Re: Diversity scholarship: Identifying under-represented groups

I spent some time looking at the websites for the United Nations and various other international organizations to see what kind of language they used to address the problem that inclusive language is not international. It's a solvable problem, and it just depends on the direction we choose to take.

1. Some organizations just used the language appropriate for the host country of the organization writ large, or the particular office hosting that version of the website. For example, the Doctors Without Borders careers website uses US-centric diversity language.[1] My knowledge of the appropriate French terminology (and, honestly, my knowledge of French) are not strong enough to be sure, but I assume that the primary MSF website uses French-centric diversity language. If we went that route, we would use the appropriate US language, because we are a US-based international organization.

2. Various United Nations documents use different language depending on the need of the document.[2] In cases where they need very specific language (e.g., the special rapporteur on contemporary racism), they will very specifically name particular groups. Other pages would say things like "individuals from historically discriminated-against racial groups". (That's not an exact quotation; I have closed the page in question and I'm paraphrasing.) One page says "persons belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples". I would note that using precise language such as this would make it explicit whether we are looking to address the W3C's overrepresentation by white people (which is real, and a problem), or our overrepresentation by people from North American and European countries (also real, and also a problem). As opposed to more ambiguous terms such as "people of color".

To be honest, UN documents are all over the place, and often use the language that may have been appropriate where and when they were created. For example, there's one from 10 years ago that references "People of color, indigenous people, women, children, the disabled and refugees". Other UN documents use "minorities" or "racial or ethnic minorities".

Nonetheless, most people assume good faith as long as you use terminology which is generally accepted and justifiable *somewhere*. For example, consider the language around disability. Many disability rights activists hate the term "people with disabilities" and would prefer "disabled people". Other disability rights activists hate the term "disabled people" and prefer "people with disabilities." For the most part, though, there is an assumption of good faith, as long as you aren't using language that people from all groups hate (eg "wheelchair-bound", "the disabled", "differently-abled"). And even there, there is still a general assumption of good faith, even though it increases the kvetching.

-Deborah

[1] Doctors without Borders USA has this great paragraph, way more inclusive than the usual EEOC (US equal employment law) boilerplate: "MSF-USA is an equal opportunity employer. MSF-USA does not unlawfully discriminate in the selection, employment, termination or any other privileges, terms and conditions of employment with regard to employee’s age, alienage or citizenship status, caregiver status, color, credit history, creed or religion, disability, gender/sex/gender expression/gender identity, leave status, marital status, military status, national/ethnic origin, partnership status, predisposing genetic characteristics /genetic information, pregnancy, prior record of arrest or conviction, race, sexual orientation, unemployment status, victim of domestic violence, victim of sex offenses or stalking, weight, veteran status, and all other characteristics protected by applicable law. At MSF-USA, discrimination will not be tolerated." Of course that is nondiscrimination text, not active recruitment text, s it's not relevant to us, but I still really like it. Honestly it's so generally inclusive that I'm surprised they don't explicitly call out "indigenous status". Even though that would be encompassed in national/ethnic origin, a lot of the more inclusive texts are mentioning it explicitly these days.
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/careers


[2] UN job postings were really interesting, and very specific. I like the ones that had a huge list of underrepresented countries from which they actively encouraged applicants. They also have a whole list of sex crimes and sex abuses that are disqualifying. I like how specific government and NGO job postings are in general. :)
eg. They also have a whole list of https://careers.un.org/lbw/jobdetail.aspx?id=108412&Lang=en-US