discrimination | Campus Safe Words

TERM: discrimination
RISK LEVEL: high

Definition

“Discrimination” refers to the unjust or prejudicial treatment of individuals based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, or veteran status. In higher education, it is commonly referenced in legal compliance (e.g., Title VI, Title IX, ADA), grievance procedures, and policies aimed at maintaining equitable treatment across campus populations.

Why It’s Risky

Although central to civil rights law, the term “discrimination” carries political risk when used outside formal policy contexts. In particular, references to systemic or institutional discrimination—as opposed to clearly documented incidents—are increasingly scrutinized in states that have enacted legislation against perceived ideological instruction. Under laws such as Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act, Texas Senate Bill 17, and Tennessee’s Divisive Concepts Law, institutions may not promote the idea that the U.S. or its institutions are inherently discriminatory. When “discrimination” appears in DEI statements, training materials, or curricular content without clear linkage to legal frameworks or empirical evidence, it may be interpreted as promoting contested social theories, drawing administrative or legislative attention.

Common Critiques

Conservative policymakers and commentators often argue that overuse of the term “discrimination” fosters a culture of grievance and encourages the perception that American institutions are fundamentally unjust. There is particular concern when discrimination is presented as ongoing, pervasive, and systemic—rather than situational or unlawful—especially if tied to identity-based claims lacking due process or quantifiable proof. Critics assert that such framing may lead to differential treatment in hiring, admissions, or grading, undermining the principle of equal opportunity. Some also argue that emphasis on “discrimination” in training or faculty evaluations may suppress viewpoint diversity or amount to compelled speech. Furthermore, when the term is applied to abstract or subjective experiences (e.g., “felt discrimination” or “perceived discrimination”), critics claim it dilutes the legal and moral seriousness of the issue. The result is a heightened risk of backlash when the term appears in job descriptions, mission statements, diversity frameworks, or orientation materials not clearly tied to federal compliance.

Suggested Substitutes

Unfair treatment (in student or employee concerns)
Inequitable outcomes (in institutional research or program review)
Policy violations (in grievance and conduct procedures)
Access barriers (in disability or facilities discussions)
Bias incidents (in student affairs or campus climate tracking)

These alternatives offer clarity while reducing the appearance of ideological framing.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“Discrimination” remains fully appropriate in legal contexts involving compliance with federal or state civil rights laws. It is also suitable in formal complaint processes, legal training, and scholarly research using established definitions. In broader communications or instructional materials, ensure that the term is used with precision, supported by data or statute, and not framed ideologically unless required by academic discipline.

NOTES: Avoid general references to systemic discrimination in public-facing documents unless required by grant language or federal regulation. Emphasize lawful standards, institutional procedures, and individual rights to maintain neutrality and reduce exposure to political scrutiny.