London Metropolitan University has introduced fresh guidelines encouraging its students and staff to avoid using language that could be perceived as dehumanising or offensive. The term “illegal migrants” has specifically been highlighted for change, with the university suggesting “undocumented” as a more appropriate alternative.
The new inclusive language guide, published on the university’s website, has sparked significant debate, attracting both support and criticism. The university argues that these changes are part of its effort to foster a respectful and inclusive environment for all members of its diverse community.
“We take pride in our diverse community, encompassing age, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, gender identity, and many other characteristics,” the university stated. “This highlights why striving for inclusive language use is crucial to us – we aim to use words that show respect, acknowledge the nuances of our experiences, and promote fair treatment.”
Broadening Inclusive Language
The guidelines extend beyond immigration terminology. They recommend substituting expressions like “crazy” and “mad” with less pejorative alternatives such as “bananas.” Additionally, they discourage using gender-specific terms like “boyfriend,” “girlfriend,” “husband,” or “wife,” favouring the more neutral term “partner.” Similarly, the guidelines advise using “parents” or “caregivers” instead of “mums” and “dads.”
Furthermore, the guide advises against ageist language, suggesting avoiding terms such as “elderly,” “old,” and “pensioner.” The university believes that these language adjustments can help eliminate unconscious biases and create a more inclusive environment for everyone.
Varied Reactions
The guidelines have not been universally welcomed. A spokesperson from the Conservative Party criticised the initiative, describing it as “absurd woke nonsense.”
“The term ‘illegal migrant’ is a straightforward factual description for someone who has not legally entered the UK,” the spokesperson commented. “Surely universities should allocate tuition fees to more productive uses than funding such initiatives.”
These comments reflect a broader debate on political correctness and freedom of expression within academic institutions. Critics argue that such guidelines are overly restrictive and suppress free speech, while proponents argue they are necessary to foster an inclusive and respectful academic environment.
Defence of the Initiative
Despite the criticism, London Metropolitan University stands by its new guidelines. A university spokesperson emphasised the importance of the guidelines in creating an inclusive and welcoming environment.
“This is not about political correctness; it’s about ensuring that everyone feels valued,” the spokesperson stated. “We are committed to our diverse community and to creating an environment where all students can thrive. We stand behind our values and believe in the positive impact of these guidelines.”
The university argues that the language we use significantly impacts how individuals feel and are treated. By promoting inclusive language, the university hopes to ensure that all members of its community feel respected and valued.
Broader Implications
The debate at London Metropolitan University forms part of a wider conversation taking place across the UK and beyond. As society becomes increasingly aware of the impact of language on social dynamics, institutions are adopting policies aimed at promoting inclusivity and respect.
Many other universities and organisations are likely monitoring how London Metropolitan University’s new guidelines are received and implemented. The success or failure of this initiative could influence similar efforts elsewhere, shaping the future of inclusive language policies in educational and professional environments.
The introduction of inclusive language guidelines at London Metropolitan University represents a significant step in the institution’s commitment to diversity and respect. While the move has sparked both support and criticism, it underscores an ongoing societal shift towards greater sensitivity and inclusivity in language use.
As the debate continues, the true impact of these guidelines will become clearer, potentially paving the way for broader adoption of inclusive language practices. Whether these changes will achieve the desired outcome of fostering a more respectful and inclusive environment remains to be seen, but the conversation they have sparked is undeniably important for the future of education and society at large.
