4 ms·

It's not that, it's the fact it's an acronym that only certain groups are familiar with. Calling it Visual and Performance Arts is fine, because everyone unders

It's not that, it's the fact it's an acronym that only certain groups are familiar with. Calling it Visual and Performance Arts is fine, because everyone understands what it means. Calling it VAPA is inferior communication, because it only signals to those already familiar with the acronym, and leaves the rest out. Instead they now just call it the 'Arts Department', so everyone understands what it means. For example, if you're a first generation parent, new to the US, not very familiar with English, clean toilets for a living, not very familiar with the school system, have no network of people who work in schools or go to certain programs, and are looking for a good program for your child, then it's easier to navigate information on a website, brochure or banner that says 'Arts Department' than 'VAPA'. These parents may be unaware of the program entirely, and not apply. Whereas if you're white, your parents go to broadway shows and the NY MOMA, your brother-in-law is superintendent of an arts school whose daughter studies at VAPA, you'll be more likely to know what the acronym stands for, and more likely to navigate the same information (websites, banners, brochures) that say VAPA just fine, and apply for the program. I'm exaggerating the examples a bit, but the common thread is: language is a tool for communication, acronyms can be complicating and obfuscating factors in communication in certain contexts (in others they're fine), such as marketing school programs to children/parents from all backgrounds. And as (unintended!) outcome they can thereby happen to filter out poor/minority backgrounds, leaving white/majority/rich groups, who get access to these programs. That observed outcome benefits white people (which is why the words 'white supremacy' came in, which I think is wrong as it implies intentionality where there isn't one... instead I think it can better be defined as unintended extremely minor white privilege'.) Losing the acronym is a simple and potentially useful and also extremely minor step to take, that got dragged into the spotlight as a symbol for anti-'oppression' and anti-'wokeness' from both sides respectively.

imgabe 5y ago
This is ridiculous to the point of self-parody coming from the movement that spawned BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, a complete redefinition of the word “privilege“, and which demands the immediate firing and permanent silencing of anyone who has not fully internalized the appropriate “inclusive” language du jour.
- IkmoIkmo 5y ago
  Ridiculous how? I don't think you addressed anything in my post. e.g. the notion that simplifying 'VAPA' to 'Arts Department' improves communication, and particularly to certain groups of people who aren't being reached. How is improved communication self-parody? This isn't a law mandating speech, it's an organisation rebranding itself to communicate more clearly what it is. You do ridicule it by comparing it to use of other acronyms. I hope you can understand that there's a difference between use of acronyms of an Arts programme of a single school in a local area. These acronyms may be entirely unfamiliar to groups of people that historically have lower-access and that you're trying to reach via communications, and acronyms don't help in this situation, and are also unnecessary. Versus the use of an acronym that represents about 5-10% of the world population (0.6 billion people), and is used and recognised on a worldwide scale, and is actually one of the major driving forces of communication. Acronyms in this case do help, and actually improve communication. (of course, there is a limit to the logic. And the communities themselves are constantly reevaluating what typology makes most sense, and which acronyms make most sense).
  - imgabe 5y ago
    Was there any evidence that the acronyms were a major cause of people not accessing the programs? Did anyone reach out and ask one of these people from "certain communities" about why they weren't making use of the programs? Did anyone actually look at the people using the program and verify that the "certain communities" were even underrepresented to begin with? Did anyone compare the makeup of people in the program after the name change to see if it increased representation? Or maybe people just took a preconceived notion like "people who clean toilets for a living are probably too dumb to look up what an acronym means" and then made a pointless change that affected nothing and patted themselves on the back for how nice and progressive they are. I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that if you're working (probably multiple) low wage jobs to support your kids, your biggest hurdle to getting them into an Arts program is probably not that it has a confusing acronym. I agree that referring to something by an acronym and never explaining what it refers to is bad communication. That's why it is a common practice (and basic common sense) to spell out the acronym the first time it's used in a document. If the website for your organization refers to the name by an acronym only and never says what the full name is, that is a terribly designed website and you should fire whoever wrote it. That is the sort of thing you do when you care about communicating clearly. Changing the names of things every 5 minutes as you denounce the previous name as horribly offensive is not about communicating clearly. It's about moral posturing and virtue signalling.
riffraff 5y ago
Thanks for the extensive answer!

imgabe 5y ago

This is ridiculous to the point of self-parody coming from the movement that spawned BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, a complete redefinition of the word “privilege“, and which demands the immediate firing and permanent silencing of anyone who has not fully internalized the appropriate “inclusive” language du jour.

IkmoIkmo 5y ago
Ridiculous how? I don't think you addressed anything in my post. e.g. the notion that simplifying 'VAPA' to 'Arts Department' improves communication, and particularly to certain groups of people who aren't being reached. How is improved communication self-parody? This isn't a law mandating speech, it's an organisation rebranding itself to communicate more clearly what it is. You do ridicule it by comparing it to use of other acronyms. I hope you can understand that there's a difference between use of acronyms of an Arts programme of a single school in a local area. These acronyms may be entirely unfamiliar to groups of people that historically have lower-access and that you're trying to reach via communications, and acronyms don't help in this situation, and are also unnecessary. Versus the use of an acronym that represents about 5-10% of the world population (0.6 billion people), and is used and recognised on a worldwide scale, and is actually one of the major driving forces of communication. Acronyms in this case do help, and actually improve communication. (of course, there is a limit to the logic. And the communities themselves are constantly reevaluating what typology makes most sense, and which acronyms make most sense).
- imgabe 5y ago
  Was there any evidence that the acronyms were a major cause of people not accessing the programs? Did anyone reach out and ask one of these people from "certain communities" about why they weren't making use of the programs? Did anyone actually look at the people using the program and verify that the "certain communities" were even underrepresented to begin with? Did anyone compare the makeup of people in the program after the name change to see if it increased representation? Or maybe people just took a preconceived notion like "people who clean toilets for a living are probably too dumb to look up what an acronym means" and then made a pointless change that affected nothing and patted themselves on the back for how nice and progressive they are. I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that if you're working (probably multiple) low wage jobs to support your kids, your biggest hurdle to getting them into an Arts program is probably not that it has a confusing acronym. I agree that referring to something by an acronym and never explaining what it refers to is bad communication. That's why it is a common practice (and basic common sense) to spell out the acronym the first time it's used in a document. If the website for your organization refers to the name by an acronym only and never says what the full name is, that is a terribly designed website and you should fire whoever wrote it. That is the sort of thing you do when you care about communicating clearly. Changing the names of things every 5 minutes as you denounce the previous name as horribly offensive is not about communicating clearly. It's about moral posturing and virtue signalling.

riffraff 5y ago

Thanks for the extensive answer!