Calibri Is Too Woke. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered a return to the classic Times New Roman font in official communications, citing concerns over the diversity-themed Calibri typeface adopted during the Bid
Biden administration.
In an internal document seen by dysfunctional government and reported by Reuters and The New York Times, Rubio deemed the switch to Calibri a “wasteful” diversity move and directed employees to revert back to Times New Roman font in official communications.
Times New Roman was phased out by the State Department in 2023 in favor of Calibri under former Secretary of State Antony Blinken as part of an effort to improve accessibility for readers with disabilities. The switch aimed to make official documents easier to read by utilizing a more modern and legible font.
However, it appears Rubio shares a different opinion, stating that Calibri is too “woke” for the State Department’s taste. Despite the potential benefits of Calibri in terms of accessibility, Rubio is prioritizing tradition and familiarity over innovation and inclusivity. This decision underscores the broader debate surrounding the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion in government institutions.
Critics argue that Rubio’s decision amounts to a deliberate attempt to undermine efforts to promote accessibility and diversity within the government. They contend that the move is a misguided and regressive step, as it undermines the very principles that Calibri was intended to represent.
Supporters of Rubio’s decision, on the other hand, view it as a much-needed return to a more neutral and time-tested font. They argue that the font’s classic appeal and familiarity are essential to preserving the State Department’s identity and heritage.
As the debate surrounding the Calibri vs. Times New Roman controversy continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the shift in priorities reflects fundamentally different visions for the State Department’s values and role in American society. Will this decision have far-reaching consequences for the department’s commitment to inclusion and accessibility, or will it ultimately prove a minor blip on the radar screen of bureaucratic decisions?
