Language matters (I’ve said this before). The language we consciously and unconsciously choose to use reflects our conscious and unconscious biases. Purposefully choosing thoughtful and selective language is a sign of a caring human. And yes, while doing so is just common decency regardless of context, it’s especially necessary in the workplace. I’d argue that considering our language is a requirement for equitable environments and certainly a prerequisite for inclusive leaders. But what about the words and phrases that have snuck into our vocabulary and we didn’t even realize the historical baggage that comes with them? There are a ton of common terms and phrases that seem harmless but have gross histories and racist origins that we’ve failed to acknowledge. I truly believe that for the most part, when people know better they make efforts to do better. While this isn’t an exhaustive list I want to highlight some examples of adjusting everyday workplace vocabulary to be more inclusive. Reconsider the following terms and phrasings to take an important step toward building work environments where all people feel welcomed, valued, and respected:
Use “Primary” or “Source” Instead of “Master”
The term "master" has associations with slavery, oppression, and unequal power dynamics. As we aim to create more inclusive workplaces, using alternative terminology can make a difference. Instead of "master database" or "master copy", terms like "source database" and "source copy" convey the same meaning without negative connotations. They describe origination or primary ownership without implying human hierarchy or inferiority.
Use “Legacy” Instead of “Grandfathered”
The term “grandfathered” has origins in voting laws designed to disenfranchise Black voters. Using “legacy” instead of “grandfathered” removes the association with oppressive historical precedents. Legacy denotes something from an earlier time, without negative connotations. For example, we could describe “legacy systems” instead of “grandfathered-in systems.” This phrasing update enables transparent neutral discussions, strictly focused on the system.
Use “Audience” or “Group” Instead of “Peanut Gallery”
As a public speaker and training facilitator, the language I use to refer to my listeners carries a lot of weight. As an audience member when I hear speakers use the phrase “peanut gallery” to reference disruptive participants, I immediately shut down and don’t care to hear what else the person has to say - even if that statement is made in a poor attempt at humor. The origin of "peanut gallery" refers to the cheapest seats in vaudeville theaters. These segregated seats forced Black attendees to sit in the back sections where available snacks consisted of...you guessed it peanuts. Over time, the term "peanut gallery" has come to symbolize groups of people who are perceived as noisy, unruly, or offering unsolicited comments or criticisms. In reality, this phrase has an overtly racist history that sought to undermine the perspectives and critiques of poor and Black people.
Seek “Culture Add(s)” Instead of “Culture Fit(s)” in Hiring
Prioritizing “culture fit” enables unconscious bias by trending towards homogeneity. “Culture add” focuses on how applicants can enhance, not just assimilate into, company culture. This empowers diversity and inclusion efforts in impactful recruiting.
Use “Allowed” and “Blocked” Instead of “Whitelists” and “Blacklists”
There’s no consensus on the exact start of these terms generally, but it doesn’t take a lot to recognize the racial history behind these phrases. While used heavily in tech, they’ve also inched their way into the colloquialisms of other work environments. “Whitelists” first emerged from lists of “approved” people largely centered around white Americans. “Blacklists” grew in prominence to describe people assumed to be inherently “suspicious” or dangerous. Unsurprisingly, ‘whitelists” reference ‘good’ and “blacklists” are used to reference ‘bad.’ These terms not only reflect but also reinforce and perpetuate a racist culture. By switching to value-neutral, non-discriminatory language instead, companies can mitigate microaggressions and foster more inclusive cultures. Terms like “blocked” and “allowed” have been picked up by Slack, Microsoft, and Google Chrome. If it’s good enough for them, then we can all use these simple swaps to convey identical meaning to black/whitelisting from a functional standpoint.
Use “Simple” or “Easy” Instead of “Cakewalk”
The cakewalk started as a promenade dance people who were enslaved did in mockery of white slave owners. But then white folks liked it so much that they created forced competition where the winning prize was a cake. Post-Civil War they became a regular part of minstrel shows where white people performed in blackface. The term’s roots in the humiliation and exploitation of Black people make it inappropriate, especially for modern work environments. Use plain language like “easy,” or “simple,” to avoid racist metaphors while communicating the same meaning. They describe simplicity and ease without invoking traumatic historical practices.
Use “Leveled Up” Instead of “Whipped Into Shape”
The violent imagery around “whipping” someone into shape directly stems from slavery. More empowering language like “leveled up their skills” focuses on effort and growth, not oppression. Check out the difference: Instead of saying “I whipped my team into shape this quarter,” try “My team leveled up their skills this past quarter.” This centers praise on their effort-driven growth.
Bonus Content
Here’s Some Extras That Are Same-Same but Different
Have you noticed the codewords that go into talking about the Black community as if “Black” was a bad word? Guess what, Black isn’t a bad word, it’s not a slur! You don’t have to work to find a euphemism or a “politically correct” term in replacement. These are a few phrases I see most commonly in mission-driven, social impact, and politically adjacent settings.
TL/DR at its simplest if you are speaking of a particular identity group it’s fine just to name that, regardless of which specific group of folks you are referencing.
"Urban" as a euphemism for Black communities
This is often used as coded language to refer to Black folks when terms like "inner city" would be considered too racially overt. However, substituting the vague "urban" is an unnecessary and often inaccurate overcorrection that erases and sidelines Black voices and experiences.
"BIPOC"/POC when referring just to Black individuals
These are great terms when used correctly. Are you truly speaking about folks who are Black, Indigenous, and/or other People of Color? Fantastic! However, while these signal inclusivity, using them when discussing issues or policies specifically impacting Black folks obscures their needs.
"Underprivileged"
Underprivileged is phrasing that seems sympathetic but flattens diverse challenges while implying deficit views of marginalized groups. Specify when possible or reframe challenges systemically vs individually.
"At risk”
At risk leaves a problematic underlying assumption of inherent risk/danger about marginalized communities, especially applied to Black youth. Specify the challenges or even better, use asset-based language to avoid objectifying the population you’re referencing.
These examples all reference Anti-Black language, but we could make similar lists for several groups. Evaluating outdated, coded, and problematic language requires thoughtfulness and care. But we’re not beholden to staying stagnant - we can do better! Conscious linguistic shifts empower more equitable workplaces, policies, products, and processes. Small changes signal that all people's histories, experiences and dignity matter.
ELLEvated Solutions for ELLEvated Growth
Building Workplaces of Understanding Through Mindful Language
Reach out today for a consultation on how ELLEvate can support your work toward a more inclusive and equitable work culture.
Comments