The Trump administration censored officials at the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) in December of 2017, preventing them from using the following seven words: “diversity,” “fetus,” “transgender,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “science-based,” and “evidence-based.” Policy analysts at the CDC responded in shock, since the new policy limited their word choice and effectiveness when discussing diseases. This goes directly against the purpose of the CDC. It also continued to keep the CDC from properly addressing health issues regarding transgender people, and it was a suggestive threat to the freedom of speech. This makes it detrimental to society as a whole.
By restricting the CDC’s word choice surrounding diseases, the government kept officials from effectively combating these diseases. CDC officials working on the impact of the Zika virus, for instance, were at a loss for appropriate words because the virus affects fetuses. Being unable to use the word “fetus” made their job harder and delayed possible ways of dealing with the virus, keeping people infected by the virus from getting help. Dana Singiser, vice president of public policy and government affairs for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, weighed in by saying that “You cannot fight against the Zika virus or improve women's and fetal health if you are unable to use the word ‘fetus.’ You must be able to talk about science and evidence if you are to research cures for infectious diseases such as Ebola.”
Health and Human Services director Brenda Fitzgerald also argued that public health agencies are based on science, stating that the “CDC remains committed to our public health mission as a science and evidence-based institution.” She used two of the censored words to show that the censor goes against what public health agencies are about. Other policy analysts stated that the Trump administration is not qualified to address scientific institutions such as the CDC, making the administration’s members uninformed on the initiatives of American public health systems.
The policy also isolated an entire group of people by excluding the word “transgender.” When asked why the word was forbidden, Alison Kelly, senior leader at the CDC’s Office of Financial Resources, said that she was only relaying the information. Without further explanation, she was told that the word is considered “controversial.” However, without the word, the CDC is not able to address the health care needs of transgender people. The National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention at the CDC is trying to prevent HIV among transgender people, and without the word “transgender,” it is unable to clearly express health concerns for this population. There were no replacement words offered, leaving the CDC with no way to address transgender issues.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, wrote the following in a statement: “To pretend and insist that transgender people do not exist and to allow this lie to infect public health research and prevention is irrational and very dangerous.” By forbidding the use of the word, the Trump administration attempted to erase health disparities faced by transgender people. These disparities were created because of barriers concerning a lack of cultural competence by providers and deficient knowledge on the topic.
Similarly, by censoring the words “vulnerable” and “diversity,” the administration ignored health inequities faced by people of color. These inequities include the poor manner in which minority patients are treated, which arises from discrimination. Ignorance allows for the continued isolation of these minority groups, excluding them from health systems.
The purpose of these bans is to curtail discussion of controversial issues. Avner Shalev, director of Yad Vashem, a Holocaust memorial and museum, commented, “You have to build it...by the spirit of public debate [and by] what you can say publicly and what you cannot.” Controversial issues fuel debate, and in an attempt to end them, governments limit the public’s opinions and perspectives, leaving a stagnant society where everyone’s views are the same. To combat censorship, the people must show the government the importance of banned words. Even if the words are considered controversial to some people, those people have the right to speak freely about it without restricting anyone else’s right to free speech. There are such instances in schools such as Stuyvesant regarding controversial topics about politics and religion. While it may not be possible to change or enforce one’s beliefs onto others, it is possible to explain the reasons behind beliefs, and this can only be done with the right to free speech. Bans on certain words limit free speech, keeping people from expressing their views. The CDC ban must be reversed before future bills implementing censorship are also administered. If enough people speak up against the ban, then the government will be forced to respond in a way favoring the public.
Thus, the word ban on the CDC is harmful to society because it limits word choice and perpetuates health inequity for minority groups. The Trump administration includes people who deny the fundamental principles of science, but these people are ironically being given the power to limit agencies with science as their foundation. The words being censored are imperative to the initiatives of public health agencies like the CDC. While the goal may be to eliminate controversy for a more peaceful society, the ban only silences the side deemed wrong by the government, giving it more power in what is supposed to be a democratic nation.
Written in October 2018
Also appears in the Stuyvesant Spectator