historically underserved, underrepresented
What to know
“Historically underserved” describes people who have been disproportionately harmed by systemic inequities that grant certain groups privileges or advantages over others. The term acknowledges the enduring effects of longstanding discrimination.
“Underrepresented” is a related term that specifically references the distribution of a given group within certain contexts—e.g., representation in Hollywood, sports, industry leadership positions, or politics.
These terms are useful for drawing attention to the effects of exclusionary policies and practices that have been inflicted on groups and reinforced over years, decades, or centuries. Related terms, such as “marginalized” or “vulnerable,” carry more stigma. When used in a catch-all way, they can lack precision, diminish human agency, fail to hold responsible parties accountable, and obscure the possibility of change.
Using active, rather than passive, language (e.g., “contending with discrimination”) helps promote understanding of systemic inequities. As with all strong journalism, precision is key. In this case, that means identifying underlying causes, their historical roots (e.g., “groups experiencing the impact of decades of red-lining”), and affected groups (e.g., immigrants, Indigenous communities, disabled people, etc.). Asking sources how they prefer to be identified is another way to ensure that your reporting accurately reflects people’s senses of self and minimizes harm, especially as terminology evolves.
These terms have emerged as alternatives to “minority,” a category that can be vague, numerically incorrect, and imply inferior status. Outside of direct quotes, more precise language is important for clarity, except when citing data using the term “minority” in findings, or when minority status is specifically relevant as a numerical descriptor, not a group or identity label.
Given that these terms have been used to justify defunding programs or disciplining individuals, journalists should consider confirming whether a source or organization describes itself using this language before applying the terms.
Additional resources
- Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts (American Medical Association, AAMC Center for Health Justice)
- Why we should stop saying “underrepresented” (Harvard Business Review)
- A Call for a Language Shift: From Covert Oppression to Overt Empowerment (Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut)
Summary
“Historically underserved” describes people who have been disproportionately harmed by systemic inequities that grant certain groups privileges or advantages over others. The term acknowledges the enduring effects of longstanding discrimination. “Underrepresented” is a related term that specifically references the distribution of a given group within certain contexts—e.g., representation in Hollywood, sports, industry leadership positions, or politics. These terms can be useful for drawing attention to the effects of exclusionary policies and practices that have been reinforced over years, decades, or centuries. Related terms, such as “marginalized” or “vulnerable,” carry more stigma. When used in a catch-all way, they can lack precision, diminish human agency, fail to hold responsible parties accountable, and obscure the possibility of change. Using active, rather than passive, language helps promote understanding. Asking sources how they prefer to be identified will help you accurately reflect people’s senses of self as terminology evolves.