identity | Campus Safe Words

TERM: identity
RISK LEVEL: high

Definition

“Identity” refers to how individuals perceive and express themselves, often shaped by characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, or culture. In higher education, the term is widely used in student services, DEI programming, course content, research, and outreach to affirm personal experience and group affiliation.

Why It’s Risky

“Identity” is politically sensitive because it often signals alignment with frameworks that emphasize self-defined or group-based characteristics as central to academic or institutional decision-making. In conservative-led states with anti-DEI laws—such as Texas Senate Bill 17 or Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act—the term “identity” may be interpreted as promoting ideology rather than neutrality. Risk increases when “identity” appears in hiring rubrics, curricular goals, training materials, or public statements that suggest individuals should be evaluated, supported, or classified based on identity categories. In these settings, use of the term may trigger legal scrutiny, reputational risk, or funding restrictions.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that institutional use of “identity” can encourage ideological conformity, divisiveness, or preferential treatment based on group affiliation. In politically conservative environments, references to identity—particularly in the context of race, gender, or sexuality—are viewed as part of a broader push toward identity politics and away from universal standards of merit, access, and academic rigor. Lawmakers and trustees have objected to identity-based frameworks in hiring statements, residence life programming, and faculty evaluations, arguing that they embed political assumptions rather than support open inquiry. Some also caution that overemphasis on identity may suppress dissenting views, reduce individual accountability, or conflict with constitutional principles of equal treatment. When used without clear context or academic justification, “identity” may serve as a red flag for ideological bias.

Suggested Substitutes

Individual experience (in student support or advising)
Personal background (in application materials or outreach)
Cultural or demographic factors (in institutional reporting)
Self-described characteristics (in survey instruments or research)
Student perspectives (in classroom or co-curricular settings)

These substitutes maintain respect for difference while reducing ideological exposure.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“Identity” remains appropriate in academic disciplines such as sociology, psychology, or cultural studies where the term is defined and critically examined. It may also be acceptable in elective student programming or research initiatives when clearly framed and voluntary. In compliance-sensitive settings—such as job ads, strategic plans, or required training—use neutral alternatives that emphasize institutional mission, fairness, and academic values.

NOTES: Avoid using “identity” as a basis for evaluation, classification, or preference unless mandated by law or funding. Focus on institutional goals such as access, support, and student success, not group affiliation. Use language that invites broad participation without signaling ideological endorsement.