), that needlessly excludes groups of people, or that is insensitive to cultural differences." (The Copyeditor's Handbook, pp.404-405)
This is, perhaps, one of the hardest things for someone to do, not just because they have to actually search out, identify, and then remove said biased language, but because they must set aside their own biases in order to do so. Setting aside bias is perhaps one of the hardest things anyone could ever ask of a copyeditor, because we are, by nature, biased when it comes to language. A copyeditor's job revolves around adjusting an author's language to be better, easier, clearer and more appealing to read to large groups of people. We apply our language bias to someone else's work as a matter of course. Yet is it not considered bias because it has no overt derogatory directive? It isn't meant to be mean or cruel, so it isn't a prejudicial bias?
Is bias inherently negative? No, I can't say that it is. It's how and why we apply the biases we naturally already have that adds a positive or negative connotation to it. If I assume a stray dog is unsafe, my children will remain safe regardless of the true nature of the dog. If I assume a dark street is not a safe place to walk, I will remain safe regardless of whether or not anything would have happened to me walking down that street. On the other hand, if someone assumes I can't do something because I'm female, that's certainly a bias I would want to shut down. Even if it wasn't meant to be overtly derogatory, it would end up that way. As an editor, identifying biased language is one of the hardest things we have to do.
Yet that leaves out the other hard part of an editor's job: dealing with an author that refuses to acknowledge fault.