At UNC and elsewhere, the (non-)academic medium is the message.
The essay begins by highlighting the prevalence of “forbidden-word” lists on university campuses, typically housed within administrative bodies like student affairs rather than academic departments. It notes the incongruity of UNC-Chapel Hill’s use of the term “Tar Heel” on its inclusive language site, despite its historical connotations of racial and class-based disparagement.
Administrative Origins of Forbidden-Word Lists
These lists, the essay argues, are often crafted by administrative offices disconnected from core academic missions. For instance, Stanford’s list, compiled by its IT department, addressed a wide array of offensive terms categorized under various ideological lenses such as ableism and cultural appropriation. This administrative involvement raises questions about the expertise and authority of non-academic personnel in defining and enforcing language norms related to complex social issues.
Implications of Administrative Influence
The expansion critiques the growing influence of university administrators, who, as studies suggest, tend to lean more leftward politically than faculty members. It posits that administrators, driven more by careerism and the need to manage university operations amid financial pressures and competitive enrollment environments, may wield these lists as tools to enforce compliance rather than promote genuine academic inquiry or free speech.
Educational and Administrative Disconnect
The essay underscores a disconnect between the academic mission—focused on critical inquiry, multiple viewpoints, and evidence-based teaching—and administrative agendas that prioritize social justice initiatives and inclusive language policies without rigorous academic oversight. It warns against the risk of these lists becoming a form of unvetted “shadow curriculum” imposed by administrators lacking academic training.
Challenges to Academic Freedom
There’s a critique of how these lists, while ostensibly advisory, can potentially constrain academic freedom and expression in classrooms. It argues for the necessity of discussing contentious issues like race and gender within educational contexts that foster critical thinking rather than ideological conformity or administrative fiat.
Broader Cultural and Ideological Context
The essay situates these trends within broader societal shifts towards progressive ideologies and managerialism within educational institutions. It questions whether these administrative directives align with the principles of academic freedom and free speech, or if they represent a form of institutional control that stifles dissenting viewpoints and intellectual diversity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the essay raises fundamental questions about the role and influence of university administrators in shaping educational content and policies related to language and social justice. It calls for a reevaluation of how these lists are created and implemented, advocating for a balanced approach that respects academic freedom while addressing legitimate concerns of inclusivity and equity within higher education.
