1

Brandon Pimentel
CST 300 Writing Lab
8 October 2022

The Ethics of Racially Loaded Terminology

The field of computer science has been around for over a hundred years but

experienced a surge of innovation in the mid-20th century, while researchers at

universities and institutions across the United States attempted to solve the problem of

telecommunication. During the America’s Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and ‘60s,

a large majority of university students who might have partaken in technological

innovation were Caucasian - Black students having made up only 13% of total

enrollment by 1967 (Karen, 1991). Due to the passage of time, as well as a singular

narrative on the history of computer science, it is hard to determine the impact that

black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) had on technology; however, the

presence of many racist characteristics within the tech industry would suggest that

people of color were seldom involved in early design choices that would go on to

influence computer science for the following century (Delesline, 2022). As the industry

continues to grow more diverse, a relatively new subject of debate has gripped some

journalists and shareholders: the use of racist terminology to identify technological

concepts. Specifically, the debate highlights words with either racially insensitive

etymology, or those which perpetuate certain connotations involving color, known as

colored language. Each set of words has a different circumstance which merits their

place in this discussion.

 2

In computer science, the terms “Master/Slave” have been used since 1904 in

order to represent a model of communication, where one device (the ‘master’) has

unidirectional control over any number of other devices (‘slaves’). Etymologically, these

words stem from slavery, a universal concept which specifically resonates with an

American audience due to the enslavement of African people in America throughout the

18th and 19th centuries. Some members of the technology industry argue that

vocabulary with racist etymology is unnecessary and could potentially impact the mental

wellbeing of individuals who are sensitive to the concept of slavery (Landau, 2020).

Other terms in question are used to represent technical concepts, but do not have a

clear and concise etymology to reference. For instance, the terms ‘blacklist’ and

‘whitelist’ are adopted across numerous industries to refer to a list of denied entities and

allowed entities respectively. Even though the origin of this language had no intention of

associating the terms with a tone of skin, “colored language” is still thought to have a

negative psychological impact on individuals (Houghton, 2018). In the United States, the

association of the colors black and white with skin tone are notoriously prevalent, due to

the historical and systemic minoritization of people of color. The association of the color

‘black’ in blacklist with something bad or undesirable, and the ‘white’ in whitelist with

something permissible or acceptable, could perpetuate mental associations that

negatively impact how people perceive race. Growing diversity in the industry brought

the first attention to this terminology roughly thirty years ago, and interest has peaked in

the last three years following the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement (Jocom, 2020).

A group of stakeholders represents each side of the debate, generally remaining

consistent whether referring to language of racist origin or implication. The origin of the
 3

argument comes from a group of stakeholders who call for the abolishment of

insensitive terminology. These people, generally people of color and/or authors with

interest in the ethics of technology, represent the wellbeing of individuals who face the

consequences of letting language like this persist in the industry. They argue that the

language has no reason to exist in its current form and undermining the issue might

reinforce racism among impacted members of the community. There have been

proposed alternative terms to replace the language which make no pragmatic reference

to race or color at all (Black, 2021). These stakeholders also point to other instances,

such as the shortcomings of digital facial recognition when processing melanated faces,

to signal that racism is a widespread issue within the industry; this statement is then

used to support their claim that minoritized groups of people are not considered nor

represented in technological development (Landau, 2020). If the utility of technology is

impacted by race, or if there exists a disproportionate impact by technology on people of

a given race, these stakeholders argue that it’s worth abolishing.

On the other end of the spectrum, some individuals suggest that the language in

question does not have enough impact to call for its immediate removal. In different

parts of the world, race and racism are perceived differently based on history, culture,

and population. Prejudice against BIPOC individuals is most prominent in countries that

are white-dominant, causing the pragmatism of the language to be less quickly

associated with race in places such as Africa or East Asia (Jocom, 2022). Even within

the context of the United States, other words and idioms have blatantly racist origins,

yet are not perceived to have racist implications; the argument, then, asks why

computer science terminology should hold more weight than any other term with
 4

insensitive etymology? Stakeholders who follow this logic often proceed to accuse the

etymology problem of being virtue signaling, the practice of expressing discontent with a

subject on a surface-level as opposed to calling for meaningful change. Another issue

that has come up when discussing whether or not to change questionable terminology

is the effort it would take to do so. Not only would the industry have to agree upon a

suitable alternative, the cost in time and labor might be excessive considering how

frequently these terms are hard-coded (Knecht, 2021). While the reasons might vary,

the consensus for these stakeholders remains that the terms are not the problem, or at

least less significant than the people who claim that they are problematic.

With the stakeholders’ positions listed, the issue becomes more clearly defined:

is it necessary to change the targeted terminology? Considering that the terminology

has been perceived as racist, and that is a subjective matter, it is unlikely that the

question would challenge the legitimacy of the claim; instead, stakeholders have

entered debate regarding whether the change is worth the resources it might cost to

make.

The first set of stakeholders, those in favor of making the change regardless of

cost, would likely apply the Fairness and Justice ethical framework to support their

claim. Originating from Greek philosopher Aristotle, his use of the phrases ‘fairness’ and

‘justice’ refer to the equal treatment of all individuals (University of Santa Clara, 2015).

Actions taken that work toward equality are those which do not discriminate or show

favoritism to any particular person or group of people. In order to consider whether an

action or decision is discriminatory, one must consider how said actions might impact

certain people. The stakeholder makes a case which supports the claim that BIPOC
 5

individuals are not considered, nor involved in, technical innovation (Landau, 2020). If

Black people are negatively impacted by not being involved in tech design, whether

intentionally or unintentionally, then the language which causes that impact should be

considered discriminatory. The alternative, choosing not to engage with the technology

industry, would stymie the opportunity for an entire ethno-racial group to engage with a

lucrative, omnipresent industry. In order to preserve equality, this stakeholder prefers an

action which removes the discriminatory language from the conversation altogether. In

this case, substitute terminology should be agreed upon and implemented in place of

that which is insensitive. This decision would work to the benefit of the tech community

by providing more comfortable, universal access for engagement by BIPOC individuals;

considering that studies have shown the negative psychological impact of colored

language, Caucasian individuals would also benefit from less blatant reminders that

could impact their existing perspectives on race (Houghton, 2018).

The second set of stakeholders, in favor of letting the language remain, would

likely defend their argument using the Utilitarian ethical framework. The Utilitarian

framework was devised in the 19th century in order to facilitate the creation of laws that

were the ‘best’ on a moral scale (University of Santa Clara, 2015). To leverage the

utilitarian approach, several courses of action must be considered, and the impact of

each course should be carefully weighed against each other. As mentioned, the tech

industry has already made claims in defense of the decision not to change language

such as ‘blacklist’ and ‘whitelist’, due to their expansive presence within the industry;

after all, making the change costs labor, requires consensus from the entire community,

and could impact millions of search engine results (Knecht, 2021). The company who
 6

spawned the opinion piece has determined that it is within their best interest to allow

things to remain the same, effectively leveraging utilitarianism in weighing out the pros

and cons of the situation. Other arguments also suggest that the specificity reduces the

impact of the issue significantly. Since non-American individuals are much less likely to

feel personal offense towards terms such as master and slave, removing them from

technology generates an exorbitant number of challenges to accommodate a relatively

small interest group - a sub-population of a sub-population (Jocom, 2020). This

argument largely centers around the utilitarian aspect of the greater good, rationalizing

the decision to allow the targeted terminology to remain the same. If the change would

positively impact only a small percentage of the tech industry and has the potential to

negatively impact a much larger percentage, then it is not worth the effort to make.

My opinion aligns most with the first stakeholder, as I believe that the topical

language is unquestionably discriminatory, and that it is worth the change to encourage

more BIPOC engagement within the industry. Several countries across the world

discriminate against people with darker skin, and the notion that the issue would be

isolated to African Americans minimizes a global phenomenon. The United States is a

global leader in technology and has had an extreme amount of influence on the industry

over the last century. Several studies conducted within the last two decades suggest

that diversity has a positive partial impact on innovation (Ozgen, 2015). I believe that

innovation deserves diversity, and that diversity is best encouraged by making the field

accessible to the most diverse range of individuals. To facilitate this notion, I suggest

that the words ‘blacklist’ and ‘whitelist’ be changed to ‘blocklist’ and ‘allow list’, and that

the current and replacement terms are correlated by popular search engines such as
 7

Google and Bing in order to preserve the availability of online information. I also suggest

that companies follow in the footsteps of industry leaders such as GitHub, who have

made this change on the public-facing end at the very least, which would positively

impact a large user-base opposed to a smaller set of employees.

 8

References

Black, R. (2021, July 22). Allowlist and blocklist are better terms for everyone, let's

use them. Retrieved from https://fractionalciso.com/allowlist-and-blocklist-

are-better-terms-for-everyone-lets-use-them/

Delesline III, N. (2022, February 01) How much of tech history involves Black

history? Retrieved from

https://www.zdnet.com/education/computers-tech/black-history-technology/

Houghton, F., & Houghton, S. (2018, October). "Blacklists" and "whitelists": A

salutary warning concerning the prevalence of racist language in

discussions of predatory publishing. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

Jocom, J. M. (2022, June 02). Op-Ed: Blacklist and whitelist aren't racist words,

you are. Retrieved from https://seattlecollegian.com/op-ed-blacklist-and-

whitelist-arent-racist-words-you-are/

Karen, D., & Search for more articles by this author. (1991, February 01). The

Politics of Class, Race, and Gender: Access to Higher Education in the

United States, 1960-1986: American Journal of Education: Vol 99, No 2.

Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/443979

Knecht, T (2022, February 11). Why changing the terms blacklist and whitelist isn't

as easy as it might seem. Retrieved from

https://abusix.com/resources/blocklists/why-changing-the-terms-blacklist-

and-whitelist-isnt-as-easy-as-it-might-seem/
 9

Landau, E. (2020, July 06). Tech Confronts Its Use of the Labels 'Master' and

'Slave'. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/tech-confronts-use-

labels-master-slave/

Ozgen, C., & Nijkamp, P., & Poot. J (1970, January 01). The elusive effects of

workplace diversity on innovation, by Ceren Ozg. Retrieved from

https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/presci/v96y2017ips29-s49.html

University, S. C. (2015). Thinking Ethically. Retrieved from

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/

thinking-ethically/#:~:text=The Common-Good Approach,of common values

and goals.