Classes are mostly freed from the jargon headache, but when looking at any text put out by the management - the army of secretaries, bookkeepers, administrators and others employed here but not serving in any real academic function - I get the feeling that I've taken in quite a lot but have learned nothing.

In a PowerPoint presentation prepared by the ACC Center for Community-Based & Nonprofit Organizations, titled "Encouraging Diversity," I am told that in order to fight hatred of the homeless I should "make BIG plans but plan small steps" and I should remember that "the Difference between a city & a community is YOU!" The second statement is so nonsensical it manages to pass the jargon test because of the emphasis on the ubiquitous pronoun.

The simplest explanation is that this is the language of a group with something to lose. One of the big fears inside any bureaucracy is that the organization will stop growing or, dare I speak of it, become smaller. So the intentionally vague and lamely "inspiring" statements are there for a specific purpose - to prevent harm to the organization by stopping any dissent at its origin.

It is the language of politicians for this reason. It's why few take a skeptical look at the Obama campaign's empty slogan "Yes We Can" … do what? Support "Change We Can Believe In," a phrase which makes it difficult to express the idea that not all change is positive. George W. Bush certainly changed things as well, hasn't he?

One piece of the ACCCCBNO (yes, that's the correct abbreviation) presentation in particular asks, in a message displayed above images of peaceful families engaged in religious ceremonies, "Do you accept religions/traditions that aren't your own?" This can have two meanings. Either it is asking whether I regard other religions as true, or whether I regard them as appropriate or normal. If it's the former, then no religious or non-religious person could ever answer in the affirmative without a steep dive off a cliff. It's probably the latter, which raises other problems.

A cursory look at religions across the world (the United States included) will find abusive practices against women and the human body encouraged by bigoted churches and their chauvinist leaders. I don't respect those traditions, but others disagree or think I should. Women's equality is one example; if we support it

everywhere, we shouldn't blind ourselves to abuse done in the name of god. Am I not supposed to say this? Am I not being culturally sensitive?

If we use the language of euphemism and deceiving language, then it becomes very hard to raise questions about these problems. And there's the rub, you see - we're not supposed to.

Article Tools