Stanford University to erase phrases ‘causing harm’

To ensure that no humans or animals are upset by Stanford’s websites, IT administrators embark on a bold bid to eliminate all harmful language.

Stanford University is eliminating words and phrases from its websites including ‘trigger warning’ and ‘rule of thumb’.

In an effort to ensure that no humans or animals are upset by the websites of Stanford University, administrators at the college have embarked on a bold effort to eliminate all harmful language from its pages and computer code.

Users of these websites should not be referred to as “users”, for a start, lest they feel that they are being compared with drug addicts, though one should not say “addict” either as the word tends to “define people by just one of their characteristics”. You have to be careful with the word “addicted” too, if using it to describe your devotion to a TV series or a bar of chocolate, as this “trivialises the experiences of people who deal with substance abuse issues”.

The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, launched by Stanford’s IT department, followed on from the efforts of other US universities including Brandeis to help students and staff prune from their vocabulary words and phrases that might cause offence.

At Brandeis this initiative was called the Oppressive Language List, although in August last year the list itself was retitled as the Suggested Language List. Its critics included the novelist Joyce Carol Oates, who noted that even the phrase “trigger warning”, meant to protect the unwitting from language or images they might find distressing, was now being proscribed. Oates felt it was strange “that while the word ‘picnic’ is suggested for censorship, because it evokes, in some persons, lynchings of black persons in the US, the word ‘lynching’ is not itself censored”.

Stanford’s initiative, which cites Brandeis as one of its inspirations, also holds up “trigger warning” as potentially harmful, though for a different reason. While at Brandeis there were concerns that it had violent connotations, Stanford worries that it “can cause stress about what’s to follow” and “one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person”.

This different approach might suggest there is more than one way to skin a cat, though Stanford’s IT department would not like to put it like that. “This expression normalises violence against animals,” it says. One should not talk of “flogging a dead horse” for the same reason, or of “killing two birds with one stone”. The phrase “killing it”, to imply success in an endeavour, ought to be avoided too. “Doing a good job should not be equated with death,” it says. “The term could also be triggering if someone close to the recipient was killed.”

As for those tasked with avoiding such language while building websites and writing code, they should refrain from calling themselves “webmasters”. “Historically, masters enslaved people, didn’t consider them human and didn’t allow them to express free will, so this term should generally be avoided,” the list says. Anyone with views about this should not be asked to “submit” them in writing, because “the term can imply allowing others to have power over you”.

The list prompted widespread mockery. The Wall Street Journal complained that the college was making life difficult for parodists, by turning reality into something resembling a work of satirical fiction. On social media many Americans complained that they were no longer supposed to call themselves American. According to the list, “this term often refers to people from the United States only, thereby insinuating that the US is the most important country in the Americas (which is actually made up of 42 countries)”.

Dee Mostofi, a representative for the university, said the guidelines were “meant for internal use” and that this initiative was “specifically created by and intended for use within the university IT community”.

MIND YOUR LANGUAGE

Basket case: Originally referred to someone who had lost all four limbs and needed to be carried around in a basket. Use “nervous” instead.

Rule of thumb: Although no written record exists, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb. Use “standard rule” or “general rule” instead.

Karen: Used to ridicule or demean a group of people based on their behaviour. Use “demanding” or “entitled white woman” instead.

Crack the whip: Unnecessary use of violent imagery that paints a person being referred to as authoritarian or oppressive. Use “work hard(er)”.

More than one to way to skin a cat: This expression normalises violence against animals. Use “multiple ways to accomplish the task”.

Trigger warning: The phrase can cause stress about what is to follow. One can also never know what may or may not trigger a particular person. Use “content note”.

Geronimo: Was a leader and medicine man whose name is used today as a caricature of the brave warrior, often in “macho” pursuits. Don’t use at all, or only when discussing the historical figure.

Ballsy: Attributes personality traits to anatomy. Use “bold” or “risk-taker”.

You guys: Lumps a group of people using masculine language into gender binary groups, which don’t include everyone. Use “folks”, “people” or “everyone”.

Hold down the fort: This phrase stems from settlers and soldiers resisting “savages” when “on the warpath”. Use “cover the role”.

Long time no see: This phrase was originally used to mock indigenous people and Chinese people who spoke pidgin English. Use “I haven’t seen you in so long”.

Take a shot at, take your best shot at, take a stab at: These represent the unnecessary use of the imagery of hurting someone or something. Use “give it a go” or “try”.

The Times