Why Stanford's 'Index of Forbidden Words List' is a Joke

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Growing Weirdness of College
   • The Past: College in the Early 2000s
   • The Present: The Virtual World and Mainstreaming of Woke Ideas
3. The Stanford University Example
   • Stanford's Index of Forbidden Words
   • The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative
4. Ableist Language
   • Blind Review vs. Anonymous Review
   • Changing the Language Around Suicide
   • Trivializing Mental Health with the Word "Crazy"
5. Ageism and Colonialist Language
   • Connotations of the Term "Paraplegic" and "Quadriplegic"
   • The Problematic Use of Colonialist Language
6. Culturally Appropriative and Gender-Based Words
   • The Significance of Words like "Ballsy" and "Chief"
   • Criticizing the Term "Spirit Animal"
   • Challenging Gender Pronouns and the Concept of "Preferred"
7. Imprecise Language and the Limits of Communication
   • The Use of Euphemisms and Vague Language
   • Avoiding "Abort" and the Use of "American"
   • Controversy Surrounding the Term "Thug"
8. The Flattening of Communication and the New Code
   • Society's Adoption of Imaginary Rules
   • Flattening Language and the Loss of Descriptiveness

The Growing Weirdness of College: Mainstreaming Woke Ideas in Virtual World

College campuses have always been known for their eccentricities, but the past decade has witnessed a rapid escalation in their growing weirdness. Back in the early 2000s, when I was in college, things were already strange enough for me to write a book on indoctrination on campuses. However, what is concerning today is how the most foolish and woke ideas have seeped into mainstream virtual spaces. In our increasingly online world, the virtual space is now our reality. This begs the question: if the online space is governed by those who embrace this nonsense, what does that mean for our real world?

Let's take a look at the recent actions taken by Stanford University, a prestigious institution known for its academic excellence. In May, Stanford administrators introduced an index of forbidden words that should be eliminated from the university's websites and computer code. This inclusive initiative, known as the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, is a multi-phase, multi-year project aimed at addressing harmful language in information technology at Stanford.

The Stanford University Example: Addressing Harmful Language

Stanford's initiative focuses on eliminating various forms of harmful language that includes racist violence and biased language found on their websites and code. The university's website educates people about the potential impact of words and states that language can affect individuals differently. The website categorizes language deemed potentially harmful starting with everyday words and terminology. It provides alternative suggestions intended to promote inclusivity and avoid perpetuating harm.

The initiative first addresses ableist language by discouraging the use of terms like "blind review" in favor of "anonymous review." Stanford claims that blind review unintentionally perpetuates that disability is abnormal or negative. Similarly, the initiative aims to replace terms like "committed suicide" with "died by suicide," arguing that the former phrase implies that the person killed themselves, whereas the latter acknowledges suicide as the cause of death without assigning blame.

Stanford also calls for the elimination of words like "crazy," which trivialize the experiences of those living with mental health conditions. They suggest using terms like "surprising" or "wild" instead. The initiative extends to terms like "dumb" and "insane," aiming to Create a more considerate environment that respects individuals with various mental health conditions.

Moving beyond ableist language, Stanford discourages the use of colonialist language by urging the avoidance of terms like "Filipino islands," favoring "the Philippines" instead. They argue that certain colonialist language is still in constant use and must be replaced to promote cultural appropriateness. Moreover, terms like "chief" and "guru" are deemed disrespectful within Indigenous communities and are suggested to be phased out.

Challenging Gender-Based Words and Pronouns

In an effort to combat gender bias, Stanford advises against using certain gender-based words. They recommend using "firefighters" instead of "fireman" to avoid implying that most firefighters are men. Additionally, they discourage the use of gendered language, suggesting the use of "they" instead of "he" unless an individual specifically identifies as "he." This shift aims to be more inclusive and acknowledges a person's pronoun preferences. However, it can complicate everyday conversations, leading to awkward interactions.

One of the most controversial aspects of Stanford's initiative is the suggested removal of the term "preferred" when referring to pronouns different from one's biological sex. They argue that the term implies choice within non-binary gender identities. However, this assertion contradicts the idea that gender identity is biologically predetermined while biological sex is arbitrary. Stanford's approach fails to consider the complex relationship between gender identity and biological sex and oversimplifies this nuanced issue.

Flattening Communication and the Loss of Descriptiveness

What Stanford's initiative and similar attempts at linguistic control demonstrate is a dangerous flattening of communication. By coding a new set of rules for language, we constrain ourselves to a narrow bandwidth of expression. This imaginary code becomes a requirement to appear sophisticated, yet it strips away the richness and specificity of language. Terms that once carried depth and nuance, such as "cakewalk," "black box," or even "master," become casualties of this mindless language policing.

The impact of this flattening is far-reaching. It restricts our ability to articulate ideas accurately and hinders honest and open dialogue. By eliminating words that have historic and cultural significance, Stanford's initiative disregards the value of language as a fluid and evolving construct. It threatens to undermine the very essence of language—the power to connect, express, and understand.

In conclusion, the normalization of woke ideas and the ongoing standardization of language in academic environments poses a significant cultural challenge. While efforts to create more inclusive spaces are commendable, we must be cautious not to stifle language's vibrancy and impact. Striking a balance requires recognizing the importance of Context, specificity, and the individual's agency in language expression. Only then can we foster genuine communication and understanding while celebrating the diversity of perspectives that enrich our society.

Highlights

• College campuses have become increasingly weird and are now weirder than ever.
• The virtual world has allowed fringe ideas to infiltrate mainstream culture.
• Stanford University's Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative aims to eliminate various forms of harmful language.
• The initiative includes replacing ableist language and addressing harmful terminology.
• Stanford suggests alternative words for everyday language and encourages inclusive language.
• The university challenges gender-based language and promotes the use of gender-neutral pronouns.
• Criticism and concerns surround the flattening of communication resulting from these initiatives.
• The narrowing of language restricts accurate expression and inhibits open dialogue.
• Language's vibrancy and impact should be preserved while fostering inclusivity and understanding.
• Striking a balance requires considering context, specificity, and individual agency in language use.

FAQ

Q: Why is language control a concern in academic environments? A: Language control can restrict freedom of expression and limit the ability to articulate ideas accurately. It hampers open dialogue and understanding, ultimately hindering the exchange of diverse perspectives.

Q: Is Stanford University the only institution implementing language control initiatives? A: While Stanford University is one example, there are other institutions and organizations with similar initiatives aimed at creating more inclusive environments. Language control has become a growing trend on various campuses.

Q: Are efforts to address ableist and gender-based language commendable? A: Yes, it is essential to promote inclusivity and respect for all individuals. However, it is crucial to balance these efforts with the preservation of language's vibrancy, historical context, and the agency of individuals to express themselves.