Brandeis University has been in the news this past week because of a student-written list.
At the end of June, Robby Soave published a quick post titled, “Trigger Warning Now Counts as Violent Language at Brandeis University.” In the post, Soave identified phrases that Brandeis University’s PARC listed as being problematic. He went on to note:
The university does not require students and staff to cease using such language, it just recommends softer vocabulary. I’ve long made fun of universities for taking such a broad view of what counts as offensive language, but the fact that trigger warning—a concept designed to prevent offense—has itself landed on such a list is fairly amusing.
Because it’s 2021 and it’s the internet, it didn’t take long for more articles and hot-takes to pop up on the topic. The one that actually caught my attention was by John McWhorter.
The thing about John McWhorter is that, whether you agree with him or disagree with him, you have to concede that his work is generally thoughtful and well-researched. In fact, I can’t wait until I can get my hands on his upcoming book, “Woke Racism” (coming out in October). While I was reading his column, “Even Trigger Warning is Now Off Limits” in The Atlantic, I couldn’t help but wonder if there was more there than meets the eye. So, I dug deeper:
The Premise: Brandeis University’s PARC office is saying that “considerate people must go further” than avoiding words like “slave” and “must retire victim, survivor, trigger warning, and African-American too“
The PARC list is a sign of our times, in which language policing has reached a near fever pitch, out of a sense that labeling common terms and expressions as “problematic”—that is, blasphemous—is essential to changing society.
McWhorter is saying that certain parts of modern society are going a little overboard with what they consider to be appropriate language. Now, whether he’s right or not is up for interpretation. But, there’s something about what he said that made me wonder if Brandeis was really part of the group that is engaging in excessive language policing.
Let’s look at exactly what McWhorter wrote:
But according to counsel from Brandeis University’s Prevention, Advocacy & Resource Center, or PARC, considerate people must go further: Apparently, we must retire victim, survivor, trigger warning, and African-American too. We must do so, that is, if we seek to ignore some linguistic fundamentals while also engaging in distinctly callow sociological calisthenics.
“Should.” “Might.” “Must.” Each word means a different thing. And the differences are important. “Should” and “might” are recommendations. “Must” is a command.
McWhorter wrote that Brandeis was mandating what was or wasn’t appropriate speech. Brandeis said, and I quote:
> This list is meant to be a tool to share information and suggestions about potentially oppressive language. Use of the suggested alternatives is not a university expectation, requirement or reflection of policy. As shared in Brandeis University’s Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression, the language you choose to use or not use is entirely up to you.1
So, the answer to the question of whether Brandeis went too far in language policing is: Can we even say that a suggestion is language policing in the first place?
Was Brandeis language policing?
I guess that it depends on what you consider language policing. Brandeis is a university, so their whole reason for existing is to educate people. Providing suggested alternate language seems to fall in line with education. Now, if they were saying that the challenged words could be grounds for discipline, then this would be a different story.2
Although McWhorter goes on to mention that the PARC guidance is advisory and not mandatory later in the article, you can’t unring the bell of the earlier statement. McWhorter wrote that Brandeis’s PARC office said that “considerate people must go further” in modifying their language. But, as the language in PARC’s statement showed, there was no mention of “considerate people” and the list was identified as being a resource for people interested in using less offensive speech.
Was this all much ado about nothing?
Since this whole hullabaloo is about a student-drafted list that was put out there as a resource for people who are interested in using less offensive speech, I’d say that it is.
McWhorter raises interesting points and his expertise as a linguist is something that we should give a good amount of weight to. But, the fact that he studies language for a living and overstated what Brandeis’s PARC office actually said reinforces the fact that you should always click through and read the original source.
Anything else?
This passage definitely caught my attention:
Couched as compassionate counsel, this list is mostly a series of prim concoctions by people who, one suspects, simply need more to do.
Let’s look past the glancing ad hominem blow and look into this. Again, going back to the original source:
The Oppressive Language List was developed, created, and continues to be managed by students involved with PARC. Suggestions are brought forth by students who have been impacted by violence and students who have sought out advanced training for intervening in potentially violent situations.
This list is meant to be a tool to share information and suggestions about potentially oppressive language.
It looks like what we have here is that a resource center is using student labor to provide a resource for people who are interested in using language that is less likely to offend. People are free to find the pursuit of offense-free language to be pointless or frivolous, but there’s an important difference between a university requiring students to adopt politically correct language and merely offering a resource for those who want to do that on their own.
Key Takeaways:
- Experts are experts for their opinions, but they aren’t the best source for the facts. Always check the original source to see what language they are using.
- Subtle shifts in wording can change the intention of the original source.
- Check to see if different principles like “should” vs. “might” vs. “must” are being flattened.
- Just so you know, the emphasis in the last line is in the original. ↩
- And the ACLU would have filed a suit about it pretty quickly. ↩
