Skip to Main Content

Inclusive Language and Anti-Racist Writing

Learn about academic writing from an anti-racist perspective and reflect on your own rights and responsibilities towards others as a student writer in a North American academic context.

Use your words responsibly

Writers are responsible for the words they use. Words can show respect, or they can be harmful. The more extreme examples of this harm are racial slurs or hate speech where the explicit intent is to dehumanize or denigrate people, but there are also many other ways language choices are disrespectful. Instead of providing an exhaustive list, the information in this section is a starting point for writers to learn from as they consider their own language use.

Inclusive language and person-first writing

Colonialism creates deeply entrenched ways of describing individuals that dehumanize and harm them, even when well-intentioned writers and speakers do their best to recognize the impact of their words on others. For example, the categories we use to refer to race (an assigned identity based on shared physical or outward appearances) and ethnicity (an assigned identity based on shared ancestry and/or culture) are the result of complex historical influences that were designed to segregate people (American Psychological Association [APA], 2020, p. 142). 

Since race and ethnicity are complex categories, there is no one right word or words to use when talking about how individuals may fit within those categories. For instance, while the term “African American” may be appropriate in some contexts in the U.S., it is not accurate in all contexts, such as when referring to individuals of other nationalities (e.g., a person with Nigerian rather than American citizenship) residing in the U.S. or elsewhere (APA, 2020, p. 143). When it is not possible to be more specific, the APA Style manual (2020) suggests using the capitalized label "Black" to refer generally to people who identify with that shared ancestry (p. 243).

Similarly, many different labels can be used to describe people of European ancestry, such as "European American", "European Canadian", depending on context. According to the APA Style rules, it is appropriate to capitalize "White" when referring to people of European ancestry. In Writing Centre resources, we've modelled the capitalization students may be expected to follow when writing in APA Style, but we recognize that this usage is not acceptable to everyone. Some writers intentionally use the lowercase label "white" to disrupt the historical associations between the word White and the rhetoric used by racists to describe people of European ancestry as a superior or distinct race (Daniszewski, 2020; Kuhnhen, 2020). For similar reasons, although the APA Style manual suggests capitalizing White, like other style guides, it rejects the term Caucasian due to its origin in racist ideologies (APA, 2020, p. 143; Konigel, n.d., Shamambo & Henry, 2022). 

As these examples show, decisions about the best word to use in a specific context requires careful consideration and further learning about the purpose and history of specific terms. Instead of uncritically adhering to precedent or consensus among academics (many of whom are White), your decision will likely depend on your audience and your intent in choosing what ideas to emphasize.

No style guide is the ultimate authority on language use. Although the APA Style manual contains specific language suggestions, these are not a definitive or exhaustive list or "correct" terms. Instead, the suggestions contained in the APA Style manual are modelled on the principle that language should reflect the reality people identify with rather than how they are identified by others (p. 132). For example, when it is important to note or discuss an individual’s race and/or ethnicity in your writing, including detailed information about that individual will help both you and your reader understand that individual’s context more accurately (e.g., “a second-generation Canadian citizen of Japanese ancestry” rather than “Asian”). In the APA manual, this difference between detailed labels and inaccurate generalizations is called “person-first” vs “identity-first” language, since the latter incorrectly implies that the ways we might identify an individual is more important than how they label themselves (APA, 2020, p. 136). 

The activity below invites you to consider examples of identity-first language in comparison with their more suitable, person-first alternatives: 

Again, although the latter examples listed above may be preferable relative to the words in the first list, these will not always be the most appropriate or respectful choice, especially when used inaccurately. For example, sometimes “people of colour” can be used to refer to a very diverse group of people of many racial and ethnic backgrounds, but a more specific term may be a better substitute where possible (e.g., "Hispanic"). Likewise, categories like “East Asian” or “Indigenous” can often be substituted by reference to the specific nationality, ethnicity, or cultural group (e.g., “Vietnamese”, “Plains Cree”). 

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Daniszewski, J. (2020, July 20). Why we will lowercase white. AP Style Bloghttps://www.apstylebook.com/blog_posts/16

Konigel, R. (Ed.). (n.d.). Caucasian. Diversity Style Guidehttps://www.diversitystyleguide.com/glossary/caucasian/

Kuhnhenn, J. (2020, July 30). Capitalizing W is not a Black or White decision. National Press Club Journalism Institute. https://www.pressclubinstitute.org/2020/07/30/when-the-debate-around-a-capitalized-w-is-not-just-black-and-white/

Shamambo, L.J., & Henry, T.L.. (2022). Rethinking the use of "Caucasian" in clinical language and curricula: A trainee's call to action. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 37(7), 1780-1782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07431-6

As with race and ethnicity, sexuality and gender identity and expression involve multiple overlapping identities; as such, restrictive or simplistic labels inaccurately reflect the diversity of individuals within these groups. As a general rule, do not use words that people do not want you to use to describe them (e.g., use the correct pronouns or terms, especially when the people you are writing about have disclosed this information to you) (APA, 2020, p. 133).

In cases where you are not sure how to describe someone, avoid gendered nouns and focus on being precise rather than making assumptions based on appearance alone. For example, terms like “male”, “female”, “mankind”, derogatory and demeaning language, or incorrect pronouns or names, are simply too broad, dishonest, or harmful as useful and precise descriptions of people. At minimum, person-first language avoids binary terms and reflects the distinctions between sex (assignment), gender identity, and sexual orientation (APA, 2020, p. 138). For examples of such language, try the activity below to familiarize yourself with the differences between some over-simplistic terms in comparison with their more specific, nuanced alternatives.

Note: If you cannot view the activity, try expanding the window using the arrows in the top right-hand corner and then return the activity to its original size.

Reference

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

The relationship between language usage and reality is perhaps most pronounced when it comes to aspects of people that are fundamentally beyond their control, such as age and disability. For example, although it is true that persons in their eighties are older than those born in 2024, their exact age has no bearing on the personhood of either an 86 or 6 month-old individual. Using terms like “seniors” or “dependents” rather than "persons over 65" or "persons under 18" can inappropriately stereotype and dehumanize individuals by placing importance on group membership, labels, or perceived social hierarchies rather than the persons themselves (APA, 2020, p. 135). By contrast, person-first language such as “person with alcohol use disorder” separates the person from categories of mental or physical illness, condition, or disabilities (APA, 2020, p. 136). For further examples of both dehumanizing language and more precise, respectful alternatives, try the activity below: 

Note: If you cannot view the activity, try expanding the window using the arrows in the top right-hand corner and then returning the activity to its original size.

Reference

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Further reading