University of Michigan Spends $16K on Campaign to Warn Students to Watch What They Say

What is wrong with “illegal Alien”?

I myself am a legal alien, but I think it’s ridiculous for people to think the term"illegal" is offensive. It’s simply stating the fact that you have not come here with lawful means. If the illegal aliens are offended by the word 'illegal", they shouldn’t be here because they ARE here illegally.

Of course, labeling all immigrants “illegal” is not right and offensive for those who have worked very, very hard to get into USA legally, but those who haven’t…well, they got nothing to say. In fact, the reason that legal immigration is getting harder and harder is because of reckless admittance of illegal immigrants into the USA, and people like me are the one who faces increasingly difficult immigration bar

@meriks its something that the press groups have recently ruled on. They state that the correct term is a person that immigrated illegally because being an alien isn’t illegal but coming to America using dishonest methods is illegal.

Genuinely shocked by all of the comments here… Terms like the ones listed exist in every college, from small state schools to Catholic colleges to the Ivy League. Why should UMich be penalized for a relatively small investment that creates a safer, more tolerant campus?

P.S: If you have to ask, “Why can’t I say ‘____’?” you might want to consider the medium through which you’re asking this and possibly try and put yourself in the shoes of someone who could be called that phrase.

I am with you romanigypseyes. I see nothing wrong with this initiative. Language can be a very sensitive issue, and being aware of those sensitivities has no downside.

“Your username has “gypsy” in it. Are you really expecting us to believe you’re offended by the term “gypped?” Come on.”

Here is what romanigypsyeyes thinks of all of the students at Michigan:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1741734-new-top-public-university-list-just-came-out.html

Notice comment #2

“I teach at #1.
If these are truly our best and brightest, I weep for our future.”

I find that line of reasoning offensive.

I think it makes sense to make others aware of how the words they use may affect others. The school / college environment is the perfect place to discuss these issues. People tend to adopt certain phrases without much thought about other meanings, beyond what they are intending to say. Pointing out that some words may not just have the meaning you intend can be helpful for the person who may have inadvertently been saying something they didn’t mean.
Nothing wrong with being given that information. Then it’s up to each individual to decide whether or not to use these types of words.

All of us are guilty of using language that can be deemed inappropriate by others. It really doesn’t matter how any of us feel about using questionable words or phrases. IMO the bottom line is this; if someone finds something you say offensive, unless of course you are purposely trying to do so, say you’re sorry and move along. Most people are reasonable and will accept the apology.

For the people questioning roamni: you guys do realize there is a difference between self-identifying as a gypsy and people using gypped as a specifically negative word, right? Your line of reasoning would require that a gay person who identifies as gay is not allowed to be offended by people using gay as synonymous for stupid.

Also, it’s not like the university is going to punish people for using these words/phrases. It’s just a campaign to encourage people to be more mindful of the impact of language. No one’s speech is being eroded. The majority of people probably won’t be offended by many of these phrases because they specifically target minority populations: rape victims, people with severe mental illness, ethnic minorities etc. The whole point of the campaign is to educate people so that eventually there will be social pressure to stop using these words/phrases unnecessarily out of courtesy to others. If you think having to be mindful of these terms is so oppressive, just imagine what it’s like to have a violation of your body and autonomy used as a descriptor for a bad exam or to have your name be the ubiquitous term for a negative behavior. Is it really that hard to say “that test was awful” or “that dude totally cheated me”?

There is no universally agreed upon standard about what might be offensive and there is no right anywhere including on a college campus not to be offended. Also, there is no press ruling not to use the tern illegal alien since there is no body that issues such rulings to the press. There was a general agreement within some organizations to switch to saying undocumented as opposed to illegal, which is really semantics and rather meaningless although perhaps less offensive to someone as if they really care that much and are reading the NYT’s anyway. Banning the word crazy is just crazy.

“Gay” doesn’t mean stupid. “Gypped” does mean to rip off or cheat. Someone using the word “gypped” to mean to rip off or cheat isn’t using the word in an inappropriate way. The only reason to be offended by the word “gypped” is because you’re offended by the originating word “gypsy” which is a slur.

Gay most certainly did used to mean stupid - growing up “that’s so gay” was ubiquitous. Why do you think they made that PSA with Hillary Duff? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVicCD8FmMs) The word “gyp” as in to swindle or cheat was derived from gypsy http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/30/242429836/why-being-gypped-hurts-the-roma-more-than-it-hurts-you so you absolutely can be offended by the use of “gyp” to mean “to cheat” while self identifying as a gypsy.

The university is not trying to ban words (they would have a hard time, given that they are a public university and could run into 1st amendment issues, since they are a state run institution, not private), they are trying an information campaign to let kids know some expressions may be hurtful to others or otherwise can be problematic (for example, saying “I felt raped after taking that test” can be construed as trivializing rape).

@vladenschlutte. what you are missing out with saying ‘gay doesn’t mean stupid’ or 'gypped doesn’t mean to rip off or cheat is ignoring the context of how they are used. The use of the word ‘gay’ that they object to is in common usage, sadly, when people say something is ‘gay’, they mean it is stupid or idiotic, and its roots are in that somehow being gay as a person is stupid. The term “Gypped” has roots from the word gypsy, and comes from the stereotype that Gypsies are a bunch of thieves and con artists. The term “welshed” as in “welshed on a bet” comes from the idea that similarly people from Wales are untrustworthy, and the word “Jewed” used to be commonly used, even when I was growing up, to mean someone had cheated you out of something or nickle and dimed you to death (which came out of the horrible stereotypes that Jews as a group were cheap and so forth)…and they are offensive, because in that use they refer to negative connnotations of a group of people, whether gay, jews, Roma or welsh.

The problem with these guidelines is like many efforts at correcting speech, they seem to throw context or intent out the window. If someone talks about a friend who spent the night partying and having a good time, and says they ‘went crazy’ it is not meant as a deragatory thing, and crazy has uses that have nothing to do with people with mental illness, the term ‘crazy time’ usually is a positive (it is like the term “bad” meaning good…). If I mention a friend, and say he is gay, it isn’t negative if I am simply acknowledging who he is, yet someone could hear me say that and go off the deep end. Context is important, and that is what often happens with things like this, they throw out an entire word or phrase forgetting there is context, that for example, the word ‘gay’ can be simply an attribute of who someone is, or a perjorative; whereas the term ‘gypped’ has no positive aspects to it, nor does welshed or when you say “someone jewed me when I bought that car”, it is a negative, period. Part of the problem is there are people wishing to find issues where there is none, I had some granola head chide me once when I mentioned the roads were covered in black ice, which is a standard term meaning you can’t see it because the road surface is black, but they claimed it was racist. In engineering and tech fields, the term ‘master/slave’ is common, it indicates one system or process is controlled by another, but I have had people claim it was racist, when it simply described how the system operates (you hit the clutch pedal on a car with a hydraulic clutch, the master cylinder pressurizes the hydraulic fluid, which causes the slave cylinder to actuate from the pressure).

I don’t think this is being pc, I think they are trying to get around to kids that language has power to it, and that they may not even be aware of what they are saying is hurtful. Kids who use the term “gypped” may not even be aware of what it is from; young people, who quite frankly are a heck of a lot more positive about gay folks, use the term ‘gay’ to mean ‘stupid’ without even thinking about it, the same person who uses that to mean stupid also will often be the same person who is angry at those opposing same sex marriage or demonizing gays as being bullies and worse…the purpose of a campaign like this is to make people aware of what they say, and as long as it doesn’t turn into taking words, like gay, that have positive aspects,and saying never use them at all, but makes them aware of the context they are using it, then that is fine, words like ‘gypped’, "jewed’, "welshed’ and the like are ugly and have no positive contexts.

What the article doesn’t address is whether the university intends to punish people that use these words/phrases in any way. I assume not, since that would be a violation of the First Amendment and (especially) as a government institution I assume that would be illegal. (I can still use the word illegal, right?) I don’t think it is unreasonable to have expected the author to anticipate this question and to have addressed it explicitly, just for an abundance of clarity.

It actually makes me wonder if a government institution should be able to even suggest speech control in this manner. After all, it is the same amendment that says the government won’t make any comments about religion, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court many times. So while U Michigan would never dare to have a campaign that suggests I avoid certain religions, even in the absence of actually restricting my choice, how can it have a campaign to suggest I avoid certain speech, even though I am presumably still free to use that speech? The same amendment says the government cannot control my reading material, or presumably even suggest what I read or not read. Why should that same government be allowed to “inform me” as to what is appropriate speech?

I do seriously question a couple of the terms chosen. When did ghetto become such a sensitive term? It is essentially synonymous with slums. What is wrong with having a single word that encompasses the phrase “economically depressed section of an urban area”? It is really any different for me to say to somebody “I understand you are from an economically depressed section of housing and business in Cleveland” as opposed to “I understand you are from a ghetto in Cleveland”? From what I can gather, the origin of the word is the Italian for a small section of town where Jews were forced to live, so presumably only Jews would be offended by the word based on its origin. So that can’t be it. Not to mention that as recently as 1969 it was in the title of a hit song by Elvis. I was old enough then that I would remember if there was an outcry about the word. So it must be more recent than that. Just a little perplexed on that one.

Sorry, but that and “illegal alien” and a couple others strike me as going overboard. I understand that technically a foreigner in this country illegally is not illegal himself, whatever that even means. @Newsie2015 said that the reasoning given is that

Not picking on you Newsie, I know you are just relaying what the style guides are saying. But that is nonsense. Being Chinese isn’t illegal. Being blue eyed isn’t illegal. I mean, no inherent state of being is illegal. But being an alien is illegal IF you are here without authority. Everyone knows the phrase “illegal alien” means you are an alien to this country and here without proper authority. The idea that it somehow means you have some inherent quality of illegalness just because you are an alien is absurd, no one thinks that. Why do I have to use a clumsier set of words just to avoid a phrase that can’t really be offensive except that someone chooses to make it offensive, as opposed to having inherent offensive qualities like gypped or Jewed or the “n” word? I completely understand the offensive nature of those and many other words, and would never, ever use them. But ghetto and illegal alien and “that’s crazy” and one or two others? I know illegal alien was being targeted for some time now, I still just find it to be so much nonsense.

Honestly, why do these schools give such easy fodder for the people that already think that they are bastions of ultra-liberal nonsense?

Well said, @fallenchemist‌ !!!
Seriously, trying to choose less offensive words because “thats not nice”(not really) is soo irrirating.

I don’t think there can be any real debate that some (but not all…“crazy?”…seriously?) of the listed words/phrases can be offensive - and in some cases, very very offensive. ^^^ “gypped” is truly offensive no matter how you try to use it, and “gay” is offensive when used in a certain way.

If it is UMichigan’s intention to merely call everyone’s attention to the fact that we should all be more mindful of the way we speak, then kudos to the campus for sparking the discussion.

However, I continue to maintain that speech should not artificially be fettered by these types of rules/suggestions. There are natural consequences to speaking like an idiot, and learning these lessons the natural way is more effective than memorizing a few frowned-upon phrases.

Oops, I said “idiot.” Should we add that to the list too?

Again, I admire Michigan’s attempt to call attention to harmful speech, and I assume there are no real consequences for transgressions. However, I fear that this type of thing can actually backfire and be ridiculed instead of being effective. It is just too silly in some respects. Just look at the initial comments on this very board - by adults, I presume - making fun of the overreaching aspects of the campaign.

From the article (emphasis added)

This is a campaign to try and get students to use the words less. Nothing happens if students continue to use them. With regard to whether the government can regulate speech @fallenchemist, I have to ask what you think of sexual harassment laws and the use of obscenities in the workplace?

I’m pretty sure the targeting of the word ghetto isn’t in regards to “economically depressed section of housing and business” (more like “your phone is so ghetto” if someone doesn’t have a smart phone) although maybe it is since the word ghetto doesn’t originally just mean that. Ghetto originally meant an area where a minority population was forced into living and due to their minority status (i.e. jewish ghettos in 1930s Europe), the city purposefully kept that area “economically depressed in housing and business” it was not an area that was simply that way by chance.

@prospect1 - you’re right that the university shouldn’t regulate speech through actual punishment, but the whole point of this campaign is to try and create the social pressure you’re talking about. You’re free to disagree that social pressure should exist for these words but this campaign is trying to create exactly what you’re talking about. Not even 15 years ago you’d get laughed at for trying to pressure someone away from saying “that’s so gay.” In fact they’d probably just tell you it was gay to even suggest stopping. The signs and emails are the first step in changing the tides. People can point out that not only they think it’s offensive, but the university thinks it’s offensive and maybe that will hold some more weight in some people’s minds. Then slowly but surely the number of people who say something when someone says “man, that test just bent me over and raped me all night” grows and eventually what you’re saying should happen happens.

If it causes students to become more aware of what they say and how it might affect others, then I think it’s well worth it. We all have bad habits. The only way to break them sometimes is for others to point them out.

I feel like campaigns like this are pretty ineffectual. The world is not a perfectly prim and politically correct place, and I money like this would be better directed toward more effective initiatives (anti date-rape campaigns, organizations promoting diversity on campus).

The message comes from a good place though, and I certainly hope it has a greater impact than I’m guessing. University of Michigan is trying to be supportive of its students, and I admire that.

@iwannabe_Brown‌

You misunderstand what regulating speech means. If I use obscenities in the work place, I am perfectly free to do so. My employer is also perfectly free to fire me. No involvement of the government there. Same with sexual harassment. That is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Besides, I never said all speech is free, absolutely. We all know the not yelling fire in a crowded theater issue. These speech “suggestions” by Michigan do not fall into that category. I have every right to hurt your feelings, and you have every right to ignore me. If you happen to be my boss, you have every right to fire me. That’s part of being a free country as well. But to punish someone for using the word ghetto? That strikes me as absurd.

I can understand the motivations here, but this is political correctness gone mad. When one says that “that test raped them” they are simply saying “wow, that test was a horrible experience. It bent me over and had its way with me.” They are not saying “the experience of taking that test was comparable to the experience of having someone force their sexual will upon me, possibly in a violent manner.” I don’t think the usage of this expression in any sense plays down the significance of the rape problem. Words and phrases can have many meanings, and some people would do well to better understand that fact.

If someone is, by definition, an illegal alien, then it is appropriate to call them an illegal alien. They are breaking the law by being here. It’s literally an exact description of the situation. It is not a derogatory phrase by default, regardless of the negative connotations that may be attached to the phrase in the minds of some. To be fair though, I think “illegal immigrant” is a slightly more accurate description.