Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

Categories include:

Ableist

Ageism

Colonialism

Culturally Appropriative

Gender-Based

Imprecise Language

Institutionalized Racism

Person-First

Violent

Additional Considerations

Even if you agree with the basic principle, as I do, this list is riddled with poor interpretations.

Also, they either don’t understand the difference between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’, or they are intentionally misusing the word ‘infer’.

> Instead of "blind review", consider using "anonymous review". Context: Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.

But.. disability is abnormal and negative? How tortured of a definition of 'normal' must one use to make blindness normal? And I suspect if the author of that sentence were offered, say, $100,000 to undergo a painless but irreversible blinding surgery, they would very quickly admit blindness is a negative - a greater negative than missing out on $100,000. In fact I suspect most people wouldn't accept that offer even if it had many more zeros.

But still we must pretend?

> Instead of "committed suicide", consider using "died by suicide". Context: Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions.

And with this they tip their hand. The mental contortions required to conclude that "committed suicide" trivializes something, but "died by suicide" doesn't, are so extreme that I cannot believe anyone honestly holds that opinion. That leaves as the most likely conclusion that this document is not an honest effort to eliminate 'harm', but a mine-field, a list of sins and prohibitions, to be used as ammo against opponents.

I mean, if you ever wanted to get on the bandwagon of why we have so many college administrators responsible for raising the cost of college and creating work for themselves by stoking culture wars, just read through the list on that page.

-------

">Instead of: Philippine Islands

>Consider using: Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines

>Context: The term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term, though."

---------

">Instead of: "preferred" pronouns

>Consider using: pronouns

>Context: The word "preferred" suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference."

---------

">Instead of: Karen

>Consider using: demanding or entitled White woman

>Context: This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors."

(Have we landed in backwards land? So "white" is ok to use here?)

---------

">Instead of: blackbox

>Consider using: hidden, mystery box, opaque box, flight recorder

>Context: Assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term."

---------

">Instead of: red team

>Consider using: cyber offense team

>Context: "Red" is often used disparagingly to refer to Indigenous peoples, so its use in this context could be offensive to some groups."

---------

">Instead of: war room

>Consider using: situation room

>Context: Unneccesary use of violent language."

----------

Reading through the suggestions a lot seem out of date, ignorant of the actual experience of people, and insufficiently justifies the change. It’s true that many of these things have been accepted by peer institutions but that was long ago (some of these suggestions track to the 1950s and have little to no salience in 2022).