STANFORD, Calif. — From the internet to the national media to the holiday dinner table, much of the country has seemed to be up in arms in recent weeks over a newly discovered Stanford University “language guide” that discourages the use of words like “American,” “survivor” and “freshman” — steps too far for many jaded by the culture wars.
At a time when politicians and the media continue their ongoing debate over critical race theory, LGBTQ discussions in schools and other cultural issues, liberals and conservatives appear to be on the same page about one thing: This Stanford “language guide” goes too far.
Written by the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative at Stanford in partnership with People of Color in Technology and the Stanford CIO Council, the “language guide” is part of a multiphase, multiyear project that addresses harmful language — in information technology (IT) uses only — at the university. Its goal is to “eliminate many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent and biased language … in Stanford websites and code.”
“The purpose of this website is to educate people about the possible impact of the words we use,” the guide’s preface reads. “Language affects different people in different ways. We are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site. We also are not attempting to address all informal uses of language.”
The 13-page guide discourages the use of what it calls ableist, ageist, colonialist and culturally appropriative language among others, and urges code writers to avoid words from the obvious “retarded” and “spaz” to phrases that might seem more innocuous, like “brave,” “American,” “Hispanic,” “cakewalk” and “homeless person.”
Members of the committee that produced the guide could not be reached, but the guide itself gives context for why the language should not be used. For example, the word “prisoner” should be replaced with “person who is/was incarcerated” because “using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their characteristics.” That word specifically has been flagged by the prison abolitionist movement as a dirty one for similar reasons. But “American”?
In the guide, the IT writers suggest using “U.S. citizen” instead, partly because American “often refers to people from the United States only, thereby insinuating the U.S. is the most important country in the Americas,” ignoring the other 42 countries that make up the continent. For many on social media, including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya — a professor at Stanford School of Medicine — the guide goes too far at times. He called it “really disappointing” on a recent “The Ingraham Angle” show on Fox News.
“It doesn’t actually foster respect for people,” he said. “It just makes people think what’s gone wrong with great universities like Stanford.”
Bhattacharya wasn’t alone in his disdain for the “language guide”; dozens of other right-wing media accounts and commentators dug in on Stanford for publishing it. He got a quick reply from Twitter head Elon Musk, who said, “Stanford disapproves of saying you’re proud to be an American? Whoa.”
In a statement, Stanford Chief Information Officer Steven Gallagher said the university actually encourages the use of the word “American.” He sought to distance the institution from the work of its IT experts.
The website “does not represent university policy,” the statement says, and it also “does not represent mandates or requirements.” The website was “created by and intended for discussion with the IT community at Stanford” and “provides ‘suggested alternatives’ for various terms and reasons why those terms could be problematic in certain uses.” Its goal was always to “support an inclusive community.”
“We have particularly heard concerns about the guide’s treatment of the term ‘American,’” the statement reads. “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.”
The statement also said “the guide for the university’s IT community is undergoing continual review,” and that “the spirit behind it, from the beginning, has been to be responsive to feedback and to consider adjustments based on that feedback.”
University of Washington Computer Science Professor and author Pedro Domingos said in an interview that no university “should attempt to stipulate the language its members use.”
“Many of the terms the guide considers harmful and their proposed replacements are frankly hilarious,” Domingos said. “The way Stanford has handled the whole issue is an embarrassment.”
While Domingos acknowledges that the tech and IT world should be conscious of the kind of language it uses, these guides — a similar one was published at UW — are flawed, he said.
“There’s lots the tech community could do to improve its language use, but the Stanford language guide and similar ones (e.g., UW’s) are neither the right way to go about it nor right in content,” Domingos said. “Above all, technologists should strive to be ideologically neutral, not push a particular ideology, whatever it may be.”
____
