Campus “Inclusivity” Policies are Protecting Feelings, But Not Freedoms

College campuses once were thought of as places where the fostering of an open debate and free exchange of ideas was a fundamental goal. The decision by the University of Colorado-Boulder to remove the term “illegal aliens” from its library catalog demonstrates how academic institutions are more concerned about protecting feelings than freedoms.

On August 19, it was announced that the University Libraries had added “inclusive, non-Library of Congress subject headings to 5,367 library catalog records” on the issue of immigration. Now, the statement continued, users can perform searches “using more ethical subject headings, without being limited to using problematic subject headings such as ‘illegal aliens’ in the library catalog.”

What prompted the school’s decision? An effort “to foster diversity and inclusion in the libraries and on campus,” of course.

It is notable the university opted for the “non-Library of Congress” version since government agencies, such as the Government Accounting Office (GAO), recognize “illegal alien” as the proper, accurate and official definition.

In fact, the term “alien” and “illegal alien” are cited in the United States Code:

The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
—United States Code, Title 8, §1101(a)(3)

An illegal alien…is any alien (1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without inspection, or (2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a nonimmigrant and—(A) whose period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired, or (B) whose unlawful status was known to the Government, before the date of the commission of the crime for which the alien is convicted.
—United States Code, Title 8, §1365(b)

CU-Boulder is not alone in sacrificing accuracy on the altar of inclusivity.

Earlier this year, Marquette University published on its website a language guide to “Undocumented Student Terminology” to offer “guidance for how campus leaders, faculty, staff, and students can show their support through compassionate and inclusive language.”

The page suggests not using “illegal” because “not only is it inaccurate, it is dehumanizing,” but does not stop there. Teachers and other alleged educators are told to be “sensitive” and make “known that use of the terms ‘illegals’ or ‘illegal immigrants/aliens’ will not be tolerated in their classrooms.

As the bastions of left-wing ideas and group-think that they are , it is not unusual to see pro-illegal alien sentiments promoted on campus. But when academic institutions begin to use their authority (legal and moral) to stifle the freedoms of one to protect the feelings of another, then we cannot remain silent.

About Author


1 Comment

  1. avatar

    Up is down according to many on the left. It’s like the term anchor baby which they virulently disagree with. But just suggest that the illegal parents deserve no special consideration and should be deported and they scream and yell that the parents have to be here because of the children, when all along they can take their citizen children back to their home country, which the children are always a citizen of. A child born here of Mexican parents is also a Mexican citizen. Therefore anchor baby describes the situation perfectly.

    Looks like the all star Democratic team of name callers are stepping up to the plate again. Biden said that those Trump voters he describes as the “dregs of society” have “an ally in the White House”. Like Hillary’s deplorables comment which left you wondering just exactly what she thought of you and why she could not possibly admit that maybe being in favor of actually enforcing immigration laws might be a good reason to vote for Trump and not her open border policies.

    Obama is now trying to take credit for the Trump economy. Except you have to go back to the election and recall all the statements by Obama and politicians and pundits who predicted absolute disaster when Trump took over. Which is it? Obama also said Republicans spread “wild conspiracy theories about Benghazi”. But the timeline supports the “theories”. Obama and Hillary became aware very quickly of the attack, which went on for six hours. All during that time, American fighter planes sat on runways in southern Europe, an hour away, and they were never told to fly to the scene, where they might have made a difference.