> Public criticism led Stanford to abolish outright its Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative—not for being ridiculous, but, the university announced, for

> Public criticism led Stanford to abolish outright its Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative—not for being ridiculous, but, the university announced, for being “broadly viewed as counter to inclusivity.” Ha, that's a great point. The language meant to broaden inclusivity actually erects barriers to inclusivity by excluding those who have never heard the words or the arguments justifying them, and the people excluded are largely marginalized groups to begin with (poor, uneducated, etc.). So basically, inclusive language is classist at the very least. I also think a lot of equity language is a barrier to communication, and that's its biggest problem. Possible offense should not be an impediment to clarity, as long as we're all being charitable. The loss of the default assumption of charity is the real problem here.