This week pundits and commentators mined copies of George Orwell’s “1984” for quotable passages in their righteous protest against the Trump administration’s banning of words. had reported that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had forbidden employees from using the words: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Censorship! Thought police! Tyranny!
They overreacted. Itap not too far-fetched to believe that a fact-challenged president would exclude the word “evidence-based” from government use, but the truth is much less dramatic. Employees were asked to use the words sparingly in budget documents to avoid irritating members of Congress responsible for funding the agency. Thatap not exactly a nefarious Orwellian plot. I caution my communications students about using words with varied or emotionally charged connotations if they want their message received as intended. Itap not what you say but what people hear that matters most. When President Barack Obama, for example, refrained from using words like “Islamic extremism” to avoid alienating Muslim allies, he wasn’t banning words; he was being prudent.
Besides, itap OK to use synonyms. If CDC writers don’t use the words “evidence-based” or “science-based,” it will not be the end of evidence or science. It will not send us back to the dark ages or revive the practice of bloodletting. Replacing the somewhat loaded word “diversity” with a comparatively bland word like “variety” will not foist monochromatic sameness on a diverse, I mean heterogeneous, nation. Substituting the budget term “mandatory spending” for “entitlement spending” will not diminish benefits or debt obligations. Swapping the word “fetus” with the English translation “young one” won’t suddenly induce compassion for babies in utero. Words matter, but they don’t have the power of incantation.
So what should Americans be worried about if they can’t fret over the agency’s style guide? How about the size, scope and efficacy of their governmentap agencies? Democrats are skeptical of the government when Republicans are in charge while Republicans criticize government power only when Democrats hold it. Now that we’re $20 trillion in debt, a liability that will grow under the new tax law if Republican growth assumptions don’t pan out, itap time to be more broadly skeptical about government activities.
The CDC, an agency with a $7 billion budget, does valuable work in researching, monitoring and responding to public health threats such as communicable diseases. The agency also engages in activities not anticipated by the agency’s founders 70 years ago. This week the CDC website is providing vital information to the public on preparing and serving turkey, how to handle that holiday stress, and why one should “Say No to Raw Dough.” Too bad I missed the warning; I consumed 5 pounds of cookie dough last weekend without incident. Fortunately I did catch the CDC tweet about the importance of handwashing. That’ll be a lifesaver for all the kindergartners who follow the CDC on Twitter. Mission creep much? How about we ban the CDC from telling people what they already know.
Instead of fussing over words in budget documents, maybe the CDC and Congress should fuss over appropriate use of taxpayer funds and insist the agency focus on where it has added value — say, communicating with foreign health departments about the zika virus or disseminating research on antibiotic resistance. There’s no need to duplicate the efforts of the private sector. The agency can leave health education 101 to teachers, doctors and nurses, health care websites, and moms. We live in the information age. Science-based information is a click away. We’ll be OK with fewer words from the CDC.
Krista Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
