Woke leaders at USC ban the word ‘field’ because it’s racist

The University of Southern California’s School of Social Work has published a letter saying it will remove the word ‘field’ from its curriculum and practice and replace it with the word ‘practicum’ instead.  

The move is meant to reflect ‘anti-racist’ values, but some have argued that it insults the intelligence of the people who it is addressing. 

‘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,’ the letter read. 

‘Language can be powerful, and phrases such as “going into the field” or “field work” may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.’ 

A tweet included a copy of the letter from the University of Southern California

Houman David Hemmati, a board-certified MD Ophthalmologist and PhD research scientist, tweeted: ‘Today, @uscsocialwork sent out this letter announcing that they will no longer use the word ‘field’ (as in ‘conducting field work’) because it’s perceived as racist. Is this with merit or empty virtue signaling? @elonmusk @IngrahamAngle’.

An Opinion piece by the Washington Examiner said: ‘Only an overeducated, self-righteous, supercilious left-wing academic elitist would think of something like this. It is an outlandish statement and indicative of the intellectual rot that plagues universities throughout the country.’

It noted that immigrants and black people are not the only ones who ‘go into the field’, highlighting how farmers of Asian and European descent throughout history have survived thousands of years of human civilization without being troubled by the use of the term.  

The change in the curriculum at The University of Southern California (pictured) was said to stem from an adherence to the radical orthodoxy of ‘anti-racist’ methodology, but some have argued that it insults the intelligence of the people who it is addressing

The article said that USC should be forced to show the data it used in order to make such a change and that common sense ‘would dictate that very few, if any, black people or immigrants are bothered by the word ‘field”. It argued that this train of through is ‘indicative of the toxic foolishness that has infiltrated academia and the elitist intelligentsia’.

The opinion piece points out that people are not opposed to learning about racial challenges in the nation’s past but do not want to be indoctrinated in this fashion. The article argues that it also ‘advances the perpetual victimization narrative’.

Replying to the post, one Twitter user said: ‘For someone who spent more than 7 years at USC with 2 graduate degrees from this institution, I am so embarrassed at what’s happening there. I wonder how much of my money they spent on coming up with this amazingly useful change.’

Another commented: ‘Wow, I went to USC and never thought it was particularly woke. Of course that was 10 years ago now… and I didn’t study social work.’

A third tweeted: ‘Are they still going to have baseball and football fields?’ 

Pictured: The University of Southern California’s School of Social Work

Last year, the University of Washington issued an IT inclusive language guide. It aimed to cut out ‘words that reflect racial or other discriminatory bias,’ covering the full woke spectrum. 

‘Mantra’ was among the problematic words highlighted, as many people in the Buddhist and Hindu community hold this term as highly spiritual and religious. 

The phrase ‘no can do’ was also listed, as it is apparently an imitation of Chinese Pidgin English, dating from the mid-nineteenth to early-twentieth centuries – an era when Western attitudes towards the Chinese were markedly racist. 

Stanford University published a similar index of ‘harmful language’ last year. One of the words considered harmful was ‘guru’ as the term is a sign of respect in Buddhist and Hindu traditions. ‘Brave’ also appeared on the list as the University considered it to perpetuate the stereotype of the ‘noble courageous savage’.