Say This, Not (And/Or) That? DEI Vocabulary

Whenever I explore research in equity work, either by reading or by talking to experts, I hear all kinds of updates in language.?

And when I try to research the idea of language updates, I'm reminded of the difficulty inherent in accurate naming...and even that striving for the right language is itself rooted in anxiety and perfectionism.?

As flawed as language is, we still need it to describe our work in equity and belonging. At the risk of blundering my way through this, here are some of the recent shifts I've been working on in my own language.

Underrepresented vs. underrecognized

One of the biggest challenges with many words we've used in the past -- including "underrepresented" -- is the ways they naturalize the perspective of wh.teness.

We can shift that a bit by shifting to underrecognized. This puts the onus where it belongs – on the systemic perpetuation and naturalization of a single dominant perspective. There's a great read about this over in HBR.

Another option is historically excluded, which also reminds us that the language frames and is framed by a dominant perspective.

What about "minority"?

This word sometimes frustrates me for its inaccuracy -- especially when it gets used in the phrase “majority minority.”?

Shifting the lens here to decenter the historically dominant wh.te perspective gives us the option of minoritized -- which highlights the idea of a dominant perspective doing the framing, and shifts the responsibility to those who do the naming instead of those who are named. Historically minoritized groups is another alternative. And I recently learned the phrase "multiply minoritized" as a way of indicating when a person has multiple intersectional identities that are historically disadvanaged.

It's also worth nothing that in the US at least, many historically excluded and historically minoritized groups are STILL excluded or minoritized in practice. So while it’s a mouthful, another useful phrase might be “historically and structurally excluded" or "historically and structurally minoritized" groups.

Is it possible to drop the term "diversity"?

I dislike diversity for the way it frequently gets used as a euphemism for race, and therefore elides all the many ways diversity exists among groups. So I've been wondering about dropping the general term diversity in favor of something more specific. Identity diversity is one start, but it strikes me as insufficient.

What would happen if we used adjectives in front of diversity to be more specific? Racial diversity. Religious diversity. Cognitive diversity. Gender diversity. Etc.

I recognize that this leaves us with the very real problem of needing an umbrella term so that we don't inadvertently leave out a group. I haven't seen an umbrella term that I think works. Have you? If so, drop a note below! I'd love to know about it.

Microaggression vs. Abuse

The Harvard Business Review recently published a piece called “We Need to Retire the Term Microaggression” which argues, in part, that the preface “micro” minimalizes the actual harm produced against people who experience these aggressions in a kind of cumulative way.?Jayne Sommers, in our podcast conversation, points out that if people who experience microaggressions experience them as a form of violence, then let's call it violence.

Ibram X. Kendi advocates by preferring to use the word abuse or the phrase racist abuse. Another option is the phrase “subtle acts of exclusion,” or SAEs, which comes from a book by Tiffany Jana called “Subtle Acts of Exclusion: How to Understand, Identify, and Stop Microaggressions.”

Privilege vs. entitlement

Privilege is generally something conferred on us by an external entity. But entitlement is more of an internal perception that we deserve something or have earned something.

If this feels a bit spicy, think about it in terms of students you teach. When we recognize that some of our students are privileged, we think about the advantages they've had in life: parents with good incomes, homes in safe neighborhoods, plenty of food, access to academic support. When we recognize that some of our students are entitled, we think about their attitudes: they want to be forgiven for skipping class, or they want to do last-minute extra-credit because they blew off assignments earlier in the term. If you're like me, you feel very differently about students who are privileged than about students who are entitled.

That can be a useful guide to using the terms in conversation.

“Ally” and accomplice.

I’ve always liked the term ally, especially through the lens of green dot training which prepares people to step into a situation where someone is at risk of being harmed and to be able to disrupt that moment with specific language and behaviors.

Being an ally has its place. For example, we can be allies in meetings when we interrupt a conversation or a pattern or a behavior that is harmful to someone else in the room.?(And: harmful to someone who isn't present! Most decisions about us at work happen in rooms we aren't in. Let's look out for each other in those spaces.)

On the flip side, accomplice refers to actions that seek to dismantle structural oppression, not only interrupt it in the moment that it happens. So while you can be an ally in a meeting, you can be an accomplice when you revise a policy to reduce the harm it might create or perpetuate.?

This barely scratches the surface, I know. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather a way to continue the conversation.

What words or phrases did I miss?

What words or phrases do you wish more colleagues would use? Or stop using?

What words or phrases do you have questions about?

Like this? Listen to my recent podcast episode and join the conversation!