OPINION:
Here’s a Christmas present from Stanford University. They apparently won’t ban the use of “American” after all. Hurray for them.
In May, the college administration published a list of words to be scrubbed from the university’s website and computer code, including describing someone as an “American.” It has to go because it insinuates “that the U.S. is the most important country in the Americas.”
Perhaps they’re right; you could make a strong case for Barbados.
The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative issued by the IT Department also sought to ban “master,” as in “mastering” a subject, because of the slave/master dynamic (last practiced in America 157 years ago).
They also want to ban “grandfather,” because of its use in racist voting laws (by Southern Democrats, which they don’t mention), and they urged using “Latinx” instead of “Hispanic,” even though Hispanics dislike that term.
“The goal of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate many forms of harmful language,” the guide says. Phew. That will take a lot of correcting well beyond renaming now-offensive sports teams and eliminating all sex-specific terms such as “he” and “she.”
There is a method to this sort of madness. The idea is to keep people always looking over their shoulder in case one of our commissars is listening. It’s the linguistic part of the left’s plan to turn the U.S. into an updated version of the Soviet Union.
Even the woke phrase “preferred pronouns” is no longer acceptable and should be simply “pronouns.” The word “preferred” indicates that “nonbinary gender identity is a choice and a preference,” the guide explains.
Remember, people are not born male or female. They are “assigned” their sex by a doctor who is pathetically unable to predict which baby boy will one day be prodded into thinking he is really a girl.
Mimi St. Johns, writing in the Stanford Review, a conservative publication that helped expose the censorship scheme on Dec. 19, has helpfully posted it so that everyone can read it. She noted how the university tried to cover up after getting caught, putting the guide behind a cyberwall.
After the fur flew, Stanford’s chief information officer issued a sort of “we didn’t really mean it” update: “The website does not represent university policy. It also does not represent mandates or requirements.” Oh, really?
And we can go ahead and keep using “American.” They didn’t really mean that, either.
Ironically, one of the groups that came up with this list is called People of Color in Technology. Too bad for them that the guide bans “people of color” as insufficiently inclusive. The guide recommends instead BIPOC, which stands for “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.” Much better.
Here are a few more banned terms, along with their suggested replacements: “Stupid” becomes “boring/uncool” because it “implies the person is incapable of expressing themselves.”
“Crazy” should be “surprising/wild.” So, be careful with that description you give to the cops when a knife-wielding nutcase on the subway threatens everyone.
The same goes for “insane.” Again, “surprising/wild.” Could it be that Stanford’s Democrats are trying to get rid of terms that accurately describe what their party has become?
“Blind study” gives way to “masked study,” because otherwise it “unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture.” Remember, the arm you broke while falling on the ice isn’t fractured; it’s just “different.” OK, I made this last one up, but it fits.
“Abort” is, well, aborted in favor of “cancel/end” so that it doesn’t “unintentionally raise religious/moral concerns over abortion.” No, wouldn’t want to do that.
“Geronimo” should not be invoked as a term of exuberance because it’s a “caricature of the brave warrior, often during ‘macho’ pursuits.” Bungee jumpers, you’ve been warned.
“Survivor” is dumped for multi-word phrases such as “person who has been impacted by” so that people are not defined “by just one of their experiences.” Hear that, CBS?
“Gangbusters” is reduced to “very successful.” Otherwise, it “unnecessarily invokes the notion of police action against ‘gangs’ in a positive light, which may have racial undertones.”
How about this one? “Slave” becomes “unfair work practices, underpaid, overworked.” Hmm. That describes how nearly all employees feel at one point or another. Kind of takes the lash out of the term, destroying its real meaning. Are they afraid to upset the Chinese Communist Party or what?
“Beating a dead horse” becomes “refusing to let something go.” Otherwise, it “normalizes violence against animals.” This is true. The last time I heard it, I had an uncontrollable urge to punch out Mister Ed.
There’s more, a lot more, but you get the idea. The scandal really hit the fan when Elon Musk tweeted to his more than 120 million Twitter followers: “Stanford disapproves of saying you’re proud to be an American?”
Mr. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and subsequent revelations have already laid bare the FBI/deep state’s war against honest elections in America. Socking it to Stanford was child’s play.
For whatever Mr. Musk has planned next, all I can say is: “Geronimo!”
• Robert Knight is a columnist for The Washington Times. His latest book, “Crooked: What Really Happened in the 2020 Election and How to Stop the Fraud” (D. James Kennedy Ministries, 2022), is available at his website, roberthknight.com, and at djkm.org/crooked.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.