Connect with us

education

Stanford University has lost its mind with initiative to eliminate ‘harmful language’ such as ‘brave’ and ‘American’

Published

on

Screen Shot 2022 12 20 at 9.21.26 AM

Stanford University is turning against the English language in a delusional attempt to appear moral. The prestigious university just released an index of “harmful language” which it will eliminate from its websites and computer code. 

Termed the ridiculous ‘The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative’ is a multi-phase project “to address harmful language in IT at Stanford” according to the guide.

One word deemed offensive enough to label as “harmful” is the word “American.”

Fox News reports:

Among the words the university urges people to avoid in the imprecise language section is the term, “American.” People are instead asked to use “U.S. Citizen” because “American” typically refers to “people from the United States only, thereby insinuating that the US is the most important country in the Americas.” The Americas, the index notes, comprises 42 countries.

According to the released guide, the goal is to eliminate “many forms of harmful language,” including “racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language” in Stanford websites and code.

In the most obviously hypocritical terms, Stanford stated that it strives to educate people on the impact of words. How is the organization too daft to understand that one cannot be educated about anything that has been taken away and pretended does not exist. If the holocaust is not taught in schools, current and future generations will never learn its “impact.”

Nonetheless, Stanford is pretending the “impact” of words that it wills out of existence, can be taught. Pathetic.

The index highlights 10 “harmful language” sections: ableist, ageism, colonialism, culturally appropriative, gender-based, imprecise language, institutionalized racism, person-first, violent and additional considerations.

Other terms deemed harmful include “abort,” which offers the replacement of “cancel” or “end,” because of moral concerns about abortion; “child prostitute” is replaced with a “child who has been trafficked,” so the person is not defined by just one characteristic; and “Karen” is replaced with “demanding or entitled White woman.”

An ‘ableist’ section exists, in which the index urges people to use “accessible parking” instead of “handicap parking,” “died by suicide” instead of “committed suicide” and “anonymous review” instead of “blind review.” It also says people should use “unenlightened” as a replacement for “tone deaf,” and a “person with a substance abuse disorder” as a replacement for “addict.”

In the gender-based section, the index says “pronouns” should be used instead of “‘preferred’ pronouns” because “preferred” suggests “non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference.” The section further advises against words like “freshman,” “fireman” and “congresswoman” because the “gender binary language” does not include everyone.

The institutionalized racism section says to avoid using words like “black hat,” “black mark” and “black sheep” because of “negative connotations to the color black.” It also says to avoid using “grandfathered” and use “legacy status” instead, because of “roots in the ‘grandfather clause’ adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks.”

The index completely cautions against using the word “brave” at all. No alternative is given. The same section also asks that a person’s name is used instead of “chief” or “Pocahontas.”

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

education

Harvard Reinstates Standardized Testing Requirement for Admissions

Published

on

GettyImages 1268848905 scaled

Harvard University announcement it will reverse its test-optional policy and reinstate standardized testing as a requirement for admission. The move has stirred a contentious debate within the academic community. Effective for applicants seeking entry in the fall of 2025, Harvard College will mandate the submission of either SAT or ACT scores, with limited exceptions for circumstances hindering access to these exams.

Hoekstra contends that standardized tests provide crucial predictive insights into a student’s potential for success in higher education and beyond. By reinstating the testing requirement, Harvard seeks to gather more comprehensive data, particularly beneficial for identifying talent across diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

Proponents of the move, like Harvard Kennedy School’s political economy professor David J. Deming, emphasize the universality of standardized tests, arguing that they offer a level playing field for all applicants. Deming underscores the accessibility of these tests compared to other metrics like personal essays, which may favor privileged students with greater resources.

However, the decision has sparked criticism from those who argue that standardized tests perpetuate inequities in admissions. Critics point to studies, such as those conducted by Harvard economists Raj Chetty and others, which highlight disparities in access to advanced courses and extracurricular opportunities among students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The controversy surrounding Harvard’s policy shift reflects broader concerns within higher education about equity, diversity, and inclusion. While standardized testing may offer a standardized measure of academic aptitude, it also raises questions about its ability to accurately assess a student’s potential in light of systemic educational disparities.

Continue Reading

Trending