Amid all the tumult — Republican challengers goring each other
while smiling, furtive Iranians spinning centrifuges in hardened
bunkers deep underground, and President Obama admonishing the
Supreme Court — it is very easy to miss an event of monumental
importance intended to enhance our nation’s sense of values and
promote a vision of a sensitive society.
Perhaps unnoticed and lost in the ebb and flow of events, the
New York City Department of Education recently indicated it would
like to ban from school tests over fifty words that it finds
objectionable. Among the offending words are “dinosaur,”
“Halloween,” and many others deemed unfit to an enlightened body
politic because of sensitivities and perceived bias.
In uncovering this potential mind control plot, and as reported
by
CNN, the New York Post has
suggested that for the Department of Education, dinosaurs might
invoke theories of evolution which could be offensive to
fundamentalists. To elaborate, implied is that the mere mention of
the gigantic stegosaurus, tyrannosaurus, pterodactyl, and others
that ruled the terrestrial expanse for about 200 million years
could somehow contradict earnestly held views of creation, as set
forth in Genesis. Yet degrading dinosaurs is most unwise: those
enormous, roaming creatures had a span of control of 320,000 times
as long as the Ottoman Empire. To the contrary, we should celebrate
this type of hegemony which far surpasses the Greek, Roman, British
and other empires in duration. Further, it could be particularly
exhilarating to discover that Man is descended from the even
earlier trilobites, the three-lobed marine creatures frequently
studied by first graders.
In another brash act of thought policing, “Halloween” is
evidently deemed suggestive of paganism, those crude Celtic rituals
that might be offensive to believers everywhere. Given its Scottish
origin and association with All Saints’ Day, the natural extension
would be to prohibit bagpipes and the wearing of kilts, embargo
travel to the British Isles, revoke the UK’s NATO membership, and
strike out by name those references to all martyrs of the Church
who have ever lived and died.
The Department of Education may believe there is no limit to the
amount of additional public good that can be achieved through
robust censorship and the elimination of certain words and the
institutions they represent.
First, we should get rid of any mention of the Renaissance and
of the 18th century Age of Enlightenment. Science and the arts
flourished during those times, and the idea evolved that Man is
fundamentally a creature of Reason. Indeed, this could be highly
offensive to emotional people who are not interested in being
confused by facts.
Second, we should get rid of all editorial, op-ed and other
columns, and indeed all print, social and other electronic media
that express any opinions. By their very nature, opinions suggest
some sort of value judgment and hierarchy of views and are
therefore destined to offend someone, sometime, somewhere.
Third, the English language is rich in words with the power to
offend both people and animals. There is no limit to the number of
words that could be expunged from our common usage. A blue chip
non-partisan Congressional committee could be mobilized to identify
them. For example, “work” may alienate Europeans who protect
lengthy vacation entitlements; “Russian roulette” may imply that
the successor to the USSR is reckless; “Belgian waffle” may suggest
that Belgians are indecisive; “Dutch treat” could mean that the
Dutch are parsimonious and poor hosts; “Trojan Horse” might imply
that the majestic animal known as equus is actually
duplicitous; “Arctic Circle” could be offensive to students of
Pythagoras who liked triangles; the Brazilian song, “The Girl from
Ipanema” could be offensive to boys from the beach by that name who
feel excluded from music; and “Chinese wall” may be taken to mean
that the Chinese system is not fully transparent, damaging
relations with the world’s second largest economy. As one droll
observer told me, references to shoe-string potatoes are
potentially offensive to those wearing tassel loafers.
The list of offensive words and phrases is indeed long. Yet the
mere existence of a list is offensive to whatever is not on it.
There is immense potential to build a bland but sensitive society
— we should seize not only the day, but the word.
