Words Matter: Case Study

There is an interesting and important debate underway that, in my view, is being made all the more challenging over the use of a single word: "defund."  In the aftermath of the killing George Floyd of Minnesota by police officers, a number of governmental officials at all levels are proposing legislation that calls for the defunding of police departments. Taken literally, this would mean jurisdictions would stop funding their law enforcement agencies, thus causing them to, in a real sense, cease to exist. But despite the word "defund," this is not the intent of any of the proposals. What is actually being called for is a redirection of funds.

None of the proposals call for the elimination of police departments. Nobody wants this. Yet by recommending the "defunding" of this vital agencies, folks of all political persuasions are suddenly arguing over the merit of whether law enforcement agencies should be allowed to continue at all. This misses the point of the well-intentioned proposals entirely. It also illustrates profoundly just how much words do matter. Using a word that can be easily misinterpreted, particularly in the context of a very "hot" topic, is dangerous because it jeopardizes the specific point of the issue at-hand. As I write this, folks behind the proposals are now having to explain what the meaning of the their proposals rather the actual issue itself.  

At the very least, this is a debate worth having. How can jurisdictions use their police departments most efficiently while at the same time better address the social ills of their communities, including such issues as domestic violence, child abandonment and malnutrition within families?  One would be hard-pressed to identify a topic more relevant to our society than that. How tragic would it be to have such a debate sabotaged because of the misuse, misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding of one word? The answer to that is in another word: extremely.