Michael Crowley and Hamed Aleaziz, reporting for The New York Times:
While mostly framed as a matter of clarity and formality in
presentation, Mr. Rubio’s directive to all diplomatic posts around
the world blamed “radical” diversity, equity, inclusion and
accessibility programs for what he said was a misguided and
ineffective switch from the serif typeface Times New Roman to sans
serif Calibri in official department paperwork.In an “Action Request” memo obtained by The New York Times, Mr.
Rubio said that switching back to the use of Times New Roman would
“restore decorum and professionalism to the department’s written
work.” Calibri is “informal” when compared to serif typefaces like
Times New Roman, the order said, and “clashes” with the
department’s official letterhead. […]Then-Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken ordered the 2023
typeface shift on the recommendation of the State Department’s
office of diversity and inclusion, which Mr. Rubio has since
abolished. The change was meant to improve accessibility for
readers with disabilities, such as low vision and dyslexia,
and people who use assistive technologies, such as screen
readers. […]But Mr. Rubio’s order rejected the grounds for the switch. The
change, he allowed, “was not among the department’s most illegal,
immoral, radical or wasteful instances of D.E.I.A.,” the acronym
for diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. But Mr. Rubio
called it a failure by its own standards, saying that
“accessibility-based document remediation cases” at the department
had not declined.“Switching to Calibri achieved nothing except the degradation of
the department’s official correspondence,” Mr. Rubio said. He
noted that Times New Roman had been the department’s official
typeface for nearly 20 years until the 2023 change. (Before 2004,
the State Department used Courier New.)
When Blinken ordered the change to Calibri in 2023, I wrote:
It is correct for the State Department to have a house style for
documents. I’m not sure what font they should use, but it wasn’t
Times, and it shouldn’t be Calibri. Off the top of my head, I’d
suggest Caslon — a sturdy, serious typeface that looked good 250
years ago, looks good now, and should look good 250 years
from now.
While neither is a good choice, between the two, Times New Roman is clearly better. Unstated in my post from 2023 is acknowledgement that the choice might be limited to the default fonts in Microsoft Office. Limited to those fonts, Times New Roman might be the best choice. I just think it’s stupid for an institution with the resources of the U.S. State Department to shrug its shoulders at the notion that they should license and install whatever fonts they want on all of their computers. Anyone making excuses that they “can’t” do that should be fired. It’s the job of IT to serve the needs of the organization, not the organization’s job to limit itself to what makes IT easiest.
Calibri does convey a sense of casualness — and more so, modernity — that is not appropriate for the U.S. State Department. And I do not buy the argument that Calibri is somehow more accessible for those with low vision or reading disabilities. People with actual accessibility needs should be catered to, but they need more than a sans serif typeface, and their needs should not primarily motivate the choice for the default typeface. Dyslexics need typefaces like OpenDyslexic; people with low vision need font sizes much larger than 14-point. Those would make for terrible defaults for everyone.
