(Note: I just read George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language, so I’ve been examining other people’s words more closely.)

Here’s a fun sentence sample from the front page of NYTimes.com: “Wanting to maintain a role as engines of social mobility, about two dozen elite schools have pushed in the past few years to diversify economically.”

Ew. Is it just me, or is that sentence ugly? Who the hell put “diversify economically” together? That sounds like something you do to an investment portfolio, not to students.

A few remarks on “engines of social mobility”: First of all, universities are pretty much the opposite of engines of social mobility. They’re starting to do a pretty good job separating the haves from the have-nots.

Secondly, the word “engine” should evoke imagery of a “driving force.” Here’s how Encarta defines “engine” in this context:

driving force or energy source: something that supplies the driving force or energy to a movement, system, or trend

The extra layers of words take away from this energy. The schools aren’t actually engines of social mobility; it says they want “to maintain a role as engines of social mobility.” Where the hell’s the engine? To me, the phrasing (especially “role”) implies that college contribute to social mobility; not that they a driving force.

Luckily, the headline told us all we needed to know: “Elite Colleges Open New Door to Low-Income Youths.”

Bravo. Check out that juxtaposition. Now we see the sample sentence for what it really is: fluff.

This also reminds me of “affirmative action.” What the hell does that even mean? But I’ll save the critique of PC language in college for later.

One more thing to write about: The language of climate change.