Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ...
by ModernMech on Monday December 26, 2022 @08:22AM
(#34137415)
The document says it’s about education, not policing. Insofar you can consider it to police anything, it would apply to the Stanford IT department, not Stanford students or faculty. All departments that communicate with the outside world police their language, whether explicitly or implicitly. That a department has a list of words they don’t want to use in their communications is not surprising or interesting.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ...
by joenot443 on Monday December 26, 2022 @08:48AM
(#34137586)
It seems like you're explaining something everyone's already very aware of. Nobody's under the impression these policies were made for Stanford students to abide by. That said, it's perfectly reasonable to cast judgement on an institution for the actions of one department, it'd be strange for one to suggest the two be conceptually separated. If Stanford is happy to employ language-policing for its IT department, it's not hard imagine similar policies creeping into place elsewhere in the institution. Decisions like this don't happen in a vacuum.
Re:MIT Faculty Votes for Statement on Freedom of Expression ...
by ModernMech on Monday December 26, 2022 @09:25AM
(#34137800)
> Nobody's under the impression these policies were made for Stanford students to abide by.
This is not the impression I’ve gotten in the discussions I’ve had regarding the document.
> If Stanford is happy to employ language-policing for its IT department, it's not hard imagine similar policies creeping into place elsewhere in the institution.
To be clear, Stanford has always policed the language on its websites. Like I said, any department (in any org) that communicates with the public will police its language. The only thing notable here is that some people disagreed with the particular list of words when it was made public.