Philanthropy’s Trigger Words — and How to Make Your Message Clear

Keep up with everything happening in The Commons by signing up for the Chronicle’s Philanthropy Today newsletter or our weekly Commons LinkedIn newsletter.

Polarization isn’t just reshaping national politics. It’s reshaping how nonprofits talk to the people they serve, the partners they need, and the communities they hope to bring together.

Every day, strategic plans collapse over a single phrase. Funders and grantees misinterpret each other’s intent. Communications campaigns spark defensiveness instead of support. Strong ideas falter not because the goals are wrong but because the message misses.

This isn’t just a matter of tone. It reflects a deeper, more structural issue. Across the country, people are speaking from different moral and cultural maps — and increasingly, they lack the shared language to bridge those differences.

Conversations today are often derailed by what I call distortion triggers — words that have stopped functioning as tools and started functioning as tests. A phrase like “equity” might inspire hope and a sense of justice in one room while sparking feelings of exclusion or blame in another. “Civility” may feel like a call for dialogue in some spaces and a demand for silence in others.

These words are saturated with moral, political, and emotional meanings that vary widely depending on people’s experience and context. When a distortion trigger is activated, trust collapses before a conversation can even begin.

Nonprofit leaders often assume that if people share the same values, they will also understand language the same way. But that assumption no longer holds — if it ever did.

Today, even a single word can mean very different things depending on someone’s background, beliefs, or community. What feels clear and affirming in one setting can feel confusing or even threatening in another. When organizations don’t account for these differences, their messages miss the mark — not because their goals are wrong but because the words don’t land the way they expect.

Over time, I’ve observed six recurring moral communication styles that show up across the nonprofit and philanthropic world. These aren’t rigid categories, but they help explain the disconnects that frequently derail even well-intentioned work.

Moral traditionalists value duty, responsibility, and order and are often members of legacy institutions such as the American Legion or Rotary Club, faith-based groups, or local school boards. They hear the word “equity” not as inclusion but as a challenge to the norms they were raised to uphold. They don’t reject change but wonder if their past contributions are still valued.

Social-justice activists view language as a tool to name harm and change societal systems. Their communication is clear, urgent, and moral. When they hear calls for “civility,” they may interpret them as efforts to suppress accountability. Their priority is truth, not consensus.

Institutional moderates seek process, predictability, and durable change. Common among foundation staff and government agency leaders, these communicators support equity in principle but hesitate when the language feels polarizing. To them, the middle ground isn’t compromise — it’s the only place governing still feels possible.

Cultural libertarians value individual autonomy and open debate. Often younger, politically unaffiliated, and digitally fluent, they worry about ideological conformity. They may hear “inclusive language” as a mandate rather than an invitation. They don’t oppose values but question whether they are being imposed on them.

Left economic populists focus on material conditions such as wages, housing, fairness, and survival. They often lead mutual-aid networks, labor coalitions, or working-class advocacy groups rooted in direct service and economic relief. They are deeply skeptical of rhetoric. Initiatives that use all the right social-justice language ring hollow if they don’t measurably improve people’s lives. In their view, symbolic language without material outcomes is not just ineffective. It’s a distraction.

Right economic populists also speak from class experience, often from the perspective of those living in rural or postindustrial communities. They don’t reject public investment or equity, but they want to know if it includes them. When they hear “digital equity” or “climate resilience” they may assume those are priorities built for someone else.

None of these perspectives is inherently in conflict. Each one reflects lived reality. But too often differences in interpretation are treated as differences in principle. And when that happens, the result isn’t just disagreement — it’s complete disconnection.

This disconnect shows up in countless settings. A donor backs away because a grantee report sounds like a cultural rebuke. A community partner resists a funder’s language not because it opposes the goal but because the phrasing signals a lack of trust. A broadband-access campaign loses traction when it’s framed as “justice infrastructure” — a phrase that sounds noble to some and like government overreach to others.

Language disconnects like these have helped doom otherwise popular policies. Among the best-known examples in recent years is the campaign to “defund the police.” After the murder of George Floyd, demand for public-safety reform surged. A 2021 survey by the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at John Hopkins University found widespread public support for stronger police accountability measures and community-based violence-prevention programs. But the phrase “defund the police,” while intended to call for resource reallocation, became a rhetorical flashpoint. Many interpreted it as a call to abolish law enforcement altogether, resulting in the evaporation of many bipartisan reform efforts.

Climate policy has followed a similar path. A 2018 survey found that 81 percent of registered voters, including 64 percent of Republicans, supported the goals of the Green New Deal when described generically: upgrading infrastructure, investing in renewable energy, creating jobs, and reducing emissions. But terms such as “climate justice” have embroiled these efforts in the culture wars and created a backlash against initiatives to protect the plant. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” signed into law by President Trump this month, includes steep reductions in clean-energy funding put in place during the Biden administration, including climate-justice work — and increased support for fossil fuels.

Strategies to Connect

The nonprofit sector often reinforces the very communication breakdowns it aims to solve. Terms like “allyship,” “systems change,” and “community-led” may affirm values internally but can confuse or alienate those outside the field. Even well-intentioned language can misfire when it assumes shared meaning across cultural or political lines. To ensure their ideas resonate, nonprofit leaders should adopt the following four translation strategies:

Treat language as infrastructure, not ornament. Your message isn’t just what you write. It’s what your audience hears. Before releasing reports, launching campaigns, or submitting proposals, test how your language lands with communities that don’t already share your worldview.

Build translation capacity inside your team. Hire staff, advisers, or partners who understand how different communities process language. Look for people who can move between funderspeak and frontline trust building. Don’t rely on messaging firms that polish your messages but lack awareness of different cultural communications styles and triggers.

Recognize distortion triggers before they derail conversation. If you’re using terms such as “reparations,” “freedom,” or “inclusion,” don’t tiptoe around their potential weight. Acknowledge the emotional and historical baggage. Define them in plain terms. Contextualize their use so they don’t become flashpoints.

Lead with goals, then explain values. Start with what you’re trying to accomplish — lower rents, improved broadband, fewer overdoses. Then explain why. People are more open to your values when they see what those values are trying to achieve.

We don’t all need to agree on every word. But we do need to rebuild the ability to speak across moral foundations — without assuming malice, ignorance, or fragility. In this environment, the organizations that will succeed are not those with the most polished language but those who listen hardest and translate with care.

Let that be the next frontier of nonprofit leadership: not just moral clarity but moral connection.

The Commons is financed in part with philanthropic support from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Einhorn Collaborative, and the Walton Family Foundation. None of our supporters have any control over or input into story selection, reporting, or editing, and they do not review articles before publication. See more about the Chronicle, the grants, how our foundation-supported journalism works, and our gift-acceptance policy.