Stanford University has published an index of 'harmful language' that it wants to remove the words from its information technology “IT” systems and websites.
The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative was supposedly intended to raise awareness about the impact that 'racist, violent and biased' words have.
“Stanford University released a list of ‘harmful language’ to eliminate in an effort to be more sensitive to marginalized groups.
The guide, titled ‘The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative’, featured ten ‘harmful language’ sections outlined in the index: ableist, ageism, colonialism, culturally appropriative, gender-based, imprecise language, institutionalized racism, person-first, violent and additional considerations.
Stanford University eliminated the word ‘American’ because ‘This term often refers to people from the United States only, thereby insinuating that the U.S. is the most important country in the Americas (which is actually made up of 42 countries)’.
The words ‘brave’ and ‘grandfather’ and ‘long time, no see’ because they are insensitive to indigenous peoples and women.
Below is a partial list of banned words:
Original: walk-in
Swap: drop-in, open office
Reason: Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with disabilities.
Original: grandfather
Swap: legacy
Reason: This term has its roots in the ‘grandfather clause’ adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks.
Original: guru
Swap: expert, subject matter expert (SME), primary, leader, guide
Reason: In the Buddhist and Hindu traditions, the word is a sign of respect. Using it casually negates its original value.
Original: brave
Swap: none/do not use
Reason: This term perpetuates the stereotype of the ‘noble courageous savage’, equating the Indigenous male as being less than a man.
Original: man hours
Swap: person hours, effort hours, labor time
Reason: This term reinforces male-dominated language.
Original: American
Swap: U.S. Citizen
Reason: This term often refers to people from the United States only, thereby insinuating that the U.S. is the most important country in the Americas (which is actually made up of 42 countries).
Original: whitespace
Swap: empty space
Reason: Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is ‘subconsciously racialized’.
Original: prostitute
Swap: person who engages in sex work
Reason: Using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their characteristics.
Original: kill(ing) two birds with one stone
Swap: accomplish(ing) two things at once
Reason: This expression normalizes violence against animals.
Original: trigger warning
Swap: content note
Reason: The phrase can cause stress about what’s to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.
Original: master
Swap: primary or main
Reason: The word connotes slave ownership.
Original: man hours
Swap: person hours
Reason: Reinforces male dominated language”. -Cristina Laila, Gateway Pundit
Other terms and phrases on the Stanford University index of forbidden words include:
- Hold down the fort
- No can do
- Submit
- Wife beater (Shirt)
- Prisoner
- Immigrant
- Blind review
- Tone Deaf
- Handicap
- Black mark
- Black sheep
- Webmaster
- Gangbusters
- Survivor
- You guys
- Karen
- Addict
- Committed suicide
Yet again, the linguistic policing and redefining that George Orwell described as “duckspeak” is being utilized by American academia in order to obfuscate the meaning of well-understood terms to shield their subjective realities from the objective truth.
Given that its influence rests entirely on lies, redefinitions, and sophistic rhetorical manipulation, it’s hardly a surprise that an institution such as Stanford is producing a generation of students who are encouraged to talk about their emotions at the expense of exploring ideas or acquiring knowledge like scholars of the past.
This postmodern “therapeutic” approach to education is in direct conflict with the acquisition of knowledge because emotion is intrinsically irrational and incoherent.
Anything which promotes the idea that people are emotional, vulnerable, and tractable individuals is frankly an attack on human potential.
Likewise, this latest attempt to regulate “problematic” language and an excessive focus on emotional expression will only serve to infantilize the already hyper-squeamish young people and adults who are wasting a tremendous amount of money on a higher learning experience of ever-declining value and benefit.