antiracist | Campus Safe Words

TERM: antiracist
RISK LEVEL: High

Why It’s Risky

The term “antiracist” is explicitly tied to ideological frameworks targeted by recent legislation in several conservative-led states. Laws such as Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act and Texas Senate Bill 17 prohibit public institutions from promoting the belief that systemic racism is inherent in American institutions or that individuals bear responsibility for historical injustice based on race. Using “antiracist” to describe individuals, policies, or institutional values may be interpreted as advancing these prohibited concepts, exposing programs or faculty to political and legal risk.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that the label “antiracist” implies that any alternative—such as neutrality, colorblindness, or classical liberalism—is inherently racist. The term is closely linked to authors and training programs that advocate for active ideological alignment, which some policymakers view as coercive and divisive. Opponents also claim that “antiracist” framing encourages political activism over academic inquiry and risks marginalizing dissenting views within the classroom or campus culture.

When It’s Still Appropriate

“Antiracist” may be used in academic contexts that examine the term critically, such as in courses on social theory, literature, or political history. Faculty may cite or discuss influential texts using the term, provided they frame it within a broader scholarly dialogue and do not treat it as a campus-wide expectation or moral imperative. Transparency about the term’s contested nature can help maintain academic neutrality.

Suggested Substitutes

1. Opposes racial discrimination (for individual commitments)

2. Civil rights advocate (in historical or political contexts)

3. Promotes equal treatment (for general principles)

4. Works toward inclusion (used carefully, context-dependent)

5. Addresses race in scholarship (for research-focused descriptions)

Notes:
Do not use “antiracist” in job descriptions, institutional goals, or learning outcomes unless required by accrediting bodies or directly tied to scholarly content. When teaching or referencing the term, emphasize its place within ongoing academic and public debates. Framing it as one approach among others helps avoid the appearance of institutional bias or compelled belief.