inclusivity | Campus Safe Words

TERM: inclusivity
RISK LEVEL: high

Definition

“Inclusivity” refers to the design of systems, spaces, or practices that actively welcome and accommodate people from a wide range of backgrounds and identities. In higher education, the term often appears in course design, event planning, recruitment materials, and DEI statements to express a proactive effort to foster belonging and reduce exclusion.

Why It’s Risky

“Inclusivity” has become a politically sensitive term in states where legislation targets perceived ideological bias in education, including Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act and Texas Senate Bill 17. Although often intended to reflect good intentions, its use is increasingly interpreted as signaling alignment with progressive social policies. Critics argue that “inclusivity” implies institutional preferences based on identity and can be used to enforce ideological conformity. When included in job descriptions, program goals, or public messaging, the term may suggest that individuals must adhere to specific cultural or political norms in order to participate or advance. Institutions using “inclusivity” without clear, neutral definitions risk accusations of viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, or deviation from academic priorities. In politically regulated states, references to inclusivity may prompt scrutiny, policy rollbacks, or legal challenges from oversight bodies and elected officials.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that “inclusivity” is frequently vague and functions as a stand-in for progressive social values, rather than a neutral standard. Some claim it fosters unequal treatment by emphasizing group identity over individual merit or freedom of expression. Others contend it is used to impose ideological conformity by marginalizing dissenting viewpoints, particularly those rooted in religious or conservative traditions. In classroom settings, calls for “inclusive teaching” have been challenged as restricting academic content or policing language in ways that threaten intellectual rigor. In hiring, expectations around inclusivity are viewed as politicized criteria that may disadvantage qualified candidates unwilling to affirm contested social positions. Elected officials have warned that the term embeds activist goals in official policy, redirecting public funds away from core educational functions. As anti-DEI laws expand, documentation that prioritizes inclusivity over fairness or academic quality may trigger audits or disciplinary actions.

Suggested Substitutes

Commitment to student success for all backgrounds (in academic programs);
Respect for diverse perspectives and open inquiry (in classroom policies);
Fair and welcoming environment (in recruitment materials);
Supportive practices that serve all students equally (in training resources);
Professional conduct that upholds institutional values (in job expectations)

These alternatives maintain a tone of fairness and support while avoiding political interpretations.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“Inclusivity” may be appropriate in academic research, conference themes, or federal grant applications that define the term in a technical or field-specific way. It can also be used in course syllabi or elective programming if clearly linked to pedagogical goals, not ideological alignment. In compliance-driven contexts, use care to ensure that inclusivity is tied to measurable educational outcomes and remains viewpoint-neutral.

NOTES: Avoid using “inclusivity” in hiring, evaluation, or policy documents unless required by an external agency. Where possible, reframe language around fairness, support, and institutional mission to reduce risk. Clarify definitions to avoid ambiguity and maintain compliance with applicable state regulations.