at risk | Campus Safe Words

TERM: at risk
RISK LEVEL: Moderate

Why It’s Risky

The term “at risk” has historically been used to describe students or populations perceived as vulnerable due to socioeconomic, academic, or behavioral factors. However, it is increasingly criticized under state education reforms that target language seen as deficit-based or ideologically biased. Some lawmakers view the term as stigmatizing, vague, or indirectly supporting DEI agendas by implying systemic causes rather than individual responsibility. In conservative-led states, its use in funding proposals, curriculum, or outreach programs may raise red flags if not clearly defined.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that “at risk” reinforces negative stereotypes and can serve as a coded reference to race, class, or family background without evidence of individual need. The phrase is sometimes viewed as promoting an equity-centered framework that implies institutional responsibility for student outcomes. Additionally, its broad use may be seen as justifying targeted interventions or funding streams that align with DEI efforts, which are under increasing scrutiny.

When It’s Still Appropriate

“At risk” may be appropriate in academic research, public health, or educational assessment when clearly defined by specific metrics (e.g., academic performance, attendance, or health outcomes). It can also be used in grant applications or reports when tied to state-accepted indicators. In these contexts, pairing the term with quantifiable data and neutral language helps maintain credibility and reduce political risk.

Suggested Substitutes

1. Students needing additional support (for academic contexts)

2. High-need populations (in grant or policy documents)

3. Priority learners (used cautiously and with definition)

4. Individuals facing specific challenges (for outreach or service work)

5. Students not meeting benchmarks (for performance-based metrics)

Notes:
Avoid using “at risk” as a standalone label without explanation or supporting data. When used, specify the risk factors and avoid identity-based assumptions. Consider substituting more descriptive, behavior-based terms in curriculum, reports, or communications to align with current legislative expectations. Always define terms in grant writing and program evaluation documents.