References: Oppressive Language List | Holding Ourselves Accountable | Prevention, Advocacy & Resource Center | Brandeis University: Rule of thumb – Wikipedia; The phrase ‘Rule of thumb’ – where does it come from? (phrases.org.uk); Rule Of Thumb | Definition of Rule Of Thumb by Merriam-Webster
Brandeis University apparently funds something called The Prevention, Advocacy & Resource Center, known as “PARC.” This student-run group is “a confidential, student-centered resource serving members of the Brandeis community who have been impacted by violence and those who want to contribute to the anti-violence movement.” Part of that “contribution” (if you can call it that) is the creation of an “Oppressive Language List.” We’re sure you can imagine how goofy that is, and you’re right! We note here that tuition at Brandeis right now is $59,408/year, and with room, board and fees the yearly minimum total is at least $76,456. That’s $305,824 for a four-year degree. One would think that at those prices, they’d at least have students that can do some fundamental research, but that apparently is not the case.
As just one foolish and poorly researched example, these PARC people allege that the phrase “rule of thumb” is “oppressive” because “This expression allegedly comes from an old British law allowing men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.”
First, to make such determinations about what language is and is not “oppressive,” based on some phrase “allegedly” coming from an old British law plainly indicates that someone didn’t bother do his or her homework and that a lot of laziness is behind this silly “oppressive” list. Get your facts right. Second, in fact that reason is completely false and no such British law ever existed. If PARC thinks it did, let’s see it. One would think a college student ought to learn pretty quickly, if they didn’t learn it by the time they were five years old, that a “belief” or something “alleged” isn’t a “fact” and thus should not be relied on until verified.
According to Wikipedia and multiple other legitimate reference sources, the phrase actually (and sensibly) refers to
“an approximate method for doing something, based on practical experience rather than theory. This usage of the phrase can be traced back to the seventeenth century and has been associated with various trades where quantities were measured by comparison to the width or length of a thumb. A modern folk etymology holds that the phrase is derived from the maximum width of a stick allowed for wife-beating under English common law, but no such law ever existed. This belief may have originated in a rumored statement by eighteenth-century judge Sir Francis Buller that a man may beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. The rumor produced numerous jokes and satirical cartoons at Buller’s expense, but there is no record that he made such a statement.”
Elsewhere, examples of “violent language” include “killing it” and “taking a shot at” because of their “needless[] . . . imagery of hurting someone or something.” Amusingly, the phrase “trigger warning” is similarly viewed as “oppressive” because it “has connections to guns for many people.” Well, many stupid people perhaps. We’d love to see their backup research for that one. Likely it was nothing more rigorous than one or two dippy undergrads saying “hey, anything with the word ‘trigger’ in it ought to be banned as oppressive.” Taking this dippy view to its logical conclusion, Roy Rogers’ horse, Trigger, and any reference to him, should be similarly banned and the horse’s stuffed remains destroyed. Trigger – Biography – IMDb. Again, someone should have done some basic research here. In our view, dumbing down language to the level of a stupid Brandeis undergrad is a disservice to the rest of us.
In the gender area, naturally “he” and “she” are verboten, along with “you guys,”, “Ladies and Gentlemen,” “freshman,” “policeman, Congressman, etc.” Interestingly, in the race area they assert that the phrase “African-American” should not be used because not all blacks are from Africa. Duh. Similarly, “people of color” is “oppressive” because you should use BIPOC (black, indigenous people of color), though the reasoning isn’t entirely clear. “Ableist” oppressive language also gets taken to the cleaners (geez, we hope that expression isn’t oppressive to dry cleaners!). This includes “crazy,” “insane,” “wild” and “lame” when describing something. “Ableist language can contribute to stigmas about and trivializes the experiences of people living mental health conditions.” Included in this category is the phrase “walk-in.” You have to say “drop-in.” So no more “walk-in” vaccine shots – you have to drop-in. Presumably “walk-out” is similarly forbidden though not listed, so you have to say “drop-out,” even though it makes no sense in most instances. Do you “drop out” the door?
Finally, we come to “saying what you mean.” In this category we have phrases such as “Everything going on right now” – the suggested alternatives are – get this – “Police brutality, protests, BLM, COVID-19, etc. ” “Victim” and “survivor” are similarly “oppressive” because “[t]hese labels can make a person feel reduced to an experience. Person-first language is great here [such as ‘Person who has experienced . . . ‘], unless the person identifies with either word. If they do, honor them by using that word!” And a “homeless person” is really a “person experiencing housing insecurity.”
The list goes on and is similarly foolish throughout, but it’s certainly worth a skim for its sheer inanity. This is what college students at a supposedly elite school, the so-called Jewish Harvard, spend their time and their parents’ tuition money on! Oops, probably can’t call Brandeis the Jewish Harvard anymore. Maybe PARC will see this post and add it to their list.