Mr. Crankypants grades the proposed Article II of the UUA bylaws

Mr. Crankypants sees that the Commission on Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association has issued a draft revision of Article II of the bylaws of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Let’s look this document over as if it’s a term paper, and mark it up accordingly. For reference, here’s the document (thanks to Scott Wells).

Let’s use the Red Pen first:

Line 1: Title is misleading. This paper reads as if it is bylaws rather than a covenant. Review historic prose styles of covenants. Then either change the title to something like “Principles and Purposes of These Bylaws” or “Profession of Faith,” — or rewrite the whole paper so that it sounds like a solemn agreement that is entered into by two or more parties.

Line 7: “Principles” should not be capitalized. It cannot be a proper noun in this context.

Lines 10-11: Summing up two complex religious traditions in this offhand way is questionable. Cite references, please. Also, please make clear that you are referring to North American religious traditions, as there are other traditions with the same name in other parts of the world which differ substantially from the North American versions.

Lines 26-27: Weak, flabby prose. Instead of saying things like “Grateful for the traditions… we strive to avoid misappropriation” etc., why not just say: “We are our own religious selves, with our own religious traditions, and we promise not to be cultural imperialists who steal and exploit other religious traditions.”

Lines 29-67: Too wordy. Mushy prose. This sounds like it was written by a committee, all of whom were chewing on mashed potatoes. Rewrite, rewrite, rewrite!

Line 32: “Beloved Community” should not be capitalized. Worse, it smacks of jargon and the phrase should be completely removed.

Lines 69-75: Excessively legalistic, and filled with meaningless catchphrases. What is it that you are asking people to do? Rewrite, rewrite, rewrite!

Now let’s give it a grade, and offer some overall comments:

Grade: C-

This paper does not live up to its title. The excessive use of jargon is absolutely inexcusable, and obscures what might otherwise be fairly good prose. The paper is far too long, given what it is trying to say, and should be half the present length. Your paper has potential, though. To raise your grade, you can rewrite it completely and resubmit it. However, consider bringing it to a class workshop for peer comments, and consider asking the tutors at the Writing Center to help you remove catchphrases and jargon.

Finally, Mr. Crankypants hopes that regular reader Mme. Merde-Merde, who is a professor of writing and composition, will offer her own thoughts on this…. or any other reader, for that matter, although the rest of you will probably be too nice.

Oh yeah, and let’s not forget that two years ago already Mr. C. wrote a much better version of this.

10 thoughts on “Mr. Crankypants grades the proposed Article II of the UUA bylaws

  1. Ms. M

    Ok, it’s probably unreasonable to get you to run for the Commission – but what about Moderator – or President – or Imperial Czar…

  2. Mr. Crankypants

    Michael @ 1 — Grade inflation. Nothing Mr. C. can do about it, sorry.

    Ms. M @ 2 — Mr. C. will settle for nothing less than King of the Universe, sorry.

  3. kim

    I think we should just use reading number 459 in the grey hymnal and be done with it.

    “This is the mission of our faith:
    To teach the fragile art of hospitality;
    To revere both the critical mind and the generous heart;
    To prove that diversity need not mean divisiveness;
    And to witness to all that we must hold the whole world in our hands.”
    William F. Schulz

  4. Dan

    Linda Senn @ 5 — One of the key religious questions is: Who are we? On a more pragmatic level, it’s good to be able to explain ourselves in a concise manner to people who are checking out our churches.

    kim @ 6 — I’d vote for that.

    Paul @ 7 — Oy vey. Mr. Crankypants (the real one) is not going to pleased with this… (P.S.: Paul, your comment got marked as spam by my anti-spam software — don’t know why, but thought you’d want to know.)

  5. Kevin

    Thank god (however you may define it) that no one but the authors appear in favor of the new Article II.

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  6. Paul Hudson

    Dan @ 8 . Paul @ 7

    Maybe because of the link I included? Because it was selling something to do with a tired and limp old crank?

    Anyway, would be interested to know if I’m branded spam for life now – did this one make it through?

Comments are closed.