A happy little boy smiles as he gets ready to throw his yellow football. He is standing in his ... [+]
Non-inclusive terms, sometimes called microaggressions, are subtle, often unintentional expressions of bias or discrimination that can have a negative impact on individuals or groups. These behaviors, when unchecked, can convey derogatory messages, reinforce stereotypes and reinforce a non-inclusive work environment.
Non-inclusive terms are considered harmful because they:
- Take a cumulative toll: While individual expressions may seem small, their cumulative impact over time can be significant. Constant exposure to these subtle forms of discrimination can lead to stress, anxiety and diminished sense of worth.
- Undermine dignity: Non-inclusive terms undermine the dignity and worth of the person targeted. They convey a message that the individual does not belong or is inferior, based on elements of their identity they cannot control such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other characteristics.
- Perpetuate stereotypes: They often reinforce stereotypes and perpetuate harmful biases. This can contribute to a cycle of prejudice and discrimination, as these stereotypes may influence how people are perceived and treated.
- Negatively impact mental health: Experiencing non-inclusive terms can contribute to mental-health issues such as anxiety, depression and feelings of isolation. The constant need to navigate a world where one may be subjected to subtle forms of bias can take a toll on an individual's well-being.
- Diminish productivity and engagement: In workplaces, non-inclusive terms can negatively impact productivity and engagement. Employees who experience these subtle forms of discrimination may feel less motivated and less committed, and they are more likely to disengage from their work, doing the bare minimum versus the best they can do.
Language deeply influences culture. The words we use reflect culture by conveying what is acceptable and not acceptable in that culture. Language shifts over time to better reflect the present-day culture. Words that were commonplace in the 20th century are no longer socially acceptable today (e.g., using “gay” as pejorative, saying “retarded” or “colored” to describe a person).
While these words seem obviously non-inclusive today, more often, outdated language is nuanced. Consider these language replacements:
- “Underdog” versus “underestimated”
- “Throw out the baby with the bath water” versus “let's weigh the good with the bad”
- “Microaggressions” versus “non-inclusive behavior”
“Underdog” Versus “Underestimated”
While I've always been one to root for the underdog, I've always felt a twinge when using that expression and I couldn't articulate it until recently. Using the word “underdog” to describe someone from a historically marginalized group is dehumanizing; it has the word “dog” in it. When we use language that reflects the true context, we become clearer with our language. It resonates more with the audience. When we say they are “underestimated” people, we intuitively understand the context without further explanation. Think of someone from a different country or culture, “underdog” would likely be confusing. The updated term honors their humanity and speaks to the unfair disadvantages associated with being part of a historically marginalized group.
“Throw out the baby with the bath water” versus “let's weigh the good with the bad”
Often, after one of my presentations or workshops, there will be a small group of naysayers who provide negative feedback. Feedback is helpful when it helps make the content more useful for future audiences. Instead, people will pick one statistic, example or theme they do not agree with and disregard the full presentation. They are, in essence, throwing out all the good with the one or two “bad” pieces of information.
This prevailing notion is the reason why one-time diversity training rarely has long-term impact, especially when it is only unconscious-bias training. People are likely to have polarizing views of one-time training programs—“we all have bias, so it’s okay” or “I am bad because I have bias.” Neither one of these extremes is helpful for inclusivity.
“Throwing out the baby with the bathwater” is a violent metaphor. No one would actually want to see someone throw a baby away like they might water. Replacing that metaphor with the actual message is clearer, not to mention less harmful to those who care about babies’ well-being.
“Microaggressions” Versus Non-Inclusive Behavior
As Ruchika Tulshyan shares in “We Need to Retire the Term ‘Microaggressions,’” the term does not accurately reflect the impact that these behaviors have on historically marginalized groups. She offers replacing the term “microaggressions” with “non-inclusive behaviors” or “exclusionary behaviors.” It is clearer what you mean and reflects the gravity of the situation more accurately.
Another allyship thought leader, Poornima Luthra, calls microaggressions “termite biases” because, she says, “When we address microaggressions…we’re met with defensiveness like ‘Oh, come on. I didn’t mean it that way,’ or ‘You’re being oversensitive. Can’t you take a joke?’ or, ‘Don’t make a big deal out of this.’ These responses arise from fear: fear of being judged or of being seen as a ‘bad person.’”
These shifts might feel like a lot of work, leading us to question more of our commonly used terms. Think of them as opportunities to learn and get better. Allies make mistakes and update their vocabulary when they are asked to be better.
Think about it: if you bumped into someone accidentally, would you apologize? Same goes for using non-inclusive terms. You are not a bad person; what you said or did was harmful. You may have had positive intent and the term may have had a negative impact. Both things can be true.
It's important to address non-inclusive terms by fostering awareness, promoting education and cultivating environments where people feel respected and valued regardless of their background or identity.
