> I did some research and found that it was related to "master recordings" in the audio production industry, which itself is a direct reference to a master/slave dichotomy and used as such in the recording industry.
A master recording is one that copies are made from. It is much more likely to be related to the same sense of master used in a master's degree, related to teaching and learning (from the original Latin meaning of magister, teacher). Please show me references suggesting that anyone calls copies of the master recording slaves, or thinks of them as subservient to the master recording - or any similar uses for a master branch in git.
So, instead of avoiding a very common word in several industries, you could actually teach students the proper etimology. Either way, many of the students who would complain about the master branch will probably think about getting a Master's degree, or mastering their discipline, so they will inevitably have to come to terms with the fact the word master has very very common meanings that don't have anything to do with slave owning.
> At the end of the day author of the list is a department of Stanford University, so Stanford is policing itself, as all organizations do (don't tell me your organization doesn't have a brand style guide).
> Tell me where I'm getting this wrong. How is what you're saying not policing someone else's words, whereas what they're saying is?
This is what you are getting wrong. You are viewing this list as if it's a list that the Stanford University as a whole came up with, and organically adopted. Instead, this is a list created by some small committee who was given the power to impose this on the rest of the Stanford University organization.
If the HR department at my company adopts a similar list and forces everyone in the company to use it, that's not an example of "the organization self-policing", it is an example of "some idiots in one department trying to police the speech of the whole organization".
As I said, those that came up with this absurd list full of mistakes and false notions have every right to publish and maintain it (well, they should correct some of the more obvious falsehoods at least). I also have every right to let as many people as I can know that it is ridiculous and makes false assertions.
I am particularly doing so in the hope that as many organizations as possible will see how absurd it is and will not accept their own speech being policed by its silly standard - at least the organization I work for.