Installation of the Thought Police
When I was in high school, I played the landlady in a stage production of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984. I had a few lines, got to sing a ditty, and my final contribution was an off-stage shrill scream signaling the audience to imagine my horrific demise at the hands of the “Thought Police.” My performance got good reviews in the school newspaper, except for maybe the scream, which sounded like a teenage girl rather than an old lady.
But now I can genuinely scream like an old lady. And I had such an urge when I read that Sarah Huckabee Sanders appears ready to install Orwell’s Thought Police into state government. On her first day in office, she banned the term “Latinx” from use by the legislature.
If a given word is hateful, our good manners should override our impulse to utter it. If we fail to curb our tongues because we are either angry or ignorant, it would be nice if a friend or colleague gently guided us to restrain ourselves.
In fact, the constitution that guarantees our freedom of speech, comes with some caveats – responsibilities, if you will. Case law has protected our right to use offensive words and phrases to convey political messages (Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15) and to engage in symbolic speech—like burning a flag in protest (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397). But Case law also illuminates limits on freedom of speech, such as inciting imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444) or making/distributing obscene materials (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476).
But the word ‘Latinx” is not hateful, not obscene, and doesn’t incite lawlessness. It’s a useful term recently absorbed into our fluid English language.
Merriam-Webster defines it thusly: of, relating to, or marked by Latin American heritage.
Dictionary.com says: of or relating to people of Latin American origin or descent, especially those living in the United States.
Encyclopedia Britannica concurs: gender-neutral term referring to someone living in the United States who was born in or has ancestors from Latin America.
But Sanders called this word “ethnically insensitive” and “pejorative language,” and commanded that “…within sixty (60) days of this Order, all state offices, departments, and agencies shall revise all existing written materials by replacing the terms ‘Latinx,’ ‘latinx,’ ‘Latinxs,’ or “‘latinxs’ with ‘Hispanic,’ ‘Hispanics,’ ‘Latino,’ ‘Latinos,’ ‘Latina,’ or ‘Latinas.’”
I understand—honestly—if the inclusion of this word into the general vocabulary is difficult for her. When people started using the term “access” as a verb, as in “You can access the list online,” my husband and I struggled immensely with our inner grammarians. Access was a noun. You could have access to something. You could change the noun to an adjective so something could be accessible, But you couldn’t just access the thing. Oh, how we raved. But in the long run, access as a verb makes sense. It’s direct. Concise.
And I remember how long it took for the honorific Ms. to catch on. Prior to its introduction women were divided into married (Mrs.) or unmarried (Miss). But our marital status wasn’t anyone’s business.
More to the point, language evolves. It’s the nature of the beast. To pretend that we can control it by edict is absurd. To try to do so reeks of… well, “1984.”
Now, some folks are offended by the term Latinx because they associate it with the LGBTQ+ community. I certainly hope Sarah Huckabee Sanders isn’t one of these. That seems hateful.