[terry]

Earlier in this thread, a conservative poster made a joke about the fact that virtually all departments grant “masters” degrees, despite it being on the list as potentially offensive, joking that it was a sign that institutional racism was alive and well at Stanford. Since he was vague about what he was referring to, another poster assumed it was a reference to ethnic studies programs.

The lesson I draw from this is that we have a tendency to project intent on the basis of others’ political beliefs, without asking about it.  I see that as well in the people who ascribe intent (to stifle speech) to the list, when it could just be an earnest, if overeager attempt to compile a list of things that could, in some contexts, be considered exclusionary or harmful.  I’ve had as much fun as anyone with the more extreme examples on the list, but I also take the CIO at face value.

My guess is that the origin of this (in an IT context) comes from the use of “master” and “slave” to describe servers, which I think most people agree seems ripe to retire.  While that’s an obvious example, when you look more closely, the industry, which lets face it, doesn’t exactly have a sparkling history of inclusiveness, realized that “master/slave” is but one example.  At that point, it seems logical that one would want to compile a systematic list, and once that happens, it is not hard to see how it would spiral into over-inclusion of even very marginal examples, that are ripe for mockery.

As I read this, I don’t think it is meant to have me never use the word “stupid” again.  For the over sensitive examples for which there is not good alternative language, I’m not about to change the way I go about doing things.  And for many of the clearly offensive terms that are already falling into disuse anyways, I wasn’t going to use them anyways.  But there are clearly some terms that in certain contexts could be offensive, and knowing those contexts I think is helpful to not be a jerk.

I do get the point that language is this fabulous tool that we have whose primary purpose is communication, and the substitution of clunky, ill-fitting alternative terminologies just to avoid potential offense does not aid in its primary function.  But being a jerk about using certain terms just because you don’t want to be told not to also doesn’t help in communication, especially when there is a disconnect as to the meaning or origin of a term between the person using it, and the person hearing or reading it. And to the extent that being aware of potentially offensive contexts of terms in common use can help us all get along, then I think it is a positive.

So yeah, we can all have a little bit of fun calling out some of the more ludicrous examples.  But maybe regardless of intent, might I suggest that we might want to take the CIO at face value and not assume the goal is to police language and not assume that their goal was to denigrate the term “American” because of assumptions about where the list came from.

BC

Good points, BC.

[terry]

Earlier in this thread, a conservative poster made a joke about the fact that virtually all departments grant “masters” degrees, despite it being on the list as potentially offensive, joking that it was a sign that institutional racism was alive and well at Stanford. Since he was vague about what he was referring to, another poster assumed it was a reference to ethnic studies programs.

The lesson I draw from this is that we have a tendency to project intent on the basis of others’ political beliefs, without asking about it.  I see that as well in the people who ascribe intent (to stifle speech) to the list, when it could just be an earnest, if overeager attempt to compile a list of things that could, in some contexts, be considered exclusionary or harmful.  I’ve had as much fun as anyone with the more extreme examples on the list, but I also take the CIO at face value.

My guess is that the origin of this (in an IT context) comes from the use of “master” and “slave” to describe servers, which I think most people agree seems ripe to retire.  While that’s an obvious example, when you look more closely, the industry, which lets face it, doesn’t exactly have a sparkling history of inclusiveness, realized that “master/slave” is but one example.  At that point, it seems logical that one would want to compile a systematic list, and once that happens, it is not hard to see how it would spiral into over-inclusion of even very marginal examples, that are ripe for mockery.

As I read this, I don’t think it is meant to have me never use the word “stupid” again.  For the over sensitive examples for which there is not good alternative language, I’m not about to change the way I go about doing things.  And for many of the clearly offensive terms that are already falling into disuse anyways, I wasn’t going to use them anyways.  But there are clearly some terms that in certain contexts could be offensive, and knowing those contexts I think is helpful to not be a jerk.

I do get the point that language is this fabulous tool that we have whose primary purpose is communication, and the substitution of clunky, ill-fitting alternative terminologies just to avoid potential offense does not aid in its primary function.  But being a jerk about using certain terms just because you don’t want to be told not to also doesn’t help in communication, especially when there is a disconnect as to the meaning or origin of a term between the person using it, and the person hearing or reading it. And to the extent that being aware of potentially offensive contexts of terms in common use can help us all get along, then I think it is a positive.

So yeah, we can all have a little bit of fun calling out some of the more ludicrous examples.  But maybe regardless of intent, might I suggest that we might want to take the CIO at face value and not assume the goal is to police language and not assume that their goal was to denigrate the term “American” because of assumptions about where the list came from.

BC

Good points, BC.