Equity scholars and allies, what sorts of phrases/language in a paper makes you quickly realize where there is more work to do in understanding marginalization? *This is intended to be helpful, let’s not call anyone out directly, please. Let’s just learn together.

I know I just said don’t call people out but I’d like to call myself out first. The use of phrases like “at-risk”, “underrepresented”, “underperforming”, “underprepared”, etc. (AKA deficit framing).

The removal or combination of rows with lower sample sizes (e.g., students of minorities identities. intersectionalities).

The use of the word “resilience” in place of acknowledging the trauma requiring one to be resilient. Those words can be substituted with difficulties, disproportionate challenges, differential, gaps, etc. Why not call it what it is: oppression, racism, sexism, ableism, etc.

No acknowledgement that, while participants could only choose been two genders on a survey or for college registration, the social construct of gender is not binary.

Stating anything close to: “Recent events have prompted scholars to consider how systematic racism affects X.” This disregards decades of research examining systemic racism and these “events” (RE: racially-driven oppression) are not recent in any sense of the word.

Please, feel free to add more, ask questions, tag me. I will gladly do work in citing more experienced scholars than myself on these matters who work in Physics Ed, Sociology, Education, etc.

Also, I am not attacking anyone I’ve ever spoken to with this tweet. I have made many of these mistakes myself and take full accountability for my behavior.