There is a reason why universities are the entities most associated with the idiom ivory tower, and the definition by The Phrase Finder explains it all: “A state of sheltered and unworldly intellectual isolation.”

What goes on in the inner sanctums of higher education is indeed often detached from what is happening in the outer world. A classic example is academia’s use of the identity label Latinx, while the very populations the term is designed to serve largely reject it.

Research shows Latinx appeared in social media in 2014 and was used primarily by scholars as a gender-inclusive alternative to the masculine Latino. But adding an “x” to the end of a word to neutralize it followed no linguistic norms and was criticized as antithetical to the gendered rules of the Spanish language. Nonetheless, it seemed to stick — but for only a few short years.

As suddenly as it rose to prominence, Latinx has fallen out of vogue. In 2020, a poll by the Pew Research Center showed only 4 percent of the Latino adults preferred Latinx to describe Latino or Hispanic populations. The civil rights organization League of United Latin American Citizens discontinued its use in official communications in 2021. The Real Academia Espanola, the official source of the Spanish language, argued the term “complicates the gendered grammatical structure (of Spanish) and is not necessary for gender inclusivity.”

The effort to legislate Latinx out of existence has come from both sides of the aisle. Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders banned its use in state government in Arkansas. Arizona Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) made his position clear in 2021, when he described the use of Latinx as performative and favored by white liberals more than the Latino community. He also banned his staff from using the term in official communications.

Elsewhere, Connecticut enacted a law last year requiring state agencies to use the terms Latino, Latina and Latine in official communications. The goal of the legislation, originally sponsored by five democratic members of the legislature’s Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, was to remove Latinx from the state’s lexicon and find an alternative term (Latine) to promote inclusivity. Eighteen percent of Connecticut’s population is Hispanic. 

Even the Hispanic LGBTQ+ community in New Haven supported the legislative changes. “Latinx just feels a little bit different, and it feels a little bit more Anglo-Saxon,” said Juancarlos Soto of the New Haven Pride Center, according to the CT Insider. He added, “It just feels it’s this thing that non-Hispanic or non-Latino people sort of try to come in and tell us to use.” Therein lies the problem.  

Lexical imperialism is when a language change is forced on diverse populations regardless of whether such populations want it or understand it.  Or, if the affected populations can even say it.  

Another argument against adding an “x” to Spanish words is that the practice disenfranchises huge populations of Spanish-speaking people, especially those with limited schooling and literacy skills. This point was articulated in an opinion article in Inside Higher Ed where the author, once a proponent of the term Latinx but no longer, explained his mother was unable to pronounce many of the new words. (Just try saying amigx!) 

The author’s point was this: “In restricting these groups’ access to linguistic practices perpetuated by U.S. academics, the use of the term ‘Latinx’ further marginalizes underrepresented populations.” This is not overstated — Spanish is the native language of more than 400 million people worldwide.

Despite the pushback and its demise in the real world, the term Latinx flourishes in academia. Like many universities, UNR and UNLV boast majors and minors in Latinx studies. Talk about an ivory tower-style disconnect. 

The word Latinx is very controversial, largely unpopular among Latin Americans and has been heavily criticized in diverse-minded publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.  Yet, universities across the land offer degrees in Latinx studies.

To no surprise, today’s politics on the matter are as hypocritical as ever. Republicans always shunned the word Latinx while Democrats embraced it as recently as a few years ago. But not now. Take the recent efforts by both parties to attract Latino voters in Southern Nevada. Throughout the national media coverage, the term Latinx is nowhere to be found. We all know why. Campaign strategists are afraid Latino voters would head in the other direction.

I lived in Latin America in my earlier years, fully immersed in the culture. As a gringo (gringx?), I remember the challenge of grasping the gendered rules of the Spanish language. But once you got them, they stuck because the rules followed logic. Terms such as Latinx disrupt the language as so many know it. Adapting the same change to the many other gendered pronouns in the Spanish language would only make things worse.

Universities should stick to words forever recognized as all-inclusive, including Latin, Latin American or Latino. If not satisfied with those, then maybe Latine is the way to go. That way, more people for which the identifier is used, could at least pronounce it. Denying people the right to self-identify is one thing. Riding roughshod over how they should identify is another.  

Academia could do better. But first it must get out from under the ivory tower.

Michael Raponi is a contributing columnist for The Nevada Independent and may be contacted at [email protected].

The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. Send them to [email protected].