Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:09:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Cheponis <mac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Master/Slave verboten!
From: MBK
<http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp>
Claim: The County of Los Angeles has requested that equipment vendors
avoid using the industry term "Master/Slave" in product descriptions and
labelling.
Status: True.
Origins: Social
changes of our era have been accompanied by linguistic changes: as
discrimination based upon race, gender, or physical condition has become
less socially acceptable, we began to frown upon the use of pejorative
terms associated with race, moved towards more gender-neutral usages of
language (e.g., 'chairperson' instead of 'chairman'), and replaced terms
for describing the disabled with less stigmatizing ones (e.g., 'mentally
handicapped' rather than 'retarded').
Along with these linguistic changes have come tales of the "political
correctness run amok" variety - cases where certain usages were deemed
unacceptable merely because they bore a resemblance to terms now
considered inappropriate, even though the usages had little or nothing
in common with the now-inappropriate terms in a linguistic sense. For
example, we've read of the 1999 incident in which a mayoral aide
(temporarily) lost his job for using the word 'niggardly' in a staff
meeting, even though the word's origins have nothing to do with race,
and even though the aide used the word correctly (to mean 'miserly' or
'stingy'). Or we've heard the (possibly apocryphal) tale of a writer who
was informed by his editor that his use of the hunting term 'duck blind'
was unacceptable, as the preferred substitute for the latter word is now
'visually impaired.'
How far we should take this linguistic sensitivity to social issues has
long been a subject of (often heated) debate. Can female members of the
fire department be referred to by the traditional title of 'fireman,' or
does true gender equality require that they be identified as
'firewomen'? Is the existence of separate gender words for the same
concept itself a form of gender discrimination, requiring us to adopt a
neutral term such as 'fireperson' for everyone? Or should we just chuck
the whole thing and call everybody 'firefighters'? What one group sees
as socially progressive, another group is bound to view as a needless
discarding of the familiar and traditional.
Another example of this phenomenon surfaced recently in reference to
'master/slave,' a term commonly used in computing (and related
industries) to describe the unidirectional control of one device or
process by another. Equipment vendors who do business with Los Angeles
County received a message in November 2003 from the county's Internal
Services Department (ISD) informing them that "based on the cultural
diversity and sensitivity of Los Angeles County," labeling or describing
equipment with the term 'master/slave' is no longer acceptable:
Subject: IDENTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT SOLD TO LA COUNTY
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:21:16 -0800
From: "Los Angeles County"
The County of Los Angeles actively promotes and is committed to ensure a
work environment that is free from any discriminatory influence be it
actual or perceived. As such, it is the County's expectation that our
manufacturers, suppliers and contractors make a concentrated effort to
ensure that any equipment, supplies or services that are provided to
County departments do not possess or portray an image that may be
construed as offensive or defamatory in nature.
One such recent example included the manufacturer's labeling of
equipment where the words "Master/Slave" appeared to identify the
primary and secondary sources. Based on the cultural diversity and
sensitivity of Los Angeles County, this is not an acceptable
identification label.
We would request that each manufacturer, supplier and contractor review,
identify and remove/change any identification or labeling of equipment
or components thereof that could be interpreted as discriminatory or
offensive in nature before such equipment is sold or otherwise provided
to any County department.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance.
Joe Sandoval, Division Manager
Purchasing and Contract Services
Internal Services Department
County of Los Angeles
Note: You are receiving this email because you have registered with the
County of Los Angeles. If you do not wish to receive future L.A. County
Event news, simply click the link below, and update your registration
information to remove email notification.
To verify that this wasn't a hoax or an internal joke which mistakenly
escaped to the wider world of the Internet, we called the Purchasing and
Contract Services division for the County of Los Angeles, and they
informed us that yes, they did issue this message, and yes, it was meant
seriously. The representative we spoke with said that someone within the
County bureaucracy - a person who probably didn't understand computer
terminology - had taken offense at 'master/slave' references and
complained to the board, whereupon the Internal Services Department was
obligated to issue notification requesting that vendors refrain from
using that terminology.
Whether this message reflects more a "socially progressive" change or
one of the "needless discarding of the familiar and traditional" variety
we couldn't say, but - much to the chagrin of several vendors who passed
it along to us - the County of Los Angeles is apparently serious about
it.
Last updated: 24 November 2003