It recommends, for example, that the term "blind study", widely used in experimental trials to avoid bias, should be replaced by "masked study" because it "Unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative, furthering an ableist culture." Though it is really hard for me to see by what logic that conclusion is derived.
OK, it also recommends against the use of terms like "retard" which seem perfectly reasonable as the word is undeniably prejudiced in most actual use describing people (but is also a perfectly useful neutral term in physics or mechanics).
But it also calls for a stop to the casual use of the word "guru" as this might offend Buddhists and Hindus where it is a term of respect. I thought it was a term of respect in most uses. It also recommends not using terms like "black-box" or "cakewalk" for reasons I find hard to take seriously.
Is this a serious document? Is it a subtle parody?
PS There are some issues about how the original story was reported in the media as an outrageous overreach by woke academics. The WSJ neglected to mention some details about the source to make it seem more like a Policy Statement by overly woke university academics.
This observation doesn't alter the question but it might mitigate the degree of anti-woke outrage some seem to feel about it.