Some things are sillier than any parody you could make of them. An example is Stanford University’s recent “Elimination of Harmful Language” document. It was greeted with so much laughter that Stanford has hidden it behind a login screen. Fortunately, the Internet Archive still lets you see the document, so we can still make fun of it. Try to imagine writing an article adhering to its demands. It would have no color (oops, can’t say that — racist!), and the effort would leave you gasping (belittles people with asthma!) and drive you insane (insults people with psychiatric issues!).

It starts with a self-own: “Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.” Further on, it self-owns the self-own by telling you that a “trigger warning” “can cause stress about what’s to follow. Additionally, one can never know what may or may not trigger a particular person.”

That last is actually the one piece of sensible advice in the whole clown act. Psychological experts have found that warning someone that scary stuff is coming only makes the reader more anxious. So naturally they don’t follow their own advice.

For the rest, I can’t do better than pick out some gems:

“Abusive relationship”: “The relationship doesn’t commit abuse. A person does, so it is important to make that fact clear.” Think of all those “relationships” that have been unjustly blamed for what people do. How would you feel about it, if you were a relationship?

“Beating a dead horse”: “This expression normalizes violence against animals.” Mama don’t allow no sado-bestio-necrophilia ’round here.

“Rule of thumb”: “Although no written record exists today, this phrase is attributed to an old British law that allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.” If you’re going to make claims unsupported by any evidence, at least remember not to admit it in the same sentence.

“African-American”: “Black people who were born in the United States can interpret hyphenating their identity as ‘othering.’ As with many of the terms we’re highlighting, some people do prefer to use/be addressed by this term, so it’s best to ask a person which term they prefer to have used when addressing them. When used to refer to a person, the “b” should always be capitalized.” Just when you think you’ve found the right euphemism, you get told it’s offensive. And why, in a time when we’re supposed to be trying to get rid of racism, have publications taken to capitalizing Skin Colors, as if they were affiliations like nationality and religion?

“Hip-hip hurray”: “This term was used by German citizens during the Holocaust as a rallying cry when they would hunt down Jewish citizens living in segregated neighborhoods.” “Hurray” isn’t even a German word, and the expression can be traced back at least to 1803. Those Nazis — oh, I’m sorry! “German citizens” — must have had time machines. A good rule of thumb (Oops!) is to check your claims for plausibility.

I could go on and on, but I’m beating a dead horse. (Oops!) You might get some laughs out of the piece, but don’t use it as a writing guide.

Update, Dec. 22: Oh, one more. “Karen” is on the site’s naughty list. I could have agreed with them if they said it demeans everyone named Karen. But Stanford gets it wrong, not just once but twice. First, in what they think is the problem: “This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors.” Well, yes, that’s the point. So-called Karens engage in annoying behavior. And Stanford suggests instead using a racist expression: “demanding or entitled White woman”.

I’ll stop now.

Update: There’s been confusion in some quarters about the document. It was never a statement of official Stanford policy, and it didn’t “forbid” the use of any words. Who was responsible for it? The statement at the top says:

The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative (EHLI) is a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford. EHLI is one of the actions prioritized in the Statement of Solidarity and Commitment to Action, which was published by the Stanford CIO Council (CIOC) and People of Color in Technology (POC-IT) affinity group in December 2020.

The CIO Council’s role is advisory, an affinity group generally doesn’t carry authority, and the publication of the document doesn’t forbid anything in itself. It could, however, be used in setting policies or evaluating allegations of misconduct. Hopefully, the reception it got makes that unlikely.