Sassy, feisty, angry: Harmful ways to refer to colleagues.
Written in collaboration with Bounce Black Founder Nikki Adebiyi, together with Solicitor Becci Collins and Paralegal Frances Onyinah of Cole Khan Solicitors LLP.
Introduction
As those with protected characteristics take a stronger stance against the injustices and discrimination they face in the workplace, attention must be given to the type of actions which may not appear explicitly discriminatory but may still have the same effect, regardless of intention.
One such subtle form of discrimination is coded language. This refers to the use of seemingly neutral everyday phrases which convey racist views or stereotypes without explicitly using offensive language.
While coded language may affect the entire workforce, for the majority of the time, it is used to portray people of colour and other marginalised groups negatively. Its subtle and covert nature often means this type of speech goes undetected and without consequence for all but those on the receiving end. This has the adverse effect of not only reinforcing harmful, inaccurate stereotypes but also patterns of systemic oppression.
The problem with coded language
Historically, racial discrimination of all kinds, including coded language, has hampered the ability of individuals from ethnic minority groups to achieve career progression and success. Unfortunately, coded language is still commonly used in the workplace today. For instance, referring to a Black colleague as ‘angry’ or a Hispanic colleague as ‘passionate’, may seem innocent but reinforces dangerous stereotypes that portray Black individuals as hostile and aggressive, and Hispanic individuals as emotional and dramatic.
Likewise, referring to where colleagues live as ‘shady’ or ‘sketchy’ can also carry racially charged undertones, especially in regions with significant populations of particular ethnic groups. Associating these ethnic groups with what may be considered disreputable areas can lead to racial profiling, unfairly branding individuals as untrustworthy or violent based solely on their place of residence.
Another commonly used example to this effect is the word ‘urban’, and how it is often used as a synonym for ‘Black people’ or the broader ‘BAME’ community as a whole. The term can factually describe a living situation, i.e. the region surrounding a city. However, it is regularly used as a euphemism to pigeonhole Black people, particularly creatives into a monolith. Phrases such as “urban music” or “urban events'' are still used by universities and corporate companies; even Black History Month events have also fallen into this category. The use of the word is reductive and perpetuates associations with low income, underdevelopment and roughness. This form of coded language can contribute to the unwarranted scrutiny and over-policing of individuals, especially within professional settings.
Usually, when individuals are asked to clarify the meaning of the coded language they have used, they are unable to. Failure to give an adequate explanation of the language used is a clear indication that it has been used for discriminatory purposes and personal biases. However, even providing an explanation does not always serve as absolution as sometimes it can be an attempt to save face rather than taking accountability, acknowledging bias, and offering apologies and amends for any harm caused.
Consequences of coded language at work
While people who use coded language may simply be mirroring others who use such language, it does not negate the underlying bias in their judgements, even if biases are unconscious. Regardless of personal intention, the consequence is the same: the demoralisation and isolation of those on the receiving end.
The use of coded language can be detrimental, and when it becomes a commonly accepted occurrence, particularly within the workplace, it can significantly impact the mental health and overall well-being of the individual. Repeatedly compromising the psychological safety of minority ethnic employees can lead to a build-up of resentment rather than fostering rapport, affecting team cohesion.
Enduring these comments about identity will not only impact employees, but also negatively shape the workplace environment itself. When language that distinguishes and diminishes individuals based on a particular protected characteristic is used and tolerated in the workplace, an unequal, discriminatory work environment is created. In the words of author and organisational psychologist Adam Grant, “the culture of an organisation is the worst behaviour you tolerate.”
If care is not taken, coded language can feed into an accumulation of toxic, racialised workplace experiences. This can force employees of minority ethnic groups, who may come from historically disadvantaged backgrounds, to leave the workplace, and in more severe cases, exit the workforce entirely. This cycle reinforces socioeconomic disparities and therefore systemic oppression.
It is important to note that coded language may also impact an individual's career before they have even begun. For example, recruiters may use coded language to convey their expectations of candidates without being too explicit. By not using language which refers to an individual’s race, sexual orientation, gender or other identifying markers, stereotypes will play no part in the workplace or recruitment, and result in a system in which the best person is recruited for the vacancy.
Similarly, when job performances are evaluated with such language, employees may be penalised if they do not conform to outdated ideas of what constitutes professionalism, among other subtly discriminatory performance measures. For example, referring to Black women as “harsh” or “rude” when delivering a point of discussion, while characterising a white male as “direct” and “straight to the point” for the same kind of communication.
Defining race discrimination
Race discrimination is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010, in which ‘race’ is defined as an individual's colour, nationality, ethnicity or national origin. There are four distinct ways in which an individual may be discriminated against. Direct discrimination occurs when an individual is subjected to less favourable treatment because of their race. Indirect discrimination is different in that it occurs where a provision, criterion or practice implemented applies to all, but disadvantages those of a certain racial group.
Harassment in the context of race discrimination occurs when an individual is subject to unwanted conduct because of their race, which has the purpose or effect of violating the individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Lastly, victimisation occurs where an individual suffers a detriment because they have done a protected act, or the perpetrator believes they have done a protected act.
Better practice for employers
Words matter. Language not only reflects belief systems but also constructs them, and the manner in which beliefs are conveyed and shared carries significant consequences. Coded language does not just affect how people are perceived but also impacts who is hired, promoted and fired.
Employers would do well to build equitable workplace practices which ensure that the best person is taken on for a position by removing coded language from policies and processes, ensuring that harmful stereotypes play no part in recruitment and retention.
Employers should additionally, train staff to be mindful of coded language, and enforce accountability for its use. Demonstrating zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind includes refraining from penalising those who speak up and voice their objections against such speech. Doing so would constitute to victimisation, which is unlawful.
Proactively addressing coded language should be part of a wider initiative to cultivate working environments where all employees are treated fairly without being vulnerable to losing opportunities because of archaic, arbitrary stereotypes.
A workplace free of coded language is crucial for fostering inclusivity, diversity, innovation and fair opportunities. It promotes employee well-being and productivity by reducing tension and stress. An inclusive workplace is more likely to retain talented employees who feel respected and valued, contributing to overall success and a positive work environment.