Trends in academia tend to trickle down into the public square as students graduate, take jobs, and bring these ideologies into the marketplace.
That’s how we got Critical Race Theory in the public schools. That’s why revisionist history is reshaping the American narrative.
And it’s why we are suddenly so confused about what we are allowed to say.
You can’t say that!
Colleges and universities are spearheading a ban on words and phrases that they determine might offend someone.
In early January, the University of Southern California’s school of social work announced plans to ban the word “field” or the phrase “field work” on official documents.
The reason? The word “field,” USC explained, “may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.”
Notice—”may have.”
This trend isn’t new. It began quietly and then became a juggernaut in higher education. In 2022 Stanford University’s IT department issued its list of “harmful language” that should be “eliminated.” The list included such radical words as “American” and “Hispanic.”
And a year ago the IT Department at the University of Washington released an “inclusive language guide” referring to “problematic” words used by Americans and requested that each department explain how they plan to address or eliminate these troublesome words.
The guide said that words are “problematic” because they can be “racist,” “sexist,” “ageist,” or “homophobic.” What are these “problematic words”? Terms like “grandfather,” “housekeeping,” “minority,” “ninja,” and “lame.”
What’s going on?
These initiatives to eliminate “problematic” words follow the cultural, postmodern trend away from objective truth in favor of a radical, subjective individualism.
So now, potentially offending someone matters more than the common good, or the ability of the public to coherently communicate in civil discourse. When we expunge each word that “might” offend someone, we lose the ability to share opinions, debate, seek the truth, or to discuss our ideas, woes, or problems coherently.
We’re bullied into silence, and a victim mentality rules the conversation and the culture. The speaker is guilty of every offense, potential or perceived. And any word at any time can suddenly be regarded as “hate speech” or a “violent” act.
The way words really work
But the absurdity of this preemptive strike against offensive words is obvious from the outset. A word’s use, and sometimes its meaning, is often tied to the user’s context and intention, or to the listener’s personal perspective.
For instance, there’s simply no excuse for the “N” word being used in civilized discourse or even in a backyard joke. But comedians occasionally use the word for its shock value, to draw laughter out of people by the paradox of the way they use the word. And the same word is prevalent in films depicting slavery in the 19th century.
Context matters.
A farmer might use the word “field” quite differently from a group of students bantering about their “field” of study. And what about the word “trigger”? Seems to me the wokest among us would ban a word so clearly associated with the mechanisms of firearms. Nope. They readily use it when they are talking about “trigger words.”
And they are banning “ninja”? Really? Wait till these well-educated grads try to tell their four-year-old boys they can’t say “ninja” at Halloween. They’ll want a refund on their tuition.
Context and intent matter
So, context and intent matter. Is it a comedian making us laugh about human nature? A quotation from a bygone era when the word was not considered anathema? Or a private conversation where the listener has to stand up for himself?
And is the person intending to insult me, or was it a slip of the tongue that requires respectful instruction and gracious forgiveness (Col. 3:13)? “Hate speech” should not be judged based on the word itself, but on the intentions of the person who uses it.
Hate is a matter of the heart, not the words.
Which leads me to what the Bible says about the way we use our words.
The main biblical principle
The Bible teaches one fundamental truth about words. Simply put, the problem is not the words. It’s the person using the words.
Banning words at a cultural or corporate level ignores one of the Bible’s most fundamental truths: Each person is responsible for his own actions, including the words he uses.
Words reflect our nature, our spiritual condition. The words we choose, when and how we use them, show who we are. As Jesus said, “What comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and this defiles a person” (Matt. 15:18).
What about Christians? And the Bible?
Christians are taught that our choice of words should reflect our new nature in Christ.
The Bible admonishes Christians to replace profanity with words that give grace to the hearer. That shows we are becoming more like Christ (Eph. 5:29, Col. 3:8). And Christ warns Christians to avoid elaborations that lead to lies (Matt. 5:37). Cavalier promises can become dangerous compromises.
Christians are expected to be careful, thoughtful, and honest in our use of words, and not to intentionally harm another with our words (Prov. 15:4).
Some would say that means we should avoid biblical teachings that might offend someone. Not possible. See, if I quote the Bible when it condemns lying, homosexuality, or adultery, that is not hate speech. It is the truth. But if I do it out of hatred or anger, or to intentionally offend liars, homosexuals, or adulterers, then I have a problem.
I am not only responsible for what I say, but how I say it, including the words I choose to use when I convey the truth (James 3:1-12). But the truth is still the truth, whether it offends someone or not.
The Bible is offensive before it is gracious (2 Tim. 4:1-5). Being told we are sinners is hardly comfortable, but that’s how we confront the truth and change.
Missing the point
So, when it comes down to it, these universities miss the point by trying to expunge every word that might be offensive. Ironically, they hamper students from participating in a free and respectful society.
Instead of banning potentially offensive words, let’s foster citizens who respect one another enough not to intentionally offend or degrade other people (Matt. 7:12, Phil. 2:3). And those same citizens will be forgiving if someone unintentionally offends them.
Because not only does the speaker bear responsibility for what he says, the listener is responsible for how he responds.
So, yes, many words are offensive. But many are not. And some people intend to offend, but most do not. Knowing the difference shows maturity and mutual respect.
And we are responsible for what we say. And if we are out of line, and know it, we should offer an apology and all parties move on from there and learn from the experience.
Rather than focus on banning words, universities should focus on building citizens. Rather than try to protect sensitive students from every word that might offend them, universities could teach students how to respond to an offense in a respectful and mature way. And maybe they could educate students to be respectful citizens who can, on their own, decide that their words matter, and who choose to speak respectfully and kindly, without avoiding the truth.
We’d be much better for it.
I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every careless word they speak. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.
Matt. 12:36-37