“An office within the University of Southern California’s School of Social Work says it is removing the term “field” from its curriculum because it may have racist connotations related to slavery.” and “This change supports anti-racist social work practice by replacing language that could be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant in favor of inclusive language,” the memo reads. “Language can be powerful, and phrases such as ‘going into the field’ or ‘field work’ may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.”
The title seems exactly representative of what the office is doing, that an office within the USC school of Social Work is removing the word “field” from its curriculum.
As for the racial composition of USC (a completely different and “What about this?” separate topic), apparently the student body is at least 28% non-White, non-Asian, possibly more, depending upon whether the over 25% of students described as “international” are also non-White, non-Asian. But yes, 5.3% Black or African American is a lower percentage than that at some other highly selective schools.
I would imagine that many US African American students who are admitted with the same financial package to equally selective and desirable schools would wind up choosing to attend a school with a higher percentage of AA students.