The holidays are coming. Some are reluctant to call it Christmas, even though it’s Christmas and everybody knows it’s Christmas. Somehow, saying the word Christmas is wrong, making anyone refusing to utter Christmas come off like a used teabag at best, a Wobbly wannabe at worst.

In preparation for the family goose, Harvard administrators are providing aid and comfort for those whose admission may, in retrospect, have come about through a math error, and lack the capacity to have thoughts of their own or speak thoughtfully with members of their family.

College administrators distributed a “Holiday Placemat for Social Justice” instructing students on how to answer questions they might face from family and friends. The handout presents poorly written, straw man questions followed by seemingly official and definitive “responses” on topics as varied as the Syrian refugee question, the Black Lives Matter movement, the misguided decision to change the House master title, and the ongoing, overheated activism at Yale University.

What mother wouldn’t appreciate Muffy’s return to the nest with placemats in hand?  After all, too many college-aged children lack adequate concern for the French polish of the dining room table.  And it’s thoughtful of Harvard to give a little something back for the $72,000 in tuition, room, board and khakis a parent is constrained to lay out so that Muffy gets some letters, either before or after her name.

But is it really a university’s place to tell students what their opinions on controversial subjects should be?

Then again, perhaps this isn’t Harvard’s way of indoctrinating students to its preferred perspective in political discourse, but rather providing words to explain their preconceived feelings on issues that, up to now, have evaded sufficient thought so that the student can offer her own explanation.  After all, deeply held feelings require no explanation, and anyone who doesn’t share those passions was dismissed by ad hominems, whether racist, sexist, classist, ableist, or cisheteronormative shitlord.

It would be rude to call Uncle Biff a cisheteronormative shitlord at the table.  Harvard students are not supposed to be rude.

The placemat’s promoter, the Harvard College Office for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, neglected to note that it plagiarized the placemat. This was once considered a sin in academia, but that was back when plagiarizing was a free-floating wrong. Now, it’s only wrong when not for a worthy cause, and what cause could be worthier than gently smacking Uncle Biff?

More than half of the College’s poster is taken word-for-word from a similar, credited poster created by the group Showing Up for Racial Justice, a rather fitting reflection of the thoughtlessness it seeks to impose on students. That organization’s professed aim is to move “white people to act as part of a multi-racial majority for justice with passion and accountability.” To gain some perspective on their viewpoint, examine a recent article on their site that claimed, “we know that racist vigilantes and the police force have a long, collaborative history with one another.”

But as noted in the Crimson editorial, there is one piece of the placemat that reflects independent Harvard thought.

There was one area where the handout did not lazily lift from its predecessor: on the recent renaming of House masters to something supposedly less offensive—at least for now. There, the questioner correctly points out “Why did they change the name? What does a housemaster have to do with slavery? It’s not related to that at all.”

That doesn’t matter, the handout replies. Even though the word is “no longer actively associated with its historical antecedents”—and notice here the incorrect suggestion that the two were related, which is presented as fact—it is still offensive “for some.” Therefore, “it doesn’t seem onerous to change it.”

The word “Master” was derived from the Oxford usage, not from slavery, but what are the chances Uncle Biff will know that?  If you mumble through the details, like “its historical antecedents,” and let Biff get hung up on remembering what antecedents mean, chances are great that he’ll never catch the antecedent lie and focus instead on your real point, that it’s no biggie to change it if it hurts someone’s feelz.

Is it “onerous” to eradicate a word that hurts feelings, even if the word has nothing to do with the reason why someone’s feelings may be hurt?  The hurt over “master” is nothing compared to the kerfuffle a few years back over the word “niggardly,” and look how well that turned out? De minimis non curat lex? Your trifle is another’s deeply felt wound, even if it’s for the totally wrong reason.

One can take that line of logic and run wild. Any professed claim of oppressive etymology should become actionable by the College on the grounds that it isn’t “too onerous.” Damn the facts, full steam ahead! That’s more than just revising history—that’s making a mockery of it.

And so goes the flawed response. This isn’t about logic, and what’s more collegiate than running wild?  But as Yale’s masterful punching bag, Nicholas Christakis notes, there is an option.

Of course, when the best response to social justice is “common sense,” it’s a pretty sure bet that Uncle Biff is going to have the last laugh.  Pass the gluten-free, free-range, vegan, artisanal gravy, please.  And don’t glare at Uncle Biff when he makes that same awful joke about Festivus for the rest of us.  He doesn’t appreciate the pain he causes.