The Trump administration is at it again! After the country’s bouts of pleading and concern about racism, equality, healthcare, taxes, and internet freedom, they also decide to ruin research funding for vulnerable and at-risk populations (if they are referred to using those terms).
According to Lena H. Sun and Juliet Eilperin of the Chicago Tribune, the Trump administration put a ban on seven words from being used in funding proposals (Sun & Eilperin, 2017). The forbidden words are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
It is reported that the Trump administration offered very little to no substitutions for the language they are prohibiting being used, which is not unlike that administration; to make drastic changes to society with no plan in place for reform. This is not only disturbing because of the refusal to accept those terms, but also one would think it is a violation of free speech as well. We all know and have seen that Trump is not opposed to disregarding the greater societies rights guaranteed by the Constitution (e.g. Travel Ban). Could these terms be offending his “delicate sensibilities”? Could this be the Grinch trying to stop his heart from growing three sizes today? The world may never know, however what we do know is how this appears according to his track record, and it’s not good.
Now let’s discuss how this effects us in terms of this word ban. Federal agencies supply funding for the general public and academic/research institutions to conduct research based on a need/problem that the general public has that is currently yet to be properly addressed (solved). Through this research, solutions are, ideally, created on a small scale (e.g. research project) and meticulously documented in the case it needs to be replicated on a larger scale. Once a research project is completed and the data that is captured from the project is analyzed, in most cases, research papers are written. To share with the academic world, your solutions, findings, and shortcomings. Also, so that if anyone else wants to do what you did or pick up where you left off they essentially have the blueprint and should be able to replicate it and get the same, if not better, results. Through banning language to communicate your research and discuss your population accurately you could “muddy” your results or even worse be the source of miscommunication with your vast possible audience. Why does this matter? Well, when you input directions into a GPS you kind of expect it to communicate exactly where you are going and how to get there, correct? Imagine if your GPS decided that instead of saying “make a left in 20 feet”, it says “make a left somewhere over there.” You may not feel so secure knowing where you are going would you? Especially if there are three consecutive lefts that you could make. That is the burden of not being able to be direct in communication, you are unsure where your reader/listener will end up when you are done; it’s the mysterious left turn. This is something that could leave the door open for misinterpretation, which may lead to misappropriation of funds for not-so-applicable populations,”cough cough, tax reform, cough cough”. Banning speech is a slippery slope, no matter what sector it is in. Which in my opinion makes this power move is both ludicrous and unnecessary.
Source: Sun, L. H., & Eilperin, J. (2017, December 15). Trump administration forbids CDC officials from using 7 words and phrases. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved December 18, 2017, from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-cdc-forbidden-words-20171215-story.html
Here is a link to the article within the Chicago Tribune, please give it a read!
Photo Credit: Photo Link
