Navigating Risk through the Power of Terminology

Oct 21


 A new three-part series from CRSLI to help school leaders navigate the shifting legal landscape with confidence and clarity.

This is the second in a series of three briefs CRSLI is publishing alongside our latest podcast episodes to help educators navigate the shifting legal landscape of DEIA in education. In this second brief, we explore how the language educators use can either expose schools to political risk or safeguard equity work through strategic, values-aligned terminology.

Authored by the CRSLI Team and Jeremy Chan-Kraushar, an educator and attorney, each brief offers practical guidance and legal context. These briefs are intended as a tool for empowering culturally responsive school leaders to use effective strategies in order to remain steadfast in advancing educational equity while staying within the bounds of current law.

Listen to the full conversation below and download the brief to share with colleagues.

Executive Summary

Words shape statutes, budgets, and public perception. Misunderstood or inflammatory terminology can expose schools to political attack or funding threats, even when the underlying practices are lawful and effective. By choosing language strategically—without compromising moral commitments—educational leaders can preserve DEIA goals, protect staff, and prioritize the needs of students. The following contains a short problem overview, policy alternatives, and CRSL’s policy recommendations.

Introduction

The federal government lacks capacity to prosecute every alleged civil rights violation; instead, it selects high-profile cases to set precedent. Clear, values-aligned terminology reduces the likelihood your institution becomes that headline. Research from ASCD (2024) shows 62% of district leaders have already rebranded DEI offices to “Office of Student Success” or “Office of Belonging” while maintaining program substance.

Problem Overview

Semantic Ambiguity
  • “Critical Race Theory,” “DEI,” and “Social-Emotional Learning” are conflated in public discourse, muddying policy debates and fueling opposition.

Internal Confusion
  • Leadership and staff unsure whether to proceed with culturally responsive curricula risk paralysis, stalling student-centered reforms.

Uneven Risk Tolerance
  • Rural boards may demand total avoidance of “equity” language; urban boards may insist on bolder stances. Leaders need a spectrum of options.

Possible Approaches

A. Fully Unapologetic
  • Retain explicit DEIA terminology everywhere.
  • Pros: moral clarity; Cons: potential political backlash, funding risks in hostile jurisdictions.

B. Nimble Reframing (Recommended for Most)
  • Deploy mission-aligned synonyms—Belonging, Anti-Discrimination, Human Rights—while explicitly defining diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility in policy handbooks.
  • Pros: preserves intent, reduces flashpoints.

C. Low-Profile Compliance
  • Strip all DEIA references; focus solely on generic “student outcomes.”
  • Pros: minimal public attention; Cons: dilutes purpose, demoralizes staff, undermines accountability.

Recommendations

Conduct a Terminology Impact Assessment
  • Survey stakeholders on language comfort; map findings to local and state political climate, regulation, and laws.

Define Core Terms Publicly
  • Publish a glossary: Diversity = range of perspectives; Equity = fair resource allocation; Inclusion = psychological safety; Accessibility = barrier-free environments. Alignment defuses straw-man critiques.

Align Programs with Universal Goals
  • Frame initiatives around legally unassailable objectives: “compliance with Title VI,” “improving graduation rates,” “civil-rights literacy,” “retention of high-quality staff.”

Offer Tiered Communication Strategies
  • Board-Level Briefings: explicit DEIA language with legal rationale.
  • Community Newsletters: highlight benefits—higher reading scores, safer campuses—using broader terms like Belonging or Student Success.


Train Staff in Message Discipline
  • Provide talking points and a Q&A bank; reference asset-based learning research that links student prior knowledge to achievement.

Conclusion

Steadfast commitment to equity and the use of strategic language are not mutually exclusive. By grounding terminology in mission, values, evidence, and the law, educators can advance equity, reduce unnecessary risk, and keep the focus where it belongs—on improving student outcomes. Policymakers should empower institutions to adopt language that promotes equity while also complying with relevant law.

Resources to Stay Updated

Jeremy Chan-Kraushar is an educator, attorney, and former Senior Director of Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education at NYC Public Schools, where he led landmark equity initiatives and designed citywide professional learning. He coordinated programs such as Connected Foundations, Digital Ready, the Competency Collaborative, and the historic Implicit Bias Awareness Initiative. He also founded the Citywide CRSE Professional Learning Community in partnership with NYU, bringing together over 100 equity teams across the district. Over the course of his career, Jeremy has facilitated workshops for more than 10,000 educators and continues to bridge teaching, policy, and law in service of equity and justice.