When a university goes woke

1st Official Post
    • Official Post

    Telesphoreo brought a really interesting document taken from a Standford University page to my attention earlier today. Titled "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative", I think you know what we're getting into from reading this joke of a document. Essentially, it tries to get you to stop using certain words/phrases because of the words' histories, even if they have nothing to do with what the word is used for now. Literally textbook woke culture.


    The entire document is full of goodies, like these for example:


    "Offending Word"
    		What Standford wants you to useWhy they want you to use it
    crazysurprising/wild "Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions."
    retardperson with a cognitive disability, person with autism, neurodivergent person"This term is a slur against those who are neurodivergent or have a cognitive disability."
    retarded
    		boring, uncool
    		"This term is a slur against those who are neurodivergent or have a cognitive disability. It should not be used to make a point about a person, place or thing."
    spirit animalfavorite animal, animal I most admire or would like to be"The term refers to an animal spirit that guides/protects one on a journey, so to equate it with an animal one likes is to demean the significance of the term."
    ballsybold, risk-taker "Attributes personality traits to anatomy."
    HispanicLatinx, use country of origin"Although widely used to describe people from Spanish-speaking countries outside of Spain, its roots lie in Spain's colonization of South American countries. Instead of referring to someone as Hispanic because of their name or appearance, ask them how they identify themselves first."


    Here's the full document: https://s.wsj.net/public/resou…ents/stanfordlanguage.pdf


    What a joke.

    I agree with what they’re pushing here, to be honest. A lot of people use terms that are derogatory to members of society with disabilities, without realising what the words meanings may be. It’s also the same for many ethnic minorities and I think the Latinx example used here portrays that well.


    I also have noticed that you’ve only selected some lighter examples and not more crucial ones. It would maybe be better to show the latter as they have highlighted an issue here.

    Quote from Ashaz

    I agree with what they’re pushing here, to be honest. A lot of people use terms that are derogatory to members of society with disabilities, without realising what the words meanings may be. It’s also the same for many ethnic minorities and I think the Latinx example used here portrays that well.


    I also have noticed that you’ve only selected some lighter examples and not more crucial ones. It would maybe be better to show the latter as they have highlighted an issue here.

    "Surveys of Hispanic and Latino Americans have found that the vast majority prefer other terms such as Hispanic and Latina/Latino to describe themselves, and that only 2–3% use Latinx.[2][3] A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that roughly three-quarters of U.S. Latinos were not aware of the term Latinx; of those aware of it, 33% (i.e., about 8% of all U.S. Latinos) said it should be used to describe their racial or ethnic group, while 65% said it should not.[4][3]

    Critics say the term does not follow traditional grammar, is difficult to pronounce, and is disrespectful toward conventional Spanish;[5] the Royal Spanish Academy style guide does not recognize the suffix -x.[6] Both supporters and opponents have cited linguistic imperialism as a reason for supporting or opposing the use of the term.[5]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx

    Quote from videogamesm12

    retard
    person with a cognitive disability, person with autism, neurodivergent person
    "This term is a slur against those who are neurodivergent or have a cognitive disability."
    retarded

    boring, uncool

    "This term is a slur against those who are neurodivergent or have a cognitive disability. It should not be used to make a point about a person, place or thing."


    I don't see how asking people not to use this word is "Literally textbook woke culture". I'm not going around and asking it to be cancelled or banned but it's an offensive enough word to enough people that I can see why some would have objections to it's colloquial use.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    This document also only pertains to Stanford communications (i.e. websites and code). This thread portrays it as though it bans the words on campus, when that is not the case.

    "Claiming that the EHLI was 'intended as a guide, not a mandate,' to replace racist and harmful terminology used in IT communications, Steve Gallagher, Stanford's chief information officer, acknowledged this past Wednesday that while the 'primary motivation of this initiative was always to promote a more inclusive and welcoming environment where individuals from all backgrounds feel they belong,' it was time to pull back and reconsider.

    '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,' Gallagher wrote. He added, “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.”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/m…age-list/?sh=123afa6a62df

    Anyways, if you wanted to mock the language guide, then why not use the more ridiculous examples such as:
    "American"
    "You guys"
    "Trigger warning" (lol)
    "White paper"

    Quote from Miwojedk

    Critics say the term does not follow traditional grammar, is difficult to pronounce, and is disrespectful toward conventional Spanish;[5] the Royal Spanish Academy style guide does not recognize the suffix -x.[6] Both supporters and opponents have cited linguistic imperialism as a reason for supporting or opposing the use of the term.[5]"

    And this is why you ask the affected people before making up solutions to problems they might not have.


    I totally see the reasoning behind some of the examples but this is one of those that bothers me.


    It could be because I speak a "cousin" language and I see the linguistic issues English speakers can't understand.

    TotalFreedom's Executive Community & Marketing Manager

    Like 1 Thanks 1
    • Official Post

    It's not uncommon to strive to use more inclusive terms, if for no other reason a lot of words don't translate obviously into other languages. White list and Black List were examples that make little sense when translated, compared to allow list and deny list which translates more clearly and is more obvious in its meaning.


    I will also say in some cases it can make a difference, being mindful of the terms you use when interacting with others and how others may take those words is something a lot of us fail to do, or assume folks will take it the same way we mean it (This thread being a prime example in a lot of replies).


    There's nothing wrong with striving to be inclusive while at the same time using words / wording that more accurately articulates the point you're trying to make.

    XUZE2bx.png


    I seriously cannot fathom how stupid and shallow someone would have to be to seriously advise against using the word "brave" because anyone who's maybe weak might be insulted by it. I understand that this is all mere recommendation for official posts on Stanford's behalf -- but it's only a matter of time until this becomes commonplace, and these words are no longer socially acceptable to use. Some other examples I've seen at just a quick browse of that document are "she, man, you guys, user, grandfather, and straight". It seriously has me wondering who's actually getting offended by the use of any of these words, if anyone, or is this mere nitpicking to take advantage of a society that is trying to become more inclusive?


    I do feel for any of Stanford's journalists who I have no doubt will have to proofread any article / official legislation they write a ridiculous amount of times simply because they are using words on this list. How strongly are they enforcing this? If they use the term "African American" instead of "black", will they get told off? Will they get sacked? If this is the direction that colleges are going now, how long until the likes of the New York Times, or the Sunday Post enforce this, and before long, how long until the word "brave" is revered by the general public who grew up thinking that the words listed on that document are bad because god forbid someone is weak and might get offended by it right?

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login