excluded | Campus Safe Words

TERM: excluded
RISK LEVEL: high

Definition

“Excluded” refers to being deliberately or unintentionally left out of participation, access, or representation. In higher education, the term often appears in discussions of social inequality, curriculum reform, identity-based programming, or assessments of institutional climate—typically to describe groups or individuals who have been marginalized due to race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other identity categories.

Why It’s Risky

While factually appropriate in some historical or legal contexts, “excluded” becomes politically sensitive when used to suggest that present-day systems, policies, or curricula are inherently biased or discriminatory. In states with legislation targeting identity-based narratives—such as Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act or Texas Senate Bill 17—the term is frequently associated with progressive critiques of institutions and may be interpreted as part of a DEI or critical theory framework. When used broadly in strategic plans, course descriptions, or hiring justifications, “excluded” can appear accusatory, ideological, or unsupported by data—triggering scrutiny from lawmakers, trustees, or concerned stakeholders.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that the term “excluded” often implies intentional wrongdoing or systemic injustice without offering evidence or acknowledging context. In politically conservative environments, statements about exclusion are sometimes viewed as grievance-based or as attempts to delegitimize traditional values, Western curricula, or merit-based policies. When applied to admissions practices, faculty demographics, or course content, “excluded” may be seen as fueling resentment or promoting policies that prioritize group identity over individual achievement. Additionally, some lawmakers contend that using exclusionary framing to justify equity or diversity initiatives can lead to reverse discrimination or administrative overreach. Public references to “excluded communities” or “excluded voices” in grant applications, academic programming, or institutional messaging have prompted audits and reputational risks at institutions perceived to be aligning with activist goals.

Suggested Substitutes

Underrepresented (in research, faculty hiring, or enrollment discussions)
Not historically included (in curriculum or policy reviews)
Limited participation (in program access or outreach reports)
Gaps in access (in student services or advising contexts)
Voices not previously reflected (in academic or public programming)

These alternatives convey the same issue with softer tone and fewer ideological implications.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“Excluded” may still be appropriate in legal analyses, historical research, or when citing formal documentation (e.g., court decisions or federal reports). In scholarly writing, the term may be used if clearly defined and supported by evidence. In public-facing documents or strategic initiatives, it is safer to use more measured alternatives that focus on improvement and inclusion rather than past fault.

NOTES: Avoid using “excluded” as a blanket descriptor unless supported by specific data or legal findings. Focus on actionable goals and institutional accountability rather than assigning blame. Use precise, mission-aligned language to describe participation gaps, and ensure all framing complies with applicable state laws and federal funding guidelines.