the DEI funding bans are going to change our language

Over the past two weeks, the state of American science funding has been in absolute disarray. Across the NSF, the National Institutes of Health, and the CDC, thousands of grants have been frozen and unfrozen, websites have been removed, and existing funding sources have been vetted as the agencies struggle to comply with new White House directives dismantling previous diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

According to the Washington Post, these changes are largely unfolding as officials sort through a set list of targeted keywords, such as “female,” “gender,” “marginalized,” “socioeconomic,” “segregation,” and “women.”

It’s unclear what the scope or extent of these changes will be, but it definitely seems wisest for researchers to avoid those keywords in their future work. As such, we’ll probably see a huge decrease in traditional “DEI language” over the next four years.

However, that doesn’t mean that the actual research will stop. Scientists will still conduct studies on things like women and socioeconomics, but they’ll just have to be more careful with their phrasing.

Rather than stopping their work wholesale, they’ll linguistically innovate and find new ways to express the same concepts. Perhaps instead of “woman” more people will use “femme,” or instead of “marginalized” more people will say “disadvantaged.” I certainly know several friends in research spaces who are actively using find-and-replace tools to carefully work around the anti-DEI lists like this.

I’m reminded of the Aesopian language used to covertly subvert censorship laws in the former Soviet Union, or of the “algospeak” that I discuss in my upcoming book. If there’s one thing you can count on, it’s that humans will always find new ways to express themselves, because there are always more options available. So I wouldn’t worry about sliding into a 1984-esque linguistic dystopia any time soon.

If anything, I’m more concerned that our evasive language is going to exacerbate the already-negative perception toward DEI research. As scientists inevitably turn toward more esoteric or circular language to communicate in their field, it will be less accessible to people outside of academia, making it all the easier to demonize DEI language in the first place.

It’s already fascinating how “DEI” and “critical race theory” have become such loaded words to the right wing. An acronym that evokes fairness to one audience is a dog-whistle to another, merely by virtue of the fact that it feels confusing to the general public. Now, as our terminology gets more confusing, we’ll almost definitely see the concept of fairness get vilified further.