Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
That’s the WaPo piece everyone is abuzz about. A few observations:
1. This story may well be true, but I’d like more than “…according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing.” Here is another account of what exactly is known. Wasn’t “not publishing the article until it is better sourced” the evidence-based thing to do?
2. I don’t have a great fondness for the terms “evidence-based” or “science-based.” When they are used on MR, it is often as a form of third-person reference or with a slight mock or ironic touch. When I see the words used by others, my immediate reaction is to think someone is deploying it selectively, without complete self-awareness, or as a bullying tactic, in lieu of an actual argument, or as a way of denying how much their own argument depends on values rather than science. I wouldn’t ban the words for anyone working for me, but seeing them often prompts my editor’s red pen, so to speak. The most er…evidence-based people I know don’t use the term so much, least of all with reference to themselves.
3. In any case, the suggested replacement phrase — “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes” — I do not find offensive or anti-science, and I can imagine a plausible case that it is an actual improvement. Science is (ought to be) value-free, yet CDC and more broadly federal policy should embody values too. It should not think of itself as “the handmaiden of science.”
4. There is a fine line between “censorship” and “a bureaucratic organization which can be badly damaged by individual freelancing deciding to adopt uniform terminologies.” I don’t doubt both might be going on here, but I’d like to see the extant Twitter takes show a little more subtlety on the broader point. Don’t forget that the executive branch of government reports to the…executive, it is not a freestanding committee for debate, however much it might sometimes like to imagine otherwise.
5. The word “diversity” usually isn’t specific enough, or is channeling unstated preconceptions about how diversity should be interpreted. We should improve our use of this word. I have similar feelings about “vulnerable.”
6. People react to changes rather than levels.
7. “Fetus” — look, it is fine to disagree with the “pro-life view” (I’m not even sure what is the most neutral way of labeling it). But is banning the use of the word “fetus” in institutional documents censorship? What if an employee, during the Obama years, in an official CDC release had referred to a “fetus” as a “child”? Would that have been changed back to fetus? I am inclined to say yes. Is it censorship in only one direction, or are both decisions censorship? Or is this better seen as a disagreement over matters of fact? A disagreement over values? I am genuinely unsure, and I am unsure what a majority of the American public would think. But I would say this is sooner worth a ponder than a rant.
8. If nothing else, Sam Altman can show up in China, post “here is my vulnerable entitlement diversity transgender fetus, who is evidence-based and science-based” on his Weibo account, and then go order some Chairman Mao’s braised pork belly.
9. What are the forbidden words in other parts of the federal government, whether de jure or de facto? Will anyone be showing us a list? Or is that list censored too?