3 ms·
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 abid
by joenot443 4y ago
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.
- ModernMech 4y ago> 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.