Tuesday, July 30th, 2013
Episode 27
Non-Consensual, Unwanted, Qualified:
How Words Frame Reality
What do our word choices reflect, suggest and change about our perception of such
important topics as rape, sexual harassment, gender and racial discrimination? How do our
word choices reveal, create or foster unconscious biases?
Something we discuss a lot in the diversity and inclusion field is the power of language to
exclude, include, reinforce or challenge stereotypes. Words have a huge impact on how we
identify people, how we interact with them and how we grapple with complex social concepts.
They have the power to strengthen existing stereotypes and, when used thoughtfully, break
our natural biases before they impact our behavior. Three phrases that go to the heart of this
power and have recently been bothering us at Nextions (well, bothering, incensing, driving us
insane…) include:
 Unwanted Sexual Harassment
 Qualified Minority
 Non-consensual Rape
Page
1
To begin with, these phrases are poorly constructed: the qualifiers “unwanted,” “qualified” and
“non-consensual” distort meaning.
Copyright © 2013 by Nextions LLC. No part of this document may be reproduced or distributed in any form without permission
from Nextions LLC.
Is this going to an exercise in semantics?
Well, let’s start by exploring why words are so vitally important! Intangible things like quality of
work and interpersonal relationships are complex and subtle. Qualifiers like those listed above
minimize and neutralize the concept or act of equity, harassment and assault. If we become
accustomed to the qualifiers, the gravity of the base concept is fundamentally altered.
Are these phrases revealing a latent bias or are they actually creating the bias?
It's both. The fact that laws are written using qualifiers demonstrates latent bias, but once
these words become common, they take on a life of their own and end up enhancing, growing
and making the latent bias much more powerful, allowing them to reinforce, strengthen or
even create biases in our workplaces, legal system and culture that become almost impossible
to break.
What kind of an impact does this have in reality?
The burden of proof framework in the practice of law is a powerful lens through which to
understand bias. Within the legal framework, one party has the burden of proof, to show that
something has occurred: until a defendant is proved guilty, an assumption of innocence stands.
Burden of Proof on
Victim
Burden of Proof on
Powerful Party
Unwanted Sexual
Non-consensual
Harassment
Rape
Prove that you are
qualified for this
position (implies that
a minority can be
presumed to be
unqualified)
Prove that sexual
harassment took
place. Prove that you
did not invite it
(implied assumption:
everyone wants to be
sexually harassed)
Prove that a rape
occurred. Prove that
you did not consent
to the sexual act
(implied assumption:
you consent to every
sexual act that you
participate in)
Demonstrate
evidence that a
candidate is
unqualified in relation
to their peers
Demonstrate
evidence that sexual
advances were
invited
Demonstrate
evidence of consent
Copyright © 2013 by Nextions LLC. No part of this document may be reproduced or distributed in any form without permission
from Nextions LLC.
Page
Qualified Minority
2
By adding words like “qualified,” “unwanted” and “non-consensual,” the burden of proof is
placed on the victim. We want to be especially vigilant about burden of proof when addressing
any population underrepresented in their environment because the burden of proof makes the
argument significantly more difficult to make. Below you will see the difference in the
argument if we flip the burden of proof
When we flip the burden of proof, we dramatically reshape the argument, our understanding
of the situation and our ability to see both sides of the argument. The use of language is
fundamental in this shift.
This really does seem like a semantics argument….
It’s really not! Try this on for size: if someone in a very expensive suit, with expensive shoes and
expensive jewelry went walking in a neighborhood known for its poverty and was robbed, we
would not make these arguments:
 You know that this neighborhood is known for its economic struggles: are you sure you
didn’t mean to make a charitable contribution?
 Based on your behavior, we would assume you wanted to donate the items “taken.”
 We think, perhaps unconsciously, you wanted to share your wealth.
We don’t make those arguments because they simply don’t make sense!
So how do I start changing my own relationship with language?
Language is subtle and difficult to legislate but what we can do is be much more conscious of
the words that we are using in relation to discussion, training and enforcement.
In diversity and inclusion initiatives: ask yourself if you use the phrase, “qualified minority.”
Then ask yourself if you use the word qualified to describe all candidates? (Applying words
unequally across populations will naturally create inequality!)
When approaching hiring and evaluation situations, ask yourself "what is my presumption
about this person?" You're more likely to catch yourself when filtering facts through awareness
of your biases.
To read more articles, click here.
To listen to this podcast, click here.
Copyright © 2013 by Nextions LLC. No part of this document may be reproduced or distributed in any form without permission
from Nextions LLC.
Page
3
When you see or hear these phrases, call people on it! Many times, it’s just bad English!