environmental justice | Campus Safe Words

TERM: environmental justice
RISK LEVEL: high

Definition

“Environmental justice” refers to the principle that all people—regardless of race, ethnicity, income, or location—should have equal protection from environmental hazards and equal access to environmental benefits. In higher education, it appears in public policy, sustainability, and environmental science programs, and is often used in community engagement, grant writing, and service-learning initiatives.

Why It’s Risky

Though grounded in civil rights and environmental policy history, “environmental justice” has become increasingly politicized, especially in conservative-led states and under current federal directives. The term is frequently associated with progressive activism, federal regulatory expansion, and identity-based framing of environmental issues. In some legislative environments, it is seen as a vehicle for race-conscious or equity-based interventions that may conflict with mandates for colorblind governance and neutral policymaking. Under Executive Order 14173, federal agencies have been directed to eliminate DEI-related criteria from grants and programming; “environmental justice” is now flagged in some sectors as part of the broader DEI lexicon. When used in grant applications, public outreach, or curriculum language, the term may be interpreted as signaling ideological alignment with progressive environmental and social frameworks.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that “environmental justice” shifts environmental policy away from scientific and economic considerations toward identity-based activism. In public hearings and policy briefs, some lawmakers have claimed that the term politicizes environmental regulation by emphasizing race or income over cost-benefit analysis, property rights, or industrial competitiveness. In higher education, “environmental justice” programming is sometimes criticized for embedding social justice theories into science curricula or community partnerships, especially when outcomes prioritize activism over academic rigor. Opponents also caution that funding directed toward “environmental justice communities” may be distributed based on demographic targets rather than objective risk or need, raising concerns about fairness and transparency. In conservative states, references to environmental justice in research centers, faculty projects, or campus sustainability plans may draw political scrutiny, particularly if linked to federal funding, K–12 outreach, or policy advocacy.

Suggested Substitutes

Equitable environmental access (in grant writing or community engagement)
Public health and environmental safety (in policy or science programs)
Clean air and water for all communities (in outreach or education initiatives)
Environmental risk reduction (in planning or applied research)
Community-focused environmental stewardship (in sustainability or service programs)

These substitutes emphasize practical goals without invoking ideological frameworks.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“Environmental justice” may still be used when required by federal statute (e.g., Executive Order 12898) or in academic disciplines where the term is defined and contextualized. It may also be appropriate in historical or legal analysis of environmental policy. However, in external communications, grant narratives, or institutional policies—especially in states with anti-DEI directives—use caution and consider alternative framing aligned with scientific outcomes and community health.

NOTES: When discussing environmental challenges, focus on health, access, and public benefit rather than identity. Use terminology that centers on geographic need, data-based risk, or service outcomes. Ensure any reference to environmental equity aligns with state law and does not imply demographic targeting unless explicitly authorized by funding guidelines.