Be Specific

In a sense, we might even see civility as a form of enforcing specificity on ourselves.

– George Saunders^[1]

A professor labels a student’s paper “unreadable.”
What the professor means: The lack of structure creates too much repetition.

A student argues a law should be changed because it is “problematic.”
What the student means: The law harms a group of people in a specific way.

I call a colleague’s analogy “sexist.”
What I mean: The analogy relies on a reductive and outdated stereotype.

Saunders proposes using specificity to defang emotional responses⁠—⁠even those
we feel most justified⁠—⁠that can lead us into a vagueness too easy to misinterpret

or weaponize, too readily wielded as a shield against empathy. We teach
our students to think like lawyers, to be precise, skeptical

representatives of a legal system that is too often
neither clear nor fair, let alone empathetic.

I remind myself there is a difference between explanation
and justification—that to explain is not necessarily to condone,

but to describe with specificity. What specific language made me pause? What about that language made me pause?

What precisely do I mean to say?