According to a group of journalists at The New York Times, the number of permissible racial words and phrases just shrank by nine (actually, the number is far higher than that, as you’ll see).
The growing list of offensive terms held up for scorn by the Times journalists now includes: ethnic, person of color, illegal immigrant, urban, half-____ (like “half-black” of “half-white”), non-____ (like “non-Jew” or “non-white”), fit in (like “Will they fit in?”), exotic, and diversity hire.
While not all of these terms are officially out at the Times, they’re days appear to be numbered. The journalists helpfully provide explanations for why the once socially acceptable words and phrases have become censurable, including excerpts from the paper’s stylebook for reference when applicable. A few highlights below.
The once perfectly acceptable term ethnic is now suspect. “Ethnic,” explains national correspondent John Eligon, normalizes whiteness and fails to acknowledge race directly:
On the one hand, this is about the normalization of whiteness — if you’re not white, then you’re something else. On the other hand, it speaks to how uncomfortable some people are to even discuss race. Someone more at ease with talking about race would have known that she wasn’t “ethnic,” she was just black.
The Times stylebook tells journalists they can “[u]se the word freely as an adjective (ethnic group), but not as a noun except in direct quotations. The political coinage (white ethnics) is condescending.”
Another once widely accepted and even encouraged phrase, person of color, is going the way of “colored people,” to which, according to national editor Marc Lacey, it is simply “too close.” The stylebook says of the phrase, “Except in direct quotations, the expression is too self-conscious for the news columns. Substitute a term like minorities or, better, refer to specific ethnic groups — black and Hispanic authors, for example.”
Phoenix Bureau Chief Fernando Santos was tasked by the Times with addressing the highly controversial term “illegal immigrant”:
“Illegal immigrant” implies that the immigrant is illegal in the same way that drugs are illegal, and it creates a misleading framework to talk about immigration. Yes, there are millions of immigrants who entered the country illegally — though there are millions more who entered the country legally, but overstayed their visas.
Illegal immigrant — and its infamous companion, illegal alien — are negative in nature and intent. Using them stigmatizes the subject and prevents us, all of us, from seeing the man or woman behind the label. It is pejorative and purposely demeaning because it criminalizes the person, not the act. To normalize its use is to give people license to offend.
Here’s the stylebook’s instruction on the use of the phrase (note: “alien” is far too “sinister-sounding,” so do NOT use it):
Illegal immigrant may be used to describe someone who enters, lives in or works in the United States without proper legal authorization. But be aware that in the debate over immigration, some people view it as loaded or offensive. Without taking sides or resorting to euphemism, consider alternatives when appropriate to explain the specific circumstances of the person in question, or to focus on actions: who crossed the border illegally; who overstayed a visa; who is not authorized to work in this country… Illegal immigration, because it describes the issue rather than an individual, is less likely than illegal immigrant to be seen as troubling…Do not use illegal as a noun, and avoid the sinister-sounding alien.
According to art director Bernadette Dashiell, urban “just feels like code for black.” Though the Times stylebook doesn’t appear to officially address it, it’s probably best to get to work cutting “urban” out, too.
Regarding the now frowned upon term half, graphics editor Audrey Carlsen says the “math is convenient but inaccurate, suggesting a person’s identity can be sliced into clean, separate boxes. In reality, it’s all part of one unified, messy experience, defined more by the sum of its parts than by its divisions.” That too is not apparently officially rejected (yet) by the Times.
As for non, video editor Nicole Fineman says terms like “non-white” and “non-Jew” and “non-black” feels “like a wall.” That, like “fit in,” “exotic” and “diversity hire” is still apparently allowed by the Times, but we’ll keep you updated if’/when they are officially eliminated.
The Times is not the only news organization attempting to tighten up its stylebook. The Associated Press has just issued its own new language guidelines regarding the hot button issue of gender, encouraging the use of “they/them/their” for transgender people who prefer the plural pronoun and officially divorcing gender from a person’s biological sex.
H/T Daily Caller, HotAir