|
ABCs of DEI
Alex Andrasik (He/Him), Penn Yan Public Library
One of the biggest barriers to mutual understanding is the language we use. When we fall too much into jargony or specialized language, we fail to bring others along to the understanding we seek to share. We may also fail to meet others where they are. Making sure we know how to define the terms we’re using can better equip us to deploy them when warranted, or when to use workarounds when necessary.
This practice seems especially important as we begin to see a wave of backlash to DEI programs in general, and to the language they use more specifically. As we have moved to reflect justice as much as possible in our speech and writing, some groups have felt left behind, while others criticize the rationale for changing language in the first place.This is expressed very clearly in “The Moral Case Against Euphemism,” a piece by George Packer running in the April 2023 edition of The Atlantic. In it, Packer makes some decent arguments for taking care in the rush to adopt equity language style guides, and some equally terrible arguments for rejecting them. (For one thing, he makes it sound as though these style guides’ aim is to change the way everyone talks in casual conversation, rather than to suggest ways to make the language in official publications be more accepting and less marginalizing.) But it’s a conversation worth having and a social change worth thinking about carefully.
Our first responsibility is to be able to define, ourselves, the terms we’ve begun using more frequently, so that we can explain or defend them when called on to do so. It is true that language is constantly evolving, so this effort is something of a moving target. But we should be able to get to the core of what some of these terms mean, and feel confident about expressing them. And if we come across terms that seem to lack such a core, or whose core meaning somehow fails to inspire a sense of conviction in us, perhaps that is a term we can comfortably drop from our lexicon.
Here is an attempt at some core definitions for a few of the key terms in our DEI work.
Bias: an orientation toward someone or something, which can be positive or negative and may be informed by previous experience, and which may interfere with impartial judgment. May be conscious or unconscious. There is no implied power differential between the parties involved, as is the case with terms like racism.
Diversity: the broad array of dimensions in which people differ (and are differentiated) from one another, encompassing characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, national origin, ability, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and more, as well as experiences, values, and beliefs. Recognition of diversity is the first step in the process of securing justice, and does not automatically guarantee it without further action.
Equity: the elimination of barriers to equal outcomes; access to amounts and kinds of resources that allow each person to achieve equal outcomes. A focus on equity recognizes that some of the remedies to injustice must be unequal in nature: they must benefit to a greater extent those groups and individuals who have not been fairly served historically.
Inclusion: the intentional and authentic transformation of an environment by offering opportunities to, and bringing into systems and decision making processes, those who have been historically excluded from them; sharing power; cultivating a sense of belonging; valuing diversity.
Privilege: the unearned and sustained social, political, economic, and psychological benefits of membership in a group that has institutional and structural power; exclusive access to resources on the basis of such membership. Those who benefit do not ask for these benefits, and are largely taught not to recognize them.
How do you define or understand some of these terms? Do these definitions get at their core, or would you suggest other definitions? Do you find any of these terms problematic or unhelpful? Why?
It’s important to remind ourselves that while many of these terms (and the new meanings some of them are evolving into) seem to be coming from academic institutions, they may just as often emerge from groups of activists working on the ground, whose life experiences suggest the need for these terms in certain contexts. People like Packer make assumptions about these changes being driven by “elites” who are out of touch with the communities they are seeking to describe, as in the case of the term “Latinx,” which has not been fully embraced. I know, however, from my experience in the LGBTQ+ community, that we are always finding and inventing new words to describe ourselves and our situations - words that may end up being advanced through elite institutions that pick up on them, but are not created there. The bottom line is that we have to continue listening to each other, seeking context clues, and using the language we each signal is the most meaningful for us, in that time and place.
These are just a handful of the terms we could explore in this format. Would you like to see more in future editions? Would you like to suggest some to cover? Get in touch and we will do our best to accommodate your requests!
Definitions adapted from “Our Shared Language: Social Justice Glossary” (YWCA), “Diversity & Social Justice Glossary” (University of Washington), “ABC’s of Social Justice: A Glossary of Working Language for Socially Conscious Conversation” (Lewis & Clark College), “Diversity & Social Justice Glossary” (UMass Lowell), “Glossary of Terms: Race, Equity, and Social Justice” (International City/County Management Association), “DEI Glossary of Terms” (Foster School of Business), “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Glossary” (College of the Environment, University of Washington), and “Glossary of Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (DIB) Terms” (Harvard University Human Resources).
| 
