Defaulting to Inclusive Language

As one of the millions of people who regularly read The New York Times (or bits and pieces of it, let’s be honest), I have been running a little hot lately. Almost every time I open the NYT app or click the bookmark on my desktop I end up leaving more frustrated, angry, or upset than before I started reading. And no, it’s not because each day there is news that highlights our dystopian world, although that is plenty disheartening on its own, but rather because the Op-Ed section has been publishing some seriously bogus takes about inclusive language, “cancel culture,” or “free speech.”

I have been reading them quietly and lamenting to anyone that will listen about how ridiculous they are, but this piece by Pamela Paul finally set me off enough to write this blog post. My goal here is to offer up a perspective that disagrees wholeheartedly with Paul’s take on inclusive language so that anyone else who is reading these op-eds and feeling discouraged, or maybe even reconsidering some of your efforts at camp, knows there is someone else out there in your corner.

If I were you, I’d skip the article in question and save your emotional energy because boy oh boy has it occupied a lot of my headspace. I’ll summarize briefly: Pamela Paul celebrates the end of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, a project in Stanford’s IT Department, by using 45 of the words the department deemed harmful in her piece. I will refrain from rewriting them here, but suffice to say this includes terminology that is ableist, racist, sexist, and just… hurtful? rude? disrespectful? I’m not sure how best to describe it all. The Stanford IT Department, however, never offered up the initiative as a ban on people’s freedom of speech (”free speech” being a potential dog-whistle we should all look out for) like Paul claimed. Rather, the initiative was an attempt to make their website and outward-facing communications more inclusive through this guidance they created.

Are you starting to see the connection to camp? I definitely am. As we go about creating inclusive spaces for children and young adults to thrive, this also involves making our communications reflect our values. And, when we do, we should be prepared for pushback from people with similar views to Pamela Paul’s that we are becoming “authoritarian” in our “policing” of language. I reject this opinion outright, but think it is worth highlighting some of the benefits of defaulting to inclusive language using documents like Stanford’s (or this one from the APA Allison recently shared) so that we can feel confident in our choices and articulate our rationale to skeptics.

Allison Note: And for all my Y people, YUSA has an Inclusive Language Style Guide. I’m not saying I agree with everything in it, but it’s Y official.

Everyone deserves to feel like they belong.

Sometimes, it is as simple as that. Every person who steps into their cabin for the first time, meets a member of our community, or even just visits our website, should feel like they are welcome. Or, to put it another way, there should not be a sign on the metaphorical door that says “you do not belong here.” Language has the power to make people feel disregarded and hurt when we say things that minimize their identity, tie it to negative values, or refuse to name their existence at all. Taking guidance in the type of language we use, whether it be from organizations like Stanford or from the campers and staff we serve, can help people feel like their experiences and feelings are valued. Even though inclusive language is far from the only step in giving everyone the chance to feel true belonging, it is an important piece of the puzzle in making sure members of your community or those interested in joining it are not automatically put off by the things you say.

The worst case scenario is fine and the best case is amazing.

Pamela Paul describes how some of the terminology in the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative was poorly researched and perpetuates knee-jerk reactions to restrict free speech. I say— fine by me! At the end of the day, a term that you stopped using in your communications as a result of faulty research simply means you prioritized inclusion in that moment over the time it would take to find the perfect answer on your own. That seems like, well… a great approach! We should be defaulting towards inclusion whenever possible and evaluating our decisions over time. If this is the worst case scenario (inaccurately identifying terms for replacement), what is the best case scenario? Paul declines to offer any possibilities, but I will: a prospective camper’s guardian reviews your website and finally sees a place where their child might be affirmed and loved. Or, a staff member reads your guidelines and realizes that they can set aside some of their fears for the summer because, at first glance, you seem to care about them. Potential best cases like this tip the scales strongly in favor of defaulting towards inclusive language, especially when the worst case has few material consequences.

Staff can actually hear what we are trying to say.

I have heard it said often in camp spaces that communicating with the young people we hire is hard. That “this generation” presents unique difficulties in developing shared understandings of necessary work, helping regulate emotions in a healthy way, and building stamina for a long summer. Whether or not this is a universal truth is besides the point, but one way we can ensure what we have to say can be heard is by using inclusive language all the time, not just on our websites. When staff hear us use outdated, sometimes hurtful language, there is an immediate and understandable reaction to fixate on it. If someone insulted you directly, would you be able to quickly move on to hear the rest of what they are saying? I don’t think I could. If our language is inclusive from the beginning, staff are going to be able to hear the nuance in what we need to tell them, to go from feeling disregarded to respected. Obviously, the content of what we are saying still matters, but I can’t help but wonder if what seems like a disinterest in our asks and reflections is actually due to finding a small element of what was said to be off-putting. When we’re intentional about our language, we open ourselves up to more honest and direct communication with our staff members in ways that can be mutually beneficial.

We (selfishly) stand to gain a lot.

As our spaces gradually become safer for marginalized populations, we have a lot to gain as camp professionals. This is entirely selfish (I did not lead with this point because I do not think it is as important as the experiences of our communities) but do think it is worth mentioning. When people feel included, they are willing to take risks and be their authentic self. When people show up authentically to camp, we get to see all the positive impact that comes from their very presence. Everyone who joins us, be it as a one-week camper during the summer or as a year-round staff member, has the opportunity to impart some of their wisdom and leave camp better than they found it. The opportunity to do so opens up when people feel comfortable and wanted, willing to share about their experience at camp and how we can best serve them in the future. And, as Chris points out in Transplaining trainings, we never know how many folks will want to be a part of the good thing we’ve got going on when we start outwardly signaling our values. All of those new additions, and the existing people who now feel an increased level of safety, can change our communities for the better.

In conclusion…

Stand strong! Don’t let the rhetoric of some people with a platform slow you down on your path to being a force for inclusion for your campers, staff, and families. Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. Know that it is okay to defer to others when communicating, both in the written word and verbally, because the worst case scenario is that you learn something new and are building the skills of using language intentionally. We have a lot to gain, but most importantly the members of our community have everything to gain when they can feel fully loved in places so many consider a second home.

---

want to get in on the conversation?

Our members come together to talk about trainings, inclusion, and so much more. Join the conversation so we can learn and grow together!

---

DEX COEN GILBERT

Assistant Director & Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access Coordinator - CAmp onas

TSCS MEMBER

Dex can be reached at dex@camponas.org.