The University of Michigan has spent $16,000 on a campaign to get students to use “inclusive language” and stop using certain words and phrases. Around campus, posters give examples of the now verboten words like “crazy,” “insane,” “retarded,” “gay,” “tranny,” “gypped,” “illegal alien,” “fag,” “ghetto” and “raghead.” In fairness to the school and students, there program is broader than just the listing of offensive terms and phrases. The campaign is also featured on Facebook.
What is interesting is that some of these words are quite offensive like “rag head,” “jewel” and “fag” among others. However, the list also reinforces that concern that, once schools begin to list approved and disapproved words, there is a slippery slope toward the inclusion of any word that could possibly insult any person or group. For example, most of my friends who are homosexual refer to themselves as “gay.” Likewise, “ghetto” is a long standing word that was used in Europe and other places to refer to impoverished areas. However, the posters ask “If you knew that I grew up in poverty, would you still call things ‘ghetto’ and ‘ratchet’?”
“I wanted to die” is listed as offense to “people who have attempted or committed suicide.” Putting aside the question of how you offend someone who did not simply attempt but actually committed suicide, some would contest the view that the phrase implies that “self-harm is laughable or not a real problem with which many people deal with.”
The University of Maryland has spent $15,000 on a similar campaign three years ago.
Once again, there is much to support in this program. It is an educational campaign without any threat of punishment over the use of these words. It is primarily asking for people to think about the impact of their words — a commendable goal. However, the list itself shows how easily such campaigns can become over-inclusive in words deemed offensive by some one and raise concerns over de facto speech codes. For example, if these words are now deemed offensive, then presumably they could be used against speakers for violating the university’s stated rules and responsibilities. These include such violations as:
“Stalking, harassing, or bullying another person–physically, verbally, or through other means”
Two of those terms are defined as:
Harassing: (1)to annoy persistently (2) to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for, especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
Bullying: (1) to frighten, hurt, or threaten (a smaller weaker person), (2) to act like a bully toward (someone), (3) to cause (someone) to do something by making threats or insults or by using force, (4) to treat abusively, (5) to affect by means of force or coercion
It is not clear when words publicly listed as being offensive can be used as the basis for charges under such rules. Likewise, it is not clear where free speech rights trump popular sensibilities. The term “illegal alien” is used in legal opinions and many still view the term as accurate and contest the removal of the reference to illegal status in describing this group. It is a matter of intense public debate but the question is whether the university should take a position on such a question. The handbook for Michigan states “The University has a long tradition of student activism and values freedom of expression, which includes voicing unpopular views and dissent. As members of the University community, students have the right to express their own views, but must also take responsibility for according the same right to others.” That can be an uncertain line to draw in the midst of a campaign over offensive terms and phrases.
Below is the poster from the campaign:
Does this mean we go back to using, wetback, queer, camel driver and nutso,
Jim, JT is a very liberal libertarian, creating some conflict within his soul. Quotes like yours shows the conflict @ work.
JT – “Once again, there is much to support in this program. It is an educational campaign without any threat of punishment over the use of these words.”
JT shows that he is not a true libertarian. Sorry JT, but there is nothing to support this program.
Right, calypsofacto, it’s the same old political indoctrination and the stomping out of dissent.
I copied that very same quote out of Dalrymple’s book a couple years ago, Pogo. How true it has proven.
”
― Theodore Dalrymple
Once again, leftism descends into and then celebrates fascism.
If we call this “Liberal Fascism” enough it will make their Orwellian list soon. And, look for “Orwellian” to also make the verboten list. Take note over the archives. JT has done other posts like this. The usual suspect liberal fascists stay away from these posts. As I learned as a PI, you can tell as much by observing what people don’t do, as your can by what they do.
Work around solution. Use other clever words and phrases. Example: sanctimonious, hypercritical, duplicitous, pusillanimous pip-squeak. Get Oxford dictionary for meaning.
What they don’t realize is that language moves like quicksilver and trying to stop it is just silly. Words have lots of meanings and we should be able to use all of them.
ENOUGH ALREADY! The problem is not just words but how they are said; simply “Think before you speak” would suffice rather than making a new list of “objectional” words. Slang has always been here and will always remain. To think that having a list of possibly objectional words will solve problems is ludicrous. Block some words and others will take their place because if you want to hurt or bully someone you don’t need to use one or two words.
Seriously, when did intelligent common sense fly out the window? When did we become so thin skinned (not on the list yet) that we lost the ability to laugh at some things and not be constantly offended? When did we stop using the dictionary to actually look up the definition of words? “Gay” means joyous happy, bright colors as well as homesexual; “Alien” means other, foreign or foreigner; ‘illegal” prohibited by law; against the law. We could go on and on but it shouldn’t be necessary since the manner in which a word or phrase is used can only be understood by the person using the word or phrase.
The fact that university administrators, who are supposed to be well educated, would spend thousands of dollars on something so rediculous is appalling!
I want them to include the word “Fore” and all its homonyms such as “for” and “four”. You see I saw someone get beaned on the head at a golf game and whenever I hear that word I cringe. It completely shakes me up and I am a wiggling mass of jelly for the next 30 minutes.
Please stop torturing me with that word.
Stop policing language and start policing conduct!
Another reason why cannot stand of University of Michigan
Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.
As liberal as I am, I don’t believe that it’s a good idea to curtail ones own freedom of speech to appease political correctness. It’s a slippery slope. Day one, you voluntarily curtail your freedom of speech, day two, you’re obligated to curtail your speech, day three, it’s the law that you must curtail your speech. Now you have no freedom of speech.
Looks like government trying their hand at being a religion. They have too much money on their hands and are looking for ways to spend it.
As a straight, White, male of purely Christian roots I’m deeply, deeply offended and outraged by this concerted attack upon my culture. I will not quietly be marginalized and have my culture be said to worse or less than others’.
Another solution looking for a problem.
Taxpayer money being soent by politicians and bureaucrats.
Oh, my god. Don’t they know this will have the opposite effect of what they intend?