> I did some research and found that it was related to "master recordings" in the audio production industry, which itself is a direct reference to a master/slave dichotomy and used as such in the recording industry.
A master recording is one that copies are made from. It is much more likely to be related to the same sense of master used in a master's degree, related to teaching and learning (from the original Latin meaning of magister, teacher). Please show me references suggesting that anyone calls copies of the master recording slaves, or thinks of them as subservient to the master recording - or any similar uses for a master branch in git.
So, instead of avoiding a very common word in several industries, you could actually teach students the proper etimology. Either way, many of the students who would complain about the master branch will probably think about getting a Master's degree, or mastering their discipline, so they will inevitably have to come to terms with the fact the word master has very very common meanings that don't have anything to do with slave owning.
> At the end of the day author of the list is a department of Stanford University, so Stanford is policing itself, as all organizations do (don't tell me your organization doesn't have a brand style guide).
> Tell me where I'm getting this wrong. How is what you're saying not policing someone else's words, whereas what they're saying is?
This is what you are getting wrong. You are viewing this list as if it's a list that the Stanford University as a whole came up with, and organically adopted. Instead, this is a list created by some small committee who was given the power to impose this on the rest of the Stanford University organization.
If the HR department at my company adopts a similar list and forces everyone in the company to use it, that's not an example of "the organization self-policing", it is an example of "some idiots in one department trying to police the speech of the whole organization".
As I said, those that came up with this absurd list full of mistakes and false notions have every right to publish and maintain it (well, they should correct some of the more obvious falsehoods at least). I also have every right to let as many people as I can know that it is ridiculous and makes false assertions.
I am particularly doing so in the hope that as many organizations as possible will see how absurd it is and will not accept their own speech being policed by its silly standard - at least the organization I work for.
> Please show me references suggesting that anyone calls copies of the master recording slaves
The student in question was a fan of Pharrell Williams, and started to understand the master/slave terminology in the recording industry through him. He was very distressed to find the field he wanted to get into, CS, was doing the same thing. Here's a comment I made about some of the research I did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027
From that comment:
> "The word master has two meanings: 1. The original recording made in the studio is called a master, because it is the master (meaning controlling entity) from which all copies are made (the machines making the copies are called slaves—master/slave; get it?). ... 2. The word master also means a recording of one particular song. Thus, you might say an album has “ten masters” (meaning ten selections) on it. These individual recordings are also called cuts, because of the historical fact that each selection was “cut” into vinyl."
So it refers to control (master/slave) rather than expertise (master's degree).
> So, instead of avoiding a very common word in several industries, you could actually teach students the proper etimology.
But I teach CS and not linguistics, so etymology doesn't fit the curriculum. Curious what would you say given the research in my comment history.
> Instead, this is a list created by some small committee who was given the power to impose this on the rest of the Stanford University organization.
Look at the committee governing the IT department at Stanford: there's representation from across the University. Committees only have power through the rest of the organization. Are you saying this is a rogue committee? Are you saying they also have enforcement power over this list? Are you saying that no other committee's regulations override this list? Sorry, but I don't see any world where a small committee in the IT department holds sway over the entire org. What's more likely is that they've been given a specific remit by a larger committee with actual power, and this list is a work product of that committee. It only has as much power over you as you're willing to give it.
> As I said, those that came up with this absurd list full of mistakes and false notions have every right to publish and maintain it (well, they should correct some of the more obvious falsehoods at least). I also have every right to let as many people as I can know that it is ridiculous and makes false assertions.
Great, agreed. Stanford is exercising their free speech, you are exercising your free speech. As it should be.
Thank you for the references! This does change my opinion of whether it makes sense to rename the master branch (though, thankfully, in programming I really haven't heard anyone refer to slave branches).
> Sorry, but I don't see any world where a small committee in the IT department holds sway over the entire org.
In my experience from how corporations work, it is quite typical to have some small group in some centralized department (typically HR for internal language decisions, but it can be Marketing/PR or IT as well) make sweeping decisions for the entire organization, only sometimes needing additional buy-in from 1-2 C-level execs. I don't know how different the dynamics are in Stanford, but given my understanding that private universities are more and more being run like corporations, I assume it's not outside the realm of possibility.
At the very least, I quite doubt that all of the faculty were consulted and a democratic vote was held to agree on the need for a list such as this, let alone on its actual contents.
> Are you saying they also have enforcement power over this list?
Even if they cannot enforce this list, it will be cited as an authority by others. Given Stanford's stature, this list will be given weight by many in academia and industry.
> Stanford is exercising their free speech, you are exercising your free speech. As it should be.
Stanford is exercising its free speech to tell other people not to speak freely. Imagine what you would say if Harvard were telling students not to talk about abortions because it could trigger listeners who had siblings that were aborted. Or saying that the words "clingers" or "deplorables" or "basket" are inappropriate because of what a politician said one time. Would you be such a big advocate for their free speech?
> Even if they cannot enforce this list, it will be cited as an authority by others.
Okay, but I'm still missing the actual harm. You're talking about other people deciding what words they want to use for themselves, but who is asking you to not use particular words? Is it that you're worried one day your employer will ask you to change a word that you used on your company's website? What is the harm to you?
> Imagine what you would say if Harvard were telling students not to talk about abortions because...
As a practical matter these kinds of issues are decided by the community. Administrators will usually make a restriction, the student body will react and make noise, and then things will settle. Either the students get their way or they don't and transfer or suck it up and graduate. The school's reputation will take a hit depending on if the choice was popular or not.
As paying customers, students tend to get their way, but if they don't they can transfer. This is the best way to do things in a free market with free speech.
Yes, I am concerned that other universities, schools, and employers will become increasingly rigid about policing language. Would you not be concerned if words like "abortion" could not be spoken?
> As paying customers, students tend to get their way, but if they don't they can transfer.
And as you can see from the comments, many people will be looking elsewhere for their children. That doesn't mean it's good that Stanford is publishing a list like this. This reaction shows how severely Stanford's action transgresses deeply held values.
> other universities, schools, and employers will become increasingly rigid about policing language.
You're exaggerating the situation again. The Stanford list in question is itself not even rigid, nor about policing. I could make anything sound evil and nefarious by completely misrepresenting it as well. Others are calling this list evidence of authoritarianism. I feel like the response here is really off the charts, when the list itself hardly takes itself that seriously. Alternatives are "suggested". Words on the list are acknowledged to be "potentially" harmful, making room for nuance. They even admit that their title "eliminate" is overselling the effort here. Their main stated goal is to "educate", not to "police".
> Would you not be concerned if words like "abortion" could not be spoken?
Again, no one is banning anyone from speaking any words. If my school instituted a policy that they didn't want to mention abortion in any of their websites, I would be fine with that. I bet your company, wherever you work, would be against you posting about abortion on the company website too (unless it's directly related to abortion healthcare). But my school isn't banning me to say or write abortion (or any other words), and neither is Stanford.
> This reaction shows how severely Stanford's action transgresses deeply held values.
I'm very leery about deeply held beliefs relating to "freedom of speech" these days. It seems to me in many cases those particular values are deeply held just until the moment someone transgresses the belief holder. And I'm not even referencing current events here.
As far as Stanford goes, they'll be just fine. But I'd feel bad for any kid who couldn't attend because their parents got caught up in a culture war.
Have you never heard of bias response teams? People can literally be reported for using language that someone else heard and was offended by. This list would be used as proof that a particular word is harmful.
But it seems like you live in a very different world, where you don't have to worry about such things. I hope you enjoy it while it lasts! It sounds quite lovely.
> People can literally be reported for using language that someone else heard and was offended by.
You can literally report anyone for anything to HR since forever. Consider them the original bias response team. The important difference is that in academia, bias response teams don’t have the power to fire or discipline anyone.
> This list would be used as proof that a particular word is harmful.
This list is only evidence of potentially harmful language, as that’s all it purports to be. That a word is on this list is not proof that it is defacto harmful.
A master recording is one that copies are made from. It is much more likely to be related to the same sense of master used in a master's degree, related to teaching and learning (from the original Latin meaning of magister, teacher). Please show me references suggesting that anyone calls copies of the master recording slaves, or thinks of them as subservient to the master recording - or any similar uses for a master branch in git.
So, instead of avoiding a very common word in several industries, you could actually teach students the proper etimology. Either way, many of the students who would complain about the master branch will probably think about getting a Master's degree, or mastering their discipline, so they will inevitably have to come to terms with the fact the word master has very very common meanings that don't have anything to do with slave owning.
> At the end of the day author of the list is a department of Stanford University, so Stanford is policing itself, as all organizations do (don't tell me your organization doesn't have a brand style guide).
> Tell me where I'm getting this wrong. How is what you're saying not policing someone else's words, whereas what they're saying is?
This is what you are getting wrong. You are viewing this list as if it's a list that the Stanford University as a whole came up with, and organically adopted. Instead, this is a list created by some small committee who was given the power to impose this on the rest of the Stanford University organization.
If the HR department at my company adopts a similar list and forces everyone in the company to use it, that's not an example of "the organization self-policing", it is an example of "some idiots in one department trying to police the speech of the whole organization".
As I said, those that came up with this absurd list full of mistakes and false notions have every right to publish and maintain it (well, they should correct some of the more obvious falsehoods at least). I also have every right to let as many people as I can know that it is ridiculous and makes false assertions.
I am particularly doing so in the hope that as many organizations as possible will see how absurd it is and will not accept their own speech being policed by its silly standard - at least the organization I work for.