Language is [a] most powerful tool. . . . The words we use have meanings beyond the obvious--they influence attitudes, behavior and perceptions. . . .Biased words and phrases dehumanize and demean . . ., make unwarranted and incorrect assumptions, perpetuate harmful stereotypes and lead to unequal treatment.

1996 Guidelines for Judicial Officers, California Judicial Council.

In these “politically correct” times, most of us are conscious of the language we use and its potential to offend. We know better than to use derogatory terms, but sometimes the preferred terminology is a moving target. For example, in the forties, persons of African American descent were properly referred to as “colored”; in the fifties, the term became “Negro;” and in the sixties, “Black” was beautiful. Today, “Negro” seems out of style, “Black” is frowned on by some; and “African-American” likely is the preferred term.

In a related vein, confusion exists regarding the precise meaning of the terms “Hispanic”, “Chicano”, “Latino”, etc. The United States Supreme Court, in Hernandez v New York, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1862 (1991), confronted disagreement even among those parties particularly interested in the issue, explaining:

Petitioner and respondent both use the term "Latino" in their briefs to this Court. The amicus brief employs instead the term "Hispanic," and the parties referred to the excluded jurors by that term in the trial court. Both words appear in the state-court opinions. No attempt has been made at a distinction by the parties and we make no attempt to distinguish the terms in this opinion. We will refer to the excluded venire persons as Latinos in deference to the terminology preferred by the parties before the Court.......