24 Mar 2025 An assault on the words we use

Conservative attacks on “DEI” and “woke”* policies and practices in the United States intensified in the run up to the presidential election. So, it should not come as a complete surprise that from the moment of Donald Trump’s inauguration, an assault on “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs has been taking place.

What has shocked many, however, is the full-scale purge not just of specific programs, but of the very words we use in daily life and work, especially those of us who are fundamentally committed to a rights-based ethic.

In the 7 March article “These Words are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration, The New York Times identified hundreds of words which U.S. agencies are now explicitly instructed to “limit or avoid” – from “accessible” and “Black” to “women” and “vulnerable populations.” The words have been disappearing from government websites and other materials – including school curricula – The New York Times noted.

Other activists (another banned word) have seen how the same words are being erased from the websites of companies and organizations in step with the Trump administration or in response to government demands as one prerequisite for continued funding.

The push to eliminate “diversity, equity, and inclusion” from existence is not confined to the US but is now directly and indirectly changing the language and approaches of companies and organizations across the globe who have seen that continued business or funding in the US may – or must – depend on alignment with Trump’s executive orders.

Following the announced cuts of 83% of the US’ foreign aid, for example, United Nations offices and other international organizations in Geneva received a questionnaire demanding information on everything from communist links to whether projects have any elements of diversity, equity, and inclusion or work on climate change.

In a WACC Europe discussion on 18 March, participants noted that the anticipated financial pressure – not just due to US directives but also due to European governments in the process of increasing defence spending at the expense of aid and social services – is already causing charitable organizations to change their public language.

Examples included modifying language about services to marginalized communities to speak about enhancing “contributions to the economy” or digging deeper to explain outcomes rather than just to use words that have become jargon.

Amid destabilization and fear, the discussion participants also saw this moment not only as a challenge but as an opportunity, particularly for communicators and people who are committed to communication rights.

We have the opportunity to find new expressions to explain what it is we do – moving from tokenistic language to really explain or show why we work for all. Such language could be both empowering – honouring different cultural expressions – as well as able to reach audiences who have shut their ears to certain terms.

We have the opportunity to share more stories of the real impact solidarity – and the removal of solidarity – has on people all over the world.

We have the opportunity – and the necessity – to find ways to keep our own “order” in the face of chaos and especially to support and strengthen our own local democracy.

And – particularly for those not threatened with loss of livelihood or rights – we can continue to use and proclaim the “banned” words even as we use new expressions and explanations.

As activists for communication justice, we can ever more loudly proclaim that “free speech” rejoices in words that celebrate diversity, strive for equity, and strengthen inclusion.

*Use of the acronym and the jargon “woke” are deliberate, as much of the negative narrative seems aimed to make these “the labels” to prevent deeper reflection of what they actually mean.

Photo: Andrey Popov and Saskia Rowley