Our once-great universities have become centers of propaganda, propagating the ever-changing dictates of Leftist Multiculturalism, Cultural Marxism, the New World Order, whatever you choose to call it.

Central to this indoctrination is the mutilation of the great old English language, which in the process become less clear, less descriptive and vague.

The University of New Hampshire issued its "Bias-Free Language Guide", which is actually a "biased Bias-Free Language Guide". It tells the people at UNH what's acceptable and not acceptable to say.

Or does it? Way down at the bottom of the "Bias-Free Language Guide", it assures the reader that "The views expressed in this guide are NOT the policy of the University of New Hampshire. UNH supports free speech on all of our campuses."

Oh really? So why bother drafting and publishing it then?

Where are all the donors who give to universities? Do they approve of all this?

Here is a link to the "Bias-Free Language Guide", if you want to check it out. The Daily Caller has summarized it in its article Public University's Bias-Free Language Guide Calls the Word 'American' 'PROBLEMATIC' (Eric Owens, Daily Caller, July 28, 2015).

According to the "Bias-Free Language Guide", it's problematic for Americans to call themselves Americans because that usage "assumes the U.S. is the only country inside these two continents" (of North and South America). Instead of calling himself "American", an American should call himself a "U.S. citizen" or "Resident of the U.S.". Wait a minute, a resident of the U.S. is not necessarily a citizen. So maybe that's intentionally confusing.

This is a favorite argument of Latin Americans, because in Spanish América refers to the entire Western Hemisphere and americanos refers to any of that hemisphere's inhabitants, be they Mexicans, Colombians, Hondurans or what have you. It's also a very convenient argument if you are trying to make the United States part of Latin America.

In the English language, however, the term "American" has referred to our people since at least 1729, that is, decades before independence. It's the correct term for our nationality and anybody who doesn't like it can pound sand.

I have dealt with this issue before, and I invite the reader to peruse my article Is It Wrong For Us To Call Ourselves Americans?

If you're curious as to what other tidbits of nomenclature are found in the biased "Bias-Free Guide", here are some:

1.The term "foreigners" is out, replaced with "international people".

2. Of course "illegal alien" is out, and "illegal" as a noun referring to an illegal alien is even worse. Preferred terms are "undocumented immigrant or worker" or "person seeking asylum, refugee". Once again, they are confusing terms and making the terminology more vague, which is probably intentional.

3. The terms "senior citizens" and "seniors" are now "problematic/outdated". That's funny, because "senior citizen" was originally concocted as something of a PC term itself, but now, according to the New Hampshire language commissars, it's "problematic/outdated". Now "Old people has been reclaimed by some older activists who believe the standard wording of old people lacks the stigma of the term 'advanced age'. Old people halts the euphemizing of age. Euphemizing automatically positions age as a negative."

4. "Poor person" and "Poverty-stricken person" is out, you should say "person living at or below the poverty line, people experiencing poverty, person who lacks advantages that others have, low economic status related to a person’s education, occupation and income".

5. The UNH says you should not talk about "the homeless", rather "person-experiencing homelessness".

6. The term "rich" is out, it should be "person of material wealth".

7. The terms "obese" and "overweight people" are "problematic/outdated", to be replaced by "people of size" which is of course less specific.

8. Regarding handicaps, the "Bias-Free Guide" lectures the readers to

Use person-first constructions that put the person ahead of the disability, e.g., instead of “a blind woman” or “a diabetic”, use “a woman who is blind” or “a person with diabetes”.

Even though terms such as "disability", "handicapped", and "challenged" were used as PC-type euphemisms in the past, now even those terms are out. In fact, are disabilities even negative?

Avoid using language that casts disabilities as negative. For example, steer away from using phrases such as; suffers from, afflicted with or victim of, as such expressions cast disabilities as negative attributes. By the same token, avoid using the terms; handicapped, challenged and crippled. Nick Holtzhum, former UNH student said, “Being disabled just gives you different means to do the same things that others do.” Although the majority of disability advocacy groups and members of the disability community generally accept the term “disability,” there are some who believe that even the term “disability” itself is pejorative. Some people may often prefer to use terms such as “differently abled” and/or may characterize a disability as simply a difference rather than any sort of impediment, for example, members of Deaf Culture.

9. The UNH language commissars tell the reader that "Some people may not feel comfortable using traditional gender pronouns (she/her, he/him) to fit their gender identities. Transgender, genderqueer, and gender-variant people may choose different pronouns for themselves. The attached guide is a starting point for using pronouns respectfully." There's a whole other section you can click for that subject.

I think I'll pass on that one.