Key Takeaways
- The US State Department has ordered diplomats to return to using Times New Roman font in official communications, reversing a decision to adopt Calibri in 2023.
- The decision to switch back to Times New Roman was made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called the adoption of Calibri a "wasteful" diversity move.
- The change to Calibri in 2023 was recommended by diversity and disability groups, who argued that the font is more accessible for people with disabilities.
- The switch back to Times New Roman is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to eradicate federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Introduction to the Font Change
The US State Department has recently made a change to its official font, switching back to Times New Roman after a brief period of using Calibri. This decision was made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who claimed that the adoption of Calibri was a "wasteful" diversity move. The change has sparked controversy, with some arguing that it is a step backwards for accessibility and diversity. The decision to switch to Calibri in 2023 was made by the previous administration, led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who argued that the font was more accessible for people with disabilities.
The Argument for Calibri
The change to Calibri in 2023 was recommended by diversity and disability groups, who argued that the font is more accessible for people with certain visual disabilities. Some studies have suggested that sans-serif fonts, such as Calibri, are easier to read for those with dyslexia or other visual processing disorders. The font is also the default font in many Microsoft products, making it a widely recognized and used font. However, the current administration has disagreed with this assessment, arguing that the font is informal and unprofessional.
The Return to Times New Roman
The state department cable that announced the switch back to Times New Roman argued that typography shapes the professionalism of an official document. The cable stated that Calibri is an informal font compared to serif typefaces, such as Times New Roman. The decision to switch back to Times New Roman is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to eradicate federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The administration has argued that these programs are wasteful and discriminatory against white people and men. However, supporters of DEI measures argue that they serve as a counter to the biases that quietly endure in so-called color-blind and merit-based societies.
The Broader Context
The debate over the use of Calibri versus Times New Roman is part of a larger conversation about diversity and inclusion in the US government. The Trump administration has been critical of diversity initiatives, arguing that they are discriminatory and erode merit-based decision making. However, supporters of DEI measures argue that they are necessary to address the biases and disparities that exist in society. The switch back to Times New Roman has been seen as a symbol of the administration’s efforts to roll back diversity initiatives and promote a more traditional and conservative approach to government.
The Impact of the Decision
The decision to switch back to Times New Roman has sparked controversy and debate, with some arguing that it is a step backwards for accessibility and diversity. The decision has also been seen as a symbol of the administration’s efforts to promote a more traditional and conservative approach to government. The impact of the decision will likely be felt beyond the state department, as it sets a tone for the administration’s approach to diversity and inclusion. It remains to be seen how the decision will be received by the public and whether it will have a lasting impact on the government’s approach to accessibility and diversity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the US State Department’s decision to switch back to Times New Roman font in official communications is a controversial move that has sparked debate and discussion. The decision has been seen as a symbol of the administration’s efforts to roll back diversity initiatives and promote a more traditional and conservative approach to government. While the decision may have been made with the intention of promoting professionalism and unity, it has ultimately sparked controversy and debate. As the administration continues to promote its approach to diversity and inclusion, it remains to be seen how the decision will be received by the public and whether it will have a lasting impact on the government’s approach to accessibility and diversity.