Politics
Contributor: Remember when it was the right that got outraged over 'banned words'?
Some of the fiercest blowback in recent years against “diversity, equity and inclusion” greeted Stanford University in 2022 when it launched the website of its Elimination of Harmful Language initiative. Back then, it was the right that was appalled by the efforts to limit language.
Developed by campus experts in technology and inclusion, the site labeled hundreds of words and phrases “harmful,” urging the use of alternatives. While the list included some terms widely considered offensive (such as “cripple” for disabled or “shemale” for transgender) it also cited a baffling array of anodyne terms — “immigrant,” “grandfather,” “Hispanic” and scores of others. The word “American” was cast out in favor of “U.S. citizen,” lest the former be construed to overlook the existence of the rest of the Americas. “Tribe” was rejected as “equating indigenous people with savages.” While the list was not official university policy, the message was clear: To be an upstanding Stanford citizen, these lines ought not be crossed.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board excoriated the list as self-parody, saying “you used to have to get a graduate degree in the humanities to write something that stupid.” Conservative websites and podcasters had a field day, calling the site “Orwellian.” Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya, now President Trump’s head of the National Institutes of Health, called the list “ham handed” and “crazy.” Amid the uproar, Stanford sheepishly pulled down the website, citing the university’s commitment to academic freedom.
Now the left is making a lot of the same critiques, noting that this time the dystopian directive comes from the top of the federal government. As part of its crusade to wrest America from the clutches of “wokeness,” the Trump administration is discouraging federal agencies, grantees and contractors from using a long list of ordinary words like “accessible,” “female,” “women,” “political” and “pollution.” These words have been scrubbed from government policy statements and websites; government affiliates are effectively on notice that their use could result in discipline or punishment.
Some of the words on the Stanford and Trump lists overlap, including variations of “Hispanic,” “victim,” “pronouns” and “transexual,” a vivid illustration of where the extremes of right and left tilt so far as to appear to converge. After ridiculing Stanford’s censorious overreach, a right-wing movement supposedly bent on freeing Americans from intrusive controls on speech is indulging in precisely the methods it excoriated.
Trump has made the war on woke a centerpiece of his early weeks in office. He has banned diversity, equity and inclusion policies, eliminated transgender protections, and targeted universities, law firms and government bodies accused of resisting such efforts. The MAGA movement’s disdain for DEI is grounded partly in concerns over sidelining of merit in favor of diversity, and on what it sees as the unfairness of using race or gender to advantage some at the expense of others.
But a second major critique of DEI focuses on the heavy-handed policing of ideas. While the Stanford list was particularly egregious, it is not the only such policy to exert pressure on open discourse. Some see the very adoption of institutional commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion as the imposition of a singular ideology in settings like the university that should be open to all perspectives, including critics of such policies. Arguments over the legitimacy of affirmative action, transgender participation in sports or immigration policy can be stifled when people fear being accused of racism or bigotry for voicing dissenting views.
Overreaching diversity strategies can not only suppress speech, but also compel it. When some universities began to require faculty job applicants to submit personal statements outlining how they support diversity, equity and inclusion, the policies were rightly criticized as signaling to candidates that there was only one right answer when it came to DEI: full-throated embrace.
That the ridiculed Stanford list of harmful words has now been met by an opposing list of disfavored terms reflects the MAGA movement’s conviction that the fire in the belly of diversity advocates can only be fought with more fire. Opponents are convinced that the dangerous entrenchment of DEI in educational institutions, media companies and workplaces must be stopped by any means necessary. To match the implicit censoriousness of the Stanford list and similar approaches never enshrined into law, the Trump administration is resorting to out-and-out censorship.
While the Stanford list, by offering alternate formulations with similar meanings, aimed to declare off-limits specific words rather than entire concepts or ideas, the Trump list does the opposite. Its entries are proxies for whole areas of scholarship, research and policymaking that are now verboten. By instilling fear in government officials, educators and scientists, the Trump administration not only chills speech but also impairs essential work in areas including gender and racial differences in medicine, violence against women and mental health.
At a time when Vice President JD Vance is lecturing Europe about its supposed betrayal of free speech values, the Trump administration has made clear its unwillingness to live by the openness it expects from, say, the German political system. If free speech is a casualty of MAGA’s war to protect free speech, so be it, apparently.
Stanford’s list and other taboos did not succeed in stamping out bias. After strides toward diversity and inclusion on campuses and at corporations, now comes a ferocious counterattack. The retort is fueled in part by the belief that a past commitment to diversity threatened free speech. Now some are rushing to voice opinions that they felt were once muzzled.
Back in 2022, when Stanford professor Bhattacharya was interviewed on Fox News about the university’s harmful language list, he brought up one of the oft-cited risks of declaring words and ideas forbidden, saying: “I see a list of words like that and I want to say those words. I can’t be the only one.”
He is certainly not the only one. And nor is Stanford’s list the only one sure to provoke that reaction. The current chilling of discussions of racial and gender equality may ultimately only make support for such causes hotter.
Suzanne Nossel is a member of Facebook’s Oversight Board and the author of “Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All.”
new video loaded: House Republicans Hold Hearing Accusing PBS and NPR of Bias
transcript
transcript
House Republicans Hold Hearing Accusing PBS and NPR of Bias
Republicans accused the nation’s two largest public media networks of institutional bias. Democrats dismissed the hearing as an excuse for Republicans to air a familiar list of grievances against the news media.
-
“NPR and PBS have increasingly become radical left-wing echo chambers. For far too long, federal taxpayers have been forced to fund biased news.” “There’s nothing more American than PBS. As a membership organization, our local service is at the heart of our work. We’ve been proudly fulfilling our mission for nearly 60 years, using the public airwaves and other technologies to help educate, engage and inspire the American people.” “I welcome the opportunity to discuss the essential role of public media in delivering unbiased, nonpartisan, fact-based reporting to Americans. Nearly 100 percent of Americans live within range of a public radio station. We cover what matters to local communities: crop prices, cookoffs and local sports teams, alongside news of the nation and the world.” “The American people want to know is Elmo now, or has he ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States? A yes or no.” “No.” “Now, are you sure, Ms. Kerger? Because he’s obviously red. Now, I’m obviously using some humor here, but the fact that we’re sitting here today talking about defunding public television is actually not funny. At a time where we can’t agree on basic facts, and while the free press is under attack, we need public media like PBS and NPR more than ever.”
Recent episodes in U.S. & Politics
The Trump administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military is scheduled to take effect Friday after delays and ongoing court challenges to the controversial Department of Defense (DOD) policy.
D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, presided over a hearing March 21 where she requested the department delay its original March 26 deadline to enact the policy.
Reyes said she wanted to allow more time for the appeals process. She also said she had previously allowed plenty of time to appeal her earlier opinion blocking the ban from going into effect.
“I don’t want to jam up the D.C. Circuit. That’s my main concern here,” Reyes said during the March 21 hearing. “My chambers worked incredibly hard to get out an opinion on time.”
A SECOND JUDGE RULES AGAINST TRUMP’S REMOVAL OF TRANSGENDER TROOPS
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are pictured here. The Defense Department’s ban on transgender people serving in the military is scheduled to take effect Friday. (Getty Images)
Reyes gave the government a 3 p.m. deadline that same day to return about her request to push the deadline.
The government responded, saying it agreed to delay the March 26 deadline to March 28.
The legal challenge comes as the U.S. Supreme Court also considers a high-profile case dealing with transgender rights. The issue in the case, United States vs. Skrmetti, is whether the equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same, prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to assist with a minor’s transition to another sex.
HEGSETH SUGGESTS JUDGE REPORT TO MILITARY BASES AFTER RULING THAT PENTAGON MUST ALLOW TRANSGENDER TROOPS
A decision from the high court, however, is not expected until May or June.
“The Skrmetti decision will occupy a good bit of the field here and provide some guidance. And so I doubt the D.C. Circuit is going to feel the need to rush things,” Charles Stimson, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital.
“If I was sitting on the D.C. Circuit and I had all these other cases coming my way, and I was on a three-judge panel, I don’t think it’d be the top of my pile.”
D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, held a hearing March 21 and requested that the Department of Defense delay its original Mar. 26 enactment deadline. (Getty/SenatorDurbin via YouTube)
Despite the looming deadline, Stimson said the ban will be “on pause” as the parties work through the appellate process.
“I don’t think the secretary is going to do anything in violation of a court order,” Stimson said. “Even if they disagree with that, you’d be wise not to.”
TRUMP ADMIN ASKS FEDERAL JUDGE TO DISSOLVE INJUNCTION BARRING TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN
Reyes had issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs March 18. Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit, who include transgender individuals, “face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm” that would warrant a preliminary injunction.”
On March 21, the defendants in the suit, who include President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction blocking the Pentagon’s ban. The filing argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead “turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.”
On March 21, the defendants in the suit, who include President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction blocking the Pentagon’s ban. (Reuters/Yves Herman)
The Trump administration further requested that, if the motion to dissolve is denied, the court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
The government cited new guidance issued March 21 that it expected to enact the policy it not for the ongoing litigation. The guidance clarified that “the phrase ‘exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria’” solely applies to “‘individuals who exhibit such symptoms as would be sufficient to constitute a diagnosis.’”
In its motion requesting to dissolve the March 18 injunction, the government wrote that the March 21 guidance constitutes a “significant change” that would warrant the court dissolving the injunction.
CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Under the requirements, a party requesting to dissolve a preliminary injunction must demonstrate “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law” that shows that continued enforcement of the order would be “detrimental to the public interest.”
“The March 21, 2025, guidance constitutes a ‘significant change,’” the filing states. “Whereas the Court has broadly construed the scope of the DoD Policy to encompass all trans-identifying servicemembers or applicants, the new guidance underscores Defendants’ consistent position that the DoD Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition — one that every prior Administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.”
Fox News’ Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a federal restriction on the sale of parts kits that permit unlicensed gun owners to make firearms at home that cannot be traced by the police.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices agreed these homemade weapons, often referred to as “ghost guns,” qualify as firearms under federal law.
“Today, thousands of law-enforcement agencies nationwide depend on the [federal] tracing system to link firearms involved in crimes to their owners,” said Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for the court.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
The decision upholds a regulation issued in 2022 by the Biden administration that was strongly supported by police and prosecutors.
The ruling overturns conservative judges in Texas who said Congress had not given federal regulators the power to outlaw “parts kits” that could be assembled into a weapon.
It’s a rare win for gun control advocates in the high court.
“This Supreme Court decision is great news for everyone but the criminals who have adopted untraceable ghost guns as their weapons of choice,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “Ghost guns look like regular guns, shoot like regular guns, and kill like regular guns — so it’s only logical that the Supreme Court just affirmed they can also be regulated like regular guns.”
Under the regulations, gunmakers and dealers are required to conduct a background and age verification of buyers, make sure the weapon has a serial number and keep records of the sale.
“This is an important decision that will help reduce access to guns by criminals and other people barred from owning firearms,” said UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler. “In recent years, the number of untraceable ghost guns recovered from criminals and crime scenes has skyrocketed.”
Last year, the court’s conservative majority blocked a regulation supported by both the Trump and Biden administrations that had outlawed “bump stocks,” which allowed semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like a machine gun. By a 6-3 vote, the justices said these devices did not fit the definition of a machine gun as set by Congress.
But the court said Wednesday the Gun Control of Act of 1968 broadly defined a firearm as “any weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”
The Los Angeles Police Department and other police agencies have voiced alarm at the growing threat of easy-to-assemble guns that can be bought as kits online.
Three years ago, the LAPD said these “ghost guns are an epidemic not only in Los Angeles but nationwide. … Ghost guns are real, they work, and they kill.”
The Justice Department under Biden told the court that local law enforcement agencies seized more than 19,000 ghost guns at crime scenes in 2021, a more than tenfold increase in four years.
In urging the court to uphold the ban, Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar argued the mail-order gun kits could “effectively nullify” gun laws dating to 1968 that allow police to trace weapons that are used in crimes.
Without the new regulations adopted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or ATF, “anyone could buy a kit online and assemble a fully functional gun in minutes — no background check, records, or serial number required,” she said.
California already prohibited the sale of these parts kits, but Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the federal ban was needed to enforce a ban on sending these kits through the mail.
Even though California has attempted to curb unserialized guns since at least 2016, he said these weapons accounted for nearly 30% of all guns recovered in the state by the ATF.
Meanwhile, the number of unserialized guns recovered by California law enforcement agencies increased from 167 in 2016 to nearly 12,900 in 2022, a 77-fold increase, the state’s attorney general said.
“This decision is not only a victory for California but for the entire nation,” Bonta said Wednesday. “This federal rule is crucial to keeping ghost guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals and critical to preventing and solving violent, firearm-related crimes.”
The conservative 5th Circuit court in New Orleans was undeterred by the warnings issued by police departments. It struck down the ATF regulation and ruled a “weapon parts kit” is not a firearm, even if it can be assembled into one.
The Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold last year and voted to hear the government’s appeal in the case of Bondi vs. VanDerStok.
DOJ investigating Rhode Island schools over loan forgiveness program only for 'educators of color'
In Rebuttal to Trump Official, M.T.A. Says Subway Is Getting Safer
Nonprofit garden organization Detroit Abloom loses everything in a fire
March Madness coming to San Francisco; businesses looking forward to crowds
Family honors Dallas high school senior killed in West Dallas shooting
-
News1 week agoTrump Administration Ends Tracking of Kidnapped Ukrainian Children in Russia
-
News1 week agoVance to Lead G.O.P. Fund-Raising, an Apparent First for a Vice President
-
Business1 week agoEgg Prices Have Dropped, Though You May Not Have Noticed
-
Technology1 week agoDude Perfect and Mark Rober may be the next YouTubers to get big streaming deals
-
World1 week agoCommission warns Alphabet and Apple they're breaking EU digital rules
-
News1 week agoTrump’s Ending of Hunter Biden’s Security Detail Raises Questions About Who Gets Protection
-
Technology1 week agoCFPB workers are reinstated after a court order, but many still can’t work
-
News1 week agoU.S. to Withdraw From Group Investigating Responsibility for Ukraine Invasion