Sabharwal | Was the “Elimination of Dangerous Language Initiative” actually that dangerous?

“And so I feel, what occurs if we alter our language? The place would our future be? The place will we develop in the direction of, if we begin to assume otherwise about how the world is?” – Ocean Vuong (2020)

On Dec. 19, the Wall Avenue Journal revealed an opinion piece calling out Stanford’s Elimination of Dangerous Language Initiative. The article criticized Stanford’s detailed index of inclusive phrases and stoked discussions surrounding the initiative, which have been largely adverse; following the WSJ article, the checklist was criticized by shops akin to Fox Information and USA Immediately. All this adverse media protection in the end culminated in Stanford withdrawing the checklist for reconsideration. 

To be honest, sure phrases listed as “to be eradicated” have been even for my part pointless — akin to “seminal” being forbidden for selling the patriarchy, or “grasp” being banned as a result of “traditionally, masters enslaved folks.” Nonetheless, amid all this adverse backlash I did need to present another view — I actually consider Stanford meant effectively and that, particularly since this checklist was a information and never a mandate, it might have had an general constructive affect on its readers, educating them on the connotations that sure phrases may have. Why should there be limits on our want to be inclusive? Isn’t “too cautious” all the time higher than “too brash,” if it means we are able to defend one other particular person’s sense of self? General, I consider that the checklist made some wonderful ideas for inclusive options to widespread phrases. 

The final view of opponents of the initiative seems to be that phrases are shallow, and shouldn’t be given outsized significance. For instance, the WSJ editors known as out the College for losing tuition {dollars} on ineffective “make-work” for the College directors who’re chargeable for this initiative. However in considering this manner, what the opponents fail to acknowledge is that this checklist is about much more than a shallow try to look “politically appropriate” — as research have proven time and time once more, phrases matter. The best way we discuss in regards to the issues round us shapes how we understand them. For instance, the checklist recommends utilizing the phrase “one that has immigrated” as a substitute of the phrase “immigrant”. This advice is disparaged within the WSJ article, which says sarcastically — “It’s the iron legislation of educational writing: Why use one phrase when 4 will do?” However the article fails to contemplate the big affect that these few further phrases can have on immigrant id. This modification is really helpful by Stanford as a result of “utilizing person-first language helps to not outline folks by simply one in every of their traits.” Individuals who have immigrated are multidimensional individuals who ought to be capable of lean into their immigrant id as a lot or as little as they need, with out feeling outlined by it. This slight change in wording empowers them, each time it’s uttered, to make this selection — and to me, as an individual who has immigrated, it actually feels nice. 

Psychologist Robert Rosenthal famously coined the time period “Pygmalion Impact,” (1968) to explain the phenomenon during which others’ expectations about oneself can affect one’s conduct and efficiency. As a part of his analysis, he designed an experiment the place he randomly assigned lab rats the labels of “sensible” and “dumb,” and examined the consequences of those labels on their efficiency as they competed in opposition to one another in racing via a maze. As mentioned in an episode of The On Being Undertaking, “The truth was that they have been each regular mice.” There was nothing particular about both of them. “However the one labeled the superior mouse all the time went via the maze quicker.” That phenomenon remains to be below examine, however one principle is that the “sensible” labeled mice succeeded as a result of the human beings who attended them subconsciously handled them otherwise — the mice that had the “sensible” label have been tended to with extra care. This examine exhibits the significance of the phrases we use to explain completely different sorts of individuals – not solely does it have an effect on self-image, but additionally impacts how others deal with you. 

Thus, recognizing the significance of our phrases is a crucial step in altering the best way we affiliate with language. Being deliberate about how we articulate our world can have an immense affect on how we exist inside it. Stanford’s Elimination of Dangerous Language initiative is a vital step in making the college atmosphere a spot the place everybody can really feel welcomed and accepted. I’m optimistic that, in its subsequent installment, the administration will do a fair higher job of making a real index of inclusive language. And I urge you to take a look at even the present model with a good eye, reducing via the adverse media protection and giving it the advantage of a doubt.