General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Ban on Banning Words
By
Scott Jaschik
WWashington State University on Monday announced that it would not allow instructors to make "blanket" bans on the use of certain words or phrases in class, even if those words and phrases offend people. Further, the university said that instructors could not punish students for use of such words or phrases.
The announcement followed a barrage of criticism of the syllabus for Women & Popular Culture, a women's studies course, that banned specific words and phrases and set out punishments for their use.
Here is the language on the syllabus:
This summer has seen several instances in which websites of various college or university groups have featured language discouraging the use of words and phrases that many find offensive. There was much discussion in July about the "bias-free language guide" at the University of New Hampshire, but UNH never actually banned any words or phrases. One office published some recommendations for those seeking to avoid offending others, and most people at UNH didn't know that the guide existed until it was debated nationally -- and the university affirmed that there was no requirement to follow its suggestions.
In the Washington State syllabus, however, there was a specific statement that the instructor could punish any students using the banned words and phrases. And that appears to have led the university (which, as a public institution, must provide First Amendment protections) to get involved. The university statement said that it was asking all faculty members to review their policies "to ensure that students’ right to freedom of expression is protected along with a safe and productive learning environment."
more
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/01/washington-state-u-disavows-syllabus-ban-certain-words?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=2e96833874-DNU20150901&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-2e96833874-198207221
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)No matter what words are chosen (with truly profane words excepted), banning words can have the effect of banning ideas, stopping thoughtful discussion and inhibiting growth.
That's not exactly a part of college Mission Statements.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)That'd require no banning of words.
Seems like an exercise to feel enlightened while confusing others.
branford
(4,462 posts)on the alleged controversial language. In fact, many (not me) would consider these pronouns far more controversial.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)As per the OP, the focus included gross generalizations. When having a thoughtful conversation, would it be prudent to lump all women or men into a simple male / female category?
Or would it be more prudent to elaborate on the subset? In my entire life, beyond basic biology, I have never seen a universal truth that applies specifically to just all males or just all females. And that assumes all that is out there are just males and females.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Them, they, their, you, me, us, we... "It" is singular and cannot be a gross generalization.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Sometimes, "he or she" or "s/he" is the best one can do. They, them, their is often undeniably plural and it would be gramatically incorrect. to use they in place of a gender specific singular pronoun.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, the issue is not what we would consider the most thoughtful means of dialogue, but rather whether a professor at a public university can mandate students use such pronouns under threat. I believe that in the vast majority of circumstances, such a policy would be impermissible.
Nevertheless, the professor can certainly use the pronouns, request student voluntarily do so, and offer the reasons why it is polite and advisable.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)There is a reason comedians are not performing college campuses on an increasing level. Some folks hate comedy, but to me, I personally view it as a spectacular art where the artist can hold up a mirror, show us how ugly we really are, but make us laugh at ourselves at the same time. But the gentle snowflakes that are our college students today, cannot get past the icky feeling of the mirror.
"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well." - Orwell, 1984
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)is that a lot of people don't realize it's a mirror, and are just laughing as what they see as a picture.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)I really wish I could find it, but I recall listening to George Carlin on a radio show years ago. He went on a rant about why he stopped performing at colleges. How they used to be a bastion of free thought and expression, and how they have morphed into repressive institutions. It stifled the art, to the point he could no longer perform under all of the rules required to perform at one. Shame really, as a lot of comedians used to make a decent buck performing on campuses.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)We have to draw the line somewhere, even if there is a continuum. And people should not have to feel guilty for stating that someone is a male or a female.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)and identify as neither male or female...
The question becomes 'To what extremes will you go to avoid discriminating against a minority?' Some people claim that as many as 1.7% of people are intersex, although people born with ambiguous genitalia are more like 0.1% or so at most.
Do you only avoid using language that discriminates against a group of people once they hit a certain critical mass? Would there have to be 5% intersex folks to warrant using more than just male and female? 10%?
Of course, my solution would be to simply add that third option, rather than taking away the other two. Refer to females as females, males as males, and intersex as intersex, and people can correct you if you misidentify them.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)We need to be practical - and realistic. Society as a whole is not going to stop saying male and female, and it makes people who worry about language and its meanings just look ridiculous.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)But male and female are not pronouns.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)They describe anatomical differences between people. There is no denying the difference. Why pretend it doesn't exist?
REP
(21,691 posts)A woman is a female human being. Using "female" alone is imprecise and sloppy usage; it could mean anything from an electric outlet to a Catasetum flower.
kiva
(4,373 posts)pretty much the gold standard of dictionaries, female can be either an adjective or a noun. Merriam-Webster agrees. So does the Free Dictionary, Dictionary.com, and the Cambridge Dictionary online.
REP
(21,691 posts)And I don't subscribe.
I do know how dictionaries are compiled, and common usage, which doesn't mean correct usage, usually gets crammed in as a bottom entry for completeness and morons.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"Correct" usage is a very close relative of "common" usage. It is what is considered "standard" usage at any given time.
For some reason, "ain't" never became standard usage, no matter how common it became in everyday speech and "thou" has ceased to be common and standard, even though it was once perfectly correct. As with everything else, subjectivity is involved. Nothing carved in stone that it entirely objective.
dogknob
(2,431 posts)It's gross.
It doesn't sound like a big deal, but it's just gross when you hear it repeated... daily... among groups of men.
branford
(4,462 posts)is to ban or mandate certain language, no less words that appear technically accurate, at a public university?
Even if the First Amendment didn't prohibit such policies, I believe "bad" speech is always most effectively countered with more speech and dialogue. I certainly know that when I attended college and law school many moons ago, we understood that in such open learning environments, we should expect to hear ideas and speech we find offensive, imprudent and contrary to our ideals. The entire process was integral to forming adult modes of thought and persuasion and learning to deal effectively with a ideologically diverse populace in the real world.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)Do you realize that you just violated the rules this instructor instituted?
Gross generalization
"But it's just gross when you hear it repeated, daily, amoung groups of men."
"Among groups of men"" is a part of a sentence talking about a specific action, therefore the groups of men being talked about are only groups of men who do that action. It is not a general statement about groups of men who do not do that action, or groups of men who may or may not do that action.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)If you ban the word, another will replace it. It's the attitude that needs to be addressed.
Some academics need to leave their identity politics out of the classroom; if they can't allow thier students to express their ideas freely then they should find a new career then.
Warpy
(111,282 posts)Some words will have real world consequences for people who use them, limiting their pool of acquaintances to people who ascribe to bigotries and are none too bright, people most university level students will want to avoid. A few will net slapped faces and knuckle sandwiches, especially in bars.
There is no constitutional or other legal right to go through life unoffended. We do have a right to object to it when someone does offend us.
I'd rather wince occasionally than live with censorship.
Response to n2doc (Original post)
Post removed
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There will be nothing left except porn blogs, and we cant have that.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)or even say things that, unbeknownst to the speaker, could be deemed offensive under a "most sensitive person" standard (unless the offended person is a person of "privilege," then by all means, offend to your heart's content) has got to stop. It's getting beyond ridiculous.
I fear for my children (who, as white males, are most likely going to be the target market for such speech restrictions) who may end up being the target of a "mob rule" form of "punishment" for uttering an otherwise benign word that someone else deemed a personal affront.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)EEeeewwwwwww
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)And I love 'em to death. And I am NOT bringing them up into thinking that they ought to feel guilty for the "offense" of being born white males.
I know. I'm a heretic. 
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Hitler would be proud
(this is all sarcasm btw... I'm a white male, no kids yet though)
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)I did love my dachshunds when I was younger :X
lpbk2713
(42,760 posts)
Did they hear from George?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)“If the freedom of speech be taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”—George Washington
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)That this is even necessary says it all. WSU is standing up for academic freedom, free speech, and the notion that college is not a place where you are to be "protected" from the world, but exposed to ideas of ALL kinds. Which is sort of the core purpose of a university.
There is no constitutional right to "not be offended" or have your feelings hurt. A fact anyone going to college in such an artificial environment will learn in one hell of a big hurry the minute they set foot into the real world. Think the piano landing on Wile E. Coyote.
Disruptive or threatening behavior should never be tolerated, but those are a vastly different thing than flyspecking every word.
Sounds like a good policy for DU as well.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's a learning moment all right!
Matariki
(18,775 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)They language of hate and accompanying real hate will continue until we put a stop to it.
Professor's class, professor's rules imo.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I understand the concept of rendering it difficult to conceptualize by prohibiting certain types of language, but how does a society extirpate real hate? Is that not largely emotional in basis?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)It can change over generations if we make a conscientious effort to change the negative inputs to the socialization process.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)People can and do still grow and change their value systems at that age.
You have to try. Not trying is conceding to hate.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)than anything that could be considered hate speech.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Repressive terminology has it's roots in hate.
I understand the reason the professors put this system into place.
Their class, they should be able to run it how they wish. No one is forced to take it from them.
branford
(4,462 posts)Are they also free to determine what constitutes "repressive terminology" in their classes and penalize students who don't adopt their preferred political and social language?
I would also note that given the extensive requirements in many colleges, students are indeed forced to take some classes. If the professor is teaching a required course, would this change your reasoning?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)that this kind of selective repression, or repression of any idea of any kind, simply shouldn't be allowed in any institution that takes the notion of academic freedom seriously. Critique debate, analyze, argue, all are infinitely better than repression. College is supposed to prepare young adults to evaluate and respond to arguments of ALL kinds. That is THE core function of higher education.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)all around the country.
branford
(4,462 posts)It's little more than suggesting that two wrongs somehow make a right, and further fails to take into account the university setting or that the explicitly punitive speech requirement existed at a public institution.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And this is a STATE school. They must and are legally obligated to operate within constitutional limits. A private institution can do whatever they wish.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Your idea of repression is not at all what most people think of repression.
I am a woman - not a gender neutral person! I am not gender neutral and I am not intersexed. I WANT to identify as a woman.
If gender is no big deal, why in the hell do we argue for the rights of people to identify as the opposite sex of their genitalia?
If people who are intersexed feel oppressed by gendered pronouns (and I imagine that many do), then the solution is fighting for social acceptance just like gays and trans people are fighting for acceptance. And in fighting for acceptance, a pronoun for the intersexed should immerge.
That, imo, would be the progressive thing to do.
It's wrong to "blur" who we are in an attempt not to offend. If that's the case, why don't gays just stay in the closet? /sarcasm
branford
(4,462 posts)Professors have to follow laws and rules like everyone else, students have free speech rights, and punitive language control is counterproductive and authoritarian, contrary to liberal ideals.
Remember also that when people of opposing beliefs set the agenda, as is inevitable in the course of history, the definition of what constitutes "hate" easily changes to include the ideas you and I cherish as liberal. That is precisely why progressives were at the vanguard of defining and expanding free speech protections, notably at colleges and universities where the free exchange of ideas, even those you might find uncomfortable or offensive, is so important.
If the professors believe their language choices are reflective of the most civilized norms and best policies, they should endeavor to actually passively persuade their students of the merits of their views and set themselves as models and positive examples, a task that should not be too difficult with a captive audience, all while avoiding impermissibly using their authority as a political pulpit.
The antidote to "bad" speech is always more speech, not attempting to silence your opponents. This simple American foundational axiom is cherished by all sides of our political spectrum, has served us well for centuries, and will not change any time soon.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I would fail science class if I said carbon emissions from humans did not affect our environment. I can say it, but I will not pass. Is that punishment for my free speech? I think not.
This is a class that is dealing with issues of repression against a group. Continuing the language of repression is a failure to successfully achieve the goals of the class. That should result in negative impact to your grade.
branford
(4,462 posts)They are to discuss ideas. Students are allowed to disagree with professors and even hold ideas that are illiberal or those you and I find offensive. That is precisely why the university administration ended the policies immediately upon learning about them. It wasn't a close call at all.
No matter the sincerity or intensity of these professors' beliefs (most of which you and I likely share), professors at public institutions cannot demand that students adopt the professors politics and language because they believe it's " objectively right." The choice of political ideology and language, particularly factually accurate language, is simply not equivalent to many areas of the hard sciences, and professors cannot use their positions as political pulpits.
Despite the fact that your carbon emission analogy was not on point, under your perspective, even if a student correctly understands the relevant scientific studies and literature, they could still be penalized if they vocally opposed environmental regulations that the professor believed indispensable. This too would undoubtedly be impermissible.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Maybe there is a better way for the professor to teach.
Authoritarianism is the easy way out. I think they will be able to get the point across using another method.
I will relent.
branford
(4,462 posts)and permit the free exchange of ideas in a civilized manner, the vast majority of their students, most of whom probably already agree with the professors, will see the value in the professors' progressive beliefs and perspectives.
The punitive syllabi were simply unnecessary, and unfortunately drew significant negative attention to them and the university, all at the expense of the actual classroom material. I hope it was a learning experience for everyone.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)How far are we going to take this?
There is nothing wrong with male and female pronouns. If people who are intersexed are going to come out of the closet (and not hide in the closet identifying as male or female if they don't want to), then society needs to find a third pronoun, imo.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)that defy logic or belief. Orwell would literally pull his hair out and bang his head on the wall. 1984 was NOT an instruction manual, despite the crackpot beliefs of some, including some right here on DU.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)
My political correctness ends when it defies logic or just plain ol' common sense.
Making fun of fat people or discriminating against fat people? WRONG.
Refusing to discuss the potential health issues related to obesity for fear of offense? STUPID.
(I type this as someone who needs to lose forty pounds.)
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I haveta say I completely disagree with you. Professors must be able to maintain control of a classroom, and ensure it is a productive space for academic inquiry. Yes, the freedom of students to express thoughts and ideas is important, but it is a classroom, not a discussion lounge. The Professor must be able to maintain classroom disciplne.
My wife has had to deal with disruptive and rude students. It's no picnic.
If a Professor's restrictiions are unreasonable, then address that.
branford
(4,462 posts)I would respectfully suggest you read the details in the article as well as earlier materials concerning exactly what language was prohibited, why and by whom. If the professors were actually sincerely addressing true disruptions, this wouldn't be a news story and the university wouldn't have acted so quickly and unequivocally.
It was not a matter of simply disallowing yelling or obscenities or setting basic rules for debate. The syllabi very explicitly and quite punitively punished certain political speech and opinions that the professors simply did not like. It was authoritarian, contrary to the free exchange of ideas at a university, and generally unlawful at a public institution.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)Merely uttering certain words or phrases that the professor finds objectionable or thinks that the most sensitive person would find objectionable doesn't rise to that level, IMO.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... But I'm less of a fan of Univesity administrators micromanaging classroom rules that professors set. I think it's fair to challenge individual rules that go to far. This may be one, but don't kill a fly with a sledge hammer.
branford
(4,462 posts)There really wasn't a successful legal defense to the professors' policies, and the administration was acting in accordance with their responsibilities to the student body and state. In fact, they probably could have even exercised their discretion to sanction the professors far more severely than the simple review and dialogue suggested in the article.
Ensuring the First Amendment is protected and fostering the free exchange of ideas at a public university, even ideas that are illiberal, is neither micromanaging not "killing a fly with a sledgehammer."
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Universities do implement civilitiy policies, and they enforce them. I think threatening grade punishment goes too far, but I don't think it's unreasonable to limit some racist and sexist terms, especially in a women's studies course.
branford
(4,462 posts)They are routinely challenged in court, and despite being a lawyer who follows the issue, I cannot think of a single case among a very great many where such policies has been upheld. The schools usually immediately settle, change the policies, and pay the plaintiff's legal fees. Even aspiritational, non-binding civility policies are often struck down as implicitly coercive. The only issue is whether the university sufficiently acts on a policy necessary to create a cognizable claim for a potential plaintiff. If the professors' syballi became effective, particularly with the unflattering publicity, the university would lose any legal challenge and needlessly have to pay damages and legal fees.
In a public institution of learning, you do not generally have a right to "civility" or not hear racist and sexist terms, and professors cannot act as a "language police." More importantly, to a likely large majority of the population, the policies of the professors in the article go well beyond prohibiting widely acknowledged bigoted terms, and clearly extended into impermissible political proselytizing.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The idea that soe can just rant and disrupt a classroom using racist is sexist terms under the guise of "freedom of speech" is ridiculous in my view. It's a classroom. If the speech is not advancing an academic viewpoint, it is not defensible IMO. The First Amendment is not a license to destroy an academic and respectful environment in a classroom setting. I can't think pf a professor who would teach in a setting where they can't impose some classroom discipline and civility. I know my wife would qite workig at a public university if that were to happen to her.
FWIW, She is a very "student centered" teacher and always includes the class in establishing basic classroom rules.
branford
(4,462 posts)of normal and expected classroom debate, and no one is suggesting that anarchy must reign in a public universities. However, purported efforts aimed at "civility" cannot be transparent attempts at viewpoint discrimination, at least in public institutions.
If the syllabi at issue simply stated that yelling, obscenities, and personal insults directed at classmates or the professor were prohibited, it would be acceptable, there would be no news story, the administrators would not have needed to act, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. That was not remotely the case here. After reading the syllabi and articles about this matter, it becomes readily obvious they were legally indefensible, not matter how laudable the aims of the professors or pure their goals.
Lastly, I would note that there's a great deal of speech than many would find offensive that still "advance an academic viewpoint."
cali
(114,904 posts)
romanic
(2,841 posts)It's not a professor's job to "put a stop" to anything; a professor is there to teach, not to indoctrinate and force their beliefs/politics onto their students. You cannot stifle open dialogue and ideas because it's "offensive" because that belies college as a forum for open exchange of different ideas. The real world doesn't work like that and neither should college.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Actually the "real world" does punish for speech, at least in the United States at this particular moment in time. Punishment is just delivered to those espousing ideas that are on the left end of the spectrum.
romanic
(2,841 posts)along with "trigger warnings" and "microaggressions". The real world isn't obligated to deal with people who are offended at the slightest thing with kiddie gloves.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Just because microagressors outnumber those you wish another path does not make the tyranny of the majority correct.
romanic
(2,841 posts)As I said before it's not a professor's job to indoctrinate or stifle open discussions and police language and it's not up to society to go out of their way to comfort someone's sensitivities. It's up to the individual to learn how to deal with so-called microaggressions themselves. That's called being an adult and coping with whatever comes your way. A professor cannot teach you how to do such a thing.
And if said individual can't cope or deal with it, well tough shit.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
Throd
(7,208 posts)College wasn't meant to be a refuge where you only hear ideas you already agree with. Looking back on my education, the most valuable moments were the instances where I found myself thinking "maybe my ideas are wrong and I'm completely full of shit..."
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
I think I have come to a conclusion on this thread.
There are better ways that the professors can go about the instruction than the word ban.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)What that professor did didn't bear more than a passing resemblance to that noble effort. It was at best a grotesquerie, a ludicrous parody of such.
branford
(4,462 posts)among such an ideologically diverse population like the USA, no less who gets to decide, is one of the primary reasons why American free speech jurisprudence, unlike our neighbors to the north and across the pond, simply avoids the problem entirely and prohibits the government from seeking to ban it.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I think that we can further educate people about the power of words, and about context. But to see words used with hate, in a hateful context, in our society become extinct, we've got to address the hate they spring from.
And our culture is full of hate; hate is legitimized in so many arenas, and aggressive verbal expressions of hate is celebrated under the guise of free speech.
Just one example: here at DU, it's okay, and even considered a legitimate "normal" thing to express hate of Republicans. Personal attacks are celebrated.
The real question is this: Why does our culture promote the love of hate, and what can we do to heal that disease?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Wazzu 
Freedom of speech and expression
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Society has become too PC, imo.
Someone's always offended by something.
We are so soft.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)How do you teach English when a vocal minority will claim virtually every work of film and literature is too offensive for public airing?
A film made in the 1950's is "heteronormative", shit... really, ya think so?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)DU's resident cadre of busybodies, Language Police and Witchfinders General have not swarmed this thread.
Amazing how civil things can remain when they aren't around, isn't it? . They must be busy defending the indefensible over in GDP.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Which was hidden.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Not at all.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 2, 2015, 07:04 AM - Edit history (2)
"I'm sorry I offended you with my insistence on using whatever words I please" masks the truth: "I am sorry I caused you pain, perhaps damaged you, with my insistence on using whatever words I please.
As one example, fat jokes hurt and damage people more than we might imagine. I would rather live without fat jokes than hurt a lot of people for no good reason whatever. If that makes me just "too pc" for someone, too fucking bad.
Can it go too far? Sure. And? Can't that be said of anything?
ETA: seems to be a lot of willful ignorance or something else willful on this thread. Apparently, males are not especially bothered by the use of "he" to describe all humans, even though a majority of humans are female. But it does seem to bother women. Gee, whodda thunk it? 
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Cheers
merrily
(45,251 posts)Kidding.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I guffawed before I saw the kidding.
I am wrong, very, I'll show some of my routine sometime.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)I also make that choice. But I appreciate having the freedom to do so.
I also rankle at the use of male-only terms to describe everyone (mankind, for example. You really can't just say humanity instead?). But I would like attitudes in society to change, with some nudges of course, so that we generally agree to change our language.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)As someone involved in academia I find it ridiculous that a professor would ban words.
