By DONALD DeMARCO
A group of linguistic roughnecks at Stanford University, in an effort to improve human relations, issued the “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative.” To be more accurate, the group was concerned with the elimination of harmful words. Such words, according to the group, which did not lack self-confidence, should be stricken from the dictionary. The group was overestimating its power.
A backlash against this effort was powerful enough to elicit the response below from the group. This article for The Wanderer was completed before the response was widely publicized.
Wednesday, January 4, 2023
“The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) was an effort co-sponsored by the Stanford CIO Council and the People of Color in Technology (POC-IT) affinity group. This initiative was catalyzed by events at the national and campus level during 2020. It was created by and for the IT community, not the broader community, and intended as a guide, not a mandate. More specifically, EHLI was created to address racist terms historically used in IT, such as ‘master’ and ‘slave’ to describe aspects of systems. The initiative’s scope of ‘racist terminology in technology’ was later expanded more broadly as ‘harmful language in technology.’ It was this expansion in scope that is at the heart of the intense recent feedback from the Stanford community and beyond.
“The Stanford IT community remains steadfast in its commitment to the university’s values of diversity and inclusion. The primary motivation of this initiative was always to promote a more inclusive and welcoming environment where individuals from all backgrounds feel they belong. The feedback that this work was broadly viewed as counter to inclusivity means we missed the intended mark. It is for this reason that we have taken down the EHLI site.
“The path forward will be determined after reviewing all recent feedback and consulting with university academic and administrative leadership. All efforts will be guided by Stanford’s commitment to academic freedom.”
Steve Gallagher, chief information officer at Stanford University, signed the document.
To further analyze the problems with the original effort: The most questionable word on the list is “American.” It seems that this toxic word belittles other countries that have the right to use it. Thus, “American” suggests a kind of superiority as the most powerful country in the world. Not to leave former “Americans” without a name, the group graciously allows “U.S. Citizens” as a permissible replacement. Will American Airlines feel the pressure and change its name?
The word “white” should be eliminated for it implies an identification with something good. “White list,” “White paper,” and “Whitespace,” and, presumably, “Liquid Whiteout” should go because “value connotations based on color” are “subconsciously racialized.” How, then, shall we identify the color of snow? Will “Snow White” need a name change? And what about the countless blacks whose surname is White?
Words are protean. They rarely mean just one thing. Consider the word “blue.” It can symbolize purity, melancholy, off-color language, or cheerfulness (as in the bluebird of happiness). White can refer to being ashen or pale, a negative connotation. Some feminists called for the removal from the dictionary of the word “shrew.” But another word with the same meaning could be used in its place. Besides, lacking the word “shrew,” no one could disavow shrewishness of a person.
The Stanford list, however, is tolerant of terms of opprobrium directed at conservatives.
Referring to them as “fascist” is acceptable. The words “sexist,” “racist,” and “homophobic” can be used with impunity. The bias of the listers is painfully evident.
The group is also tolerant of negative words applied to people who take their religion seriously. Catholicism may be reduced to a “cult,” while someone who has respect for the Chair of Peter may be called a “papist.” A person who quotes the Bible may be called a “Bible Thumper.”
Ladies and gentlemen should lose their singularity. The new and less harmful term should be “everyone.” The word “abort” should be eliminated because it incites controversy.
The censorious listers will not succeed in their mission. In fact, as indicated, they have already brought embarrassment to their school. But they do reveal a leftist trend in America (if I may be allowed to use that “harmful” term) that is truly harmful. Micro-managing essentially harmless words will not bring about a better world. It is and always has been individuals who have caused harm.
Reform should begin with reforming people. Catholics serve the Word of God. The words that are contained in the Good Book are not harmful, they are inspirational and beneficial.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress