The report was developed for DHS’ Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and it delves into how the agency should replace words like “illegal immigrant,” “riot,” and even “male” and “female” with more “inclusive terms.”

And who paid for this report to be compiled? We did. There is no telling how much the firm was paid for putting together a report telling DHS how to police its language.

The authors of the report point out that the DHS “has expansive jurisdiction resulting in interactions with individuals of a variety of races, nationalities, ethnicities, immigration statuses, religions, and social groups,” which means that how the agency communicates with different types of people “is essential to ensuring safe, secure, respectful, and effective activities and operations.”

Before getting into the meat of the report, the authors seemed to anticipate pushback to its recommendations:

When the terminology pertains to underrepresented, marginalized, or minority groups, or individuals who are different from some other group, it can become both polarized and politicized. Efforts to use unbiased terms and change the way people speak to each other, and the way in which institutions of government refer to people, have been criticized as unnecessary, unduly progressive, or “woke.” However, these criticisms are not supported by the research. Similarly, fears of the “language police,” or repercussions from the inadvertent or unintentional use of noninclusive terminology, can provoke responses of resentment, resistance, or apathy. Such responses can undermine the effort and might cause it to stall or backfire. However, these fears and responses can be allayed or mitigated against by implementing an update with care and appropriate techniques.

The report suggests that instead of using terms like “illegal immigrant,” the agency should use “undocumented noncitizen.” It also claims terms like “looter,” “trespasser,” “rioter,” and “jihadist” have “become racially charged as they are mostly applied to individuals of a particular race and not to White individuals who might engage in the same conduct or violate the same laws.”

So, how much money are we the people shelling out for this asinine report intended to wokify DHS? As I said earlier, it’s not easy to tell how much went into this particular exercise in wokeness. However, the federal government dishes out about $300 million to the RAND Corporation each year to teach its agencies how best to talk about people.

It is also worth looking at how the changes suggested by the organization reflect a clear left-leaning bias. Despite the authors’ denials, it is clear that this is a progressive initiative intended to get DHS to reflect a more leftist view of its environment. This is occurring in several federal agencies.

Yet, is it not odd that among all these efforts to revamp the language, none of these groups have taken issue with government agencies and officials referring to right-leaning Americans in denigrating ways? Where are the suggestions that referring to parents concerned about their children’s education as “domestic terrorists” should be stopped? What about constant claims coming from the White House that supposed “MAGA Republicans” who oppose Biden's policies are “racists,” “insurrectionists,” and other vile terms? In light of this, the bias among those who authored the report is evident, is it not?

The RAND Corporation, along with most other organizations that fill this type of role, constantly display a duplicitous double standard in how they apply the principles they claim to hold. They would tell us that they seek only to ensure that human beings are treated with dignity and respect instead of being labeled in ways that dehumanize or stereotype them. Yet, they are more than willing to leave out certain groups people, namely those who disagree with progressive ideology, when it comes to crafting their guidelines concerning language.

This is all we need to see to understand that this endeavor has nothing to do with ensuring people are treated well. Instead, it is part of the overall effort to infuse American institutions with Marxist ideology intended to promote a particular agenda.