Biases Come In Many Forms—and Neutrality Is One of Them
As a journalist and as a social activist, I am passionate about the power of words and language in our lives. Especially when it comes to discussions surrounding marginalization and discrimination, little words can have a big impact.I believe that journalists, including myself, owe readers deliberate word choices that clearly define a point. The language we use has the potential to have repercussions in our society, and with so many words to choose from, we must choose right.
The Words We Use Matter as Much as What We Say
Consider how language has evolved to be more inclusive of women in the workforce—terms such as fireman, policeman and councilman have evolved to firefighter, police officer and councilor. As we progress, and collectively become more informed, our word choices shift to reflect the state of our world. With more information on diverse gender identities, language dynamics are becoming more inclusive and less gender-oriented. We move forward, and we take language with us.But a growing distaste for political correctness leaves many reminiscing about the good old days when word choices didn’t seem to matter. However, for those who bear the brunt of society’s anxieties and prejudices, they always have.Now certain words have begun to stand out. It’s easier than ever to identify the sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia in simple word choices. And in such a polarized world, words aren’t just words anymore: they are sentiments, positions and movements. Recently, I was having a conversation with a friend who told me he did not support the trans community, but he also wasn’t against them. Neither of us identifies with the group, but it seemed it was fairly easy for him to maintain such a distance that he never felt pressured to take a stance. However, I have many trans individuals who have been close to me over the years and have enabled me to see the kind of bigotry and danger they face. Objectively, trans individuals are subjected to hardships that cis people are not, and to hold a neutral stance is to accept the social climate toward them. To give an extreme example, if you were to see a young man physically abusing an elderly lady on the sidewalk one day, remaining neutral would mean taking the side of the man. By doing nothing, you allow him to keep his power, and you accept the harm from these actions. It is not every day that you see this man, but it is every day that society systematically abuses its marginalized groups. And once again, remaining neutral is accepting this power dynamic and its consequences.
To be a journalist is to conform to some notion of neutrality.
We Can’t Stay Neutral When People Are Being Hurt
One of the more shocking events in Canadian news history was the discovery of thousands of unmarked graves at the institutions many Indigenous children were taken against their will when European colonizers arrived in the Americas. As a white person living in Canada, I knew these places were bad, but I never realized how bad until the bodies of hundreds of children were found just outside the town I live in.The severity of the situation prompted many journalists, including myself, to pay attention to Indigenous issues like never before. But writing about horrific instances of discrimination is more than just writing; it’s learning, it’s growing and it’s taking a stance. However, to be a journalist is to conform to some notion of neutrality. When you’re writing about politics, you don’t voice your own views; you simply state the facts of the situation. Yet we live in an Oldspeak world where words by themselves will always convey implicit messages, no matter how hard we try to steer clear of stances.
The Canadian government has always referred to these institutions for Indigenous children as “residential schools,” but as news spread about the realities of these places, many Indigenous activists began to put quotations around the word “schools,” a style choice I, too, adopted into my writing. The decision is not meant to be a polarizing one. It is simply recognizing the subtle sugarcoating of history and making an effort to modernize outdated language. These were not, as we would define them today, schools.However, my editor disagreed.“As a newspaper, it’s not our place to take stances,” he said. “Our job is to be neutral and simply relay black-and-white information.”What this position fails to recognize, however, is that neutrality is its own bias. People were hurt by these institutions; people are still hurting because of them. A dichotomy of power exists in our society because of this history, and to remain neutral is a nonchalant means of accepting this.
Would it be so terrible to evolve this thinking?
“Hypersensitivity” Isn’t the Problem
In the Canadian Press style guide, the section on inclusive word choices in writing represents this issue: “But don’t get carried away. To write human energy or human resources to avoid manpower, or person-eating tiger to avoid man-eating tiger is being hypersensitive.”I disagree with this sentiment, as I don’t believe hypersensitivity is something the modern journalist needs to run from. We often use words such as manpower because we have a culture that largely favors men. Would it be so terrible to evolve this thinking?I have found that in many issues around discrimination and socioeconomic oppression, neutrality is nothing but a listless fallacy. In such cases, one group will always be on top, and the dichotomy of power alone creates an implicit bias. To take no side is to take the side of the one on top. I figure if you cannot avoid taking a stance, you must be deliberate.Language is a weapon that we must wield responsibly. Take care in choosing your words and think about every bias you take, including that of neutrality.
