Quote:In May, Stanford University developed the "Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative" to replace certain words and phrases on its website with approved alternatives.

The list of soon-to-be banned terms includes the label "American," which Stanford argues is too US-centric and ignorant of the other forty-one countries that also exist in the region. The university suggests "US citizen" as an alternative.

Stanford grouped their list of words and phrases into eight categories, "Ableist, Ageism, Culturally Appropriative, Gender-based, Imprecise Language, Institutionalized Racism, Person-First, and Violent."

The list, which was recently password protected following backlash, was widely shared and criticized on social media.

Author and ardent feminist Christina Hoff Sommers blasted the university over the terms included in the "Gender-Based" category.

"Don't use 'preferred pronouns'," she tweeted, citing the list, "because 'that suggests non-binary gender identity is a choice'."

Also included on that portion of the list is the phrase "balls to the wall," which Stanford argues "attributes personality traits to anatomy."

As one user pointed out, however, the "balls" in this case are not testicles, making the university's suggestion laughable.

The phrase is widely acknowledged to have originated among fighter pilots, who when making their planes go faster would have to push the throttle levers, which were topped with balls, to the wall of the dashboard.

"Every few years, some college will publish an absurd guide like this one," Hoff Sommers lamented. "They are widely ridiculed & one assumes they go away. But they don’t.The list of forbidden words only gets longer & the guides continue to circulate among an ever-growing number of academic administrators."

Terms under other categories include "handicap parking," "addict," and "Karen," which Stanford suggests should be replaced with "accessible parking," "person with a substance abuse disorder," and "demanding or entitled White woman," respectively.

"It’s the iron law of academic writing," the Wall Street Journal quipped. "Why use one word when four will do?"

According to Stanford, the list was compiled over an 18-month period in "collaboration with stakeholder groups," and is encouraged to be utilized by all students and staff.

Link

Fkn idiots.

It really is that simple.

"College liberals" are words that are on MY harmful language list.

This country is doomed.

Congress should look into any federal funds going to Stanford and pull them all.

Maybe “American” tax money is too harmful for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There's words on there I hear liberals use all the time. They must not know they're going against their masters.

Ahhhhhh the leftist utopia


Tell you what, if someone ever came up to me and said saying that is offensive... id knock their gosh damn teeth through their skull.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Save us from high IQ stupid people.

(12-21-2022 06:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Save us from high IQ stupid people.

This.

Educated idiots is a real thing y'all. Holy cow, how did we get to this point. This surely is one- among too many to keep track of - harbinger of the demise of our once great republic.

Woke University Walks Back Proposal to Censor 'Harmful Language' - It Only Took 48 Hours After People Noticed

Quote:An elite university is seemingly walking back a rigid campus language code two days after it was rolled out to widespread criticism.

Stanford University appeared to have removed mention of its “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” from its website as of Monday, according to The Washington Free Beacon. The initiative was a product of the university’s IT department.

The webpage for the initiative went live over the weekend, the Free Beacon reported. The proposed language policies were the subject of a critical Op-Ed published by The Wall Street Journal on Monday.

The university resource outlined a laundry list of “harmful” words and phrases that would be removed from Stanford websites and suggested politically correct alternatives to the objectionable language.

Words like “freshman” and “mankind” were singled out for being “gender-based.” Terms such as “blind study” and “tone-deaf” were criticized as “ableist.”

Even the word “American” was designated as “harmful” on the grounds that it supposedly ascribes supremacy to the U.S. over other countries in the Americas.

A professor at Stanford’s medical school publicly rejected the proposed elimination of the word “American.”

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

Steve Gallagher, Stanford’s chief information officer, released a statement on Tuesday distancing the school from the censorious initiative.

“Over the last couple of days, there has been much discussion of a website that provides advice for the IT community at Stanford about word choices in Stanford websites and code,” Gallagher said.

“First and importantly, the website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements,” he clarified.

Gallagher said the word “American” would not be banned by the university.

“We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term ‘American,'” Gallagher said. “We understand and appreciate those concerns. To be very clear, not only is the use of the term ‘American’ not banned at Stanford, it is absolutely welcomed.”

Gallagher indicated that the speech code was undergoing “continual review,” suggesting that it could return in an altered capacity.