We have a language problem on campus. I don’t mean the “language problem” your mom lectured you about, nor do I mean an inability to understand a foreign language. We have a problem choosing our words.

For example, I recently read an e-mail from Workers for Justice, regarding the PSU panel held on Apr. 6. It said the following:

“Currently, the event is a supposed dialogue between the panelists on unionization. However, since over 90% of the workers have demanded the right to unionization by the fair process of card-check, who’s place is it to question their demand? The united voice of the workers must be heard and respected; a dialogue is not necessary and the administration must recognize that! It is our duty then, as students and community members, to show our unified support for the workers.”

To preface: I support the workers. I do not have a problem with their cause. I do have a problem with this e-mail.

Step back from the cause for a minute and think about the words used here, and their implications. This e-mail says all of the following: We shouldn’t question. We should accept demands made by a majority. There is such a thing as a “united voice,” and it has spoken. Respect means to comply. Dialogue is not necessary.

None of these things are true. And all of their implications are dangerous.

Where have we heard these sorts of messages before? They’re omnipresent in dystopian novels, the Soviet Union, and bad schools with bad teachers, among others. Sure, this e-mail isn’t as serious as all that, but it uses the same rhetoric. If we condemn these messages in everything from fiction to geo-political relations to our own education, then we shouldn’t get behind them now.Unthinking language cannot be co-opted for a good cause; insidious means to an end denigrate the end cause in itself.

If we value a free society, then we must question, we must be skeptical of demands, we must speak our own minds, we must maintain our individuality, we must respect others by being thoughtful, intelligent, and discerning, and we must engage in dialogue with other people and ideas as often as we possibly can.

I suspect that the writers of this e-mail do value a free society, and the qualities it entails. In other circumstances, they would perhaps endorse these qualities, when faced with a vote on whether or not to engage in, say, a war, or when told that it is certain that WMDs are in a certain country, for example. The workers themselves had to do all of the things this e-mail asks us not to do before they could reach the point they have reached today.

It is easy to be both emphatic and careless with our words when we are convinced we are right. But it is our job as educated, thoughtful people to hold ourselves to the same standards we would hold others to, and to hold to standards we can always get behind, no matter the cause.

Let’s throw our full support behind the causes we care about, and let’s strengthen them with words that carry the full weight of our values, instead of leaning on disingenuous words as an easy crutch.

We would be wise to remember that respect is to compliance as ignorance is to strength.