So you're advocating censorship of these voluntary guidelines?
There is a reason why "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. If Stanford ever proposed to enforce this, then that is an easy off-ramp to the slippery slope.
>”So you're advocating censorship of these voluntary guidelines?”
Censorship, no. But I’ll be upfront and say that I think the vast majority of the suggestions in this guide are unjustified, unnecessary, and serve to provide a chilling effect on how people are allowed to speak about the world. I do believe the ultimate goal is not just to police language, but to police how people think. A cursory look at the rationale behind each suggestion supports this.
Therefore, I hope likeminded people speak out about how this guide should not be followed. And that people vociferously oppose that this document be referenced in any official guidelines.
Just as there is no legal requirement to write using Chicago or AP style, they have become de facto requirements. So I worry that just having it be “voluntary” will lead to academics pushing it as a soft requirement that eventually becomes a hard one that is voluntary in name only.
There is a reason why "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. If Stanford ever proposed to enforce this, then that is an easy off-ramp to the slippery slope.