You were specifically complaining about my use of the words 'literally' and 'tantamount', which is why I focused on that language. Why would you ask about thos

You were specifically complaining about my use of the words 'literally' and 'tantamount', which is why I focused on that language. Why would you ask about those two specific words, if the thrust of your questions was essentially the thrust of my argument? There is nothing in Orwell, or anything he wrote, that would suggest he has anything to say about people distancing themselves from those who use racist childish ad-hominem attacks in polite company and getting culled for it. (The author's own word for it was 'bigotry'). Just it's the opposite: an Orwell quote in this context makes no sense. The onus is on the OP to justify their use of the quote. You can say 'House Negro' is not very offensive, but obviously a lot of people are going to be offended by that, it's unequivocally offensive to call a Black person that in most circles, ergo, if an organization is going to err on the side of civility, they'll just move on from that person. That's reasonable. Let's do a thought experiment: go and call your local campus Black Republican a 'House Negro' and consider the reaction. Do you think your arguments here are sufficient? Do you think you really think it's appropriate for you to do that under the banner of some Principled issue of Free Speech? This has nothing to do with Orwell's concerns about newspeak, thought police, language, controlling minds by controlling words. If the University had forbidden a professor from ever using that term, i.e. reading aloud in class, banning all books with that term etc. - that would be Orwell. The person who used the term could have used any other kind of language (even if 'idiot' is a poor substitute) - to make her point, she was resorting to crude racism for no reason. There's nothing principled to stand for here.