Involve a diverse group of people in the creative process
Writing, editing, and communicating information are inherently interpersonal activities. Collaboration is vital because no one person can realistically assume all perspectives when writing or editing. Diverse teams produce higher-quality work and can prevent mistakes that alienate the audience, such as using biased language or images that perpetuate stereotypes (see “Stereotypes in images”). Theories about why diverse teams are more effective include that they are more fact focused and innovative, particularly when a group commits to diversity and recognizes the challenges that it poses. For all these reasons, people who bring new perspectives are valuable on a creative team. Assembling a diverse team is not always easy or fast, but the alternative is reinforcing areas of unawareness on a team.
Because of the value of diversity and long-standing inequities that have resulted in a lack of diversity at many organizations, sometimes the same people get asked to work on teams, which can overburden those people. Another problem is when people from an underrepresented group get added to a team only for the appearance of diversity and aren’t given any real power or support. This tokenism is unfair, doesn’t treat people as true team members, and can make people feel like representatives of a marginalized group.
Whenever possible, strive for a team of collaborators that reflects diverse perspectives and lived experiences regarding gender, race and ethnicity, age, and geographic location, among other factors. At the same time, do not make assumptions about people’s characteristics. If the group of people on a project is not diverse, add people with different experiences or identities than those represented on the project team, and give all members real power and support. Treat team members as important, complex people who do not speak for all members of their race, gender, age, or other characteristic.
Do not rely on the same person every time a topic relating to a group they belong to arises, and avoid asking for someone’s opinion only about their identity. Recognize them as bringing value beyond providing an unrepresented perspective. When asking for someone’s help in an employment or workplace context, recognize their contribution and fairly compensate them for the value added. In a volunteering context, acknowledge their contributions.
Especially when writing about a group that is not represented on your writing and editing teams, consider consulting or hiring a sensitivity reader who does represent that group. Sensitivity readers are additional editors whose primary or only focus is to spot and root out biased or alienating language or notions. A trained sensitivity reader can also be adept at doing this work for materials that aren’t related to the reader’s personal identities.
Be appropriately specific
Using a single label for a large, diverse group ignores differences between individuals in that group. In contrast, naming smaller, specific groups can be powerful, especially when those groups feel invisible. For example, Native Americans belong to distinct nations with their own cultures. Naming a specific nation when possible is generally preferred to using “Native Americans” as a broad group. But sometimes it is necessary to group people together to discuss general differences, such as access for nondisabled people versus people with disabilities. In addition, being inappropriately specific may exclude people. For example, referring only to women when discussing childbirth excludes people of other genders who can give birth (see also “How to discuss bodies").
When it is necessary to discuss a large group, it is important to use language that recognizes the diversity within the group. Using the word “community” for people who aren’t personally connected but share an identity could imply that they are monolithic or like minded. For example, saying that “the Latin American community stands with the Democratic Party” hides differences in that group that greatly depend on people’s geographic location and country of origin. On the other hand, referring to a group as a community can be unifying and highlight common struggles that many group members face, like “We want to make classrooms that are accessible to the Deaf community.” In a 2015 Stanford Social Innovation Review article, David M. Chavis and Kien Lee of the equity-centered research and development firm Community Science write, “Members of a community have a sense of trust, belonging, safety, and caring for each other. They have an individual and collective sense that they can, as part of that community, influence their environments and each other.”
In general, be as specific as possible about the people you’re referring to while being accurate. If you categorize many disparate groups together, consider whether you can name them all instead of using a single label.
Notice whether words that group people together, like “community,” erase individual differences and imply homogeneity or whether they highlight common issues faced by members of a group. Generally, it’s better to use a plural noun for large groups in which the individuals do not have personal connections to one another. See also “Recognize the diversity of Indigenous peoples.”
Black, Hispanic, and Asian students reacted positively.
Students of color reacted
the Asian community
Avoid labeling people by a characteristic
Labeling people by a characteristic ignores other important dimensions of their identities and reduces people to labels, robbing them of personhood. One way that labels appear is with “the” plus an adjective, as in “the poor.” Another form of label is a plural adjective, as in “diabetics.”
A third way that labels appear is in the use of abbreviations for people. In the book The Power of Talk: How Words Change Our Lives, professors Felecia Briscoe, Gilberto Arriaza, and Rosemary C. Henze argue that abbreviations for people add abstraction and distance between communicator and subject and turn people into objects. “The abstraction achieved through using acronyms both normalizes and seems to simplify a complex issue,” they write. Similarly, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Global Public Health Equity Guiding Principles for Communication says, “Referring to people only as acronyms can be dehumanizing in that ‘IDPs’ or ‘MARPs’ or ‘PLHIV’ become viewed as objects instead of people.” Another problem with abbreviations is that they can homogenize a diverse group. For example, the acronym “AAPI” “seeks to include and represent an outsized group of people hailing from or having roots in the largest continent on Earth, a region that includes nearly 50 countries,” reporter Yi-Jin Yu says in a 2021 Today article. See also “BIPOC, BAME, and POC” and “Be appropriately specific.”
In addition, Oxfam’s Inclusive Language Guide points out that the abbreviation “VAWG” for “violence against women and girls” is problematic “because reducing the problem to an acronym can be considered to be trivializing a serious and traumatic issue.”
In general, do not use the format “the [adjective],” “a(n) [adjective],” or “[plural adjective]” when referring to characteristics of people. Instead, use adjectives with nouns. Also, whenever possible, spell out terms for groups of people instead of using abbreviations.
“The company adopts equitable and fair recruitment, hiring, retention, and advancement practices that facilitate employment opportunities and growth for historically excluded groups—including people of color, formerly incarcerated people, immigrants, people with disabilities, and young people—resulting in a representatively diverse workforce at all levels” (Corporate Performance Standards on Racial and Economic Equity: Developmental Approach and Methodology, 2022).
for historically underrepresented groups (HUGs)
Ask people how they want to be described, and respect that language
Language is powerful, and the ability to choose the way to describe oneself is empowering. Often, privileged people create names for members of different groups to exclude them and deprive them of rights. When people of a marginalized group choose their own names and terms, they reclaim some amount of power. For example, some people have turned what were once slurs into self-affirming terms (see “Queer”).
Accuracy requires using the language that people want you to use when describing them.
Sometimes, as when talking about groups in general rather than specific individuals, it’s not possible to ask people how they want to be described. The National Center on Disability and Journalism’s Disability Language Style Guide recommends, “If the source is not available or unable to communicate, ask a trusted family member, advocate, medical professional or relevant organization that represents people with disabilities.” But it’s essential to ensure the organization truly advocates for the people you’re writing about. The Center for Disability Rights’ Disability Writing & Journalism Guidelines explains, “Just because an organization claims to represent disabled people, that does not mean disabled people are actually included.” In addition, “Just because an organization is run by disabled people does not mean that accurately represents the Disability Community, either.” A similar problem occurs in language on body size. Organizations predicated on preventing or treating “obesity,” a medicalized term for higher-weight people, advocate for person-first language using the term “obesity” or “overweight.” But fat activists oppose this wording. And studies on preferred language of higher-weight people often involve people who view their weight as a problem, so the results of the studies are not generalizable. See also “How to mention weight.”
When writing about someone’s race, ethnicity, gender identity, health, age, or other characteristic, ask how they would like to be described. Then use that language. When it’s not possible to ask an individual or group, use the language recommended by organizations that advocate for the identity you’re trying to describe. For example, if you are unable to determine the language that a group of people with a specific disability wants to use, look at the language that organizations representing people with that disability use. Although preferences within groups vary, using terms that advocacy organizations promote is acceptable when individual preferences can’t be ascertained. But use caution when choosing the organization to use as a source; avoid choosing ones that aren’t led by people they aim to serve.
Terms that this guide says to avoid can be retained in official names of organizations and programs. When they appear in a quote, consider whether the quote is necessary and the benefit versus harm of keeping that term in your content. If retaining the wording would cause more harm, then paraphrase.
His goal with the research was to help people with the disease be pain-free, he says. (Paraphrasing and specifying the person’s goal are more inclusive.)
“My goal with the research was to help people with the disease live normal, healthy lives,” he says. (“Normal” is subjective and demeaning when used as a contrast to people with a disease, disorder, or other health condition.)
When to include personal information
Mentioning personal information signals to the audience that there is a reason for doing so—that the information gives necessary background, for example. But when this information, such as a personal characteristic, is shared for only some people and not others and only in some contexts, bias may appear. For example, if you say, “XX, a Black scientist” but not mention the races of other people, you are implying that being Black is different or unusual and should thus be noted to the reader. But in a piece about the experiences of Black scientists, it may be appropriate to note that someone is Black.
Mention personal information such as gender, race, or disability only when relevant. When personal information is important to mention, write sensitively and respectfully. When deciding whether to include someone’s race, gender, disability, or other aspect of their identity, ask what that information will add and how it will help the reader understand the content. If you are tempted to name a characteristic like race for one person but not another, question why. Also see “When and how to mention age,” "When to mention body size,” “When and how to mention someone’s health,” “When and how to mention gender and sexual orientation,” “When and how to mention race and ethnicity,” “When and how to mention nationality and locations,” “When and how to mention immigration status,” and “When and how to refer to socioeconomic status groups.”
Recognize words that assume a cultural norm
Unconscious biases may emerge in writing. Failing to consider possible biases and how they appear in your content may unintentionally ostracize people who don’t share your background—the combination of factors that have contributed to your point of view.
Many terms in English were made from a Europe- or US-centric viewpoint, such as “Near East,” “Middle East,” and “Far East.” In addition to the actual words used, the format of the words can indicate the communicator's viewpoint.
Many style books for English communicators recommend italicizing words that are not in an English-language dictionary so that readers don't think the words are typos. But for a couple of decades, some fiction authors have intentionally ignored that guidance, saying that italicizing non-English words can ostracize cultures by designating some words but not others as foreign. In a 2018 article in Quartz, writer Thu-Huong Ha says some authors think italicization doesn’t aid reader understanding much, can alienate readers who speak the other language, or can distance the author from those readers, whom the author often identifies with. Some authors say italics don’t reflect how people talk.
More recently, food writers have questioned whether to italicize non-English terms in articles and recipes. In 2020, the Los Angeles Times Food team decided to stop italicizing non-English food names, in part because that special formatting seemed to exoticize other cultures rather than aid comprehension and because much of its readership speaks languages other than English.
Yet other writers say italicizing makes English-speaking readers aware of other languages. In a 2012 survey of fiction authors in the literary journal Ploughshares, Ru Freeman says, “I choose to italicize the Sinhala words in my writing precisely because I want to draw attention to them. . . . I have chosen to write in the English language, thereby addressing a primarily English-speaking audience, one less familiar or entirely unfamiliar with Sinhala.”
Examine your language and the way you describe things to identify potential biases. For example, the words “foreign,” “ethnic,” and “exotic” mean different things depending on who you are; it is generally better to be specific. Notice when your language assumes a country-specific framework, and question whether that is appropriate for your content. For example, June through September is not summer for the entire world, so it may be clearer to use months instead of seasons when referring to a time period. Identify whether descriptions will be clear to most people in your audience or whether they assume a certain cultural background. For example, if you compare the shape of something to a football, that could mean something different for people in Europe than for people in the US.
When considering whether to italicize a non-English word, ask, Are you italicizing any other words in your text, and why? Who is your audience? Would that audience be confused if a term weren’t italicized? If you do not suspect there would be confusion, omit the italics. If the term seems uncommon in English and you think your audience won’t recognize it, consider briefly defining it in the text rather than italicizing it. See also “Recognize frames and narratives that uphold inequities," “Avoid problematic frames and narratives,” and “Consider what information to include.”
students from outside the US
Join us for lunch, where we will be sampling a range of international foods.
Researchers created a sensor about the size of a bottle cap.
size of a nickel
California and the Far East
When to use "diverse"
“Diverse” means differing from one another or having different elements. A group can be diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, ability, occupation, nationality, and immigration status, among other factors. Some people mistakenly use “diverse” to refer to a group that includes underrepresented people or people from a nondominant group. For example, while it may be notable in a certain context to see a group composed entirely of women, that group would not be diverse in terms of gender.
In most cases, a singular noun isn't diverse unless it contains multiple parts that can differ from one another. For example, a population can be diverse because it contains people who differ from one another. But a person or image usually isn't diverse, because neither contains distinct elements that vary.
Use “diverse” when referring to something that contains unlike elements or to things or people that differ from one another. Do not use it for an individual, and do not use it as a euphemism for “composed of members of a usually underrepresented group” or “not the dominant group.” If it is not clear from the context, define the kind of diversity you’re referring to. For a walk-through of when to use "diverse," see this flowchart from Radical Copyeditor.
We strive for a diverse pool of candidates.
a diverse candidate
The article had a photo at the top showing racially diverse laboratory staff.
a diverse image
The coalition of women professors was racially diverse.
For more guidance on inclusive language, see the resources below. Also see resources listed at the end of each chapter for resources specific to certain topics.
- American Medical Association and Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Health Justice. Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts. 2021.
- American Psychological Association. Bias-Free Language. APA Style. August 2019.
- American Psychological Association. Inclusive Language Guidelines. 2021.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Equity Guiding Principles for Inclusive Communication. Last modified Aug. 2, 2022.
- Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communications. Guidelines on Inclusive Language and Images in Scholarly Communication. Oct. 20, 2022.
- Counseling@Northwestern. Inclusive Language Guide. Northwestern University. Oct. 16, 2019.
- Frey, Tracy, and Roxanne K. Young. “Inclusive Language.” Section 11.12 in AMA Manual of Style, 11th ed., edited by AMA Manual of Style Committee. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
- Global Press Journal. The Global Press Style Guide.
- Google. All In. Inclusive Marketing. 2021.
- Grey, Sarah. “Inclusive Language: Beyond Political Correctness.” Handout from Editors Canada’s Editing Goes Global conference, Toronto, June 2015.
- Kanigel, Rachele, ed. The Diversity Style Guide.
- Kapitan, Alex. Radical Copyeditor (blog).
- Kapitan, Alex. “The Power of Everyday Language to Cause Harm.” Radical Copyeditor (blog). Feb. 23, 2022.
- Mac, Tatiana. Self-Defined.
- Maggio, Rosalie. Unspinning the Spin: The Women’s Media Center Guide to Fair and Accurate Language. Oct. 13, 2021.
- Nee, Julia, and Genevieve Macfarlane Smith. Understanding Inclusive Language: A Framework. Center for Equity, Gender, and Leadership, University of California, Berkeley, Haas School of Business.
- Seattle Times Diversity and Inclusion Task Force. Guidelines for Inclusive Journalism.
- Shelley, Crystal. Conscious Language Toolkit for Editors. 2021.
- Shelley, Crystal. Rabbit with a Red Pen (blog).
- Simon Fraser University. “Inclusive and Antiracist Writing.” Student Learning Commons. Last modified Jan. 19, 2022.
- The Micropedia.
- Think Tank for Inclusion and Equity. “#WriteInclusion Factsheets.”
- Thomas, Hanna, and Anna Hirsch. A Progressive’s Style Guide. Sum of Us: 2016.
- Vox Media. Language, Please. 2022.
- Yin, Karen. Conscious Style Guide.