LGBT | Campus Safe Words

TERM: LGBT
RISK LEVEL: high

Definition

“LGBT” stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, and refers collectively to individuals whose sexual orientation or gender identity differs from traditional heterosexual or cisgender norms. In higher education, the term is widely used in student services, nondiscrimination statements, health resources, and diversity programming.

Why It’s Risky

Although historically common, “LGBT” has become politically sensitive in states with legislation restricting DEI initiatives and identity-based advocacy, such as Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act and Tennessee’s Higher Education Freedom of Expression Act. Critics argue that highlighting LGBT identities in official materials can signal ideological alignment with contested views on sexuality and gender, potentially conflicting with laws emphasizing neutrality and viewpoint diversity. In politically regulated environments, use of “LGBT” in public messaging, strategic plans, or hiring documents may raise concerns about compelled speech, endorsement of political advocacy, or deviation from an institution’s academic mission. Institutions using this term broadly without clear academic or health-related justification may face public scrutiny, legislative inquiry, or funding restrictions.

Common Critiques

Opponents argue that explicit references to LGBT identities in non-academic programming or policy documents embed progressive social values into institutional operations, blurring the line between education and activism. Critics claim that overemphasis on LGBT issues in campus life initiatives can marginalize religious or culturally conservative viewpoints, undermining commitments to intellectual diversity and free expression. In politically sensitive states, references to LGBT identities have been linked to accusations of compelled affirmation of contested views on marriage, gender, and family structure. Lawmakers and advocacy groups warn that using the term in official communications without neutral framing risks alienating major stakeholder groups, including parents, donors, and legislators. Furthermore, some assert that focusing heavily on LGBT issues diverts attention from academic excellence and institutional priorities. Institutions perceived as promoting specific social ideologies may be targeted for compliance reviews, policy interventions, or public criticism.

Suggested Substitutes

Support for all students regardless of background (in policy language);
Commitment to student success across diverse communities (in strategic plans);
Respect for personal dignity and individual rights (in nondiscrimination statements);
Access to confidential health and wellness services (in student affairs materials);
Promotion of a safe and welcoming learning environment (in public messaging)

These alternatives preserve commitments to fairness and inclusion without signaling political or ideological alignment.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“LGBT” may be appropriate in elective student programming, peer-reviewed academic research, and federally funded grants or compliance documents that explicitly require or define the term. It can also be used in student-led organizations and health services contexts when directly relevant to program goals and privacy protections. In general public-facing communications, favor neutral language tied to institutional mission and legal compliance.

NOTES: Avoid using “LGBT” as a standalone category in strategic plans, hiring documents, or official communications unless specifically required. Emphasize fairness, safety, and opportunity for all students to maintain neutrality and minimize political or legal risks.