Trigger Words Aren’t Nonprofits’ Only Language Problem

To the Editor:

Matt Watkins‘s call to treat language as “infrastructure not ornament” is spot on —”Philanthropy’s Trigger Words — and How to Make Your Message Clear” (July 15).

As co-CEOs of a nonprofit, we know firsthand how just substituting one word for another can sometimes lead to confusion even among staff, not to mention outside stakeholders. So we strive to use precise language, clarifying both what we mean and what we don’t.

But clarity isn’t the only problem when it comes to nonprofit language. Watkins missed an opportunity to address a far more sinister issue: Organizations are losing the freedom to choose words altogether. Nonprofits are being targeted or losing funding for using certain language, particularly anything associated with diversity, to describe their work, vision, and the challenges facing different populations.

It’s one thing for nonprofits and foundations to avoid using the word “equity” because it might alienate some people. But it’s another matter entirely when they feel they must scrub the word from their websites and other materials out of fear of retribution and weaponization by the federal government.

Watkins is right that nonprofits should try to reduce jargon and promote clarity. But that can’t come at the expense of standing up for democracy, free speech, and our ability to address society’s well-documented disparities.

Jennifer Njuguna, Jess Yupanqui Feingold, and Sandhya Nakhasi
Co-CEOs
Common Future