If you thought Michigan had exhausted its supply of woke madness, think again. Their latest virtue signaling stunt? It may be racist to argue that Latin plant names, a mainstay of taxonomy for centuries (the University of Michigan warns that Latin plant names may be racist).
The University of Michigan has warned that using Latin names for plants could be racist and offered guidance on preventing the influence of colonial “power structures” on visitors.
A strategy document from the University's Arboretum and Arboretum warns against using the traditional combination of English and Latin names on plaques next to plants over concerns it could erase “other forms of recognition”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/10/17/latin-plant-names-racist-suggests-university-michigan
Yes, you read that right: Apparently, language that for centuries served as a universal classification tool for the scientific community is now a symbol of oppression. This is what happens when academia, long the cradle of knowledge, decides to trade rigor for absurdity, replacing logic with ideological pandering that borders on the absurd.
We are now in a time when a centuries-old system, based on practicality and proven effectiveness, is labeled as problematic because it is unfit for today's ever-changing, ever-demanding social justice pattern. The University of Michigan’s position that Latin names might somehow perpetuate colonialism or reflect systemic racism is not only ridiculous, it’s dangerous. It requires hammering the foundations of science and replacing them with the brittle bones of political correctness.
The practice of naming plants, animals, and nearly every living organism in existence using Latin names has been an important tool for scientists since the 18th century. The Latin binomial nomenclature system proposed by Carl Linnaeus provides scientists around the world with a common language for describing the natural world. In one fell swoop, Linnaeus standardized taxonomy and gave researchers a way to classify species based on their relationships, physical characteristics, and evolutionary history. This is progress, not an act of colonialism.
However, the University of Michigan’s actions scream We will be the most sane among themhas determined that this scientific breakthrough is objectionable in some way. How exactly? They believe Latin names may be related to colonization, or they may reflect outdated social power structures. The absurdity of this statement cannot be overstated. It’s as if someone decided to tear apart the building blocks of science just to satisfy the ever-expanding needs of social justice warriors. Clearly, it is not enough that biology is universally understood and that countless lives have been saved through precise identification of species for medical and ecological purposes – no, what matters now is that some artificial sense of “inclusiveness” must trump scientific merit.
Let's be honest: This is what happens when academia stops caring about science and instead bows to the social justice mob. They throw away what works—what has always worked—because someone, somewhere, might claim to be offended. It's the intellectual equivalent of smashing your own compass, because someone once claimed that the company that made it had ties to explorers who mapped unknown lands. Or, it's the equivalent of dismantling your own telescope because someone thought the star it helped you discover was named by someone with outdated beliefs.
What's more crucial is – this isn't just an isolated incident of madness. The University of Michigan has been on this awakening trajectory for some time. If we trace their ideological oblivion, we find that the Latin botanical name “fiasco” was just the next rung on their belt of progress. Before that, they had already made headlines for their overzealous adoption of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies that valued identity politics over academic merit. Their DEI initiatives have now reached the point where scientific facts and long-standing academic practices are marginalized in favor of social justice madness.
Ten years ago, Michigan leaders launched an ambitious new DEI initiative aimed at “implementing far-reaching, foundational change at every level and in every unit.” According to an internal presentation I obtained, Michigan State has invested approximately $2.5 billion in DEI since 2016 in an effort to reach, as the school puts it, “everyone on campus.” A 2021 report from the conservative Heritage Foundation examining the growth of DEI programs in higher education—the only study of its kind to date—found that Michigan has by far the largest DEI bureaucracy of any large public university . Tens of thousands of undergraduates have completed bias training. Thousands of teachers have been trained in inclusive teaching.
When Michigan launched what is now called DEI 1.0, it intentionally placed itself at the vanguard of a revolution that would reshape American higher education. Across the country, university administrators are rapidly expanding DEI, believing that such programs will help attract and retain more diverse students and faculty.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/magazine/dei-university-michigan.html
What we see is an increasing prevalence of university culture, with the pursuit of scientific excellence giving way to the fashionable careers of the day. It's more important to look like “progress” than to actually make progress. The Latin taxonomy once used to describe more than 1.2 million species is suddenly under suspicion amid concerns that using Latin could be reminiscent of colonial times? This is pure madness.
The basic question no one at UM seems willing to ask is: Who does this serve? Are scientists in Brazil or South Africa calling for an overhaul of the Latin classification because it somehow limits their ability to conduct research or make breakthrough discoveries? Of course not. The global scientific community thrives precisely because of the universality of Latin names. A plant in Kenya has the same name as a plant in France or Japan. This is no accident. It was designed and has been the foundation for collaboration, communication, and discovery for centuries. To think that this system is somehow exclusive is not only a gross distortion of reality, but also an insult to the very nature of science, which should always prioritize clarity and generalizability over ideology.
The sheer utility of Latin nomenclature cannot be overstated. There's a reason the Linnaean classification has lasted nearly 300 years – it works. Scientists from different cultures and speaking different languages can communicate seamlessly when referencing a smart man, rusty roseor leo leopard. Imagine a world where instead of these clear and consistent labels we are forced to use colloquial or politically sanitized versions that change based on geography or worse, political whims. Confusion will prevail and scientific progress will be hampered by this narrow insistence on pandering to the ideological trends of the day.
There is no doubt that following this ideological bandwagon has real consequences. If UM's position becomes mainstream, the target will be more than Latin plant names. Once the ideological floodgates are opened, where will it end? Will we stop using Latin names for diseases because someone claims it was insensitive to ancient Roman slaves? Do we throw away mathematical terms like “algorithm” because they are of Arabic origin, lest anyone feel left out as a reminder of historical conquest?
What makes this situation even more insidious is that these attacks on taxonomy are considered progress or justicewhen in fact they are exactly the opposite. The destruction of common scientific language hinders progress, disrupts the discovery process, and plunges us into an intellectual free fall where no standards are immune to ideological scrutiny. Latin names have nothing to do with colonialism, racism or oppression. They are about accuracy, practicality, and the advancement of knowledge. That UM can’t (or won’t) see this is a testament to how deeply DEI ideology has infiltrated and corroded academia
If the goal of college is to truly educate students and prepare them for the world, this nonsense is doing them a disservice. It taught them that science is malleable, that facts can be rewritten if they make someone uncomfortable, and that the pursuit of truth can be put aside in favor of scoring points with the loudest activists. This is the antithesis of academic rigor. Rather than challenging students to meet the requirements of scientific inquiry, Michigan tells them that if the tools of inquiry do not align with the prevailing social justice narrative, then they are part of the problem.
However, the real world does not rely on emotions and clichés. Scientists in the field, conservationists trying to protect endangered species, doctors identifying diseases—they all rely on the accuracy and consistency provided by Latin names. They don't have the ability to rename things because a handful of theorists think those names are problematic. This is why the wider scientific community should reject this absurd idea outright. If we let woke politics dictate how we name and classify the world around us, we are no longer doing science—we are doing activism.
In the end, Michigan's debacle is just a symptom of a larger problem. Academia is no longer a bastion of free thought and the pursuit of knowledge; it has become a hotbed of the latest fads. Latinx taxonomies are not the problem, the problem is that people see the racism behind every tree and rock. It is people who are so blinded by ideology that they fail to recognize the value of a system that has stood the test of time.
This is a message to the University of Michigan and anyone else who believes in this madness: Stop politicizing science. Stop twisting every aspect of life into debates about race, gender, or oppression. There is no need to dismantle the systems that allow us to understand, classify and protect the natural world. If you truly care about progress and you care about inclusivity, then uphold the universal standards that allow science to thrive. That's how you make sure everyone has a seat, rather than turning the table over, as it was made in the 18th century.
H/T Stravarius
Relevant
