From the article:

> A cable dated December 9 sent to all U.S. diplomatic posts said that typography shapes the professionalism of an official document and Calibri is informal compared to serif typefaces. > "To restore decorum and professionalism to the Department’s written work products and abolish yet another wasteful DEIA program, the Department is returning to Times New Roman as its standard typeface," the cable said.

I don't read that purely as an "anti-woke" move, why did Reuters only highlight that part and not the bit about professionalism? I do indeed agree that serifs look more authoritative.

▲

Propelloni 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If it is about professionalism, why mention DEIA at all? It's just virtue-signalling. Reuters realized that and pointed it out.

▲

hopelite 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	ondra 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> It was Blinken that arbitrarily introduced The _second paragraph_ of TFA gives a reason for the introduction. Please explain how you came to the conclusion that the change was arbitrary.

▲

Zanfa 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> To restore decorum and professionalism

Given the complete absence of either in the current administration, this is clearly not the real reason. So “woke” is the only explanation left.

▲

Intermernet 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Authoritative or Authoritarian?

	▲	moltopoco a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, a true "mask-off moment": I do find that classic LaTeX papers look more trustworthy than whatever MS Word outputs by default. Associating TNR with authoritarianism would not even be historically accurate, because many authoritarians pushed to simplify writing (Third Reich, Soviets, CCP); if anything, TNR looks _conservative_, which is probably the look that Rubio is going for.
	▲	mr_toad 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Fasces or fascist?

▲

oneeyedpigeon 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Because, even if there is a good argument to replace Calibri on grounds of professionalism, the cable still explicitly mentions the "anti-woke" aspect. At best, it's another sideswipe aimed at minorities and people who represent them. At worst, it's 'doing something wrong purely because of prejudice'.