Once considered the past tense of ‘wake’, the term ‘woke’ in today’s parlance also broadly refers to an individual or organisation who has become more aware and has ‘woken up’ to issues of social injustice.
The university sector, alongside other industries, is addressing social injustice by promoting the use of inclusive language to create a respectful and diverse environment.
While higher education insiders and those external to the sector applaud the stamping-out of language that might be seen as insensitive, offensive or exclusionary, some believe universities’ wokeness is becoming unworkable.
Most universities have language guides to ensure inclusion rather than exclusion of others.
A case in point is Edith Cowan University. Its guide explains that inclusive language “ensures we avoid disrespectful and discriminatory language and have respectful conversations about ourselves and with others.”
The guide provides practical and sensible alternatives to language that might offend or exclude people.
Among the guide’s various suggestions are that: the phrase ‘older people’ acts an alternative to ‘old man’ or ‘old lady’; ‘wheelchair user’ substitutes for ‘confined to a wheelchair’; ‘gender diverse’ replaces ‘transsexual’; and ‘international students’ is used instead of ‘foreigners’.
Most in the community agree the switch to more positive language has been a good move, while acknowledging that a person’s race, religion or disability need only be mentioned when necessary or relevant.
At the same time, some universities are accused of taking matters too far.
Last year, a language guide compiled by the University of Washington’s information technology department was heavily criticised and accused of ‘woke gone wild’ when everyday words and actions of people from around the world were demonised.
The guide argued, for example, that the word ‘housekeeping’ should be avoided because it could feel gendered and was a term that “carries a fraught history and connotation of women’s traditional domestic role as housekeepers”.
And it considered the terms ‘blacklisting’ and ‘whitelisting’ to be racist and suggested replacing ‘webmaster’ (master-slave connotations) with ‘web product owner’.
Now, the prestigious US institution Stanford University has been forced to cancel its newly crafted Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative.
While the guide is replete with excellent suggestions for words that are indeed insensitive, offensive or exclusionary, it takes wokeness to the next level.
It is not difficult to see why feathers were ruffled and why Stanford quickly withdrew the guide, saying it had been well intentioned though “missed its intended mark”.
The guide’s ‘denylist’ (the recommended alternative to ‘blacklist’) included the phrases ‘no can do’ and ‘long time no see’, which were considered to be racist to people from parts of Asia.
And it was no longer considered appropriate to label someone as an ‘addict’ (alternative: person with a substance use disorder), ‘prisoner’ (alternative: a person who is incarcerated) or ‘brave’, which was characterised as perpetuating stereotypes of the ‘noble courageous savage’. No substitute for ‘brave’ was offered up.
Critics of guides like those produced by Stanford and the University of Washington say higher education institutions have become too focused on inclusive language.
They consider the contents of these types of guides to restrict freedom of speech.
Further, critics argue the guides exclude them, their diversity of thought and the language they use on a day-to-day basis.
To be clear, any language intended to vilify and offend on the base of age, religion, race, colour, ethnicity, gender and sexuality is unacceptable.
But whether or not universities have gone overboard with inclusive language is a matter of perspective. Opinions on the subject will continue to be many and varied.
More debate on inclusive language is needed and ought to include rather than exclude those with differing perspectives on exactly what words and phrases should be published on lists.
It is important for higher education to strike a balance between promoting inclusivity and diversity and protecting the rights of all members of university communities to express themselves freely.
Failure to do so can have serious consequences.
In advancing their efforts to support diversity, equity and inclusion, universities will need to consider that wokeness taken too far and without the engagement of all voices might end up preventing the much hoped-for inclusiveness.
• Professor Gary Martin is chief executive officer of the Australian Institute of Management WA
