"Sanction" -- an Ambiguous Word

If you were holding a local event would you want it sanctioned by a higher authority or not? Before answering this question let's look at the Florida and Michigan primary elections as an example. The following block quotes are taken from a CBS News description of the dilemma that the Democrat Party now faces over its treatment of those primaries (emphasis mine):

The Democratic National Committee sanctioned Michigan and Florida for moving up their nominating contests in violation of party rules; it declared their primaries unofficial and denied them the right to seat their delegations in Denver.

The DNC indicated its disapproval of the state's actions and punished them. So being sanctioned is a bad thing, right? Well, maybe not.

Clinton won both Michigan and Florida handily. She won Michigan in part because Obama and other Democrats took their names off the ballot in solidarity with the DNC and as part of a pledge to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-voting states not to participate in unsanctioned contests.

But we established above that those contests were sanctioned. Now they seem to be saying the contests were not sanctioned. Confused enough?

Short of scheduling sanctioned events, this will have to be resolved by DNC Chairman Howard Dean and the two presidential campaigns.

Now the DNC wants to sanction its own events. Is the DNC or CBS confused about what "sanction" means? No, according to Merriam-Webster "sanction" is a very flexible word. It can mean approval or disapproval.

So, before you ask for sanctioning of your event you'd better find out what flavor of sanction the higher authority is willing to offer.

Comments

Make a comment: