Law and Language Literacy: The Power of Words — University of Glasgow Law Student Blog

Mar 28

Mar 28 Law and Language Literacy: The Power of Words

By Ola Zurakowska and Maya Bedi

(Level 4 Scots Law LLB and Diploma in Legal Practice students respectively)

The Decolonising the School of Law (DtSL) Forum is dedicated to critically examining and reshaping the legal curriculum at the University of Glasgow to reflect diverse perspectives and challenge colonial legacies. This blog post is part of our broader effort to help students and staff develop inclusive, appropriate language and engage with issues of decolonisation, racial equality, and unconscious bias.

Why Language Matters in Decolonisation

Decolonisation originally meant the process of colonies gaining independence from their colonisers, which began in the 18th century and continued into the 20th. Today, in academic and legal settings, it goes beyond that—it’s about recognising and challenging the effects of colonisation on knowledge systems, questioning dominant Eurocentric ideas and making space for marginalised perspectives.

Language is at the heart of this. The words we use shape how we understand history, whose voices are heard, and how narratives are framed. In the Law School, being mindful of language helps create a more inclusive and globally aware legal curriculum, where students and staff can engage more meaningfully with the law.

Take, for example, the distinction between “immigrant” and “expat”. By definition, an expatriate is someone residing temporarily or permanently in a country other than their own, a label that could theoretically apply to anyone living abroad. Yet, in common usage, “expat” is exclusively reserved for white individuals, while people of colour in similar circumstances are called “immigrants” or “migrants”. This difference in language is not accidental—it actively reflects and reinforces racial and economic hierarchies, shaping how migration is perceived based on a person’s racial identity.

As legal professionals, understanding how different societies frame race and identity can help students and staff engage more thoughtfully in their choice of language, whether in academic settings or professional legal practice. Many legal definitions and frameworks, such as asylum law, racial discrimination law, and human rights protections, rely on terminology that carries historical and political weight.

By critically assessing and understanding the evolution of these terms, law students and staff are better equipped to:

Engage in more inclusive and effective legal practice by using language that accurately reflects lived experiences.

Challenge biases in legal discourse that may otherwise go unquestioned.

Understand the implications of legal definitions in shaping policies and affecting people's lives.

Key Terminology and Their Implications

“People of Colour” (POC) vs. “Non-White”

The term “non-white” is problematic because it defines people by what they are not, centring whiteness as the default. Instead, “People of Colour (POC)” can be preferred as it shifts the focus onto the identities and experiences of racialised groups. However, this term is also context-dependent—while useful in some discussions, it can still homogenise diverse communities.

BAME/BME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic)

These terms are used primarily for statistical categorisation in the UK but have become controversial due to their broad grouping of diverse ethnic identities. They should not be used as a replacement for discussing specific racial and ethnic experiences. Instead, where possible, it is best to refer to individual ethnic or racial groups.

Race vs. Ethnicity

“Race” is a social construct historically used to classify people based on physical characteristics, often linked to ideas of white superiority. “Ethnicity”, however, encompasses cultural identity, language, religion, and shared heritage. Recognising this distinction helps avoid reinforcing outdated racial categories and instead acknowledges the complexity of identity.

Racialised/Minoritised Groups

These terms emphasise the active processes that marginalise certain communities. “Minoritised ethnic” acknowledges that groups are not minorities everywhere—rather, they are made minorities by systemic power structures.

Global Majority

This term is the shorthand for ‘people of the global majority’, and it may be preferable to BAME/BME or POC etc, as a more encompassing term that reflects reality. This is the collective term for people of African, Latin American, indigenous, Asian or mixed-heritage backgrounds. Collectively, these groups make up roughly 85% of the global population, therefore the move from classifying people as a minority to a majority helps challenge white-centric narratives.

Global North/Global South

These terms are used to distinguish between economically dominant and less economically developed regions. While sometimes useful for trade and development discussions, they can oversimplify complex geopolitical realities without there being stringent geographical boundaries, or any homogeneity in who is usually classified as such. For example, China and India are both considered to be part of the Global South to this day. “Global South” may be a better substitute for the term “third world [country]”, and should not be understood as implying any country or region as ‘lesser’ in any way. As there are no adequate alternative terms, “Global North/ Global South” continue to be widely used. It is important to understand the complexities behind these terms, including the broad generalisations they can sometimes carry.

Developing Country

This term is often used in an economic sense to describe less industrialised countries, typically with lower individual incomes. However, there is no official definition, leading to vastly different countries identifying as ‘developing,’ often to gain trade privileges through World Trade Organisation recognition. Currently, 134 countries fall under this classification.

It may be more appropriate to use terms like “less economically developed country” or “low-income country,” as these focus specifically on economic factors rather than unintentionally implying negative judgments about people or culture.

Third World Country

An outdated Cold War term that should avoided. The same goes for “First World Country”, where the term “industrialised” would be preferred.

Institutional Racism

Institutional racism is when an organisation's policies, processes, and culture disadvantage racialised groups. Recognising this is essential in legal education, where structural biases may shape how cases are studied, taught, and discussed.

Migration Terminology: Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Migrants

“Refugees” are persons who have fled their own country because they are at risk of serious human rights breaches and persecution there. The legal definition of the term ‘refugee’ is found in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Typically (including in the UK) a person requires to be recognised as a ‘refugee’; this happens when the government agrees that an individual who has applied for asylum meets the Convention definition.

“Asylum seekers” are individuals who have left their country of origin and formally applied for asylum in another country but whose application has not yet been concluded. A successful application may lead to recognition as a Convention refugee or some other form of international protection. The Refugee Council and Scottish Refugee Council prefer to describe someone as a ‘person seeking asylum.’ Seeking asylum is a legal right—there is no such thing as an “illegal” asylum seeker.

“Migrant” is a term to describe someone who has moved from their home country to another country, whether temporarily or permanently, and for any reason (e.g., to work, study, join family, and for reasons beyond immediate danger, including economic migration).

Final Thoughts

Language is always evolving, and no term is perfect in all contexts. However, being aware of how and why we use certain terms is a crucial step in making legal education—and the profession—more just, reflective, and accessible to all. We understand that conversations surrounding this topic may be difficult or uncomfortable, as we may be scared to cause offence or are worried about using the wrong term – but it is important to recognise the significance of having the conversation. This could be approached by voicing your concerns, such as ‘I may not get the language totally right, but I am open to being educated and adapting it’, or admitting you do not know how to approach the topic, but would like to hear other peoples’ perspectives etc. Some further resources and short readings may also be helpful to start feeling more comfortable – take a look at the resources below! We always encourage curiosity and expanding your knowledge, and hearing the opinions and experiences of others is always a great place to start.