Academic Programs Adapt Language on "Eurocentric, Colonial, and Cis-Patriarchical Norms" for Political Optics

A recent tweet by John Sailer, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute known for his reporting on higher education, has drawn attention to a program's internal discussions regarding academic norms. The tweet highlights a statement from program administrators acknowledging that "Eurocentric, colonial, and cis-patriarchical norms" have influenced academia. However, the administrators reportedly noted that they intentionally avoid using such language in public communications, particularly in conservative states, "for optics' sake."

This revelation points to a strategic adaptation of language by academic programs operating in politically sensitive environments. The internal acknowledgment suggests an awareness of critical theories that analyze how historical power structures, rooted in European colonialism and traditional gender binaries, have shaped academic institutions and knowledge production. These theories often critique the privileging of Western perspectives and the marginalization of diverse voices within higher education.

The term "Eurocentrism" refers to a worldview that places Europe at the center of world events and considers its values and systems as superior or universal. "Colonial norms" relate to the enduring impact of historical colonial practices on contemporary social and academic structures, often perpetuating inequalities. "Cis-patriarchical norms" describe systems where cisgender men hold primary authority, reinforcing traditional gender roles and often marginalizing non-binary and female perspectives. These concepts are central to decolonial and feminist academic discourse.

John Sailer's work frequently investigates Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education, often scrutinizing what he describes as ideological screening in faculty hiring and the development of a "scholar-activist pipeline." His previous reporting has highlighted instances where universities have faced scrutiny or changed policies related to diversity statements and hiring practices, particularly in states with conservative political leadership.

The decision by program administrators to temper their language externally suggests a pragmatic approach to navigating the current political landscape surrounding higher education. This practice aims to avoid backlash or funding threats in states where such critical terminology might be perceived negatively, demonstrating a tension between internal ideological alignment and external public relations.