February 12, 2009 | Read Time: 2 minutes
Charities that use the word “minorities” to describe the people they serve may be hindering their ability to carry out their missions, writes Rosetta Thurman on her blog.
“Part of the role of nonprofits, I believe, is not only to drive social change, but to also reframe the way America looks at social problems,” she writes. “For years, we’ve made a pity party out of the fact that ‘XX% of the people we serve are minorities’ as if this were in itself a reason to support our cause.”
Ms. Thurman says she began thinking about the way nonprofit groups use language years ago, when she wrote grant proposals for a small community-development group. “It baffled me as to why our grant language was littered with terminology about ‘serving minorities’ and helping ‘at-risk youth.’ A minority compared to whom? At-risk of what, exactly?”
Besides, she notes, experts say that non-white Americans may not constitute a numerical minority much longer, with Census figures predicting that, in total, they will outnumber white Americans by the year 2042. She says that either specifying the ethnic group served by a charity, or using the term “people of color,” meant to encompass all non-white people, may offer better alternatives to “minorities.”
“‘People of color’ have cultural significance, while ‘minorities’ conjure up images of people that are worth less than the majority, marginalized, minor,” Ms. Thurman writes. “As an African American, I’ve never wanted to be known by a term that makes me feel like I don’t matter.”
She concludes, “As the times change, we might as well get rid of the antiquated language that remains a huge barrier to our cultural competence.”
What do you think of the language charities use to describe their non-white clients? Click on “comments” below to join the discussion.
