“Civilised life requires, in addition to humane personal codes, social systems that uphold compassionate behaviour and renounce cruelty.”
—Albert Bandura
Recent developments, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war between Israel and Hamas, and the immigration policies of the United States government, have sparked a surge in campus activism. Historically, universities have been hotbeds of mobilization and advocacy. From the governance-related protests at Harvard University and Yale University in the 1700s and 1800s to the civil rights movement and the United States’ involvement in armed conflicts in the 1900s,1 campuses have consistently hosted demonstrations and rallies, which have provided platforms for students and faculty members to express dissent toward various institutions, events, and discourses (Narea). Today, however, a noticeable trend has emerged: the acute weaponization of language to create division and promote polarizing narratives.2 In this context, language assumes a central role in the process of othering individuals who deviate from dominant groups, lack advantageous hierarchical positions, or challenge prevailing cultural, economic, or geopolitical paradigms. These discourses often rely on dichotomous frameworks of “us versus them”—sometimes escalating to “us or them”—where the person perceived as the other is dehumanized to further specific political agendas. Moreover, such narratives resist and evade scrutiny by employing semantic stop signs that inhibit critical analysis and divergent opinions.
These same dynamics are commonly found in language classrooms, where we analyze and deconstruct narratives that have perpetuated the silencing or exclusion of nonhegemonic discourses. These spaces serve as rich arenas for exploring the intricate sociopolitical histories that shape the communities we study; in the language classroom, students delve into topics such as colonization, territorial disputes, racialization, and discrimination while acknowledging language’s pivotal role in these processes. Therefore, as educators of language and culture, we hold a distinct opportunity to equip our students with the critical tools necessary to engage with the nuances of divisive sociopolitical issues and dehumanizing discourses. By equipping our students with these tools, we foster a shared responsibility in the learning process, where both teachers and students are active participants, working together to understand how language shapes these narratives.
In our pedagogical approaches to language teaching, it is essential to recognize that language is more than a mere tool for communication or transactional exchange. Language plays a crucial role in constructing and regulating reality (Austin; Butler, Gender Trouble and Bodies; Derrida). As language teachers, our practice lies at the intersection of linguistic usage and analysis of cultural constructs, straddling the production and consumption, teaching and questioning, of linguistic discourse and sociopolitical narratives. Our classes occupy a privileged space for engaging with the political and cultural complexities that students encounter both within and beyond our campuses. Therefore, we have a responsibility to guide our students to approach these complexities critically yet empathetically, to encourage our students to see the other not as a dehumanized mass or an abstract concept but as an individual within a community who shares needs, feelings, and dreams akin to our own.
Language, Dehumanization, and Semantic Stop Signs
To equip and empower students with the necessary tools to achieve these goals, we must highlight how language contributes to two fundamental processes that underpin hegemonic narratives, othering processes, and exclusionary ideologies and practices: dehumanization and the use of thought-terminating clichés. In his discussion of selective moral disengagement, Albert Bandura argues that dehumanization of the other is a fundamental part of the cognitive processes that enable us to distance ourselves from the ethical implications of our behavior (102).3 In other words, we are more likely to exhibit active animosity or passive apathy toward others if they have been objectified, labeled as animalistic, or denied their fundamental human capacities or rights.4 Language plays a crucial role in these processes by imposing negative characteristics on discriminated, marginalized, or stigmatized groups and denying their members of features that may individualize and dignify them, cultivating empathy.
One prime example of these language uses is the depiction of migrants throughout history. In their examination of language and its role in advancing anti-immigrant sentiment, Kai Wei, Daniel Jacobson López, and Shiyou Wu meticulously outline the stigmatization endured by various migrant communities in the United States. From the derogatory portrayal of the Irish (as “the worse plague of all,” “pagans,” “alcoholics,” and “white negroes”) and the Chinese (depicted as the “yellow peril” and “barbarians”) in the mid–nineteenth century to the vilification of Muslims (branded as “extremists” and “potential terrorists”) and Mexicans (labeled as “criminals” and “rapists”) more recently, a disturbing trend emerges (Wei et al.). Regrettably, these narratives and dehumanizing tactics persist today and have become more virulent, widespread, and polarizing, frequently surfacing in discourses that fuel divisive and violent sociopolitical agendas around the globe. For instance, the portrayal of South American migrants as “bad hombres”—characterized by drug smuggling, sexual assault, and general criminality—and as “illegal aliens” remains distressingly prevalent in our nation’s political rhetoric (Bryant; Dixon; Reilly).
Similar uses of loaded language are found in narratives about other current events. Recently, Russian authorities have justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by labeling Ukrainian government officials as “Nazis,” “little Nazis,” and “satanic Nazis.” This dehumanization has extended to the Ukrainian population and armed forces, who are described with words such as “bestial,” “zombified,” “filth,” and “disorder” (Burovova and Romayshyn). Statements like “we are fighting not against people, but against enemies” exemplify this rhetoric (Gerson). Additionally, Ukraine’s national identity and culture have been minimized. Claims such as “There is ‘no Ukraine’ although there is Ukrainianism—a ‘specific mental disorder’” and references to “Big Russia and Little Russia—Ukraine” contribute to this narrative (Apt). Similarly, the terminology used to describe the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas has invoked disparate ways of referring to both sides, favoring a widespread dehumanization of the Gazan population over the years through terms like “demographic problem,” “threat,” and “beasts walking on two legs” (Hammad and Huneidi) and “human animals” and “children of darkness” (Hawari).
The deliberate use of loaded language that demonizes specific segments of the population, coupled with euphemistic language to sanitize actions perpetrated against those groups,5 can obscure our students’ understanding of sociopolitical conflicts worldwide. Furthermore, this labeling goes beyond dehumanizing individuals; as argued by Robert Jay Lifton, such labeling can function as semantic stop signs or thought-terminating clichés—expressions or concepts designed to halt argument progression by discouraging critical thought (429). Examples of this phenomenon include labeling others as Nazis or terrorists, describing territorial occupation as “God’s will” or “the nation’s destiny,” reducing migration issues to mottos such as “They should come here legally” and “Stop the invasion,” or implying that certain controversial or harmful attitudes and actions are carried out to protect national values and cultural traits. If challenged, these semantic stop signs can cast the challenger as radical, treacherous, unpatriotic, and unsupportive of the broader community’s well-being. However, when left unchallenged, the clichés serve as justifications for actions that, upon closer examination, can be, at best, questionable and, at worst, objectionable and immoral.
The Language Class in Divisive Sociopolitical Contexts
Language’s pivotal role in creating and justifying division, confrontation, and conflict underscores our obligation as educators and diversity advocates to confront this reality head-on in our classrooms. We must acknowledge that the languages we teach play a significant role in creating and shaping hegemonic narratives, and, therefore, we bear the responsibility to equip our students with the necessary skills to effectively and critically negotiate those discourses. Empowering them to comprehend and challenge such narratives enriches our students’ educational journey and also extends the impact of their education beyond campus boundaries. This approach deepens students’ appreciation of language as more than a simple act of transactional communication, encouraging more meaningful and thoughtful engagement with it.
Our pedagogical approaches should extend past the mere teaching of language as a system of symbols, grammatical rules, and various registers and genres for instrumental and mechanical exchange of utterances. As Richard Kern argues, we must prioritize the development of learners’ abilities to analyze, interpret, and transform discourse, fostering critical thinking about language’s social functions (23). Therefore, our emphasis should be on exploring how language encodes culture, reflects history, and conveys layers of meaning.6 This can be achieved through pedagogies that develop students’ symbolic competence (Kramsch, “From Communicative Competence” and “Symbolic Dimension”; Vinall) within a multiliteracies framework (Kern; Paesani et al.). These approaches treat language as a situated practice and pay particular attention to the power structures promoted and sustained through language use, particularly in multicultural contexts. Furthermore, these approaches equip students with the tools necessary to “interpret cultural narratives and frames; to challenge established meanings and privileged worldviews, to explore understandings of themselves as historical subjects with their own cultural believes and values as they interact with those of others; and to critically reflect on the power of language to construct these realities and subjectivities” (Vinall 1). This reflective process is crucial for examining and challenging dehumanizing narratives and thought-terminating clichés.
In the classroom, students can be engaged in activities that examine language practices across different contexts and historical periods. The subsequent pages detail a practical approach to exploring loaded language and dehumanization in an intermediate-advanced lesson sequence in which students critically analyze colonial and independence-era texts. By examining pronoun and adjective usage, as well as rhetorical strategies, students explore how language shapes identity perceptions, constructs oppositional categories, and reinforces power dynamics. Thus, this sequence investigates two primary strategies employed to frame and sustain power relations: first, the use of loaded language and dehumanizing tactics that categorize certain groups as othered and create us-versus-them narratives and, second, the deployment of thought-terminating clichés that prevent further questioning or critical engagement, fostering inflexible, binary perspectives. Through this analysis, students gain insight into how language has historically served as a tool for division and hierarchy—and how it continues to do so today.
In this sequence, students engage with sixteenth-century colonial texts by the Spaniards Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda and Bernal Díaz del Castillo that depict Native Americans through a European lens.7 Preclass activities provide context for the readings, guiding students through discussions about the texts’ purpose and intended audience and supporting students’ comprehension of the excerpts. In class, working in small groups, students are asked to identify and analyze the distinct adjectives and pronouns used to describe they (Native Americans) and we (Spaniards). This process reveals how language constructs otherness and establishes a stark opposition between groups. Students observe terms such as “servants,” “barbarians,” “ignorant,” “inhuman,” “brutes,” “malicious,” “demons,” “diabolical,” “sodomites,” “cannibals,” and “drunkards” used to describe Native Americans, while descriptors like “prudent,” “powerful,” “perfect,” “dominant,” “just,” “natural law,” “natural order,” and “moral virtue” are reserved for descriptions of Spaniards. After presenting their findings to the class, students are asked to identify textual arguments the writers use to justify the power dynamics that led to the dehumanization and oppression of Native Americans.
Students focus on three primary concepts: the natural order, wherein the powerful dominate the weak; classical philosophical precepts from Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas that suggest that the barbaric should be governed by the civilized; and divine law, according to which the Spanish were chosen by God to expand the true religion and save the souls of those who did not yet know it. Here, the combination of natural, philosophical, and religious laws is presented to students as a perfect thought-terminating cliché, against which no one would dare to position themselves for fear of being labeled as opposed to what is natural, civilized, and divine.
After identifying these loaded-language uses and semantic stop signs, the lesson shifts to examine how such linguistic representations permeated Spanish colonial society, being produced and reproduced until they became ingrained in the period’s collective imagination. Students are divided into three groups and asked to analyze depictions of Native Americans and colonizers in three paintings created by artists who never set foot in the Americas—and thus lacked firsthand knowledge of Native peoples, customs, and contexts. Each group produces a reflection on the connections between Sepúlveda’s and Díaz del Castillo’s texts and art produced between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries,8 tracing the impact these texts had on popular perceptions of nativeness and the evolution of these perceptions—or lack thereof—over time. To conclude this sequence, after group presentations, a class discussion establishes links between students’ learning about colonial times and contemporary events through prompts such as the following:
Consider how certain terms were historically used to justify colonial actions and enforce oppressive policies. Are similar words used today to create otherness? Reflect on specific examples from current media or political rhetoric where certain populations are described with dehumanizing terms. How do these terms shape public opinion, and what are the implications of such language for social policy? What semantic stop signs exist that may prevent critique of these loaded uses of language?
The sequence then shifts to the nineteenth-century Venezuelan independence movement, where students examine a speech by Simón Bolívar directed toward Venezuelans who are seeking liberation. In class, students compare Bolívar’s linguistic choices with those of Sepúlveda and Díaz del Castillo, analyzing how terminology now serves to reframe the Spaniards as the demonized other and the Venezuelans as virtuous liberators. Close examination of Bolívar’s rhetoric reveals a reversal of roles through similar loaded language, employed from a different viewpoint and context, which opens a discussion about the continuity of these rhetorical techniques across historical contexts. In Bolívar’s rhetoric, the Spanish are portrayed as inhuman with terms such as “barbaric oppressors,” “rapists,” “criminals against law and honor,” “monsters,” “evil,” “demonic,” and “tyrants,” while Venezuelans are depicted with terms such as “just,” “free,” “endowed with sacred rights,” “magnanimous,” “good citizens,” “honest,” “honorable,” and “innocent.”
To deepen their understanding of how linguistic choices shape perception, students identify Bolívar’s use of the first person alongside impersonal constructions (such as the impersonal se, passive structures, and the royal we). This activity highlights how Bolívar distances himself from violent actions against Spaniards through impersonal forms while associating himself with justice and brotherhood through personal constructions. This nuanced language enables Bolívar to construct an image of moral leadership, which contrasts with earlier colonial rhetoric. Through this activity, students observe how Bolívar’s use of personal forms emphasizes solidarity and justice, while impersonal forms distance Bolívar from punitive actions against the Spanish. Additionally, these linguistic choices act as a thought-terminating cliché, since those punitive actions are presented as beyond individual agency, inevitable, or even fated—thus discouraging further scrutiny and diffusing responsibility for consequences.
To underscore this, students transform impersonal sentences into first-person constructions, making Bolívar the explicit subject of actions. For instance, phrases like “Todo español que no conspire contra la tiranía en favor de la justa causa, . . . será tenido por enemigo [y] será irremisiblemente pasado por las armas” and “Nosotros somos enviados a destruir a los españoles, a proteger a los americanos, y a restablecer los gobiernos republicanos” take on a different tone when Bolívar is positioned as the active agent: “Yo soy enviado para destruir a los españoles” and “Pasaré por las armas a todos los españoles.”9 As these statements become less impersonal, they lose their aura of indisputable truth, which clarifies for students the role of language as a semantic stop sign. To conclude this reflection, the class engages in a group discussion prompted by questions like these: “Bolívar’s strategic use of personal and impersonal language constructs a compassionate identity while distancing him from punitive actions. Can you think of recent examples where public figures use language to avoid accountability or enhance their moral image? Why might this be effective?”
As a culminating activity, students apply their insights by creating their own fictional short speeches, incorporating loaded language and semantic stop signs into their text to advocate a particular viewpoint. This exercise offers students firsthand experience in crafting persuasive language and understanding the ethical implications of language. They exchange their work with peers, who then identify and critique examples of loaded language and thought-terminating clichés within each piece. This reflection solidifies students’ critical awareness as they consider how language can shape perception and reinforce ideologies, both in historical texts and in contemporary discourse.
In our classes, we hold a privileged position to challenge preconceived notions associated with the cultures and peoples represented by the languages we teach. By curating materials for our students, we can present, deconstruct, and move beyond the historically entrenched stereotypical images that have characterized these communities. As Cristina Ros i Solé contends, the language classroom is an ideal setting to question cultural representations that articulate hierarchical relationships between the students’ society and the society they are learning about. This setting also allows us to propose dynamics and perspectives that engage students more integrally.
Language classes that are grounded in the use of authentic materials, real-life language applications, and analysis of cultural artifacts created by the target community promote heightened student engagement. By including voices that narrate firsthand experiences—through guest speakers and testimonies, for example—we enable students to personally experience and interact with these materials and people, which fosters an internalization of the “other’s” life situation, from the other’s perspective. This aligns with what Amy Coplan describes as “other-oriented perspective-taking,” a form of true empathy that facilitates intersubjective understanding (6)—which is crucial for combating processes of othering and dehumanization.10
These pedagogical approaches prepare our students to navigate the diverse cultural constructs they encounter in their daily lives through various media. This is of particular importance in a context in which the rise of applications and social networks that promote and rely on user-generated content has led to a greater socialization and horizontal distribution of information. These technologies provide direct access to discourses and testimonies that previously lacked platforms for amplification, which has broadened the range of narratives that represent different perspectives and worldviews. However, these platforms also present challenges related to representation, partiality, and mass consumption, a reality we can address by leveraging the tools we develop and implement in our language classes.
Social networks like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) facilitate the creation of more diverse materials but also shift most of the responsibility of curating these materials to the users. Without expert guidance, users must adopt a critical stance toward the content they consume, assessing the veracity of information, considering content creators’ intentions and biases, and understanding the reasons behind content visibility within the platforms. Additionally, users must be aware of their own positioning in relation to the content and must recognize the potential influence of echo chambers and filter bubbles induced by algorithms.11 Encouraging students to challenge and critically examine discourses and testimonies disseminated through social media—while considering their own sociopolitical contexts and those of the content creators—becomes a valuable habit nurtured in our language classes.
Language educators have a unique opportunity to foment a classroom atmosphere that values diverse perspectives and prompts students to question and challenge hegemonic discourses. When we encourage students to critically evaluate differing viewpoints and understand the underlying assumptions and implications of each argument, we promote a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of complex issues. This process enhances students’ analytical skills and also cultivates an empathetic and informed engagement with the world.
Indeed, language serves not only as a tool for communication but also as a cornerstone in shaping, challenging, and upholding sociopolitical narratives. The skills acquired through the study of languages—and the literatures, arts, and cultures associated to them—are instrumental in unpacking and comprehending the nuances of divisive political questions. By emphasizing critical thinking, interpretive analysis, and empathetic understanding, we can guide students through exploration of the multilayered dimensions of contentious sociopolitical issues, and can elucidate the intricate relationship between language, dehumanization, and narrative formation. Pedagogical approaches that integrate a critical analysis of linguistic and cultural constructs establish an educational environment where students are encouraged to examine and deconstruct narratives that perpetuate division and exclusion. By equipping them with these critical thinking skills, language educators ensure that students are not merely passive recipients of information but active participants in the ongoing dialogue surrounding the complex sociopolitical challenges that shape our world.
Notes
1 College campuses in the United States have a long history of student demonstrations. While early protests focused primarily on campus life, academic rigor, and governance (Ireland; Neumann), the twentieth century saw a significant broadening of activism to encompass wider social issues. Students used marches, sit-ins, and other forms of protest to address academic freedom and free speech, racial injustice, the United States’ involvement in global conflicts, apartheid and divestment from South Africa, sexual misconduct, and police brutality (Jimenez; Salario; Sartore).
2 See, e.g., Brown; Karjus and Cuskley; Wodak; Simchon et al.
3 In 1975, Bandura et al. conducted a study that demonstrated how language can significantly influence behavior. A group of college students were led to believe they were overhearing a research assistant describe human test subject groups as either “nice” or “animals.” Then the students were tasked with delivering electric shocks to these labeled groups. Shock intensity increased linearly for those labeled “animals,” and those labeled “nice” received the least shock intensity.
4 Building on Bandura’s work, Waytz and Schroeder propose a distinction between two modes of dehumanization: “by commission,” in which there is an active denial of others’ humanity, and “by omission,” in which individuals passively fail to recognize others’ humanity (251).
5 For instance, the use of “special military operation” (Gigova and Mogul) and “targeted operations” (Magid) when referring to territory occupation and military strikes, or “assisted return” when describing migrant deportations (Glockner and Sardão Colares).
6 This is what Blommaert labels a “layered simultaneity” in discourse production: “We have to conceive of discourse as subject to layered simultaneity. It occurs in a real-time, synchronic event, but it is simultaneously encapsulated in several layers of historicity, some of which are within the grasp of the participants while others remain invisible but are nevertheless present” (130–31).
7 The texts used in class are excerpts from Sepulveda’s Tratado sobre las justas causas de la guerra contra los indios and Díaz del Castillo’s Historia verdadera de la conquista de Nueva España.
8 Paintings by Theodore de Bry (América, 1590–1634), Juan González and Miguel González (Conquista de México por Hernán Cortés 24–25 y 26, 1698), and Dióscoro Teófilo Puebla y Tolín (Primer desembarco de Cristóbal Colón en América, 1862).
9 “Every Spaniard who does not conspire against tyranny in favor of the just cause . . . will be considered an enemy [and] will be inexorably put to death”; “We are sent to destroy the Spaniards, to protect the Americans, and to restore republican governments”; “I am sent to destroy the Spaniards”; “I will put all Spaniards to death” (my trans. here and throughout).
10 Coplan defines empathy as “a complex imaginative process through which an observer simulates another person’s situated psychological states while maintaining clear self-other differentiation” (6) and distinguishes empathy from “emotional contagion,” which is an automatic process of mimicking another’s emotional state without self-other differentiation (8).
11 An echo chamber occurs when the user is presented only with content created by like-minded individuals; a filter bubble refers to the way that our past online behavior influences the information we see online, particularly in social media. For more on the impact of echo chambers and filter bubbles in cognitive processes and social polarization, see, among others, Brady et al.; Kitchens et al.; Pariser; Tucker.
Works Cited
Apt, Clara. “Russia’s Eliminationist Rhetoric against Ukraine: A Collection.” Just Security, 18 Apr. 2024, www.justsecurity.org/81789/russias-eliminationist-rhetoric-against-ukraine-a-collection.
Austin, John L. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. 1975. Oxford Academic, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001.
Bandura, Albert. “Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency.” Journal of Moral Education, vol. 31, no. 2, 2002, pp. 101–19.
Bandura, Albert, et al. “Disinhibition of Aggression through Diffusion of Responsibility and Dehumanization of Victims.” Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 9, no. 4, 1975, pp. 253–69.
Blommaert, Jan. Discourse. Cambridge UP, 2005.
Bolívar, Simón. Discursos y proclamas. Edited by Rufino Blanco Bombona, Fundación Biblioteca Ayacucho, Caracas, 2007.
Brady, William J., et al. “Algorithm-Mediated Social Learning in Online Social Networks.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 27, no. 10, 2023, pp. 947–60.
Brown, Joel. “In War, Words Matter. A Lot.” BU Today, Boston University, 23 Oct. 2023, www.bu.edu/articles/2023/how-and-why-language-is-weaponized/.
Bryant, Erica. “No Person Is Illegal—the Language We Use for Immigration Matters.” Vera, 4 Apr. 2023, www.vera.org/news/no-person-is-illegal-the-language-we-use-for-immigration-matters.
Burovova, Kateryna, and Mariana Romanyshyn. “Computational Analysis of Dehumanization of Ukrainians on Russian Social Media.” Proceedings of the 8th Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature (LaTeCH-CLfL 2024), edited by Yuri Bizzoni et al., Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024, pp. 28–39.
Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. Routledge, 1993.
———. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1990.
Coplan, Amy. “Understanding Empathy: Its Features and Effects.” Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives, edited by Coplan and P. Goldie, Oxford UP, 2011, pp. 3–18.
Derrida, Jacques. Limited Inc. Johns Hopkins UP, 1977.
Dixon, Matt. “DeSantis Blasts Immigration Laws Once Popular with Florida Republicans.” Politico, 2 Feb. 2023, www.politico.com/news/2023/02/23/desantis-immigration-laws-florida-republicans-00084188.
Gerson, Michael. “There’s a Reason Russian Soldiers Can’t Look Their Victims in the Face.” The Washington Post, 22 Apr. 2022, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/22/russia-ukraine-mass-killings-dehumanize-civilians.
Gigova, Radina, and Rhea Mogul. “For First Known Time in Public, Putin Calls Fighting in Ukraine a ‘War.’” CNN, 23 Dec. 2022, www.cnn.com/2022/12/22/europe/putin-uses-word-war-fighting-ukraine-russia-intl-hnk/index.html.
Glockner, Valentina, and Elisa Sardão Colares. “Euphemisms of Violence: Child Migrants and the Mexican State.” NACLA, 4 Dec. 2020, nacla.org/news/2021/04/23/euphemisms-violence-child-migrants-and-mexican-state-disponible-en-español.
Hammad, Isabella, and Sahar Huneidi. “The Uses and Abuses of Language in Israel’s War on Palestinians.” The Nation, 21 Dec. 2023, www.thenation.com/article/world/language-israel-gaza-palestine.
Hawari, Yara. “When Palestinians Tell the World What Is Happening to Them, Why Are They Met with Disbelief?” The Guardian, 3 Nov. 2023. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/13/palestinians-world-israel-carnage-gaza.
Ireland, Corydon. “Harvard’s Long-Ago Student Risings.” The Harvard Gazette, 19 Apr. 2012, news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/04/harvards-long-ago-student-risings/.
Jimenez, Kayla. “US Has Long History of College Protests: Here’s What Happened in the Past.” USA Today, 28 Apr. 2024, www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/04/28/us-has-long-history-of-college-protests-what-happened-in-the-past/73431111007/.
Karjus, Andres, and Christine Cuskley. “Evolving Linguistic Divergence on Polarizing Social Media.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 11, 2024, www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-02922-9.
Kern, Richard. “Reconciling the Language-Literature Split through Literacy.” ADFL Bulletin, vol. 33, no. 3, spring 2002, pp. 20–24. MAPS, https://doi.org/10.1632/adfl.33.3.20.
Kitchens, Brent, et al. “Understanding Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: The Impact of Social Media on Diversification and Partisan Shifts in News Consumption.” MIS Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4, 2020, pp. 1619–49.
Kramsch, Claire. “From Communicative Competence to Symbolic Competence.” The Modern Language Journal, vol. 90, no. 2, 2006, pp. 249–52.
———. “The Symbolic Dimension of the Intercultural.” Language Teaching, vol. 44, no. 3, 2011, pp. 354–67.
Lifton, Robert Jay. Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. U of North Carolina P, 1989. ProQuest Ebook Central, ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/princeton/detail.action?docID=793376.
Magid, Jacob. “US Indicates Initial Satisfaction with Changes to Israeli Military Plans for Rafah.” The Times of Israel, 22 May 2024, www.timesofisrael.com/us-indicates-initial-satisfaction-with-israeli-tailoring-of-rafah-military-plans.
Narea, Nicole. “How Today’s Antiwar Protests Stack Up against Major Student Movements in History.” Vox, 1 May 2024, www.vox.com/politics/24141636/campus-protest-columbia-israel-kent-state-history.
Neumann, Brian. “University of Virginia Riot of 1836.” Encyclopedia Virginia, Virginia Humanities, 26 Aug. 2024, encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/university-of-virginia-riot-of-1836/.
Paesani, Kate, et al. A Multiliteracies Framework for Collegiate Foreign Language Teaching. Prentice, 2016.
Pariser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin, 2011.
Reilly, Katie. “Here Are All the Times Donald Trump Insulted Mexico.” Time, 31 Aug. 2016, time.com/4473972/donald-trump-mexico-meeting-insult.
Ros i Solé, Cristina. “Spanish Imagined: Political and Subjective Approaches to Language Textbooks.” Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials, edited by John Gray, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 161–81.
Salario, Alizah. “A Visual History of Campus Protests in the US.” Stacker, 3 May 2024, stacker.com/society/visual-history-campus-protests-us.
Sartore, Melissa. “The History of Student Protests in the US.” Ranker, 9 May 2024, www.ranker.com/list/student-protest-history-us/melissa-sartore.
Simchon, Almog, et al. “Troll and Divide: The Language of Online Polarization.” PNAS Nexus, vol. 1, no. 1, 2022, academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/1/pgac019/6546199.
Tucker, Julia S. “The Negative Impact of Social Media’s Algorithms on Society.” Emerging Writers, vol. 6, 2023, article 9, digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/emergingwriters/vol6/iss1/9.
Vinall, Kimberly. “Got Llorona? Teaching for the Development of Symbolic Competence.” L2 Journal, vol. 1, 2016, pp. 1–16.
Waytz, Adam, and Juliana Schroeder. “Overlooking Others: Dehumanization by Commission and Omission.” TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, vol. 21, no. 3, 2014, pp. 251–66.
Wei, Kai, et al. “The Role of Language in Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: What Can We Learn from Immigrants’ Historical Experiences?” Social Sciences, vol. 8, no. 3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8030093.
Wodak, Ruth. “The Language of Walls: Inclusion, Exclusion, and the Racialization of Space.” Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Racisms, edited by John Solomos, Routledge, 2020, pp. 160–77.