Language guides to address harmful terms

By Angelina Chen, Anushka Vasudev & Amelie Wu Staff Writers

“[American] often refers to people from the US only, thereby insinuating that the US is the most important country in the Americas,” reads Stanford’s Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI). In a now-defunct 13-page-long website that is widely known as the Stanford Language Guide (SLG), the EHLI, created by Stanford’s information technology (IT) community, published an index of words that they determined should be eliminated from the school’s websites and code. According to the IT community, the SLG aims to address harmful and racist terms frequently used within the scope of technology by providing replacements for certain phrases; however, its potential censorship of commonplace words recently spawned a wave of backlash.

e EHLI was originally conceived as a way to uplift people of marginalized backgrounds by addressing imprecise or offensive language. Indeed, the SLG addresses racist, ableist, colonialist, and culturally appropriative terms used in IT; but, many have criticized it for acting as a tool for censorship instead of inclusion. "[ e index is] an example of political correctness gone wild... [and] will only serve to chill speech and free and open discussions – which is what universities should be all about," USA Today columnist Ingrid Jacques said. e initiative was likened to an effort to push “woke agendas” on the unsuspecting public, rather than provide a resource for inclusivity, according to Fox News Judge Jeanine Pirro. After facing significant backlash, criticism, and controversy regarding the campus’s free speech policies, the IT community took down their EHLI website on January 4.

Language is extraordinarily complex; therefore, it is no surprise that other colleges have not taken on Stanford’s approach to language lists. For instance, rather than creating a concrete list, the University of Texas at Austin removes harmful language from their websites by student input through a vetted request process. “Ultimately, the terms used to refer to a person should be up to that individual person,” Carleton College Professor Deanna Haunsperger said.

By bringing day-to-day words into question, the SLG surrounds the harmful language movement with skepticism and criticism, taking people further from being an inclusive and tolerant community. Moreover, it’s important to recognize that while SLG’s intention may be to urge people to explore words’ complex histories and nuances, by listing commonplace terms, they instead provide a platform for people to search for negativity in all words used in daily speech.

While the index raises awareness of words that have alternate meanings or derogatory connotations, it perpetuates the assumption that they are always used with the intention of harm. Contrary to its mission, the SLG misconstrues harmless phrases, painting those who unintentionally use a listed word as insensitive. Instead of encouraging people to be more cognizant of misrepresenting cultures and languages, the SLG foments more hate than self-awareness among those who use the listed language.

Still, some argue that in order to foster diversity and inclusion, all phrases that have the possibility of being perceived as prejudiced must be eliminated from speech. However, many of the terms listed in the SLG are not inherently prejudiced, nor have a history tied to prejudice. Instead, the SLG views harmful terminology as any word that could be used or interpreted as prejudiced, leaving people unsure of which phrases actually carry a derogatory meaning. is lack of nuance in the SLG can lead to a warped message among the public.

While it is important to recognize real threats to inclusion in our language use, eliminating day-to-day vocabulary counterintuitively generates negative public attention to the cause, hurting the move ment as a whole. e mindless censure of innocuous terms does little to help eliminate prejudice and leaves readers open to misinformation and misin terpretation on how words are viewed as harmful. Additional ly, by restricting a large quantity of words that are not truly harm ful, the SLG damages its own au thenticity and reliability. Readers may disregard legitimate terms the SLG mentions as harmful, viewing it as another generic term that the SLG has deemed offensive.

By overcorrecting terms, the SLG loses credibility and causes negative publicity that detracts from the movement for inclusivity. Readers who look to the SLG can misunderstand the movement, perceiving it as a way to restrict all language rather than foster healthy communication that removes harmful terminology. e SLG should review their classification of harmful terminology in order to redefine words that have a history of being used in a derogatory way; this would provide clarification to their readers.

Instead of the SLG, an alternative method for individuals to reduce their use of discriminatory language is to independently research harmful words and their histories. Encouraging individual research can help reduce incorrect narratives of how some words may be harmful.

More notably, this language guide is illtimed and ineffective considering Stanford University’s hypocrisy in their founder’s unaddressed past. Stanford University co-founder Leland Stanford was involved in many cases of oppression of the Asian American community in the 1860s. According to an article by e Stanford Daily, Stanford generated his vast wealth by overseeing the construction of the Central Pacific Railroad, in which thousands of Chinese laborers were often assigned the most dangerous work and compensated far less than their white counterparts. Stanford’s attitude towards the Chinese laborers was described as “tense, ambivalent, and complex.” Despite Stanford’s history of Asian American discrimination and abuse, his name continues to be cemented in the university’s history with little to no reflection about how his past conflicts with the ideals that Stanford holds itself to. While the SLG attempts to address current forms of oppression in day-to-day language, by neglecting to consider Leland Stanford’s past actions, it fails to bring real inclusivity on the campus.

Although the SLG does make an attempt to address the implicit biases we may have when speaking, it blurs the lines between what actually is and isn’t harmful. However, we still hold a responsibility to be critical of which words we chose to use, so we don’t mistakenly disregard the oppressive histories they may carry. Especially with new terms constantly trending in usage, it is imperative that younger generations are well informed on harmful terminology. Language makes a difference, and it’s up to us to use it wisely.

GRAPHICS BY OPINION EDITOR ANNIKA SINGH

Stanford Language Guide

"In the past two months, the Stanford Language Guide (SLG) — a now defunct 13-page-long website published by Stanford’s Eliminaton of Harmful Language Initatve with words that they determined should be eliminated from the school’s websites and code — has spawned heavy backlash. Words included are “American” and “freshman,” causing some to argue that this initatve is over interpretng words used in daily conversatons. What are your thoughts on the SLG, and where should the line between ofensive and neutral be drawn?"

“I think it's a bit ridiculous to remove ‘American’ and ‘freshman’ from school websites. The intenton of word use is the ultmate deciding factor as to whether or not a word should be widely removed. In terms of the SLG, I think ‘American’ is used by the school websites simply to indicate natonality and that insinuatng superiority is a reach. Likewise, ‘freshman’ is used simply to refer to 9th graders, without intenton to force people into a gender binary. Otherwise, the same logic by SLG could be applied to words like ‘mankind.’”

"Instead of banning words the way the SLG has, we should instead strive to address the underlying problems that lead to biases in dicton by providing more educaton and training to people about how their word choice can afect others and how to be mindful of the resultng efects. Ultmately, when resortng to banning words, we should, at minimum, consider whether these words were used in a manner meant to harm others intentonally and then only consider whether to ban the words at hand or not if this holds true."

"The EHLI is looking too far into words that people commonly use, ofen with no harmful intent at all. Most people who the EHLI are trying to "protect" don't even take ofense at the listed words, many of which aren't meant to be used in a ofensive mater at all. [Words] only become a problem when used hatefully. I also fnd it very hypocritcal that Stanford is named afer someone who has expressed his hate for Asian-Americans and Indigenous people."

"The list defnitely over-interprets words and seems a litle extreme and unnecessary. I don’t think most people consider these words ofensive, and they are in basic vocabulary. If the SLG is simply suggestng or banning the writen use of these words, then it’s a litle less signifcant, but I stll feel like it should only ban certain ways of using them rather than the words themselves."

"I think the line should be drawn at slurs or words that the majority of people feel are harmful. For example, the f-slur, which is harmful to the LGBTQ+ community, should defnitely be labeled as harmful. But, I think that the SLG is not needed because the ofensiveness of words change over tme. For example, in the 1900s, the n-word was not as perceived as harmful. Today, however, it's obviously perceived as much more harmful than it was back then."

"It's difcult to draw the line between ofensive and neutral words because each person has a diferent perspectve. However, I believe that the Stanford Language Guide is overinterpretng some of these words. Several of these phrases, such as ‘freshman,’ are used in daily conversaton. I don't think there is any large reason that would cause people to be ofended by any of these words."

I may have sworn off nail polish after spending an unhealthy amount of time trying to perfect my nail painting skills to cover up my extremely broken nails, but I must break that promise for an extremely important goal: winning first place in this DHTH. I may be disgusted by the fumes of the nail polish, but I won’t let that stop me. With my full year of experience repainting my nails after chipping the polish on the first day, I believe that I can make the most astounding (and long-lasting) nails the world has ever seen.