key people | Campus Safe Words

TERM: key people
RISK LEVEL: moderate

Definition

“Key people” generally refers to individuals who are crucial to the success of a project, initiative, or institutional goal due to their roles, expertise, or influence. In higher education, the term is often used in grant applications, leadership development programs, hiring discussions, and strategic planning documents.

Why It’s Risky

While “key people” is often harmless, the term can become risky when it appears in contexts that imply selection based on identity categories rather than qualifications, especially in politically sensitive states under laws like Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act and Texas Senate Bill 17. If the term is used vaguely, it may invite concerns that certain individuals are being prioritized for leadership, hiring, or advancement based on race, gender, or ideological alignment rather than merit. Critics argue that without clear, neutral criteria, references to “key people” can suggest favoritism, undermine institutional transparency, and expose the organization to political or legal challenges. In regulated environments, ambiguous or identity-coded use of “key people” may trigger scrutiny from trustees, legislators, or outside advocacy groups.

Common Critiques

Opponents argue that “key people” language can mask identity-driven or ideological selection processes, particularly when used in hiring, leadership pipelines, or project leadership descriptions. Critics warn that emphasizing undefined “key people” risks sidelining merit-based evaluation, weakening accountability, and reinforcing perceptions of institutional bias. In politically sensitive states, lawmakers have cautioned that language promoting or referencing “key people” without transparency can create legal vulnerabilities, especially if demographic factors are informally considered. Some view the term as part of a broader trend in higher education toward prioritizing social or political goals over academic excellence. Ambiguity about who qualifies as “key” can also generate internal resentment or external reputational harm if perceived as an endorsement of non-merit-based advancement practices.

Suggested Substitutes

Essential personnel based on expertise and role (in project descriptions);
Individuals critical to program success (in grant applications);
Leaders selected through competitive, merit-based processes (in leadership development);
Team members identified by skills and experience (in hiring documents);
Stakeholders integral to mission fulfillment (in strategic plans)

These alternatives focus on skills, roles, and contributions, reducing the risk of political or legal challenges.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“Key people” may be appropriate when used in clearly defined contexts where roles, responsibilities, and qualifications are transparent and objectively linked to project or institutional needs. It is especially safe in internal planning, grant reporting, or project management documents where merit and expertise are the primary selection criteria.

NOTES: Use “key people” cautiously in public-facing documents. Where necessary, define the criteria for selection based on role-specific qualifications, merit, or institutional mission to avoid perceptions of favoritism or ideological bias.