The forbidden words

George Orwell, in his classic book 1984, writes characters who speak a dialect of English called "Newspeak."

The "Minitrue" (Ministry of Truth) controls the public perception of what is true, perceptions that are enforced by the "Thinkpol" (Thought Police).  The Thinkpol are responsible for stopping "thoughtcrime," including "facecrime" -- forbidden thoughts as revealed in your facial expression.  Toward that end, they "rectify" historical accounts (to conform to the government's agenda regarding what happened), eliminating anything that is "malquoted" or "misprinted."  You're trained to the point of accepting the government's views based on "bellyfeel" -- how they affect you emotionally, not whether they're true.

Intercourse between a man and a woman -- preferably without any pleasure -- is "goodsex."  Anything else is a "sexcrime."  The preference of the government is that babies are conceived by "artsem" -- artificial insemination.

Someone who breaks any of these rules -- or worse, contradicts what Big Brother wants you to do or say -- is not only killed, every trace of them is erased.  They become an "Unperson."

[Image is in the Public Domain]

Orwell was strikingly prescient.  If you doubt that we're heading down that road, consider the story that appeared in Gizmodo yesterday, that employees at the National Science Foundation and Center for Disease Control have been given a long list by the Trump administration of words they are not allowed to use in official correspondence or publications without review and authorization.

Here's a sampler -- for the complete list, check the link:

• advocacy
• bias
• climate
• cultural heritage
• disability
• discrimination
• diversity
• ethnicity
• evidence-based
• female (no, I'm not making this up)
• gender
• inequality
• LGBTQ
• political
• racial
• science-based
• socioeconomic
• transgender
• women (no, I'm still not making this up)

When I first read this, my initial reaction was, "This can't possibly be true."  The NSF being forbidden from using the words "evidence-based?"  But after some digging about, all I can say is that it appears at the time of this writing to be true.

I'm not sure what to be appalled at most about this.  That we don't want a study identified as "biased," because then we might have to address whose political interests are being served by the bias.  That because of the Trump administration's ongoing war on minorities, we mustn't speak of diversity.  That LGBTQ individuals, whose rights to fair treatment are being threatened with each new executive order, are guilty of "sexcrime;" and we have to pretend transgender people don't even exist.

And "science-based" and "evidence-based?" What the fuck is the NSF supposed to base its policy on, then?  Magic?  The Bible?  Prophecy?

Or just what its "bellyfeel" is?

I've tried not to engage in hyperbole about what this administration is doing, but every new thing I read drives me further toward the conclusion that they have only two motives: consolidating power and seeking revenge against anyone who has stood in their way.  Toward that end, shutting down resistance, eliminating free speech and the free press, rewriting the truth to conform to whatever Trump's cadre says it should be.  Everything contradictory is "oldspeak" that should be "rectified."

The result should be "doubleplusgood," don't you think?  Or maybe we should just stick with "Great Again."

My hope is the fact of this having been made public will give NSF and CDC employees the courage to defy this order.  People have to fight back, tell the 2025 version of the Thinkpol "No way in hell."  We have to spread this story far and wide, because you know the first thing the Trump administration is going to do is claim that this is all "fake news."

"Malquoted" and "misprinted."  Just like the erasure of any reference to the riots and insurrection on January 6.  Just like Trump's insistence that the recent series of horrible airplane crashes had to do with "DEI" and not with the fact that two weeks before the first one, he'd dismissed the head of the FAA and laid off hundreds of air traffic controllers.  Just like the tragic wildfires in California having nothing to do with climate change, but with "failed water policy" by the state's Democratic governor -- and that Trump came in and saved the day by releasing billions of gallons of water from reservoirs that didn't even flow toward Los Angeles, the loss of which will jeopardize agricultural irrigation for months.

Doesn't matter what's actually true.  If it strokes Trump's bloated ego, and allows him to post smug, self-congratulatory, usually misspelled messages on social media, then it's de facto the New Truth.

Of course, forbidden words are not the only hurdle academia is facing in the United States; coupled with all of the funding cuts the NSF, CDC, and NIH are undergoing, it's looking like a war that might not be winnable, at least not in the short term.  If what the administration really wants is to destroy the United States as a leader in scientific and medical research worldwide, they're going about it the right way.  What Trump and Musk and their cronies have done in the last three weeks isn't "rooting out corruption and waste;" it's placing free inquiry into an ideological straitjacket that will set American academia back decades, if it doesn't ruin it completely.

And as far as Orwell goes -- looks like got the details right.  All he missed was the year it happened.

****************************************

Stopping Marie Curie

I have a simple request.  Can we stop electing morons to public office?

As you might expect, this comment arises because of Louie Gohmert, the Texas representative who has been elected to five consecutive terms despite having only recently mastered the ability to walk without dragging his knuckles on the ground.

Gohmert, you might recall, is the one who said the military's function is to "kick rears, break things, and come home."  He's also the one who took a highly humiliating trip to Egypt (humiliating to the rest of America, although probably not to him, given that you have to have an IQ that exceeds your hat size in order to experience humiliation), in which he and Michele Bachmann made a highly condescending speech in which, amongst other things, they implied that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was responsible for 9/11.

Representative Louie Gohmert [image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

Now, Gohmert has beat all previous stupidity records by throwing sexism into the mix.  He was one of four representatives who voted against a bill authorizing the National Science Foundation to utilize funds to recruit women into scientific fields.  When asked why he had voted against the measure, here was his response:

This program is designed to discriminate against that young, poverty-stricken boy and to encourage the girl.  Forget the boy.  Encourage the girl. 

It just seems that, if we are ever going to get to the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr., that he spoke just down the Mall, he wanted people to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.  I know after race has been an issue that needed attention, then gender appropriately got attention. 

But the point is that those things are not supposed to matter. 

It just seems like, when we come in and we say that it is important that for a while we discriminate, we end up getting behind.  And then probably 25 years from now boys are going to have fallen behind in numbers, and then we are going to need to come in and say: Actually, when we passed that bill forcing encouragement of girls and not encouraging of little boys, we were getting behind the eight ball.  We didn’t see that we were going to be leaving little boys in the ditch, and now we need to start doing programs to encourage little boys.

So here is a person who is so steeped in white male privilege that he honestly doesn't get the toll that has been taken on women and minorities by systematic institutional prejudice.  One and all, the people who cry "overreach of political correctness" are themselves privileged -- and don't know what it's like to deal with, every single hour of every single day, others denying you access based on your gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.  They do not understand what it's like to have doors closed to you because of factors that you can't change (and in a fair society, wouldn't want to).

Yes, I know, I'm a heterosexual privileged white male myself.  The difference is that I know I don't know these things.  I'm not blowing hot air pretending that I have any perspective at all.

Gohmert, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be smart enough to recognize his ignorance.  In fact, he went on to say that it's a good thing that such a program didn't exist in Marie Curie's time:

I thank God that there wasn’t a program like this that distracted her.  But according to the bill that we passed today, we are requiring the Science Foundation to encourage entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women to extend their focus beyond the laboratory and into the commercial world.  Thank God that is not what Madame Curie did.

If you have any doubt about how the brilliant minds of women like Marie Curie, Hilde Mangold, Annie Jump Cannon, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, Barbara McClintock, and Rosalind Franklin would have benefited from a program like this, read about their lives, and the struggles that they faced simply having anyone in the field take them seriously.  Consider how much more they could have accomplished if the majority of their time hadn't been spent in proving that their credibility, competence, and intelligence had nothing to do with which sex organs they born with.

Gohmert's comments are a profound insult to women everywhere, and to their allies who at least partly understand how sexism still permeates our culture.  Unfortunately, though, I suspect that if such ugly willful ignorance hasn't caused him to lose the election the last five times, it probably won't make any difference in the next one.

Still, one can keep hoping.