Hey Australia, can we please retire the term 'CALD'?

Firstly, I want to acknowledge that cultural and racialised folks are NOT a monolith. It's unlikely that any word or term will be adequate enough to encapsulate our experiences, which are ever changing. Our identities are expansive and transcend the existence in a world defined by race. Many of us are connected to lineages that hold rich histories, cultures and languages. These terms should not be treated as identification markers, rather give language to the experiences and challenges exisiting within systems of oppression.

Having said that, 'CALD' needs to go.

The first time I heard the term was when I was in high school. My visceral reaction towards it was probably around why a term this broad existed in the first place. CALD is the acronym for ‘Culturally and Linguistically Diverse.' It was introduced in 1999 to replace NESB (non-English speaking background) to describe 'diverse' communities (aka communities that are predominantly non-white). Someone probably figured out that the British did a number when they colonised more than half the world, eroding Indigenous languages replacing them with their own. Might have caught a few people by surprise, but there are lots of Black and Brown folks whose first language is English. The term, 'CALD' is now widely used across Australian governing bodies to refer to folks from migrant communities that are not of Anglo-Celtic heritage.

Soooo, technically speaking, aren't we all culturally and linguistically diverse? And who exactly falls under the bucket of 'CALD'?

Which brings us to the elephant in the room that Australia just loves to sweep under the rug.

We boast multiculturalism. We rave about the success of our diversity. How much of a fair go we have. But to engage in a discourse or even mention the term 'racism'? Yeah, nah. You're going to have more luck discussing our obsession with hoarding toilet paper.

If it doesn't scream 'culturally diverse' potluck lunches for the office to go along with 'Harmony day' celebrations, we won't talk about it.

The term CALD isn't just too broad. It fails to give voice to the experiences of many folks who are marginalised by the systems of white supremacy and colonialism. It dilutes, an already diluted subject and avoids meaningful engagement with many communities of colour.

What's the alternative?

Over the past year, many have chosen to adopt the term CARM. The acronym stands for 'Culturally and Racially Marginalised or Minoritised.' It is a lot more effective in providing a nuanced approach in addressing the experiences for people of colour.

Organisations such as Diversity Council Australia Ltd , who are the peak body for diversity and inclusion research, have opted to use the term CARM. Not surprisingly, research conducted by DCA found that for many racially marginalised women, language has moved past ‘CALD,’ and the term ‘CARM’ was seen as more accurately capturing their experiences. Two thirds of CARM women surveyed (67%) preferred a term other than ‘Culturally and Linguistically Diverse’ (CALD) .

So, why should we use the term CARM instead?

It addresses systemic racism

By centring the experiences of racialised identities, the term acknowledges systemic racism which helps us identify the challenges peoples may face within the context of the framing. It helps us better identify and confront the barriers and inequalities that these individuals encounter. Which lead to creating solutions based on dismantling systemic barriers.

It considers intersectional experiences

Addressing both 'cultural' and 'racialised' barriers helps us recognise that people may face discrimination not just because of their racialised identities, but also because of their cultural background. For example, Black muslim women may experience multiple overlapping experiences because of their race, cultural background and religion.

It gives voice to experiences of marginalisation

I've heard arguments around how this term may perpetuate a victim complex. However, this gives acknowledgement of systems of oppression that enable the experiences of those living within the margins. The term can also be framed as 'minoritised' to reference the experiences of navigating predominantly white spaces.

More importantly, we cannot reduce people's entire identities and ancestral existence into mere acronyms. But language is important. By not addressing the experiences of living in a racialised world, we contribute to perpetuating the ideals of whiteness as a norm. In order to address these issues in a meaningful way, language must be inclusive, respectful and accurately depict people's experiences. After all, racism never ended, it just evolved.