If only Carlin was around

When St. George of Carlin performed a comedy routine about seven dirty words you couldn't say on '70s television, he was slipping into a long conversation that is still ongoing.

To be honest, that conversation probably always won't ever end, but at the time it caused quite a stir. Carlin's words — most of which you also can't print in a family newspaper — resulted in his arrest (later thrown out), the threat of a hefty fine from the FCC (that was taken to court), and a 1978 Supreme Court case (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, which the FCC won).

I wonder sometimes if we will ever get this right, Though there was no naughty language in it, late last month someone with the Associated Press Stylebook (the journalists' bible) posted a tweet that suggested avoiding “general and often dehumanizing ‘the' labels such as the poor, the mentally ill, the French, the disabled, the college educated.”

The French embassy in the United States had a field day, and responded with a tweet that facetiously renamed their organization “the Embassy of Frenchness in the United States.” The Stylebook is a great guide for journalists everywhere, but what, precisely, could be derogatory about saying “the French?”

We all got a giggle, and the tweet was summarily deleted.

Such is the ever-evolving nature of language, but sometimes, I'm with Carlin. It would be helpful to have a list of words that are OK to use — more importantly, words that aren't — though I understand that won't work. Language is the embodiment of a healthy democracy. When things work as they're supposed to, community standards say we get a vote on what is appropriate language, be that labels, gender pronouns, or different appellations for different demographic groups. In the end — again, if things are working — the tie goes to the runner, the person who has the most stake in the discussion, and if need be, we all make the shift. It costs me nothing to address a student who has requested not “he” or “she” but “their,” and if the grammarian in me balks, well, I'll get used to it. That's not a threat to the genders, the world order, or God. That's just respect.

When you live in a diverse society, that can mean a lot of discussions, and sometimes even hurt feelings. In our first edition of this semester, the college newspaper for which I am academic adviser offended some students with the language in an opinion piece.

I'm not notching my belt about that, and neither are member of the newspaper staff. The students who publish the newspaper take their job seriously, and they do not set out to offend. Because the reaction was loud, the author of the piece briefly talked about quitting, and I told her — from decades of experience — that when you write opinion pieces, you must develop a shell that will block ad hominem attacks, but allow room for constructive criticism. Constructive criticism makes you a better opinion-writer, and it should move you to always ask yourself: What if I'm wrong?

Besides, keeping up with language is part of journalism.

It should also be part of life. A few years ago, in the world of real estate, the use of the phrase “master bedroom” — with its negative nod to master and slaves — was abandoned in favor of “primary” bedroom. You barely heard a squawk over that change. The world kept turning.

In the last century, when I entered college, women college students were still called coeds, while male college students were called simply “students.” See the difference? That word choice embraced the sexist notion that colleges and universities were still the realm of men, and that women were just visiting. Don't think we didn't notice, but ha, ha. Those visitors are here to stay. Campuses these days consistently are home to more women than men.

Campus speech — as is speech everywhere — is forever up for debate, and sometimes, if you're standing outside the ivy walls, it looks as if schools struggling to be inclusive go overboard. I'm not complaining. Language is a living thing and what is acceptable today by the majority may actually be offensive tomorrow. We don't need to be degreed etymologists to keep up, though the process can be painful. Stanford University recently walked away from their Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, an attempt to remove questionable (racist and/or violent) language from the school's website. The list of questionable words included “brave” (too reminiscent of the word formerly applied to male Indigenous people) and “beat a dead horse” (apologies to horses, but c'mon; that phrase should be red-lined as a cliche.)

Carlin has been dead since 2008, yet he's still quoted across the political landscape. For what it's worth — and I think it's worth a lot — 50 years after that routine, you can flip on the television and hear quite a few of the words off his naughty list. Is that progress? Maybe. It is certainly the nature of language.

Susan Campbell is the author of “Frog Hollow: Stories from an American Neighborhood,” “Tempest-Tossed: The Spirit of Isabella Beecher Hooker” and “Dating Jesus: A Story of Fundamentalism, Feminism and the American Girl.” She is Distinguished Lecturer at the University of New Haven, where she teaches journalism.

AP The late comedian George Carlin.