Yes, I am concerned that other universities, schools, and employers will become increasingly rigid about policing language. Would you not be concerned if words like "abortion" could not be spoken?
> As paying customers, students tend to get their way, but if they don't they can transfer.
And as you can see from the comments, many people will be looking elsewhere for their children. That doesn't mean it's good that Stanford is publishing a list like this. This reaction shows how severely Stanford's action transgresses deeply held values.
> other universities, schools, and employers will become increasingly rigid about policing language.
You're exaggerating the situation again. The Stanford list in question is itself not even rigid, nor about policing. I could make anything sound evil and nefarious by completely misrepresenting it as well. Others are calling this list evidence of authoritarianism. I feel like the response here is really off the charts, when the list itself hardly takes itself that seriously. Alternatives are "suggested". Words on the list are acknowledged to be "potentially" harmful, making room for nuance. They even admit that their title "eliminate" is overselling the effort here. Their main stated goal is to "educate", not to "police".
> Would you not be concerned if words like "abortion" could not be spoken?
Again, no one is banning anyone from speaking any words. If my school instituted a policy that they didn't want to mention abortion in any of their websites, I would be fine with that. I bet your company, wherever you work, would be against you posting about abortion on the company website too (unless it's directly related to abortion healthcare). But my school isn't banning me to say or write abortion (or any other words), and neither is Stanford.
> This reaction shows how severely Stanford's action transgresses deeply held values.
I'm very leery about deeply held beliefs relating to "freedom of speech" these days. It seems to me in many cases those particular values are deeply held just until the moment someone transgresses the belief holder. And I'm not even referencing current events here.
As far as Stanford goes, they'll be just fine. But I'd feel bad for any kid who couldn't attend because their parents got caught up in a culture war.
Have you never heard of bias response teams? People can literally be reported for using language that someone else heard and was offended by. This list would be used as proof that a particular word is harmful.
But it seems like you live in a very different world, where you don't have to worry about such things. I hope you enjoy it while it lasts! It sounds quite lovely.
> People can literally be reported for using language that someone else heard and was offended by.
You can literally report anyone for anything to HR since forever. Consider them the original bias response team. The important difference is that in academia, bias response teams don’t have the power to fire or discipline anyone.
> This list would be used as proof that a particular word is harmful.
This list is only evidence of potentially harmful language, as that’s all it purports to be. That a word is on this list is not proof that it is defacto harmful.
> As paying customers, students tend to get their way, but if they don't they can transfer.
And as you can see from the comments, many people will be looking elsewhere for their children. That doesn't mean it's good that Stanford is publishing a list like this. This reaction shows how severely Stanford's action transgresses deeply held values.