Brandeis University considers 'picnic' to be oppressive language

In My Humble Opinion
101

:stuck_out_tongue: implication of lack of commitment retracted!

My point is that they’re not having the conversation in a vacuum; putting this list on their website is the beginning of a conversation, not the end of it. To paraphrase the language right at the top of the page: “these are suggestions compiled from student input. It’s not a list of rules, but things that are worth thinking about. We are not telling anyone what they should or should not say.”

Because there is no objective right or wrong on most of this, how do you decide when it’s “clear” they didn’t have the conversation in a vacuum? When nothing on the list of suggestions is controversial? When nothing is above reproach? When no one could possibly make a suggestion?

As you say, they are clearly engaged in the conversation- they didn’t dig in about ‘picnic’, but removed it, which probably makes sense.

There’s a subtext in a lot of internal criticism on the left that reads something like: “Unless you’re going to suggest something that is obviously correct (defined as whatever the speaker happens to believe is obviously correct), you should stay behind closed doors with your thoughts until you come around to the right ones, otherwise people are going to think we’re all extremists!”

This is a list of student suggestions from a campus organization whose job it is to be sensitive to stuff like this. I don’t know their methodology or the time/resources involved, but my guess is that the answer is “limited” on all fronts. This isn’t a policy document, it’s a resource document. It’s a nothing. What kind of notes, research and citations do you suggest would be an appropriate before they should have written this document and put it up on their website?

I know I’m going on about it, but there’s a fundamental imbalance of understanding going on here: folks seem to believe that random campus organization X at college Y should not publish a list of suggestions like this because it will cause Democrats and Republicans alike to flee from (D) politicians and to flee from their desire to support social justice and equality. At the same time, no one is criticizing the Washington Examiner (who published this “story”) for hyperbolic and misleading reporting, unabashedly lying, and exaggerating the impact and intent of this list.

The problem isn’t that The PARC at Brandeis published this list. The problem is that right-wing news lied about it, and then a bunch of left-leaning folks internalize those lies, and accept at face value that this distorted version of the truth is worth talking about.

You have to be willfully ignoring plain language to push your own agenda if you can read this:

And then report things like:

  • At no point did Brandeis (or any affiliate) “warn against” using oppressive language.
  • At no point did anyone say that people “should stop using” any language.
  • In no way does providing this list of “more-neutral language” options as a resource, compiled by a “confidential, student-centered resource serving members of the Brandeis community who have been impacted by violence and those who want to contribute to the anti-violence movement” constitute a statement by Brandeis, or even PARC, proscribing language that should or should not be used, or that anything on this list is declared “oppressive” (it literally says “potentially oppressive” in the quote above).

@CairoCarol couldn’t find an objective news source on this, because if you’re not lying about it, then there is nothing newsworthy or notable here.

102

Nothing. It is merely insulting.

103

And while we’re at it, please stop referring to the Political party of the Good Guys as “The Left”. Everyone knows the connection between “left” and “sinister”.

104

k9bfriender is right. This is an example of a thing that’s not symmetrical across the political divide. I wouldn’t give a toss, and neither would the news networks. You might get some chatter on reddit but, well, you get some chatter about anything there.

Trying to prevent women from having abortions, that’s different. But just “avoid using this word”? Nah, don’t care.

This analysis rings quite true though. Modern conservatism does seem to be a fight against some imagined other. And it’s why so many conspiracy theories are taking root right now; if politics is about vanquishing demons, then you’d better find some.
Essentially, “political correctness” in this context is a kind of conspiracy theory; the thin end of a coming, hidden wedge.

(NB: I did mention above about the popularity of the political correctness gone mad thing in the UK. It should be noted that it is not really tied to any political party there, so is not weaponized in the same way. Although, anti-Euro politicians and commentators did successfully pin it to “Brussels bureaucrats”, which was a factor in Brexit)

105

I looked at the list. It took a long time because it’s on several different pages, and the web site kept timing out.

“Picnic” is not on the list. Maybe they removed it because of the controversy, or maybe it was never there at all. Some of the items that are on the list seem ridiculous to me, such as:

  • “Killing it” - Too violent. Suggested alternatives: “Great job!” or “Awesome!”
  • “Take a shot at” or “take a stab at” - Also too violent. Suggested alternatives: “Give it a go” or “Try”
  • “Trigger warning” - Supposedly refers to guns, which any thinking person should realize isn’t true. Suggested alternatives: “Content note” or “Drop-in”
  • “Rule of thumb” - The web site says, “This expression allegedly comes from an old British law allowing men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.” This bogus claim was debunked many years ago, and I think it’s pathetic that a major university would put a known falsehood on its web site. Suggested alternative: “General rule”
  • “Long time no see” and “No can do” - The web site says, “These terms as well as other expressions using broken English originate from stereotypes making fun of non-native English speakers, particularly applied to indigenous people and Asians.” Nonsense. These phrases are vernacular English, and do not have their origins in the ridicule of any stereotype.
  • “Abusive relationships” - Suggested alternative: “Relationship with an abuser” The web site says, “Relationships don’t perpetrate abuse; abusers do. It is important to name that someone is responsible.” I don’t think any halfway intelligent person would take “abusive relationship” to mean that a relationship is committing abuse. Everyone knows there is an abuser in an abusive relationship. Also, the phrase “relationship with an abuser” doesn’t actually name anyone.
  • “Mentally ill”- Suggested alternative: “Person living with a mental health condition” Setting aside the fact that one is an adjective phrase and the other is a noun phrase, I could make the argument that avoiding the word “ill” helps no one, and avoids the fact that mental illness really is a medical condition.

There are many more examples like this. There are also some words and phrases that I think people really ought to avoid, like “to get Jewed” and “Indian giver.” It’s also true that Brandeis isn’t banning any language, and doesn’t prescribe any penalties for someone who uses these expressions. But overall, this list supports the idea that the people who run college campuses in the U.S. are going out of their way to find offense where none exists.

106

It’s not even “avoid.” It’s just guidance. “This word has a fraught history in certain contexts, so be thoughtful and use caution.”

107

Part of the problem is that finding the true etymology of a word or phrase is often a very difficult job. There’s nothing like a register in which the person who creates the word (or the use of the word for a specific definition) immediately makes a note of the fact that they are creating a new word or a new definition of the word. Back before the existence of the Internet, it was necessary to go through everything that had ever been written (in books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) to see if there was a first use if the word in the specific definition. Often there would be random uses of the word that were unrelated to the use you were looking at that must be eliminated from the etymology. Of course, there was also the problem that the word may have been used in spoken speech for a while before it appeared in print. Since the invention of the Internet, it has been necessary to also search through all of it to look for appearances of the word.

To see how hard this is, look at what a difficult job it was to figure out the etymology of “O.K.”, which is not just one of the most common words in English but is used in dozens of other languages now. It wasn’t until 1963 that the true (we think) origin of the word was discovered, although that origin was in 1839 (or possible a little earlier in spoken English). Another example is the phrase “the whole nine yards”, which came into common use in the 1960s. It now appears to have originated in the early twentieth century. There have been various wrong (we think) theories about its etymology. Several discussions about this phrase on the SDMB contributed to the search for its true etymology.

108

I for one am totally shocked that this bullshit story was drummed up by a bullshit right-wing source for bullshit purposes. The very first line in the story is bullshit:

A Massachusetts university compiled a growing list of words and phrases it considers “oppressive” and discouraged people from using them.

Come on, people, let’s do better. The next time you see a seemingly ridiculous story about political correctness, just assume it’s bullshit and move on.

109

Who is this an appeal to?

If it’s to the right, then it’s a waste of time and breath. They’re going to exploit every single opportunity to ridicule the left.

If it’s to the left, then yeah, it may have some impact in that bullshit political correctness ideas need to be recognized as being bullshit and discouraged. Per @Jeff_Lichtman post above.

It’s a university. A place where ideas need to be examined and subjected to critical analysis and thought, not encouraged merely because they seem bold, progressive and well intentioned.

110

In the 1990s, thug life became associated with hip hop whose artist are largely African American. 2Pac was a member of the group Thug Life and sported a tattoo on his belly that said “Thug Life.” Prior to the 1990s, thug was kind of an old fashioned word and I don’t recall hearing it too often.

111

I’ve asked my photographer friends how they feel about their Master and Slave flashes (the master flashes, which causes the slaves to go off), and none of them addressed the term.

112

This is an appeal to the people on this message board, especially those posting articles like this and wringing their hands about progressives destroying language.

The article in the OP was false from the very first line, but that didn’t stop people from posting it and others from decrying PC culture and how it will only empower conservatives. This article was designed to create outrage and ridicule and I cannot believe people on this message board are falling for it.

Next time anyone sees an outrage-baiting article that tries to skewer liberals, the PC police, or campus language Nazis, just assume it’s bullshit and scroll on. Chances are extremely high that your assumption will be correct.

113

I admitted in post #10 that I did not notice it was from a Conservative rag.

114

Sure, and don’t consider it a personal slight, just learn the lesson that anything decrying PC is bullshit until proven data (whatever outlet posted it).

115

This is only partially true, and a small part at that. I think you’ll find that the article inspired many people to take a closer look at the source and add nuance to the discussion. I think it is a mischaracterization to dismiss this thread a strictly a reaction to a badly written and misleading article. People took time to take a deeper dive.

116

Yes, I know. And, that’s a good thing, of course.

What I’m saying is that nearly all of these types of articles are utter bullshit, with maybe a small grain of truth somewhere. We would all be better off if none of us posted stuff like this. I wasn’t trying to single you out – these kinds of articles show up from time to time here, with many different posters. They always set off a bout of hand-wringing by the liberals here (“oh, woe, why do liberals do things like this? It makes us all look bad!”), and moderates and conservatives jump in with “see, this is why Trump won!”, and then someone reads the source material and shows how it’s all bullshit. In this case, it wasn’t the school doing it, it was just a list to think about, no one is trying to stop picnics.

I’m sorry it seemed like I singled you out. These outrage pieces snag all of us sometimes.

117

Yes, and they found out it was bullshit, just like all the other right-wing outrage PC Police pieces are. I’m saying that we at the SDMB shouldn’t fall for it to begin with.

118

Except it’s disingenuous to say that the “university” suggested ditching picnic. Some autonomous department having this list of student-suggested things to consider is not in any way analogous to the “university” suggesting something.

Engaging with this conversation as if “Brandeis University said that ‘the word picnic is oppressive language and you shouldn’t say it’” was a true thing that happened is accepting a strawman as real, and dressing it up real pretty instead of exposing it for the bale of hay that it is.

No, it doesn’t. Read the thread. Read the source. No one running a college campus went out of their way to find offense. This is content compiled from student input. It’s a suggestion of some things to consider if you’re interested in adjusting your language to avoid certain kinds of violent or oppressive connotations. Take some of these suggestions. Don’t take some of them. It’s all good. Here are some things to think about if you want. It’s the fucking epitome of free speech and freedom of thought.

119

I’m saying the story should never have been written, nor should have many parts of the PARC language “guidance”. But I guess there is little room left for both of those things being true anymore.

120

It’s a university website so they are responsible for its content. If content was found of racist or misogynist nature, you can bet your ass the university would be held responsible for lack of content oversight. There would be hell to pay.

But the content was in no way offensive. It was well meaning - no doubt. Just lacking in critical analysis and thought. IMO.