The New York Times has released a list of racial terms deemed “bothersome” by its editors, who weigh in on all the words that make them cringe, as part of an update to their style guide. The list includes colloquial terms like “person of color,” “urban,” “exotic,” and “diversity hire.” The terms that bother them are often used as shorthand by journalists to discuss any given topic without having to explain too much about the subject.
The NYT says the term “ethnic” is about the “normalization of whiteness – if you’re not white, then you’re something else.” Given that the United States has a majority white population, it should come as no surprise that an immigrant from a faraway country would not be seen as a member of the prevailing culture.
The newspaper also takes issue with “illegal immigrant,” a self-explanatory term used to describe immigrants of legally questionable status. The NYT states that the term is “negative in nature and intent.” Because of course it is—unless you’re a legal resident of a country (in the United States or anywhere else), you’re either a tourist or you’re living there illegally.
“To normalize its use is to give people license to offend,” states the NYT’s Fernanda Santos. As much as you might hate it, facts do not care about your feelings.
On a curious note, the NYT highlighted the term “person of color”. National editor Marc Lacey says that it is nothing more than a “small grammatical shift” from the term “colored people,” which while he knows is used with the “noblest of intent,” is one “tainted by the ugliness of segregation.”
It’s hard to disagree with him. The term “person of color” is steeped in a victim complex. It’s commonly employed in the language of social justice to draw a distinction between white people and everyone else—creating a false dichotomy that classifies white people as haves and non-whites as have-nots.
Speaking of “non-“ anything, video editor Nicole Fineman takes issue with the negative descriptor, stating that it “feels like a wall. Meant to clearly delineate what is and isn’t but it feels like the most alienating description you can make of a person and awful way to define a relationship.”
But how else would you describe people unrelated to the other group of people you’re referring to? The mind boggles.
NYT’s Sona Patel challenged the terms “diversity hire” and “diversity candidate,” which she says is in most contexts used to describe someone who isn’t white, and that it “suggests a particular individual or group of individuals were hired because of their identity.”
Isn’t that the definition of workplace and college enrollment quotas? Unless someone’s cut out for the job and welcomed into an organization based on merit, their presence is usually the result of nepotism or affirmative action—it’s hardly meritocratic.
Instead of taking issue with “bothersome” terms and attempting to police language, the NYT would best serve its audience by providing “all the news that’s fit to print.” This certainly isn’t it.
Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at @stillgray on Twitter and on Facebook.