How coded language is undermining college inclusion 

By Piers Alexander, Head of Faculty - English 16-18, Eastern Education Group

Any involvement in EDI carries a significant responsibility – a responsibility to create real change with real meaning. The change which is sought takes place across educational landscapes, and these landscapes emerge from very particular terrains, in this case those of language and experience.

An example straight off is that, even as I write this, I find it tricky not to fall back onto the tropes of corporate eduspeak – to make reference to the ‘currency’ of lived experience, the ‘impact’ of our language choices and how colleges must ‘capitalise’ on opportunities.

But it isn’t just faux corporatisms that make their insidious way into the speech and writing of educational discourse (this, of course, is a whole other topic in itself). In the world we currently all inhabit – and particularly prevalent in the worlds of online communication – coded language is abundant. Granted, much of it simply functions in the ways in which language itself has always functioned, though within this can be found a multitude of implicit signalling – terms which indicate quite particular things to certain audiences, which at their further margins become a dogwhistle: phrasing which can allow pernicious ideas to be discussed in open settings without overtly drawing attention to what is being communicated.

I recently attended a webinar on Trans Inclusion and during the Q&A sections I couldn’t help noticing some transphobic phrasing in some of the questions. This was not overt. In fact, it must be made clear that the questions were not interpreted as transphobic – and hey, perhaps they were not meant as such. But this is really the point.

The phrasing and vocabulary of toxic online discourse has always made its way into mainstream vernacular, though in doing so it must become something seemingly safe and innocuous. In this manner, it finds its way into conversations and working environments and is able to be used both by the knowing and the unknowing. It is in this unknowing that we must become aware – professionally and in our own lives.

In the instance above, some of the framing drew upon narratives familiar from transphobic discourse. Grifting, the language of conspiracy theories and the toxic language of the exclusionary all share similarly surreptitious methods: they each rely on finding an element of seeming ‘truth’ or plausible neutrality and from there are able to attach the murkier elements of misinformation and seeming ‘concern’ – all the while carrying a very different message, often by implication.

Working in education and EDI, it is here – within this plausible neutrality and implication – that we need to be most aware. As discussed, dogwhistle rhetoric works as a linguistic sleight of hand, carrying layered meaning comprehensible in different ways to different people. In this way, it is much harder to be aware of than a generally understood non-inclusive term or phrase – clandestinely carrying a loaded meaning. As such, it makes its way into ostensibly inclusive educational spaces.

Examples may often appear in phrases which, on a surface level, come from a place of neutrality or reasonable broad enquiry.

• "I’m just asking questions": can function as a rhetorical framing device which presents a claim or assumption as neutral enquiry, potentially shielding the underlying premise from scrutiny.
• "Students are just following a trend": may frame scepticism as concern, presenting doubt about a group’s experiences or identity as a ‘well-meaning’ dismissal.
• "It’s common sense": appeals to intuition or personal belief rather than evidence, often discouraging deeper examination of a claim.
• "All Lives Matter": reframes discussion from specific inequality to a universal principle, potentially obscuring the particular issue being addressed.
• "Where is straight pride?": relies upon a comparison that overlooks significant differences in historical, social and cultural context.
• "Schools are providing litter trays for students who identify as cats": illustrates how misinformation, urban myths or online narratives can enter mainstream discussion and shape perceptions despite a lack of supporting evidence.

These examples are not presented as inherently problematic phrases, nor as evidence of prejudice in themselves. Rather, they illustrate the variety of ways in which assumptions, narratives, framing devices and misinformation can enter discussion through language that may initially appear neutral, reasonable or commonplace. Developing an awareness of context, implication and source is therefore often more valuable than focusing on individual words alone. Asking where a particular framing originates, who commonly uses it and what assumptions it carries can help us to better understand both the language itself and the wider narratives that may inform it.

The effect of this awareness is significant. Classroom climates, curriculum choices, safeguarding and policy can all be influenced by the unwitting adoption of exclusionary narratives and assumptions – and those with lived experience can feel their belonging and very identities challenged or erased. Equally, a more critical awareness of language allows us to create educational environments in which discussion is informed, reflective and genuinely inclusive.

To attempt to include here some type of definitive list of things to look out for would be an exercise in futility, given the ever-changing nature of this language and the permeating breadth of its scope. Instead, we must pay closer attention both to the voices from the communities we work with and the narratives that surround them. Follow these voices on social media, listen to commentary from allies and look for accounts that examine counter and exclusionary narratives. Use these things to more clearly consider the contexts and implications of discussion. Look for loaded questions and take time to interrogate their epistemic backgrounds – the pools of information (or misinformation) they may have drawn upon, knowingly or otherwise.

Useful starting points might include asking:

• Where did this claim originate?
• Why is this issue being framed in this particular way?
• What assumptions are embedded within the question?
• What wider narratives might be informing it?

Use these then to strengthen your discussion and the solidity of your inclusive spaces, and to continue to develop work that has real, current and practical application, making material change in inclusion and equity in a time when the need for these things becomes ever more urgent.

Carefully posed questions – open questions about where points of enquiry come from and lead – will create the clarity required in our work and will not leave space for loaded ambiguity or exclusionary rhetoric, whether that rhetoric finds amplification knowingly or unknowingly.

This does not need to be confrontational – far from it. An awareness of this language strengthens our capacity to support students and staff in their own understanding. It creates the conditions within which discussion becomes action and action becomes the change we so greatly need.