Stanford University Ripped for Guide to Eliminate ‘Harmful Language’ Like ‘American,’ ‘Karen,’ ‘Prisoner’

Pride (1)
Wikimedia Commons
Joshua Klein

Terms and phrases such as “American,” “Karen,” “prisoner,” and even “hip hip hooray,” are “harmful” and should be replaced with more acceptable alternatives, according to Stanford University’s recently exposed index of words to be “eliminated” from use.

The California-based university’s listing of “potentially harmful terms,” originally published in May, drew significant attention this week after seeing widespread exposure on social media.

According to the initiative’s website, the goal of the “multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford” is to strive to eliminate the “many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language in Stanford websites and code.”

It also calls to avoid terms that derive from “colonialism.”

“We encourage you to evaluate the language you use and make changes where you can,” it continues. 

The stated purpose of the site, which “focuses on potentially harmful terms” used in the U.S., is “to educate people about the possible impact of the words we use.”

The list of “harmful” terms to be “eliminated” appear in ten distinct categories.

Ableist 

Under the “ableist” category of “harmful terms” which further the “belief that people who live with disabilities are abnormal,” Stanford recommends to “consider using” alternatives such as “person with a substance use disorder” instead of “addict,” “masked study” instead of “blind study,” “died by suicide” instead of “committed suicide,” “detail-oriented” instead of “OCD,” and “quick meeting” instead of “stand up meeting.”

Ageist

Under the “ageist” category of language which “singles out a person based on their age instead of their qualifications,” the Stanford list suggests using the person’s name instead of “gray beard,” and “person suffering from senility” instead of the term “senile.”

Culturally Appropriative

“Culturally appropriative” language that “misuses terms that hold meaning to a particular culture in a way that often lacks respect or appreciation” is also to be avoided.

The guide calls to completely desist from the noun “Brave” because it “perpetuates the stereotype of the ‘noble courageous savage,’ equating the Indigenous male as being less than a man.”

Other “offensive” terms and phrases to be avoided include: “bury the hatchet,” “chief,” “guru,” and even “tribe.”

Gender-Based

“Gender-based” terms, which are deemed “not helpful, and, in many cases, are exclusionary,” include the woke “‘preferred’ pronouns” instead of just “pronouns,” given that adding “preferred” implies that “non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.”

Words that reinforce “male-dominated language” include “mankind” which should be replaced with “people, humankind, [or] human beings;” “manmade” which should be replaced with “made by hand;” and “manpower,” to be replaced with terms such as “workforce” or “personnel resources.”

Even the term “seminal,” which refers to something that strongly influences later developments, is considered a reinforcement of “male-dominated language” and should be replaced with “leading” or “groundbreaking” instead.

Imprecise

Terms deemed “imprecise” include: “abort,” which “can unintentionally raise religious/moral concerns over abortion;” and even the use of “American” instead of “U.S. citizen” is deemed offensive in that it insinuates that the United States is “the most important country in the Americas (which is actually made up of 42 countries).”

The term “Hispanic” has roots that “lie in Spain’s colonization of South American countries” and is to be avoided as well.

Interestingly, the guide suggests that the term “Karen” is harmful and should be replaced with the apparently less offensive “demanding or entitled White woman” instead.

The term “oriental” is seen as “pejorative as it racializes people of Asian descent as forever opposite ‘others,’” while “peanut gallery” should also be avoided as it “refers to the cheapest and worst section in theaters where many Black people sat during the Vaudeville era.”

While the term “straight,” as opposed to “heterosexual,” implies that non-heterosexuals are “bent” or not “normal,” the guide also condemns use of the term “thug” instead of “suspect” or “criminal,” because it tends to take on a “racist connotation when used in certain circles.”

Institutionalized Racism

Terms deemed to be forms of “institutionalized racism,” include: “blacklist,” which “assigns negative connotations to the color black, racializing the term,” as well as “brown bag,” and “red team,” due to the fact that “red” is often “used disparagingly to refer to Indigenous peoples.”

The term “whitespace” also appears on the list, for it apparently assigns “value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized.”

Person-First

Examples of “offensive” terms in the “person-first” category, which help to avoid defining people “by just one of their characteristics,” include the use of “convict” instead of “person who is/was incarcerated;” “homeless person” instead of “person without housing;” “immigrant” instead of “person who has immigrated” or “non-citizen;” or “prisoner” instead of “person who is/was incarcerated.”

Violence-themed

The guide also recommends “using non-violent alternatives” to violent language “whenever possible.”

The term “abusive relationship” should be discarded in favor of “relationship with an abusive person” in order to communicate that a person is committing the abuse and not the relationship.

Even the age-old universal idiom, “kill(ing) two birds with one stone,” which implies the accomplishment of two things at once, is deemed an apparent “expression [that] normalizes violence against animals,” as does the expression that there is “more than one way to skin a cat.”

In addition, the expressions to “take a shot at” something or to “take your best shot at” something, also “represent the unnecessary use of the imagery of hurting someone or something.”

Other Terms

Other terms blacklisted by the guide include the common cheer “hip hip hooray,” which Stanford claims “was used by German citizens during the Holocaust as a rallying cry when they would hunt down Jewish citizens living in segregated neighborhoods,” though the cheer originated long before the rise of the Nazi movement; as well as the phrase to “hold down the fort,” because it “stems from settlers and soldiers resisting ‘savages’ when ‘on the warpath.’”

In addition, the guide lists “long time no see” and “no can do” as offensive terms due to the fact that they “originated from stereotypes that mocked non-native English speakers.”

After being publicized this week on social media, the index of taboo terms and phrases was met with outrage and mockery.

“I remember how proud I was when I became a naturalized American citizen. I’m still proud to be an American, and I don’t care that @Stanford disapproves of my using the term,” wrote Stanford University Professor of Medicine Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

“Stanford disapproves of saying you’re proud to be an American? Whoa,” replied Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

“The radical left is attempting to destroy our country and erase our history,” wrote Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

“Now, Stanford University is seeking to ban the word ‘American,’” she added.

“Stanford University just banned the word ‘American’ and a lot of other language the school now deems harmful,” wrote conservative influencer Paul Szypula.

“Don’t go to Stanford,” he added.

“You guys, this list of words that Stanford doesn’t want us to use anymore is truly insane,” wrote one Twitter user.

“The academy is beyond saving,” wrote another.

“You thought they were banning just ‘Confederates?’ Nope. Stanford’s new list of naughty words includes ‘American,’” another user wrote.

The matter comes as woke language edicts continue to pervade venerable institutions, as politically correct pressure pushes to alter everyday terminology.

In July, Britain’s University of Bristol banned a raft of supposedly offensive terms, including “gendered” words as well as age-related nicknames such as “millennial” and “baby boomer.”

The University of Nottingham went even further, recommending against referring to a “blind spot” or the timeless expression “the request fell on deaf ears.”

And Manchester University also attempted to impose woke language codes on students and staff by clamping down on “gendered” words like “brother,” “dad,” and “husband.”

Last year, the faculty senate at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) voted to ban “male-centric” terms like “freshman” and “senior,” and replace them with “1st-year” and “4th-year,” in order to be more “inclusive.”

Meanwhile, students at the University of Virginia voted 89 percent in favor of banning gender pronouns from the school’s constitution, swapping them out for gender-neutral pronouns, such as “they.”

Earlier in the year, retired Navy SEAL and author Jocko Willink warned of totalitarianism in the context of growing digital censorship, claiming: “It starts with banning words.”

In 2020, a University of Michigan task force proposed a ban on dozens of words and phrases it claimed “can be construed to be, racist, sexist, or non-inclusive,” while recommending their replacements.

Stanford has a long history of woke actions and policies.

In March, the university’s School of Medicine redefined parents as “mother pairs” and “mixed-gender” in a birth study.

Last year, Stanford University Professor Hakeem Jefferson claimed that opposition to masks at school board and council meetings was connected to “whiteness.”

In 2020, the academic institution faced criticism over its extensive relationship with the Chinese government, with Stanford reportedly having accepted $58 million in gifts and contracts from China and its communist government between 2013 and 2019.

In 2019, Stanford announced the launch of a physics course specifically designed for  students from “underrepresented groups”  who “don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers.”

In 2018, a professor of education at Stanford University argued in an academic journal article that the tabletop game Dungeons & Dragons perpetuates white privilege.

That same year, the university told the Sigma Chi fraternity to remove its American flag to “improve” its image, as an administrator reportedly told the fraternity that the flag could be seen as “intimidating, aggressive or alienating.”

Stanford had also announced that male students were banned from the university gym twice a week in order to promote “inclusivity.”

The previous year, the university announced it was introducing a course which would task students with considering “abolishing whiteness” and the ultimate goal of understanding “what is the future of whiteness,” according to the institution’s course catalog.

The university also faced condemnation for providing students who were adversely affected by the election of Donald Trump with a “vast network” of support while failing to protect Jewish students from antisemitic acts.

Follow Joshua Klein on Twitter @JoshuaKlein

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.