BIPOC | Campus Safe Words

TERM: BIPOC
RISK LEVEL: High

Why It’s Risky

The acronym “BIPOC” (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) is widely used in DEI contexts to highlight the experiences of historically marginalized racial groups. However, in states with legislation such as Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act and Texas Senate Bill 17, the term is increasingly viewed as part of an ideological framework that promotes race-conscious policies and identity-based groupings. Public institutions using “BIPOC” in program names, job postings, or official statements may face scrutiny or be accused of endorsing politically charged narratives.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that “BIPOC” promotes racial essentialism by grouping diverse populations under a single identity umbrella, while simultaneously elevating certain racial categories over others. Legislators and public commentators on the political right often claim that the term reinforces division, implies collective victimhood, and fosters preferential treatment based on race. It is frequently cited in critiques of DEI programming for advancing race-based distinctions at odds with equal treatment mandates.

When It’s Still Appropriate

“BIPOC” may be appropriate when quoting specific research, analyzing social movements, or referencing the term as it appears in existing literature or organizational frameworks. In academic settings such as ethnic studies, sociology, or public policy, it may be used if clearly defined and grounded in peer-reviewed work. Caution should be taken to avoid implying institutional endorsement of the term’s assumptions.

Suggested Substitutes

1. Racial and ethnic minority groups (in demographic or policy discussions)

2. Historically underrepresented groups (when referring to access or inclusion)

3. Specific group names (e.g., Black students, Latino faculty) when detail is available

4. Individuals from diverse racial backgrounds (in general references)

5. Demographic subgroups (in research or compliance reporting)

Notes:
Avoid using “BIPOC” in strategic plans, hiring materials, or public-facing content without clear academic context. When necessary, explain the term’s origin and scope, and consider whether more precise or neutral language can achieve the same purpose. Many state-level reviews now treat the term as a DEI marker; substituting factual or group-specific descriptions reduces political risk.