As George Orwell observed in 1946, most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way. In “Politics and the English Language,” he sought to persuade readers that something could and should be done about it. Today most readers would agree, though we are divided on the solution.

For some, the answer is insisting on clarity and precision in language. For others, the solution is redefining and introducing terms to eliminate inequities. This battle is fought not only in government buildings but especially in places where, as Bill Ayers observed in 2012, activists have “absolute access”: communities and schools.

Like Orwell, I am concerned about the cyclical effects of our declining language:

Now, it is clear that the decline of language must ultimately have political and economic causes; it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely.

Confused thoughts lead to sloppy language, which in turn leads to more confusion. Halting the process is essential. If, as some politicos claim, “Democracy is at stake,” then we can save it only by insisting on clarity in our language about it.

Following Orwell, I quote five passages that illustrate what he calls “the mental vices from which we now suffer,” including vagueness, a disregard for grammar, and prefabricated phrases that obscure meaning. My examples are drawn from higher education, where faculty and administrators shape how students view our world.

1. “We cannot separate modern/colonial subjectivity from Whiteness-oriented subjectivity. Colonial preconditions necessitate that all mechanisms that protect against precarity be beholden to Whiteness (Mbembe, 2001). Therefore, to pursue capitalist gain, safety, or global mobility is to pursue Whiteness. We elaborate on these entanglements throughout the below framework.”

—Riyad A. Shahjahan and Kirsten T. Edwards, “Whiteness as futurity and globalization of higher education,” in Higher Education 83 (2022)

2. “A bias incident is intentional or unintentional conduct that discriminates, stereotypes, excludes, intimidate, mock, degrade, threaten [sic], or harasses or harms anyone in our community because of actual or perceived age, ancestry or ethnicity, color, creed, disability, gender, gender identity or expression, immigration or citizenship status, marital status, ex-offender status, national origin, veteran status, race, religion, religious practice, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, weight or any combination of these factors. (genetic, HIV status, rape culture, victims of crimes, residential-homeless) and not limited to [sic].”

—Goucher College on “bias incident”

3. “It also may help some readers understand better the ways that antiblackness is a part of all of our global histories and societies, making it important for all of us to confront in our own teaching, languaging, and lives. So for me to say that I have participated in antiblackness is to admit to my own enculturation in our antiblack societies and histories, something we all inevitably participate in. It is also an important step toward dismantling antiblackness in my own life and languaging, which is a lifelong process.”

—Asao B. Inoue, Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom, 2nd ed.

4. “This conference seeks to understand the significance of the similarities, differences, and slippages in Human | Nature: its internal or external boundaries; its various, sometimes conflicting experiences; its pluralistic modes of expression; and its potential to slip, to move beyond these traditions. The aim is to explore the interdisciplinary potential of human and natural experiences, with a view to mapping out the spaces of connection, how they hybridise and transplant, and how the territorial boundaries of experience are formed.”

—”Human | Nature: Transplantation, Liminality, and Territory,” Call for Papers

5. “Inclusive Excellence is a framework designed to integrate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. As a model, it incorporates diversity efforts into the core of organizational functioning. Applying Inclusive Excellence concepts leads to infusing diversity into an organization’s recruiting and hiring processes, into its training, and into its administrative structures and practices. Inclusive Excellence means an organization has adopted means for the cohesive, coherent and collaborative integration of diversity, inclusion and equity into the organizational pursuit of excellence.”

—College of William and Mary on “Inclusive Excellence”

These examples are typical of academic writing. Number 1 seems to label “Whiteness” as the source of most evils, including the pursuit of safety. Number 2 on “bias incidents” displays the author’s own bias against grammar and clarity, dismissing any need for subject-verb agreement or standard punctuation. Number 3 suggests that the author’s hairshirt for “anti-blackness” is not punishment enough, so the noun “language” must be tortured into the awkward verb form “languaging.” Number 4 indicates that the meeting rather than its participants will seek enlightenment on Human | Nature and implies that spaces of connection “hybridise and transplant.” Number 5 purports to define “inclusive excellence” but spends more time repeating “diversity” than explaining the oxymoron “inclusive excellence.”

The pretentious diction of the last example is particularly fashionable: “an organization has adopted means for the cohesive, coherent and collaborative integration of diversity, inclusion and equity.” A humble verb such as “integrate” would be clearer yet require thought. As Orwell observes, you can shirk the responsibility of saying something truly interesting by adopting “ready-made phrases” that “will construct your sentences for you—even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent—and at need, they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.” 

That is why the statement on “Inclusive Excellence” is opaque: it is, as Orwell would say, “the defense of the indefensible.” First, as the Oxford English Dictionary clarifies, “excellence” is “the state or fact of excelling; the possession chiefly of good qualities in an eminent or unusual degree; surpassing merit, skill, virtue, worth, etc.; dignity, eminence.” To include everyone in the very top would be to make Lake Wobegone nonfiction, with all the college students above average. But even that fantasy is not the goal. 

What “inclusive excellence” really means is clarified in the American Association of Colleges & Universities’ report “Making Excellence Inclusive: A Framework for Embedding Diversity and Inclusion into Colleges and Universities’ Academic Excellence Mission.” This report charts a transition in universities’ ideals of the curriculum and student performance.

Among the key studies consulted and quoted in the appendix is “Achieving Equitable Educational Outcomes with All Students: The Institution’s Roles and Responsibilities”:

We regard the challenge of narrowing the college education gap and achieving equitable educational outcomes for minority groups as a problem of institutional responsibility and performance rather than a problem that is exclusively related to student academic preparation, motivation, and accountability.

In this context, “inclusive excellence” means that the universities should equalize the measured performance of racial groups.

Another book, From Equity Talk to Equity Walk, maps how that might be done. Specifically, “practitioners” of the Equity Walk should disaggregate test results based on race, as done in math courses at one institution: “Showing the data in this way allows the faculty members to quickly identify which basic skills math courses contribute the most to the inequities experienced by Latinx students.” According to this logic, instructors are responsible for modifying courses to achieve equity across races.

Amidst this tribal strategizing, the education of each individual’s potential is as forgotten as last year’s omnibus package. It is more convenient to ignore long-term costs than address them candidly. As Orwell observes, “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” 

In higher education, the resulting confusion emerges in the drive to eliminate “bias” in addition to illegal discrimination. Some schools, like the one quoted in number 2, define “bias” as intentional or unintentional, while others (such as Mary Washington University) stress intent. Likewise, the categories of protected classes described on university sites vary wildly, with some including political affiliation, while others omit it. What is consistent across campuses is the need for administrators to monitor speech and behavior. The number of administrators doing just that has resulted in administrative bloat.

In the end, they promote political language, which Orwell observes is “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Today that pure wind is blowing through university campuses, and while murder is not the issue, the emphasis on bias incidents does raise two problems.

First, notices on websites, speeches about bias, and posters around campuses remind everyone that they are being watched for particular kinds of bias. The culture of surveillance means that students and faculty are less likely to speak freely and explore ideas, which is essential to not only higher education but society as a whole. As John Stuart Mill explains in On Liberty, it is dangerous to silence any opinion, since it might be true or partially true. Moreover, it is essential to allow challenges to the truth so that it can be supported rationally, not as a prejudice. If we never discuss a doctrine, we lose its meaning.

Faculty know all this, which is why they support the tenure system. The America Association of University Professors backs tenure because “free inquiry, free expression, and open dissent are critical for student learning and the advancement of knowledge.”

Equally problematic is designating certain groups as protected from bias, while ignoring others. No longer is individual empathy expected because, if you are not a member of a protected class, you are by definition not subject to microaggressions. The result is open incivility and attempts to silence academic engagement in free speech, as in the recent debacle at Stanford Law School.

In attempting to protect groups from such “harmful” speech, universities can end up silencing speech altogether. As the AAUP observes, faculty need the tenure system because “society does not benefit when teachers and researchers are controlled by corporations, religious groups, special interest groups, or the government.” Why, then, would universities impose such controls on their own speech? 

The solution is not, of course, to encourage hatred or bias. It’s to emphasize the joy of an educational experience in which students can ask questions and ponder problems freely. It’s to insist that we speak clearly and thoughtfully, not hurl prepackaged phrases about “Whiteness” and “the patriarchy” as if they were arguments in themselves. And it’s to emphasize civility in the sense of treating each individual with respect so that every student can thrive.

To paraphrase Orwell, one cannot change the language in higher education in a moment, but if one jeers loudly enough, one can in time send some useless phrase—some “inclusive excellence,” “bias incident,” “equity walk” or other lump of verbal refuse—into the dustbin where it belongs.