University of Southern California’s (USC) School of Social Work replaces the word "Field".

Google shows 1960 WW results for "Field"

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

The University of Southern California’s (USC) Suzanne Dworkin-Peck School of Social Work decided to replace the term “field” with “practicum”, branding the term "field" as racist and white supremacist.

Related terms including the word "field", such as “track and field,” “field of study,” and “going into the field” are now also banned, because "field".

Food for thought: Eliminating words because they might offend 0.0001% of the population is hypocritical when you also assign names 99.9998% of the population don't want to use or be called by. LatinX for example.

There were no reports of the word "field" being threatening to anyone and the staff are almost entirely white. Nobody asked for this. The guide being used, titled “The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” featured “10 ‘harmful language’ sections outlined in the index: ableist, ageism, colonialism, culturally appropriative, gender-based, imprecise language, institutionalized racism, person-first, violent and additional considerations.’”

This isn't evolution, it's the opposite. Then again, the term webmaster was deprecated by Google et all, so what world is this supposed to be again?

As webmasters, do you heed such edicts so they don't affect your site, ensuring more will come, or do you ignore it to make it stop? Socal U is not the law so... when's enough enough? We should probably come up with an answer to that as adults, it's confusing to kids.

[Martin Potter]

I will ignore it, as I have ignored other such edicts. IMHO, a field can be "racist" if and only if (IAOI) the field is occupied by people of only one race, that is, mono-racist. Otherwise it is just a field.

If the USC School of Social Work continues on this path, I will extrapolate, as they have, and begin to ignore anyone from USC, which would be a pity as I expect that there are some bright people there.

[Marshall]

It seems to me we have reached a point where people look for problems where none exist in what appears to be them justifying their reason for being. But what do I know, I am just a webmaster :)

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

But what do I know, I am just a webmaster :)

Correction, you were a webmaster. Now you're an SEO or Web Developer or Blogger etc. Google deprecated the word webmaster :) J/K, you're whatever you want to be, but they did. [developers.google.com...]

I knew posting this thread risked a ban here, as it's a touchy subject, but I don't think it was against TOS. This is my reasoning for doing it.

#1 - As site owners know, words are important. If a word suddenly lands on the wrong side of someone's list, do you remove the words? Do you ignore them? Should you worry, they might lose you some traffic? It's not an entirely meaningless thing, and it's confusing to your readers, occasionally.

#2 - Example: When Google deprecated the word webmaster, they stated why and it made sense. Few actually do call themselves a webmaster. SEO, web developer and internet marketer are far more widely used today. In fact, at least in Canada and some US states, you can't be self-employed as a "webmaster" because it's too broad a term, the tax forms require something more specific.

#3 - Google didn't penalize the word, claim it is to be banned, or call it racist etc. They stated their case with a valid point and changed their own product name, but don't expect webmasterworld to become seoworld (it's currently for sale, I see)

#4 Google doesn't label me with names or insult me if I question their decision, and you really should investigate something before you act on it, when possible.

#5 - These lists are coming fast and furious when you consider they are targeting different groups. One list is aimed at students, the next at media journalists, the next at businesses.... but they all seem to have a consortium of social justice causes pushing it forward, without asking for opinions from those it affects.

Raising awareness isn't a bad thing, and finding out what other webmasters think about a list coming from an official source like gov, media, education etc., can only help you decide how to proceed.

Note: When Google announced the webmaster word deprecation I initially raised an eyebrow as I saw nothing wrong with the word, but before selling my site I did run a database replacement of "webmaster" to "web developer", (I only found 4 instances, it wasn't an SEO site). Passing edicts instead of offering a valid argument just isn't the way to go, IMO, but neither is fighting it when it makes sense.

Google has another list of hundreds of words kicking about, and some of them are out there, but they have not downgraded sites that use them in any detectable way. I have nothing against SoCal U, but "field" and all terms that contain it? It wasn't their brightest hour, IMO.

Edit: "chatGPT, is the word "field" racist?" Answer: "While any word can be racist if used with racial intent, the word field is not inherently hateful."

I like how AI links racism to hate in answering the question. It doesn't believe the word field is hateful, which means neither do the sources it learned from.

[Martin Potter]

Maybe we should ask Google to issue certificates to each of us, declaring that we shall be known henceforth by the title of

Webmaster (Deprecated)

[tangor]

Put me coach, I'll field this question!

If one changes "master" to "mechanic" the social justice connotations disappear.

While I will continue being a webmaster, you may henceforth call me a web mechanic.

[Martin Potter]

Hmmm ... Definite possibilities there.

Two points : "Master" implies one who makes decisions, whereas a (mere?) "mechanic" might not have that role or entitlement. Also, I wonder what the Masters in the Mechanics Guild will think of all this. Regardless, I do think you are on to something.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Lol, I'd wear the title "deprecated" like a badge of honor if they tried. I know what I am, and what I'm not... have at it, lol.

Can I trade in my "10+ years" and "Top Poster" badges on the left for one that says "grunt"?

I played a little Warcraft when it first came out and got right into the PvP aspect of it. They offered a lot of titles back then, and my rogue got the title "Grunt" in the battlegrounds. They deprecated a few titles the next season, including that one, but it was my favorite.

Good enough for a title, but not better than you. It was perfect. Some got the title "Field General" *gasp*, but they played too much...

[buckworks]

>> branding the term "field" as racist and white supremacist.

I truly do not understand why anyone would think that. Help me understand what I'm missing here.

[not2easy]

Think of a brain wearing blinders. It means what they want it to because they are narrowly focused on a closed set of criteria. It cannot have any other meaning than the way they view it.

I would be amazed if there is not negative feedback at the institution.

[ronin]

Socal U is not the law so...

So why does it matter?

As participants in one or more living languages we all decide, ourselves, as individuals, what words to use and what not to and why.

I generally do say flight attendant rather than air hostess, but, separately, I'm familiar with l'actrice and la actriz (not to mention die Schauspielerin and актриса), so I tend to find actor doesn't trip off my tongue nearly so naturally and so, if referring to Ana de Armas or Scarlett Johansson, I will, far more often than not, say actress.

It's alright for people to advise. It's alright for people not to take the advice. It's alright for people to take the advice too. It's also alright for other people to advise differently. Society is a conversation, isn't it?

Our languages are living languages. Our usage ensures that.

And, in fact, what Google did underlines this:

We moved away from using the term "webmaster" in the name of this site (stop looking: it's Search Central) and the only remainder was the "Webmaster Guidelines". As we mentioned previously, "webmaster" is an outdated term and very few people identify with it.

This seems to imply not that Google grew tired of the word webmaster and told everyone else to stop using it, but that people themselves moved away from using the word and, consequently, this led Google to want to use different terms like Search Essentials and Search Central.

If someone at SoCal wants to drop the word heinous and replace it with double-plus ungood, good luck to them.

[buckworks]

>> generally do say flight attendant rather than air hostess

I care about inclusive language, and to my mind, choices like that make good sense.

But "field"? I still don't understand the thinking.

[not2easy]

I can only guess that because there are people who consider field worker or field hand as derogatory, they decided it is insulting. Yes, it makes no sense unless you want it to.

Many farmers may be proud to be outstanding in their field, but they have more to do than just stand out there all day. ;)

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I care about inclusive language, and to my mind, choices like that make good sense.

But "field"? I still don't understand the thinking.

Seems extreme, huh? Whether you fully embrace it, or reject it, you're not meant to stay indifferent about it. It divides people.

Learn about "the great leap forward", and you'll recognize "the great reset". We're on that path again - [en.wikipedia.org...]

[martinibuster]

Has the Foo forum turned into the Culture Wars forum?

Related terms including the word "field", such as “track and field,” “field of study,” and “going into the field” are now also banned

Wrong. Just stick to the facts, please. It's just one department that changed its name. Students within the department are split as to the change.

But really, this topic is culture war anger-bait that right wing pundits seize on to feed senior citizen fear that the younger generation and liberals have all lost their minds and that the world is crazy.

It's anger-bait culture war nonsense, designed to divert your attention from the REAL real topics that matter.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

But really, this topic is culture war anger-bait that right wing pundits seize on to feed senior citizen fear that the younger generation and liberals have all lost their minds and that the world is crazy. ~ martinibuster

Alrighty then, thanks for sharing your fears, and thanks for another assessment of "old people", but the well respected NPR broke the story, where in the news was all that nonsense? I didn't see it - [npr.org...]

I'd rather hear your opinion on when you should go back and change words on your website. After every new list? Never? In between? Save the rest, please.

I appreciate you might want uncomfortable topics squelched, but I don't agree that silencing uncomfortable discussion the media brings up helps confused student track and field athletes, or owners of field and stream sites.

[tangor]

Each of us has to decide how much weight is applied during these language adjustments (which go on over the centuries) on our websites. Most of these are not in the VERY IMPORTANT range.

As for the terminology "culture war", the word war implies there are two sides involved, not one side only. :)

For most of us on the web these are not important issues and usually all one needs do is be aware it is out there, and then OBSERVE if there is any impact on your website.

Meanwhile, if not foo, where are these issues discussed on WW? Because they are issues, just not all that earth-shaking.

[phranque]

the well respected NPR also accurately stated that this was an internally-directed decision taken by a single office within one of the (20-some) schools of a very large private university.

let's not pretend that this was framed as an edict from the Ministry of Truth.

[tangor]

^^^EXACTLY!

Too much tempest in a tea pot...

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

More like many individual tea pots. Last month, it was Stanford University and words like "American" and "Immigrant". Last year it was the words "Mother" and Father" in France, Canada and the US.

There is no culture war. It's not happening between individuals, for the most part. The Washington Redskins football team, for example, was changed to the Washington Commanders. Some supported it, some didn't, but it was a decision by the team itself affecting only the team, move on.

Same with Google and the word Webmaster, they didn't penalize anyone and applied it only to themselves, and suggested about 100 other words. That's their prerogative, it's a suggestion and optional, make your choice and move on.

Declaring a word not normally considered hateful is banned, arbitrarily, especially when aimed at students, well... I hope it's a problem that simply disappears at this point. There's enough division and enough more important things to be focused on.

Still, for webmasters, words matter. No offense intended.

[phranque]

the perfect irony here is that the Office of Practicum Education is part of the Master of Social Work program, so it's still a work in progress...

(and a sign that your web site and job title are safe for now)

[ronin]

I think the moral of this story is that while institutions may offer guidance on their terminological house style, it is of little consequence to those outwith that institution and may be of little consequence to many within.

In 2023, a Front End Developer using the Astro framework and deploying to a Deno server may decide that the term website is an anachronistic term from the 1990s WWW era and may switch to using, exclusively, the term MPA instead.

The ripples of consequence emanating from this decision are so small they can neither be seen nor measured.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

The ripples of consequence emanating from this decision are so small they can neither be seen nor measured.

The US, France and Canadian gov announced no employees could use or write the words "Mother" and "Father", among others, in late 2020. That is when institutions, primarily in education, began to issue other word lists. Was that the initial ripple effect?

[ronin]

I had to look this up because I hadn’t heard of this before.

If I understand correctly some governments in an attempt to be inclusive have moved to use the word parent instead of mother or father.

The desire to be inclusive is well-intentioned, isn’t it?

I’m fairly certain it’s not particularly new either.

In the early 1980s when I was at elementary school, the letters we took home were addressed to:

Dear Parent / Guardian,

That is, in an attempt to be inclusive, not only did the school not assume it was addressing a pupil’s Mom, it didn’t even assume it was necessarily addressing any parent at all.

And that was approaching half a century ago.

[not2easy]

If you consider upsetting a child with one (or no) living parent, it would be preferable to not mention Mother/Father in communications. It makes assumptions.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

If you consider upsetting a child with one (or no) living parent, it would be preferable to not mention Mother/Father in communications. It makes assumptions.

I agree, if using a word like "parent" in communications suffices, great. It's common sense.

Unfortunately, more radical principles everywhere took it upon themselves to entirely cancel Mother's Day and Father's Day in their schools. Some replacing them with "International non-nuclear family day". When you consider that dismissing family figures and values was only one of the recent concerns parents are having with radical new education changes, dismissing the parents entirely was fuel on a fire.

How big a fire? You can be forgiven for not knowing if you don't have young kids in middle school, but this big - [news.yahoo.com...]

Webmasters play a significant role when it comes to words and language. What you publish is what people see, it's what is normalized.

[graeme_p]

Another problem is that these things are very dependent on dialect and culture.

The problem is that there is no consensus on what is offensive, and it changes over time.

I am middle aged and brought up in the UK, so the strongest associations of the word master to me were, in order: male teacher, some demonstrating a high level of skill or knowledge, an original copy. To those is now added "word Americans do not like".

It would be even more different in India, I suspect,

Given that it is a global industry, it annoys me when someone decides that as it is offensive in their culture, they will object to anyone else using it.

In Sri Lanka the word "coloured" is not offensive, except to very westernised people. Sri Lankan usage is usually similar to the rest of Asia. I never got what the big difference between that and "people of colour" is supposed to be.

Then there are terms like BIPOC. In the UK the white majority people are the indigenous ones (although they are really split into multiple ethnic groups). It is not a useful term anywhere other than North America or Africa. Very culture specific. African American is similarly specific - and British African is not the same as black British - it would mean people who (or whose recent ancestors) immigrated here from Africa - as opposed to Afro-Caribbeans or other black people.

The commonest term for minorities in the UK was BAME, until people started objecting to it (and I agree with this) because it lumped togetherpeople who had nothing in common except not being white. Different cultures, different experiences.

Incidentally, why do I still find people calling Native Americans "Indians"? its confusing because it can be ambiguous, it sounds, at best, weirdly old-fashioned, and its a term that only got invented because Columbus did not know where he was.

Same with Google and the word Webmaster, they didn't penalize anyone and applied it only to themselves, and suggested about 100 other words. That's their prerogative, it's a suggestion and optional, make your choice and move on.

On the other hand their decision to stop their image recognition service classifying people by sex because you "cannot determine gender from appearance" probably forced anyone relying on it to move to another system, or do without a useful feature.

Another real world consequence is that people from other cultures offend because they do not know words are offensive. There are quite a few people in the world who think "the N word" is just a cool American equivalent of "mate" (in the British or Australian usage), because they hear it from people like rappers. There are lots of more subtle examples too. What is acceptable varies with region, social class, etc. It puts anyone operating in a diverse environment at a high risk of offending someone.

Another cultures usage of a language you you know is very difficult to master. :)

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Well said. It's complicated but offering guidance, and offering transparency on why, is fine. Once you go down the "creating inclusivity by excluding things our group doesn't like" path, you get division, which almost seems the point sometimes.

Anyway, more lists and dictionary changes will be released, no doubt. Hopefully they've gotten as radical and divisive as they were going to get.

As for webmasters, and online media, the buzzwords become cringy at times too. Oh look, NPR just issued a new 2023 buzzword list to learn, lol. Same goals, same groups, new sounding phrases... I'm supposed to learn what "tarmac-to-arm" means and use it? I don't even remember what last year's buzzwords were, does anyone?

Never mind, don't answer that. I don't want to remember if I've already forgotten them. La, la, la, la, la!

[npr.org...]

[tangor]

Hopefully they've gotten as radical and divisive as they were going to get.

One can only hope, but history suggests that inch today will be stretched to a mile tomorrow... (sigh)

MEANWHILE, the web is a bit more resistant to quick change. After all, the WORLD is a bit more diverse than some of these local geopolitical zones that are getting the attention.

[ronin]

Experts shared their views about global buzzwords that will be big this year.

Or may be big. Or may not be big.

NPR just issued a new 2023 buzzword list to learn

I applaud your desire to stay current, but I’m certain you don’t need to learn buzzwords.

Either a neologism will become ubiquitous, in which case the effort to use it will be negligible; or else it won’t, in which case the effort not to use it will be negligible.

Surely such an article is only to help prepare you (should you be curious enough) in the event that one of your colleagues etc. might at some point in 2023 deploy a hitherto-unfamiliar phrase in conversation?

Why - I’m genuinely intrigued - do you put so much stock in other people’s speculative and / or intolerant opinions about language? Why do you bestow prescriptive authority on such opinions?

It feels like you want to say:

“Now we’re being told to do xyz; now we’re being told to do abc! But I don’t want to have to do xyz and abc!”

Well, that’s easily resolved: you don’t have to.

Outside of institutions like workplaces (which conventionally promote their own “house style”) an attempt to control language in the public sphere is usually the folly of an authoritarian mindset and such folly almost always ends in failure.

Languages are alive and will not be tamed.