It's time to GET MORE WORDY, people. Whether this particular post shared on Insta is true or not, you can GUARANTEE that your language choices will be used against you if you receive federal funding. Many of these words are simply short-hand (or progressive jargon in their eyes) for longer descriptors of situations and groups of people. So just use alllllll the words. Many #NPMARCOMM folks are strong writers, so while you are used to tightening up language, it's time to get loose. We've always had to write for particular audiences -- anyone who has ever written a foundation grant knows this game well already. We can not only play this game but beat them at it. Priviledges = assets Inclusive = ensuring all participants are invited Discrimination = Unfair actions toward certain groups or individuals (I told ChatGPT to define discrimination in 7 words or less without using direct synonyms and that's what it gave me). Now, avoiding the word "women" might be tough. But "woman" isn't on the list, so write in the singular, I guess? 🤔 🙄 AI can help us, just like it's helping them. Or go old school and bookmark your favorite thesaurus. Yes, this sucks. But don't let this be the thing that breaks you. 😎 🦾 My screen capture is from this IG post: https://lnkd.in/e88UPsbs
Words are important. This is maybe a controversial thought - but maybe we don't shy away from the values we know to be so important and continue to use them. Let's also be honest - they don't need these words to exclude our work from federal funding. They will find a way to do that no matter what words we use.
Thank you Kivi Leroux Miller ! We have been at this so long you and me that I cannot believe this is where we are at right now. But outsmarting and out-gooding them is the best approach.
This is excellent advice! With the exec. order on NGOs yesterday, it seems clear that groups dependent on government funding will face a great deal of scrutiny. I have heard some rumors about efforts to compile data sets to uncover bias in the nonprofit sector. Let's make it difficult.
Women is on the list but men is not. Assuming this is true, “non-male” could work
Love this. Thank you for helping us continue to think forward against the wave.
Words are not the issue. "on January 28th, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told CNN that USAID had been in the administration's sights for a very specific reason. STEPHEN MILLER: We looked at USAID as an example. That's 98%, 98% of the workforce either donated to Kamala Harris or another left wing candidate." https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/02/05/ending-foreign-aid-national-security-trump-usaid
The other day, I was in conversation with a client and the client's coalition partner. The partner said, "Well, of course we don't want to look like we do DEI." That partner doesn't receive government funding. I asked, "Forgive me my curiosity. What part of diversity, equity, and inclusion is a problematic look for your organization? Is it the equity part...? The diversity part...? I specialize in helping orgs decrease unnecessary risk, and I'd like to understand if your current concern is about legal, financial, or reputational risk." They didn't have a good answer. I was a little worried that my client would be embarrassed. Nope! They were beaming. C. Nathan Harris, I'd be interested to hear which tactic you think is best: avoid the words or use allll the words.
Great perspective
Thanks for sharing!
Helping nonprofits staff navigate website projects as a Website Coach and a digital strategist
1moThank you Kivi! So very useful as advice. Do you think that those who need to be specifically cautious as they work with vulnerable populations (even, the disabled, the homeless) should consider taking down DEI type policies from their website? Obviously, they should still ACT on them, but I wonder whether there's enough benefit to having an equity policy up (unless, of course, you're an advocate, and then NEVER STOP) if you rely on federal funds