The Trump administration has ordered the Centers for Disease Control to remove certain words from its budget documents.
This is typical rightwing magical thinking. If you don’t name something, it doesn’t exist. They assume. I wrote called “The Language Police” about the efforts by pressure groups to control the language in texts and on tests, which reached elaborate and ridiculous heights.
“The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.
“Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.”
Ten years ago, I wrote a book about censorship of textbooks and tests by the education publishing industry. It is called “The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.” There are hundreds and hundreds of words and images that are banned from educational materials, to placate some pressure group from the right or the left or from some interest group. Every publisher has a guidebook of banned words, phrases, and images. The guides have been circulated from publisher to publisher, and they look very much alike. Children will never see a story in a school book that shows mother in the kitchen cooking, although she may see mother driving a truck. They will never see old people walking with a cane or rocking on the porch, although they may see them up on the roof hammering in a loose shingle. The list of words and images that are banned are hilarious and also frightening. Look around and you will see how ineffective this censorship has been in changing attitudes and even language.
I can safely predict that Trump’s ban on the chosen words, plus “climate change,” will change nothing. People will still use the words, and the underlying phenomena will still exist.
So if those words don’t appear in budget documents, our legislators won’t get triggered to veto the budget? Help me. I just cannot put my head around this. Pure idiocy. Pure greed.
An alternate theory: Even though this is horrid on its face, there may be a strange counterintuitive rationale. The language is prohibited in budget documents. Perhaps someone recognized that those words would trigger resistance among idiotic members of Congress and inhibit the allocation of funding.
Or perhaps I drank too much last night.
“Perhaps someone recognized that those words would trigger resistance among idiotic members of Congress and inhibit the allocation of funding.”
Trump wants to cut funding for all sorts of programs that benefit people so that he can win a big tax break. Doubt that changing the language will help in any way to keep funding. I figure it is just one more attempt to keep truth from being spoken. It is a dangerous direction to go.
I believe the NYTimes story on this had a quote from someone within CDC that said this was the very rationale.
Of course, it will also be necessary to ban the word “ban” so no one can mention the fact that words have been banned.
Me, I blame Bannon.
LOL. Beautifully said, Jon!
Are they “walking it back?”
“The assertion that HHS has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” the HHS statement said. “HHS will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hhs-disputes-report-banned-cdc-words-diversity-fetus/story?id=51832679
In the last paragraph of the last book he wrote—when he knew he was unlikely to see its publication—Carl Sagan, arguably the most important science educator who ever lived, wrote his valedictory statement about why scientific knowledge mattered to all of us: “In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit.”
Respectfully, the headline of this post misses the words and concepts that are most sinister in the administration’s directive: “In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of ‘science-based’ or ’evidence-based,’ the suggested phrase is ‘CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,’ the person said.” Never has Sagan’s quote been more relevant and meaningful.
I am also reminded of a quote by the leading public intellectual of our age, Diane Ravitch, who wrote, “The basic responsibility of public education is to develop a sense of citizenship, an understanding of democracy, and a readiness to help improve one’s community and society.” Her statement is an essential corollary to Sagan’s words. When the scientific method, when evidence become politicized to have to conform to “community standards and wishes,” we, as a society are truly on the precipice of losing our “decency, humility and community spirit” and are fundamentally undermining the capacity or our progeny to have “a readiness to help improve one’s community and society.”
I once shared an anecdote here that a great scientist I know once rejected the idea that a biology graduate from Liberty (Jerry Falwell) or Regent (Pat Robertson) could ever be considered for a fellowship at a major medical research institution because they “fundamentally did not understand the scientific method.” Now those unqualified people who are trying to tell us that the scientific method is negotiable and malleable to “community standards and wishes.” Science is not about wishing, it is about discovering and understanding. It is, as Sagan wrote, as essential as the Bill of Rights. In just one year, this administration has weakened our nation’s ability to sustain itself, made it a pathetic worldwide laughing stock, and perhaps irreparably crippled our collective “decency, humility and community spirit.”
Well said, Greg
Yeah, that line caught my attention, too. Public, mom-scientific authorities dictating which empirical, evidence-based scientific facts are acceptable to acknowledge is a return to 16th century practice, where the Church made those decisions. The only difference today is it’s a different Church – the Church of Trump.
Lenny, the Church of Trump is a rotted disease spread by greed, hatred and bigotry. Great church with many loyal followers. How disgusting to have it among us.
Ah! I see you’ve read the Book!
Oops: “non-scientific. Some moms are actually very good a science!
🙂
Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.”
CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes
it is not hard to figure out which “community standards and wishes” will be considered by the people who control the budget for the CDC. The TRUMP agenda and those supporting it with greatest energy are not interested in science, evidence, or the common good.
Great minds…
I’m not a lawyer but could there be a first amendment issue here?
Orwellian.
This is not a little story to blow off. Look at all the “didn’t seem so important at the time” incidents in history actually were indicators of what was ahead.
They control the courts.
They control the congressional district boundary lines.
They own the media.
They control the uninformed, under-educated, and angry white people.
They convice the uninformed and under-educated that the mainsteam media are lying to them. (The angry white people don’t care about any of this except there’s a guy in the WH who shouts “I’m mad as hell” out of windows and they fall for it
They dergulate anything even remotely connected to the environment, equity, and President Obams
They control people with a boat-load of money.
They are about reverse-Robin Hood to take from the poor to provide more to those with a boat-load of money.
So what?
Something that may seem as inocuous or silly as telling a scientific, medical agency not to use a couple of words is not incocuous. It’s big, it’s significant, it’s scary – and it’s supported by silent legislators.
Ironically, this IS evolution and they have their sights set on who and what they want to become extinct.
Yes – write your congress-person even on this one about banning a couple of words in a budget – and in 2018 ask why they were complicit and silent
BAN words? OMG. Dump is NUTS. Dump would love to ban the words: Sexual Misconduct and RAPE.
A LOT of people would like to have that happen these days, it seems.
Here’s an interesting take on the banned words…
“This edict came from somewhere, from someone who thinks they have the power to police the language. This is really mysterious. The HHS, which is in charge of the CDC, is currently leaderless, although Alex Azar has been nominated to run the show. Azar is an Indiana Republican who ran HHS under the Bush administration, and since has worked as a lobbyist and division head for Eli Lilly, a big pharmaceutical company. His appointment hasn’t been approved, so would he have any say at all? Why would a “pharma shill” object to science and evidence? The Indiana connection is ominous (is Pence tinkering behind the scenes?) but it sounds like maybe, once again, it’s underlings running amuck while the system is rudderless.”
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/12/17/i-still-have-a-few-questions/
The stupidity of doing something so blatantly ideological like this in such an obvious way does raise questions. Although it does fit nicely with the ham handedness of Dumpster and his administration, one has to wonder in the face of the many chain of command issues if this is sophomoric zeal or malicious intent
I highly recommend Diane’s The Language Police. A great read.
A few examples from my career in educational publishing:
Years ago, my company had a health textbook refused for adoption in Texas because it contained the line “Humans and other mammals lactate.” They were disturbed by the reference to lactation, but what really got them was the suggestion that humans were mammals. LOL
I was working once on a big multi-level grammar and composition textbook program. We were just about ready to go to press when we got a note from the publisher saying that we had to remove all uses in the program of the verb imagine and its derivatives (e.g., imagination). Why? Well, some fundamentalists in Texas were convinced that the root of the word imagine was magi, meaning “wizard” or “sorcerer,” and that use of imagine and its various forms was part of a plot to lure young people into Satanic cults. Evidently, the people of Texas thought it important to remove all imagination from textbooks in order to protect their children from Satanic influences. One can’t make up stuff this idiotic.
A school Superintendent in Missouri once returned to my company a very large order of new literature textbooks because the 11th-grade text contained the line “Those damned gas station guys are so cocky” in James Thurber’s “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.”
The literature texts were typically extensively bowdlerized. Fully a third of “Romeo and Juliet” was excised, in almost all the literature programs because of lines like “The bawdy hand of the dial is on the prick of noon,” typically with no acknowledgement anywhere in the program of this censorship. Of course, the same kids who couldn’t be exposed to the bawdy bard were going home and listening to Easy-E, Little Wayne, and others singing about stuff I can’t mention on Diane’s blog.
Throughout my career, most projects had a style sheet that contained lists of banned words, phrases, and topics mostly gleaned from state guidelines and textbook adoption proceedings. The lists contained a lot of the items that you would expect, ones related to hot-button topics (drugs, tobacco, sex, abortion, cursing, evolution, guns and other weapons) but also some that you might find surprising (DNA, genes, dinosaurs, fossils, prehistoric humans, Christmas and other religious holidays, junk food, hamburgers, pizza, ice cream, cake, extreme sports, political parties, nuclear weapons). The lists were quite long, and editors and writers on the texts often resorted to writing about incredibly innocuous topics (I loathe to recall how many sample paragraphs and essays I read during my career about Hector and Yolanda’s school canned food drive). There were always guidelines for non-sexist, non-racist, and non-ageist representations, and pretty much everything that went into the texts had to picture people in ways that challenged stereotypes.
I could go on and on with examples of this crap. Glad I no longer have to deal with it, having retired from that business.
I first met Bob Shepherd online. He was a huge resource when I wrote THE LANGUAGE POLICE. I have still never met him in person, but I admire him greatly.
You are very kind. My admiration for you and your work, Diane, knows no bounds. Thank you for all that you do, every day, for the children of our country. Diane Ravitch: indefatigable.
I see I didn’t proof my comment. I went back and corrected it.
I could not have written THE LANGUAGE POLICE without your help. We must meet one day!
Ever grateful for the kindness of this one stranger, who continues to inspire me and many others.
Yes. Yes. What a delight that will be! One day.
Bob, you remind me of what a good education I had growing up. I read the unedited versions of Walter Mitty, Romeo & Juliet, Huck Finn, and Native Son. So sad that sterility is equated with education today, especially since nothing about reality is sterile or pure.
Putting all of the really bad problems with this science denying censorship aside for a moment, the large numbers of people who either support this viciously anti-American act or just don’t care represents a serious flaw in our national character. The idiocracy behind this, behind and within the Dumpster cabinet/administration are to.L ideologically blind and proud to realize that they are killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. Maybe they do know and think they are just going to kill the people’s geese.
I work at the Pentagon. We have a writing manual, as well. Fortunately, no specific words are banned outright. Any government agency, has the right to set up a manual, and specify the content.
“Any government agency, has the right to set up a manual, and specify the content.”
And thus with one stroke Charles resolves the age-old debate over whether government agencies have the right to write manuals. Thanks, Charles, that’s really helpful!
Governments have “inherent” powers. These powers are the government’s not through specific constitutional authority, but these powers exist, simply because governments historically have had these powers.
Your comment, was somewhat off-target. If you read my posting, I said: Q Any government agency, has the right to set up a manual, and specify the content. ENDQ
I was referring to the right to set up a “writing manual”, to ensure that the memoranda and regulations, and other written communications that are used internally by the agency, and that are released to the public, are uniform and consistent.
I do a great deal of writing for the US Dept of Defense. I am required to use standard abbreviations, and standard spellings. Some of these are a little nit-picky. When I am referring to a Major General, I must use MG and not MGen.
I was referring to a writing manual. I did not mean to confuse anyone.