[dabigv13]

They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You guessed entirely incorrectly, search for "becoming adept" in the list. . . .

I did type most departments, didn't I?

I still don't understand what you are trying to refer to.

[dabigv13]

They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You guessed entirely incorrectly, search for "becoming adept" in the list. . . .

I did type most departments, didn't I?

I still don't understand what you are trying to refer to.

[CompSci87]

They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You guessed entirely incorrectly, search for "becoming adept" in the list. . . .

I did type most departments, didn't I?

I still don't understand what you are trying to refer to.

The list says to say "become adept in" instead of "master."

[CompSci87]

They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You guessed entirely incorrectly, search for "becoming adept" in the list. . . .

I did type most departments, didn't I?

I still don't understand what you are trying to refer to.

The list says to say "become adept in" instead of "master."

[dabigv13]

Thank you for explaining CS87

[dabigv13]

Thank you for explaining CS87

[BostonCard]

They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You guessed entirely incorrectly, search for "becoming adept" in the list. . . .

I did type most departments, didn't I?

Well-played.

BC

[BostonCard]

They aren't arresting people or kicking then out of school for using a word on this list, which yes, to me, certainly has some silly things on it. Doesn't seem that big of a deal.

Cardcrimson, can you clarify what you are talking about? Because I'm guessing that you think it's racist to offer degrees in things like East Asian studies. I don't really understand that reasoning, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You guessed entirely incorrectly, search for "becoming adept" in the list. . . .

I did type most departments, didn't I?

Well-played.

BC

[Phogge]

I had a mother in law once who called me a “common Slav.”

I took it as a compliment.

[Phogge]

I had a mother in law once who called me a “common Slav.”

I took it as a compliment.

[murky]

I think there is a spectrum of terms in there, from those that are clearly offensive, to those that are in common use but, reading more about them have a really offensive origin, and I appreciate learning the etymology and will consequently strive to avoid.  On the far end, though, there are some terms in there that clearly invite the reaction that they are getting in this thread.  For example, generic "people of color" is a term that is supposed to be avoided, yet the list had input from a group called "People of Color in IT", and while there are some terms that people can self-identify with that out groups probably shouldn't use, there is such a thing as going overboard.
...

They seem to have a different interpretation of "balls to the wall" than I do.  What is it supposed to mean that involves anatomy?

[murky]

I think there is a spectrum of terms in there, from those that are clearly offensive, to those that are in common use but, reading more about them have a really offensive origin, and I appreciate learning the etymology and will consequently strive to avoid.  On the far end, though, there are some terms in there that clearly invite the reaction that they are getting in this thread.  For example, generic "people of color" is a term that is supposed to be avoided, yet the list had input from a group called "People of Color in IT", and while there are some terms that people can self-identify with that out groups probably shouldn't use, there is such a thing as going overboard.
...

They seem to have a different interpretation of "balls to the wall" than I do.  What is it supposed to mean that involves anatomy?

[winflop]

Yes OT, but ghastly. Where is the Board of Trustees when they are most needed?

This is doubleplusungood in so many ways

I-1984-CWYDT

I figured anybody on this board would get the reference. It wasn't intended to be hard :)

[winflop]

Yes OT, but ghastly. Where is the Board of Trustees when they are most needed?

This is doubleplusungood in so many ways

I-1984-CWYDT

I figured anybody on this board would get the reference. It wasn't intended to be hard :)

[Leftcoast]

Yes, a list that is so earnest, and so deep in its attempt to rise above all criticism that it is ripe for parody.  The current Stanford Band sadly is unlikely to rise to the challenge.  

AND ... Oh no! My unnamed workplace is in BIG trouble - Stand-up meetings, Walk-in updates (open office plan so no office hours), Scrum Master meetings, "Blind-sided" by the competion, White Papers for proposals, Cake Walk=easy, Brown Bag lunch meetings, and Sanity Checks are all terms I've heard very, very recently.  By the way, it's a start-up, filled with recent Berkley, Northwestern, and Stanford grads and our average age is 28. 

I'm the oldest person (to my recently discovered horror) so not a particularly out-of-step group if I can say so without being, you know, "Ageist". I’ll let the rest know change is required … or maybe not.

[Leftcoast]

Yes, a list that is so earnest, and so deep in its attempt to rise above all criticism that it is ripe for parody.  The current Stanford Band sadly is unlikely to rise to the challenge.  

AND ... Oh no! My unnamed workplace is in BIG trouble - Stand-up meetings, Walk-in updates (open office plan so no office hours), Scrum Master meetings, "Blind-sided" by the competion, White Papers for proposals, Cake Walk=easy, Brown Bag lunch meetings, and Sanity Checks are all terms I've heard very, very recently.  By the way, it's a start-up, filled with recent Berkley, Northwestern, and Stanford grads and our average age is 28. 

I'm the oldest person (to my recently discovered horror) so not a particularly out-of-step group if I can say so without being, you know, "Ageist". I’ll let the rest know change is required … or maybe not.

[BostonCard]

I think there is a spectrum of terms in there, from those that are clearly offensive, to those that are in common use but, reading more about them have a really offensive origin, and I appreciate learning the etymology and will consequently strive to avoid.  On the far end, though, there are some terms in there that clearly invite the reaction that they are getting in this thread.  For example, generic "people of color" is a term that is supposed to be avoided, yet the list had input from a group called "People of Color in IT", and while there are some terms that people can self-identify with that out groups probably shouldn't use, there is such a thing as going overboard.
...

They seem to have a different interpretation of "balls to the wall" than I do.  What is it supposed to mean that involves anatomy?

Not a pilot, but...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/dweekly/status/1604585608839434241?s=20&t=3iUVTnBDU7GIbFw5KOQAOQ[/tweet]

Wikitionary supports that etymology...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall

Interestingly, they don't include "balls out", which has a locomotive etymology, and has nothing to do with dropping trousers.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out#English

BC

[BostonCard]

I think there is a spectrum of terms in there, from those that are clearly offensive, to those that are in common use but, reading more about them have a really offensive origin, and I appreciate learning the etymology and will consequently strive to avoid.  On the far end, though, there are some terms in there that clearly invite the reaction that they are getting in this thread.  For example, generic "people of color" is a term that is supposed to be avoided, yet the list had input from a group called "People of Color in IT", and while there are some terms that people can self-identify with that out groups probably shouldn't use, there is such a thing as going overboard.
...

They seem to have a different interpretation of "balls to the wall" than I do.  What is it supposed to mean that involves anatomy?

Not a pilot, but...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/dweekly/status/1604585608839434241?s=20&t=3iUVTnBDU7GIbFw5KOQAOQ[/tweet]

Wikitionary supports that etymology...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall

Interestingly, they don't include "balls out", which has a locomotive etymology, and has nothing to do with dropping trousers.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls-out#English

BC

[CTcard]

Case in point would be "dumb."  I venture that at least 95% of the time it's used to mean "stupid, silly" and not "unable to speak."  As in Red Forman on That 70's Show calling his son a dumb-ass.

"Dumb" is a case in point of a lot of the issues with language use for a language that is many centuries old. 

In the chart linked, the column named "Context" is not actually context for the word, but the mostly the explanation of why the word may be offensive. However, the overall list does imply that context matters. Words that are perfectly fine or even preferred in one context are to be avoided in others [Note that "Black" is preferred to "African-American" but "black" to imply something bad or evil is on the eliminate list.]

Where context seems to enter in the table is in the preferred alternatives. At least there one can tell which meaning of a word is of concern. 

So, preferred for "dumb" is "non-vocal". Presumably that might mean one could use "dumb" to mean lacking in intelligence or common sense. 
Except that isn't really true. Using "dumb" as "lacking in intelligence" is what implies an insult to people who are non-vocal in the first place. That would be the worst use of the word. 
I suspect that the authors would like both uses of the word to be eliminated, but they don't state that. 

That leads to another issue on usage, what to do with all the derivatives of "dumb" that relate to silent - dumbbells, dumbwaiters, ... ?
Many words here have derivatives that may or may not retain the pejorative sense of the root. 

A sometimes synonymous word raises the issue of what to do if the etymology people are worried about is just wrong. 
I'm not an etymologist but I don't believe that "stupid" was ever (correctly) used "to describe a person who could not speak" (as stated in the list). I think it is a direct descendant from the Latin word that meant confounded/foolish. But some people made the connection because of its synonymous meaning with dumb, and of course are bothered by the fact that it is in general an insult to describe a person as stupid. 

Also similar in colloquial usage is "retarded". While clearly a slur against those with a cognitive disability, it also has a meaning that implies delayed in time or with a tendency to reduce. This list implies that "retarded" is fine in that context ... I think. This one is an issue that has come up in my own classes. One uses "retarded potentials" to calculate radiation from a charged object some distance away (i.e. the potential at the time the radiation I see now was emitted). Students have complained about the phrase. It seems to me that in this context, it's fine - but one might be careful about the jokes that emerge as one gets frustrated by the mathematical complexity involved. 


So while I think the complexity of language means that trying to eliminate long-standing words is a fruitless task, that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to think about words and what some might mean to various people. It's pretty easy to miss that some words have a purely pejorative origin. 
[The word that resonates with me in this sense is "gypped". I only recently learned where that word came from - don't know why it wasn't obvious earlier.] 


By the way, does anyone know details as to why the phrase "Phillipine Islands" denotes colonialism while "Phillipines" does not? 
I would assume it's some issue of historical usage.

[CTcard]

Case in point would be "dumb."  I venture that at least 95% of the time it's used to mean "stupid, silly" and not "unable to speak."  As in Red Forman on That 70's Show calling his son a dumb-ass.

"Dumb" is a case in point of a lot of the issues with language use for a language that is many centuries old. 

In the chart linked, the column named "Context" is not actually context for the word, but the mostly the explanation of why the word may be offensive. However, the overall list does imply that context matters. Words that are perfectly fine or even preferred in one context are to be avoided in others [Note that "Black" is preferred to "African-American" but "black" to imply something bad or evil is on the eliminate list.]

Where context seems to enter in the table is in the preferred alternatives. At least there one can tell which meaning of a word is of concern. 

So, preferred for "dumb" is "non-vocal". Presumably that might mean one could use "dumb" to mean lacking in intelligence or common sense. 
Except that isn't really true. Using "dumb" as "lacking in intelligence" is what implies an insult to people who are non-vocal in the first place. That would be the worst use of the word. 
I suspect that the authors would like both uses of the word to be eliminated, but they don't state that. 

That leads to another issue on usage, what to do with all the derivatives of "dumb" that relate to silent - dumbbells, dumbwaiters, ... ?
Many words here have derivatives that may or may not retain the pejorative sense of the root. 

A sometimes synonymous word raises the issue of what to do if the etymology people are worried about is just wrong. 
I'm not an etymologist but I don't believe that "stupid" was ever (correctly) used "to describe a person who could not speak" (as stated in the list). I think it is a direct descendant from the Latin word that meant confounded/foolish. But some people made the connection because of its synonymous meaning with dumb, and of course are bothered by the fact that it is in general an insult to describe a person as stupid. 

Also similar in colloquial usage is "retarded". While clearly a slur against those with a cognitive disability, it also has a meaning that implies delayed in time or with a tendency to reduce. This list implies that "retarded" is fine in that context ... I think. This one is an issue that has come up in my own classes. One uses "retarded potentials" to calculate radiation from a charged object some distance away (i.e. the potential at the time the radiation I see now was emitted). Students have complained about the phrase. It seems to me that in this context, it's fine - but one might be careful about the jokes that emerge as one gets frustrated by the mathematical complexity involved. 


So while I think the complexity of language means that trying to eliminate long-standing words is a fruitless task, that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to think about words and what some might mean to various people. It's pretty easy to miss that some words have a purely pejorative origin. 
[The word that resonates with me in this sense is "gypped". I only recently learned where that word came from - don't know why it wasn't obvious earlier.] 


By the way, does anyone know details as to why the phrase "Phillipine Islands" denotes colonialism while "Phillipines" does not? 
I would assume it's some issue of historical usage.

[Mick]

Yes OT, but ghastly. Where is the Board of Trustees when they are most needed?

This is doubleplusungood in so many ways

I-1984-CWYDT

I figured anybody on this board would get the reference. It wasn't intended to be hard :)

I read it my junior year in my crappy high school. Stephen Fry's a Cambridge alum and never read it. Must be an American HS thing...
QI | Have You Read 1984?

[Mick]

Yes OT, but ghastly. Where is the Board of Trustees when they are most needed?

This is doubleplusungood in so many ways

I-1984-CWYDT

I figured anybody on this board would get the reference. It wasn't intended to be hard :)

I read it my junior year in my crappy high school. Stephen Fry's a Cambridge alum and never read it. Must be an American HS thing...
QI | Have You Read 1984?

[BostonCard]

By the way, does anyone know details as to why the phrase "Phillipine Islands" denotes colonialism while "Phillipines" does not? 
I would assume it's some issue of historical usage.

I'm guessing that it's because "Philippine Islands" suggests a possessive: the islands belonging to Phillip II.

BC

---

By the way "seminal" is also an interesting etymology, because while it does come from the Latin "semen", the word meant "seed" in Latin.

Thus, "seminal" and "semen" (along with "seminar", "seminary") all come from the same Latin root, meaning seed, but there is no implication that any of the terms other than "semen" are gendered.

BC

[BostonCard]

By the way, does anyone know details as to why the phrase "Phillipine Islands" denotes colonialism while "Phillipines" does not? 
I would assume it's some issue of historical usage.

I'm guessing that it's because "Philippine Islands" suggests a possessive: the islands belonging to Phillip II.

BC

---

By the way "seminal" is also an interesting etymology, because while it does come from the Latin "semen", the word meant "seed" in Latin.

Thus, "seminal" and "semen" (along with "seminar", "seminary") all come from the same Latin root, meaning seed, but there is no implication that any of the terms other than "semen" are gendered.

BC

[82lsju]

Update on Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative in Stanford’s IT Community

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2022

Over the last couple of days, there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code. This message seeks to provide clarification about some of the issues discussed.

First and importantly, the website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements. The website was created by, and intended for discussion within, the IT community at Stanford. It provides “suggested alternatives” for various terms, and reasons why those terms could be problematic in certain uses. Its aspiration, and the reason for its development, is to support an inclusive community.

[b]We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term “American.” We understand and appreciate those concerns. To be very clear, not only is the use of the term “American” not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed.[/b] The intent of this particular entry on the EHLI website was to provide perspective on how the term may be imprecise in some specific uses, and to show that in some cases the alternate term “US citizen” may be more precise and appropriate. But, we clearly missed the mark in this presentation.

This guide for the university’s IT community is undergoing continual review. The spirit behind it, from the beginning, has been to be responsive to feedback and to consider adjustments based on that feedback. We value the input we have been hearing, from a variety of perspectives, and will be reviewing it thoroughly and making adjustments to the guide.

Sincerely,

Steve Gallagher
Chief Information Officer
Stanford University

https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/up...-community

[82lsju]

Update on Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative in Stanford’s IT Community

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2022

Over the last couple of days, there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code. This message seeks to provide clarification about some of the issues discussed.

First and importantly, the website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements. The website was created by, and intended for discussion within, the IT community at Stanford. It provides “suggested alternatives” for various terms, and reasons why those terms could be problematic in certain uses. Its aspiration, and the reason for its development, is to support an inclusive community.

[b]We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term “American.” We understand and appreciate those concerns. To be very clear, not only is the use of the term “American” not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed.[/b] The intent of this particular entry on the EHLI website was to provide perspective on how the term may be imprecise in some specific uses, and to show that in some cases the alternate term “US citizen” may be more precise and appropriate. But, we clearly missed the mark in this presentation.

This guide for the university’s IT community is undergoing continual review. The spirit behind it, from the beginning, has been to be responsive to feedback and to consider adjustments based on that feedback. We value the input we have been hearing, from a variety of perspectives, and will be reviewing it thoroughly and making adjustments to the guide.

Sincerely,

Steve Gallagher
Chief Information Officer
Stanford University

https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/up...-community

[winflop]

Update on Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative in Stanford’s IT Community

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2022

Over the last couple of days, there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code. This message seeks to provide clarification about some of the issues discussed.

First and importantly, the website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements. The website was created by, and intended for discussion within, the IT community at Stanford. It provides “suggested alternatives” for various terms, and reasons why those terms could be problematic in certain uses. Its aspiration, and the reason for its development, is to support an inclusive community.

[b]We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term “American.” We understand and appreciate those concerns. To be very clear, not only is the use of the term “American” not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed.[/b] The intent of this particular entry on the EHLI website was to provide perspective on how the term may be imprecise in some specific uses, and to show that in some cases the alternate term “US citizen” may be more precise and appropriate. But, we clearly missed the mark in this presentation.

This guide for the university’s IT community is undergoing continual review. The spirit behind it, from the beginning, has been to be responsive to feedback and to consider adjustments based on that feedback. We value the input we have been hearing, from a variety of perspectives, and will be reviewing it thoroughly and making adjustments to the guide.

Sincerely,

Steve Gallagher
Chief Information Officer
Stanford University

https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/up...-community

That almost reads like a Ministry of Truth response. I got a similarly-worded email from Howard Wolf. Sorry but this doesn't go nearly far enough. There needs to be a clear-throated denunciation of this and a more emphatic statement that Stanford is not and will not be doing any of this.

[winflop]

Update on Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative in Stanford’s IT Community

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2022

Over the last couple of days, there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code. This message seeks to provide clarification about some of the issues discussed.

First and importantly, the website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements. The website was created by, and intended for discussion within, the IT community at Stanford. It provides “suggested alternatives” for various terms, and reasons why those terms could be problematic in certain uses. Its aspiration, and the reason for its development, is to support an inclusive community.

[b]We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term “American.” We understand and appreciate those concerns. To be very clear, not only is the use of the term “American” not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed.[/b] The intent of this particular entry on the EHLI website was to provide perspective on how the term may be imprecise in some specific uses, and to show that in some cases the alternate term “US citizen” may be more precise and appropriate. But, we clearly missed the mark in this presentation.

This guide for the university’s IT community is undergoing continual review. The spirit behind it, from the beginning, has been to be responsive to feedback and to consider adjustments based on that feedback. We value the input we have been hearing, from a variety of perspectives, and will be reviewing it thoroughly and making adjustments to the guide.

Sincerely,

Steve Gallagher
Chief Information Officer
Stanford University

https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/up...-community

That almost reads like a Ministry of Truth response. I got a similarly-worded email from Howard Wolf. Sorry but this doesn't go nearly far enough. There needs to be a clear-throated denunciation of this and a more emphatic statement that Stanford is not and will not be doing any of this.

[CTcard]

On "American", "America" ...

From growing up in Canada I know that using it to describe people in or from the United States of America annoys a lot of people from other countries in the Americas. However, it's so common that Canadians still use it to describe such people even while complaining. 
The Canadian shorthand for the country, however, is "The States" - with "America" used relatively rarely.

[CTcard]

On "American", "America" ...

From growing up in Canada I know that using it to describe people in or from the United States of America annoys a lot of people from other countries in the Americas. However, it's so common that Canadians still use it to describe such people even while complaining. 
The Canadian shorthand for the country, however, is "The States" - with "America" used relatively rarely.

[Mick]

Update on Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative in Stanford’s IT Community

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2022

Over the last couple of days, there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code. This message seeks to provide clarification about some of the issues discussed.

First and importantly, the website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements. The website was created by, and intended for discussion within, the IT community at Stanford. It provides “suggested alternatives” for various terms, and reasons why those terms could be problematic in certain uses. Its aspiration, and the reason for its development, is to support an inclusive community.

[b]We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term “American.” We understand and appreciate those concerns. To be very clear, not only is the use of the term “American” not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed.[/b] The intent of this particular entry on the EHLI website was to provide perspective on how the term may be imprecise in some specific uses, and to show that in some cases the alternate term “US citizen” may be more precise and appropriate. But, we clearly missed the mark in this presentation.

This guide for the university’s IT community is undergoing continual review. The spirit behind it, from the beginning, has been to be responsive to feedback and to consider adjustments based on that feedback. We value the input we have been hearing, from a variety of perspectives, and will be reviewing it thoroughly and making adjustments to the guide.

Sincerely,

Steve Gallagher
Chief Information Officer
Stanford University

https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/up...-community

That almost reads like a Ministry of Truth response. I got a similarly-worded email from Howard Wolf. Sorry but this doesn't go nearly far enough. There needs to be a clear-throated denunciation of this and a more emphatic statement that Stanford is not and will not be doing any of this.

+1. The name of our country is in an "Eliminate Harmful Language Initiative." Speaks volumes that the CIO saw fit to include our country -- in any respect -- in an ELHI.

[Mick]

Update on Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative in Stanford’s IT Community

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2022

Over the last couple of days, there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code. This message seeks to provide clarification about some of the issues discussed.

First and importantly, the website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements. The website was created by, and intended for discussion within, the IT community at Stanford. It provides “suggested alternatives” for various terms, and reasons why those terms could be problematic in certain uses. Its aspiration, and the reason for its development, is to support an inclusive community.

[b]We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term “American.” We understand and appreciate those concerns. To be very clear, not only is the use of the term “American” not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed.[/b] The intent of this particular entry on the EHLI website was to provide perspective on how the term may be imprecise in some specific uses, and to show that in some cases the alternate term “US citizen” may be more precise and appropriate. But, we clearly missed the mark in this presentation.

This guide for the university’s IT community is undergoing continual review. The spirit behind it, from the beginning, has been to be responsive to feedback and to consider adjustments based on that feedback. We value the input we have been hearing, from a variety of perspectives, and will be reviewing it thoroughly and making adjustments to the guide.

Sincerely,

Steve Gallagher
Chief Information Officer
Stanford University

https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/up...-community

That almost reads like a Ministry of Truth response. I got a similarly-worded email from Howard Wolf. Sorry but this doesn't go nearly far enough. There needs to be a clear-throated denunciation of this and a more emphatic statement that Stanford is not and will not be doing any of this.

+1. The name of our country is in an "Eliminate Harmful Language Initiative." Speaks volumes that the CIO saw fit to include our country -- in any respect -- in an ELHI.

[Phogge]

“Urination River.”

[Phogge]

“Urination River.”

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[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.

[cardcrimson]

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.

Agree. Good points and lessons. And thanks. . . .

[cardcrimson]

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.

Agree. Good points and lessons. And thanks. . . .