Op-Ed: Words: A Hate Crime?

On the morning of Tuesday, March 11th, articles were sent out from various news stations regarding the words which shouldn’t be used by the government, and commercial companies. This list contains the terms for many natural and inclusive topics, such as the climate crisis of our modern world, racism, equity, equality, women's and LGBTQIA+ rights, and more. These words have made our society more accessible and enhanced the quality of diverse environments in everyone's daily lives. 

The New York Times, a globally renowned newspaper, recognized this notion as President Trump’s way to eliminate “woke” initiatives in government documents. He urges his administration to use caution when they use these words, but hasn’t issued an outright ban. Not only does this list include words used to represent diverse communities, and identities such as trans(gender) and nonbinary, but also outright people who are black, Latinx, Native American, or female, who are already at risk for unjustified violence due to blatant expression of their identities. 

Already, many grant proposals and contracts were tagged for review by containing these terms, for the federacy was concerned that they would conflict with Trump’s agenda. It is said that the administration wanted to limit this language to promote their policies, which explains why abbreviations such as DEI, DEIA, DEIAB, DEIJ, and BIPOC are expressed as problematic (not to mention Gulf of Mexico).

Some may call it discriminatory, some may call it exclusionary or biased, and others may see it as advocacy for a stricter government, or barriers to outside influences. Yet, if this begins to take place, it could cause a lot of injustice, inequality, and inequity for key groups of people who are at major risk of being underrepresented and undervalued in our society. This purge of inclusivity for people coming from key underserved populations, backgrounds, and groups could potentially cause culturally insensitive and inappropriate remarks, removing the antiracist policies we’ve built as a country. 

The administration that ordered the removal of the words in the media seemed to have done so under the pretense of removing the people targeted by these words from the narrative, as they are said to be “not seen as fit” for governmental discourse or rational discussion. Yet, it seems it leans more towards removing any sense of belonging minorities have gained in the past few decades from the validation of character these words have brought. The words listed here represent a remarkable shift in the language being used in the federal government’s corridors of power. They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities. 

This can be seen as a direct attempt to destabilize the progress made in feminism, anti-racism, anti-segregation, immigration, and any of the allyship shown by political figures in today’s government. The censorship of these words in news and media may be detrimental to the mental health of anyone who identifies with something on this list. This can include people with disabilities, in marginalized communities, pregnant and breastfeeding women, victims of sexual assault, or anyone that has had a traumatic experience thanks to the unconscious bias in today’s society. They already face oppressive behavior and hate speech on the daily, and the lack of compassion shown by the administration promotes disparity and polarization between those who have historically been stereotyped as  “normal” or “not normal”. Re-normalizing this division between people of the nation disparages the work activists have done to promote diversity, inclusion and social justice, while enabling the systematic oppression of the under-appreciated and undervalued.

Many of these terms are directed at the transgender population. Because the topic of gender-affirming care was only recently brought to light, they remain a very vulnerable group to backlash and hate. For those who are biologically female, access to testosterone has been severely restricted since Trump’s inauguration. People who are biologically male have also lost access to cosmetic surgeries which have been known to be an expression of their gender identity, this goes for the biological females as well. With this  comes great expectations of increased gender ideology, which promotes the common saying “there are only two genders”. 

Speaking of gender, this list appears to have targeted women, as well as people who have female reproductive organs, but do not identify as a woman. Terms that are listed are “breastfeed + people”, “chest-feed + people”, and “chest-feed + person”. Not only this, but also “pregnant persons” and “pregnant people”. What this does is it prompts people to only think about, say, pregnant people as pregnant women, or people who breastfeed as breastfeeding women. It limits the all-inclusive labels we have created as a society to foster inclusivity towards those who may not feel comfortable labelling themselves as one gender or another. This will marginalize that group of people, and systematically remove the increased and diversified advocacy for gender based issues. 

The challenges that will arise for people who are included in this list will surely start to show. By removing the words which are used to include minorities and those who struggle because of their ethnicity and cultural heritage, the government can effectively decrease the amount of racial justice and cultural competence, and increase the amount of racially motivated violence. Eliminating “hispanic minority” and “indigenous community” from government mandated documents shows just how much of a bias the administration has towards white Europeans. The institutional equity that we see being provided to these groups, which serves as a way to provide equal opportunities to the less fortunate in our country (based on socioeconomic status), is going to slowly vanish from society as we know it. 

Everyone has heard the President say “drill, baby, drill”, which refers to the increased extraction of oil and gas. Trump wants to keep, and even promote the usage of fossil fuels in our nation, and he’s not willing to take no for an answer. This policy has also been pushed into the list of “banned words”, to prevent the rise of climate efficient energy sources. It has been rumored in the past that Trump also doesn’t believe that climate change is an impending issue that desperately needs to be aided. He has officially made it clear by putting terms such as “climate science” and “clean energy’ on this list of his. By doing this, he is fueling the amount of carbon emissions that are constantly endangering our natural environments. But, who does this also impact? 

The answer is black and hispanic populations. People of color are more likely to live in areas of extreme pollution due to the disadvantages they are given upon living in this country. Historically, redlining has been a severe problem in this country, catering to the white and wealthy, and ignoring the communities of color. This led to the concentration of marginalized people in environments which were typically less than ideal in terms of environmental quality. With the increased amount of these greenhouse gases, these people will suffer from more environmentally induced illnesses, and because of the increased health disparity and limits on health equity this administration is providing, people will be suffering even more and potentially dying because of the conditions being introduced. 

The words on this list have all and all been a huge part in the reconstruction of America when it comes to getting rid of biases and discrimination. By trying to eliminate the use of these words in media and news, all the efforts we have made as people of a free nation are pushed back, and further advocates for a prejudiced country. As we further into the second term of President Trump, it is vital we stay informed and knowledgeable about sensitive subjects such as the things on this list. We must continue to work towards a better future where words like this are not seen as something shameful or to be hidden from everyday news and media. So, the question remains, are words a hate crime, and does freedom of speech exist?