diversity and inclusion | Campus Safe Words

TERM: diversity and inclusion
RISK LEVEL: extreme

Definition

“Diversity and inclusion” refers to institutional strategies, values, or practices intended to increase representation of varied demographic groups (diversity) and ensure those groups are welcomed, respected, and supported within the campus community (inclusion). In higher education, this phrase is widely used in hiring policies, strategic planning, training programs, student services, and academic initiatives.

Why It’s Risky

Although once considered neutral or aspirational, “diversity and inclusion” has become one of the most politically charged phrases in higher education. In states such as Texas, Florida, and North Dakota, laws now prohibit or defund programs perceived to prioritize identity over merit or that promote social justice ideology in publicly funded institutions. Under laws like Texas Senate Bill 17 and Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act, “diversity and inclusion” language in job postings, program descriptions, or faculty evaluations may be interpreted as promoting identity-based preferences or ideological commitments. These laws frame such language as incompatible with viewpoint neutrality, nondiscrimination, and the proper role of public institutions.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that “diversity and inclusion” has become a catch-all phrase used to justify administrative expansion, ideological conformity, and group-based decision-making. In hiring and admissions, the phrase is often viewed as a signal for informal quotas or demographic targets that may violate equal opportunity laws. In academic settings, required participation in diversity and inclusion training is frequently challenged as compelled speech, with opponents claiming it pressures faculty and students to affirm contested social theories. Some lawmakers contend that these initiatives prioritize ideological narratives—such as systemic racism, implicit bias, or privilege—over academic standards and free inquiry. Additionally, the term is often criticized for vagueness, allowing institutions to label a wide range of activities under a politically sensitive banner without clearly defined outcomes. Diversity and inclusion statements in syllabi, search committee charges, and strategic plans have led to administrative audits and funding reviews in multiple states.

Suggested Substitutes

Equal opportunity and access (in HR, admissions, or compliance documents)
Inclusive participation (in event planning or civic engagement programs)
Welcoming learning environment (in classroom management or campus life)
Broad representation and engagement (in outreach or advisory boards)
Fairness and respect in institutional practices (in policy and training materials)

These alternatives support inclusive aims while avoiding language tied to contested political frameworks.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

The phrase may still be used in federal grant proposals, accreditation self-studies, or academic disciplines that examine inequality or access, where clearly defined and justified. It may also be appropriate in research centers or departments where diversity and inclusion are part of the scholarly mission. Avoid use in job postings, strategic plans, or institutional policies in states with DEI restrictions unless specifically permitted by governing board guidance.

NOTES: Reframe efforts around access, excellence, and student success when addressing group variation. Replace broad references to “diversity and inclusion” with context-specific goals tied to institutional performance or legal standards. Ensure terminology aligns with governing law and can be defended in audits, media coverage, or legislative hearings.