The language police come for the word ‘field’

With the Black Lives Matter movement and the murder of George Floyd came an effort — sometimes genuine, sometime virtue signaling — to confront inequity and the terrible injustices of the past. Today, the question is whether canceling any of them accomplishes the underlying goal of meaningful institutional change.

At the School of Social Work at the University of Southern California, the language police have come for the word “field.”Ronald Martinez/Getty

At the School of Social Work at the University of Southern California, the language police have come for the word “field.”

According to a Jan. 9 memo from the “Practicum Education Department,” that department has “decided to remove the term ‘field’ from our curriculum and practice and replace it with ‘practicum.’ This change supports anti-racist social work practice by replacing language that could be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant in favor of inclusive language. Language can be powerful and phrases such as ‘going into the field’ or ‘fieldwork’ may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.”

The memo was mocked on Twitter and in a very funny National Review piece under the headline, “The USC Trojans Come Out of the Locker Room and Line Up on the Practicum.” Asked about the memo, the USC media relations department e-mailed this statement from Elizabeth A. Graddy, interim provost and senior vice president for academic affairs: “The university does not maintain a list of banned or discouraged words. We will continue to use words — including ‘field’ — that accurately encompass and describe our work and research.” The message USC tried to get out was that this is just a matter of one department deciding to change its name.

But as a person who is not a descendant of enslaved people, just of immigrants who might have stomped a grape or two, I think it’s bad to constrict language even to that extent. Still, it’s hard to call out USC without disclosing that as of December 2020, The Boston Globe compiled a list of words we are urged to either avoid or “be careful with.”

Some expressions to avoid entirely because of their roots in violence against Black people, Indigenous people, or other marginalized groups, or their appropriation from Indigenous cultures and customs, include “grandfather clause”; “on the warpath”; “too many chiefs, not enough Indians“; powwow”; “long time, no see” and “no can do”; “mumbo jumbo”; and “chink in the armor.” We should also be careful with “sherpa” if we’re not referring to the Tibetan ethnic group; “guru” if we’re not referring to a spiritual leader or teacher with that title; “hysteria,” especially if not talking about a cisgender male; “crazy,” “insane,” “schizophrenic” or other mental health terms if used to describe unrelated things; and language relating to physical disabilities, such as “blindness” or “deafness,” to mean cluelessness, heartlessness, or unwillingness to listen; or “lame” to mean “undesirable” or “corny.”

I have been granted special dispensation by my editor to use these words to make this point: With the Black Lives Matter movement and the murder of George Floyd came an effort — sometimes genuine, sometime virtue signaling — to confront inequity and the terrible injustices of the past. Some of the above expressions clearly fall into the category of insensitive and hurtful, not to mention lazy and cliché. However, in switching from “field” to “practicum,” this USC department is replacing a clearly understood word with a Latin one that is arcane and academic — meaning “a practical exercise or course of practical training” — all in the name of inclusivity.

In the end, the question is whether canceling any of these words accomplishes the underlying goal of meaningful institutional change. I hope the answer is yes, that editing language leads to substantive change, not just more division. But with apologies to USC, it would take journalistic fieldwork to find out.

After all, as that memo from the Practicum Education Department points out, “Words are powerful, but even more so is action. We are committing to further align our actions, behaviors and practices with anti-racism and anti-oppression, which requires taking a close and critical look at our profession — our history, our biases and our complicity in past and current injustices.”

The USC newspaper, the Daily Trojan, found student reaction to the department word change was divided. “I’ve never been in a conversation with another Black person that has had a problem with the word ‘field’,” said Leka Mpigi, a graduate student studying architecture. “But I don’t know if that’s because I’m of African descent; I’m not African American.”

Mpigi also suggested that USC might have “bigger problems” to focus on, such as admitting more students of color. But Paloma Williams, a junior majoring in design, told the college newspaper that if the phrases being replaced originated from slavery or have an offensive origin, she supports the decision. “Free speech doesn’t make saying offensive things OK,” she said.

By the way, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the term fieldwork dates back to 1767 as a reference to “gathering statistics or doing research out-of-doors or on-site” and from 1819 in reference to “a type of military fortification raised by troops in the field.”

Meanwhile, Rozheen Barekatein, a graduate student studying social work, said she could see both sides of the argument, “But at the same time, why are we calling it a ‘master’s program?’”

That’s a good question and, assuming my dispensation is still in effect, one that she’s not crazy to ask in these sensitive times.