Stanford University Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI)

[laughing dog]

"From what I can tell, the Information Technology area of Stanford has started a project to inform the IT community to avoid possible offensive language. At this writing, this project consists of identifying possible offensive terms and offers possible alternatives for those terms. There are no punishments or enforcement. This is not an university wide initiative. " Please point out the words that you do not understand.

I bolded the relevant clause here.
And you have not answered my objection that this rather long list includes many rather innocuous terms. What's wrong with "guys" etc.?

Why are you asking me when there is an explanation right there in the cited document?

 

[Politesse]

In other words, your claim is projection.

No, it's an explanation. Criminal prosecution is not the only form of retaliation.

So what forms of retaliation are present at Stanford Law?

 

[Politesse]

I am sure there are some, but I was not even calling the admins literal communists. It's just that their desire to control speech is evocative of communists

Ah, well in that case your whole argument is "evocative" of bullshit. The only person I see attempting to "evoke" communism (or rather anti-communist paranoia) in this conversation is the dude who explicitly made comparisons to the Communist Party two posts in a row, in a conversation about a school which is, in fact, a siginificant global bastion of capitalist apologetics.

 

[Derec]

in a conversation about a school which is, in fact, a siginificant global bastion of capitalist apologetics.

[citation needed]

 

[Derec]

So what forms of retaliation are present at Stanford Law?

Denial of tenure would be a major one.

 

[Derec]

Anecdotes about some student working at some college radio station who got into trouble for something he said is irrelevant. The discussion is about the IT community at Stanford. Please read the thread before babbling.

First of all, it was a she. And it is an example of the cancel culture that has infected academia and that seeks to impose ideological uniformity instead of a robust debate.

You have no evidence to support your claim about retaliation. None. It is a conjecture you pulled out of your ass.

I did not say any retaliation happened yet just that there is precedent for such behavior in academia and that Stanford definitely has power to retaliate.

 

[Toni]

There is no right in the constitution to not be offended.

It is being carried to a ridiculous extreme.

Free speech and tolerance of that which offend you is a requirement for a free and open society.

It is a long term cultural process that effects change, not rules on speech and expression.

When you ave to worry about what you say in an enforced poalcaly correct society it becomes like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China.

There has been a long running battle over free speech. I remeber George Carlin on WBAI in NYC being repeatedly sanctioned by the FCC.

I remember the Smothers Borthers. They ended up with a censor on the set and had shows censored for polemical speech and satire.

Richard Pryor's short lived show.

Back then it was about conservative Christian sensibilities. Now it is progressives.

There is no right to create a hostile work or school environment.

There IS a right not to be subjected to a hostile work or school environment.

 

[repoman]

According the users here retaliation assuredly won't happen until it does, but when it does it won't be retaliation it will be a good thing.

This is both a logical fallacy and a political tactic, used by both sides on the left right spectrum. Lull the enemy into false sense of security and inaction and then then deny or downplay once your side has struck its blow.

I seriously think that Politesse, for example, think his or her side is justified enough to play this strategy, which is not that a dishonorable one to engage in my opinion.

"Retaliation" is a bit of a loaded word, though.

This like many other things is a grey scale.

Saying "guys" is kind of odd addressing mixed sex groups and even odder when addressing only females. But we don't as often say "ladies and gentlemen", "ladies", "you all", ,"y'all, "you folks" or even worse "you people" (blacks get their back up at this) in this society.

I like Toni putting her cards on the table honestly.

 

[Politesse]

So what forms of retaliation are present at Stanford Law?

Denial of tenure would be a major one.

And who has been denied tenure at Stanford Law as a result of this or any other document or policy relating to polite language use?

 

[Derec]

There is no right to create a hostile work or school environment.
There IS a right not to be subjected to a hostile work or school environment.

How do you define "a hostile work or school environment"?
To me, it is a hostile environment when the authorities try to micromanage and sanitize the language one is allowed to use. Including rather innocuous language.

 

[Derec]

And who has been denied tenure at Stanford Law as a result of this or any other document or policy relating to polite language use?

I was talking about the powers universities have, not that it happened (yet) in this case.

 

[Toni]

There is no right in the constitution to not be offended.

There's no right to offend either. There is a right not to have one's speech constrained by federal law, which is by no means violated or even threatened by a private school having a preferred language policy.

We're facing one of the most severe college enrollment crises in the state's history, and you're throwing shade at Stanford for trying to create a minimally welcome environment for new students.

Back then it was about conservative Christian sensibilities. Now it is progressives.'

What TV show has been censored by the government for racist or sexist content? What show in particular, Steve?

You are evading what I said.

It used to be part of growing up and maturing was learning to deal with being offended in a healthy way.

If a group of white racists approach a black person on the street and start calling him nigger, I believe that would be illegal. As would any form of intentional verbal harassment. Vernal assault, threatening intinidation.

The idea that acadmics are gong to define socially accptable words is ridiculous, and arrogant.

I think pro sports teams giving up Natve American names that can be offensive to a class of people was the right thing to do. It happened due to ricing stoical pressure.

If I were NA th name Washington Redskins with the goofy stereotype image of a NA would be highly offensive. We now say Native American instead of Indian because culture changed over time. It was not mandated.

No.

It WAS part of culture to learn to suck it up and deal with being insulted, belittled and reduced to some inhuman stereotype by the dominant white man or boy in the room.

It wasn't healthy for anybody. It created not just a hostile work or school environment but a dangerous one, as well.

Example: In my high school days, 'good girls' could more or less count on being relatively safe in a car with a guy. He was mostly likely to take no for an answer. A 'bad girl', that is a girl who was believed to sleep around, had no such protection. She had to put up with a lot of horrendous language, grabbing, ridicule, snickers IN CLASS and in hallways. I shudder to think what some girls endured if they ever got into a car with some guy they thought was their friend. All of that: who was good and whose virginity should be protected and who was bad and had no virtue to defend depended on what some one said. Usually some guy. Maybe with little or no truth behind it. In case I'm being too subtle: girls who were considered to be 'bad girls' for whatever reason or no reason at all faced a much higher risk of being sexually assaulted or raped. And of course, they would not be believed. It would simply add to their bad reputation.

This is relatively benign compared to the treatment that black people where I grew up could expect if they were caught alone or by the wrong people or doing the 'wrong' thing by, well almost anyone. Calling someone a (insert slur of your choice) helps dehumanize them, make them easier targets, make it easier to treat them like something you stepped in and need to scrape off your shoe.

When I was in high school, homophobic language/slurs were quite common. Which perhaps explains why exactly ZERO of the gay/lesbian kids I went to school with have ever showed up at a single class reunion event. No one was 'out' in those days but a few could not hide who they were. More could and did, sometimes even from themselves. They may still have friends they went to high school with (some are my friends, actually) but they never, ever, ever consider going to a single reunion, no matter how well liked and popular they were.

 

[repoman]

So what forms of retaliation are present at Stanford Law?

Denial of tenure would be a major one.

And who has been denied tenure at Stanford Law as a result of this or any other document or policy relating to polite language use?

When it happens will it be a good thing? Will you be happy?

Usually when people make your statement they don't think it is a good thing for tenure to be denied for using at least NEWLY added words on the list, but I think you are different.

I think you take Derec's opinion and outlook as evil and you have moral high ground to mask your intentions.

 

[Politesse]

I did not say any retaliation happened yet just that there is precedent for such behavior in academia and that Stanford definitely has power to retaliate.

So your evidence for unjust retaliation at Stanford Law is that the administration has the power (and legal right btw) to retaliate but has thus far chosen not to use that power in any way?

I would not recommend applying to the program.

"Your honor, I feel that my client is clearly endangered by the shotgun in his neighbor's garage. Our evidence clearly shows that he has never once used the gun to blow apart a neighbor, which proves that he very well might mean to do so in the future."

 

[Elixir]

When it happens will it be a good thing? Will you be happy?

No, but Derec will be overjoyed. How about you?

 

[Toni]

There is no right to create a hostile work or school environment.
There IS a right not to be subjected to a hostile work or school environment.

How do you define "a hostile work or school environment"?
To me, it is a hostile environment when the authorities try to micromanage and sanitize the language one is allowed to use. Including rather innocuous language.

Fortunately, there is a legal definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_work_environment

In United States labor law, a hostile work environment exists when one's behavior within a workplace creates an environment that is difficult or uncomfortable for another person to work in, due to illegal discrimination.[1] Common complaints in sexual harassment lawsuits include fondling, suggestive remarks, sexually-suggestive photos displayed in the workplace, use of sexual language, or off-color jokes.[2] Small matters, annoyances, and isolated incidents are usually not considered to be statutory violations of the discrimination laws. For a violation to impose liability, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to a reasonable person. An employer can be held liable for failing to prevent these workplace conditions, unless it can prove that it attempted to prevent the harassment and that the employee failed to take advantage of existing harassment counter-measures or tools provided by the employer.[3]

A hostile work environment may also be created when management acts in a manner designed to make an employee quit in retaliation for some action.

 

[Politesse]

When it happens will it be a good thing? Will you be happy?

If that were the sole reason to deny a faculty member tenure? I'm quite certain their union would take their side, and that my union would stand in solidarity with them. I would not object. There's a negotiated procedure for tenure evaluation for a reason, and a person can have a right without my agreeing with the manner in which they choose to use it.

But that's a pretty wild hypothetical anyway, so I'm not going to stay awake worrying about it one way or the next.

 

[Politesse]

I think you take Derec's opinion and outlook as evil and you have moral high ground to mask your intentions

I think his argument is dumb as shit. Evil has nothing to do with it.

 

[Elixir]

that's a pretty wild hypothetical anyway, so I'm not going to stay awake worrying about it one way or the next.

Don’t worry, Poli. Our right wing psychos will be wide awake and vigilant, lest any such thing might occur.

 

[Politesse]

When I was in high school, homophobic language/slurs were quite common. Which perhaps explains why exactly ZERO of the gay/lesbian kids I went to school with have ever showed up at a single class reunion event. No one was 'out' in those days but a few could not hide who they were. More could and did, sometimes even from themselves. They may still have friends they went to high school with (some are my friends, actually) but they never, ever, ever consider going to a single reunion, no matter how well liked and popular they were.

True, that! The very thought of voluntarily attending a school reunion.... strikes me as absurdist and slightly horrifying. Though, as far as I know most of my schoolmates are probably dead from war, covid, or meth overdoses anyway. Republican policies are not much easier on their fans than their detractors, really.