To scrub or not to scrub?

Assess your risk accurately and avoid fear-driven changes

Recently, I’ve been present at several board discussions about whether to modify the language their nonprofit uses in their communications to avoid language that might trigger negative consequences. It is understandable that board members are confused about what to do given the current political climate and attacks on nonprofits who are accused by the Republican administration of “domestic terrorism and organized political violence” due to their alignment with progressive values and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Trump has regularly threatened to revoke the nonprofit status of organizations that he disagrees with (which is illegal without cause and following an established process).

There is precedent for the IRS targeting certain nonprofit groups for scrutiny, which came to light in 2013, during the Obama administration. At that time, new applications from both conservative and liberal political groups (501(c)(4) organizations) were identified by some keywords in their application such as “Tea Party,” “progressive,” “patriot,” and “occupy.” These applications were held up, with conservative groups eventually winning a settlement in a lawsuit arguing that their organizations were treated differently than liberal groups. There were some specific reasons that this happened when it did and it was remedied (you may want to read further at the link above), but I’m just pointing out that some of the tactics being suggested by Trump are not without quieter, gentler precedent.

Is your organization considering changing the language you use on official documents, grant applications, or your website? Here are some considerations for and against “scrubbing”:

· The federal administration cannot summarily revoke nonprofit status as they are threatening to provoke fear and self-censorship among nonprofit organizations (at least, not legally).

· Organizations that depend on federal funding do face a real risk of losing funding if they retain “DEI language” or use other politicized terms due to recent executive orders guiding federal grant practices.

· Some organizations with integral commitments to equity are unable to scrub their language and retain their identity—they simply don’t have that option. Some people in the sector are calling for organizations with less vulnerability to act in solidarity with these groups.

· Others are arguing that equity-centered actions speak louder than words, and that organizations with a true, demonstrated commitment to equity will be recognized as such even if they eliminate politicized keywords from their communications.

· It is a slippery slope to begin altering the way you describe your work, so consider carefully whether you wish to start down that path.

· In a liberal environment like Western Washington, choosing to delete language that expresses your commitments to equity, trans rights, or other progressive causes carries some reputational risk and the risk of disappointing supporters if it comes to light.

· Maintaining commitments during hard times shows courage.

This week, protesters are outside Fenway Health in Boston to show their outrage that the organization chose to discontinue gender-affirming care to protect its federal funding and status as a federally qualified health center. Cutting services is different than changing the words on your website, but this instance (and similar protests earlier this year at Seattle Children’s and other institutions) show that the public is watching.

I encourage nonprofits to at a minimum have robust conversations with the entire board and staff before banning certain words. The article How Justice-Rooted Organizations Can Respond to Racial Justice and Equity Backlash outlines a spectrum of responses, from preemptive compliance to organized power. This may be a helpful menu of options as nonprofits discuss their response.

Ask yourselves, “Do we want to make decisions based on fear and intimidation?” I hope your answer is no.