accessible | Campus Safe Words

TERM: accessible
RISK LEVEL: Moderate

Why It’s Risky

The term “accessible” may attract scrutiny when used to describe institutional efforts that extend beyond legally required accommodations. Conservative-backed legislation such as Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act and Texas Senate Bill 17 discourages language perceived as advancing DEI-aligned goals, especially if it implies systemic exclusion or the need for preferential adjustment. When used broadly—such as making events, curriculum, or hiring practices more “accessible”—the term can be interpreted as ideological, especially if not explicitly tied to ADA compliance or technical functionality.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that “accessible” often functions as coded language for DEI expansion, suggesting institutional obligation to reshape policies or standards in response to social categories like race, gender identity, or economic background. Some contend that this framing undermines merit-based principles and implies that existing systems are inherently unjust. There is also concern that the term can be vague or overused in ways that promote political agendas rather than academic excellence or lawful accommodation.

When It’s Still Appropriate

The term is appropriate when describing adherence to ADA standards, such as ensuring that physical spaces, course materials, or digital platforms are usable by individuals with disabilities. It is also acceptable in IT, library science, or instructional design contexts when referring to functionality, usability, or readability. Use of “accessible” in these cases is typically seen as non-political and legally grounded.

Suggested Substitutes

1. ADA-compliant (for facilities or materials)

2. Easy to use or user-friendly (for software or course tools)

3. Open to all (for events or services, used cautiously)

4. Available in multiple formats (for media or documents)

5. Clear and navigable (for instructional or web design)

Notes:
When using “accessible,” specify the audience and legal or technical rationale to avoid misinterpretation. Avoid pairing the term with DEI language or social justice framing unless institutionally approved. In politically sensitive settings, focus on clarity, usability, and compliance rather than inclusivity as a moral imperative.