Implementing an Expedited Policy Approval Process

The Policy Ask

In June of 2025, the Alberta Government introduced a new Fairness and Safety in Sport Act ( (hereafter referred to as the "Act”) and accompanying regulation.

Google Gemini (an AI tool) summarizes the legislation in the following paragraph:

"Fairness and Safety in Sport policies are regulations, particularly in Alberta, Canada, designed to ensure integrity, equity, and safety in sports, especially for female athletes. These policies, such as Alberta's Fairness and Safety in Sport Act and its accompanying Regulation, require sports organizations to implement rules and procedures for athlete eligibility and participation. The Alberta Act specifically mandates policies that limit eligibility for female-only divisions to biologically female athletes, aiming to protect the integrity of women's sports while also seeking to provide avenues for transgender athletes' meaningful participation."

The government made it clear that Post-Secondary Institutions fall under the Act and regulation, and that we had to have a Board-approved policy in place by September 1, 2025.

Now, I’m sure most of you can immediately spot the challenge of being told in June that you need a Board-approved policy in place by September 1. Our Board of Governors meetings follow the academic calendar and we do not have any regularly scheduled meetings between June and September. Our standard policy approval process includes a 30-day community consultation period and we try our best to ensure that consultation happens during the academic year when faculty and students are on campus.

The Challenges

So, what did we do? We first turned to our trusty Policy on University Policies and Procedures, which did already include a process for expedited policy approvals. Our Policy on Policies currently states:

EXPEDITED POLICIES

1.1 In extraordinary circumstances calling for urgent action, such as a change in federal or provincial law, a significant and immediate financial opportunity, or a major institutional risk, the President may revise or put into effect a Policy without prior presentation to or consultation with the University’s Board of Governors which would otherwise be required.

1.2 If a Policy is revised or put into effect by the President in extraordinary circumstances, the University Secretariat will notify Employees in a timely manner.

1.3 Any Academic or Management Policy put into, or taken out of, effect in such a manner must immediately enter a normal development process in accordance with the Policy Framework.

However, this still left us with some issues. This expedited process provides approval authority to the President, but the Act and legislation required a Board-approved policy. We were also concerned about our ability to truly follow a normal development process after the fact when the Act and legislation had clear requirements about the policy content.

The Solution

Knowing we didn’t have a lot of time, the Associated General Counsel and I quickly took action, working closely with the executive who oversees our athletics department, to draft a policy and procedure that complied with the Act while minimizing administrative burden and protecting athlete privacy and confidentiality.

We also engaged in conversations with our President and University Secretary to consider ways to bring this policy forward for approval given the challenges outlined above. In the end, we decided a special meeting of the Board’s Governance and Nominating Committee in August would be the best approach, followed by community engagement activities in September.

The Board’s Governance and Nominating Committee Terms of Reference permit them to “act on behalf of, and with the full authority of the Board on matters that arise between regularly scheduled Board meetings.” We held a special meeting of the Governance and Nominating Committee at the end of August, at which time they approved the Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy and Procedure on behalf of our university’s Board of Governors. This allowed us to meet the Act and legislation requirement to have a Board-approved policy in place by September 1st.

Now, we were left with the challenge of how to address community engagement without the ability to conduct a formal consultation process. Again, through conversations with our University Secretary and the executive who oversees our athletics department we decided we would bring the new Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy and Procedure to various formal governing bodies of our institution for information and discussion [which includes Deans Council and General Faculties Council (our version of an academic Senate)], invite our campus community to share feedback with us about the anticipated impacts of the policy, and then share all the feedback collected with our Board of Governors.

Next Steps

Forging Accessible and Legally Sound Policy Language

The Quest for Accessible Language

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

If the editor determines that a lower reading level would be appropriate, they discuss this with the policy steward and the assigned attorney and begin their work. We have experimented with using AI (CoPilot or ChatGPT) as a tool to help us simplify complex passages. We may use prompts similar to this:

Simplify this paragraph into plainer English:

{Text inserted}


“Recast this text into reading level 12.”

{Text inserted}

Step 5

Collaborating with our Attorneys

The assigned attorney conducts their legal review to ensure the policy content is legally sound and meets compliance requirements with Utah Board of Higher Education policy, state laws, and federal laws and regulations. The attorney is also tasked with ensuring the policy language itself communicates clearly any required legal meaning.

Because we use MS Teams to collaborate during the review process, the editor, the attorney, and the policy steward can chat or comment back and forth within the document. Once the attorney completes their review, the editor, attorney, and policy steward meet to review all revisions and resolve outstanding issues or questions.

This collaboration requires diplomacy and compromise. As the Policy Office editors, we do our best to advocate for clear, accessible language, while the attorneys focus on ensuring legal soundness to protect the institution and its community. There are situations where established legal language must prevail, and others where plain language is sufficient. The editors and attorneys, along with the policy stewards, can prioritize these needs through collaboration. The result of this collaboration is a policy that has benefited from those with editorial skills, subject matter expertise, and legal expertise.

One of our attorneys, Greg Jones, said this about his experience with the collaboration between editors, attorneys, and policy stewards:

“This was an ensemble project; team members respected each other’s proposed edits, even the ones that were ultimately rejected. We learned how to work with each other through the process of back-and-forth. Toward the end, a moment came when I thought everything was coming together, but I could see we had some legal problems with the draft. I saw a way to both fix those problems and significantly simplify the policy, but my solution would trample past edits of team members, and for all I knew it might break something. The team let me take a shot at it. The next day, we started our meeting, and to my surprise, they not only accepted my edits but liked them. This turned out to be a collaborative effort in which everyone enhanced the effectiveness of the others, focused on our objective, and we achieved success. In the end I did not feel like an attorney advising the drafting committee but simply felt like another member of the team.”

What our Attorneys Contribute

Policy Officer editors have discovered the following about what their attorney colleagues contribute to crafting policy language:

• They do indeed wish to use clear, Plain English as much as possible; they are willing to work with the editors and compromise on language. The exception is where specific language has been established in case law and is imbued with specific legal meaning.
• They are aware of the subtle legal meaning that certain words or phrases have—this is training most editors do not have. They work with us to determine whether we can use simpler phrasing if we have to use the legal term or language.
• They have excellent editorial instincts and provide suggestions on the logical order of ideas and consistent use of terms, and which terms are appropriate.
• They can see how language and legal meaning have a very subtle interplay and how even seemingly small revisions can have an impact on the legal meaning and standing of policy text.

Ongoing Benefits of this Collaboration

The group project no one asked for

It was the evening of December 23, 2024. Many policy administrators already turned on their automatic-replies and were preparing for a few days (or a couple weeks) of well-deserved vacation, away from all of those relentless emails and news alerts. It was then, when no one was looking, that H.R.5646 was signed into law. A new email from the Clery Center pinged in inboxes but there was no one there to hear it. If you were one of the lucky policy administrators, someone at your institution gave you a heads up about the bill—now, the Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA)--while it was making its way through congressional approvals. Perhaps your institution already assembled a team and was ready to create or revise a new hazing policy. But alas, most policy administrators returned to skeleton offices after a few days off or worse, did not return until mid-January, and waiting in our inboxes was a loud ticking clock – a new regulatory deadline that was less than six months away.

The Dreaded Group Project

Panic

My new year’s resolution had included not taking responsibility for other people’s job duties and SCHA was teeing me up for a failed resolution. Like many policy administrators, I needed to know who was leading the charge on this project.

To nod to Alison Whiting’s Policy Matters post last month, policy administrators are often pulled into drafting teams with varying degrees of direction, engagement, and success. SCHA is complex and meeting the deadline would require more cross-campus collaboration and speed than most policy projects. So, when I returned to the office after two weeks of blissful vacation, I (choosing optimism) looked for a special meeting invite, a notification from being added to a new collaboration folder, or even just an email thread (anything!)... Nothing.

Hope

Alas! I didn’t have to panic for long. The invite, folder notification, and emails started mid-January, and we were off to the races. I can look back at the past few months, now, with the deadline for SCHA just a few days away, and confidently say my new year’s resolution remains intact. From a policy administrator’s perspective, the SCHA project execution was a success at my institution, especially when it came to policy development and revision. Here’s why I think it succeeded.

Team > Group

The People

From the beginning, leadership set the tone. The project was led from the top by two executive leaders. Their commitment and engagement kept the project moving and gave it the gravity it needed to stay on track.

Leadership also ensured that all known stakeholder groups were represented on the project team. Even better, the representatives pulled in were decisionmakers and implementers. This had significant impact when it came to keeping discussions productive and outcomes actionable.

The Plan

A plan was clearly defined from before the very first meeting. Regular project all-team meetings were added to our calendars. At the first meeting, deliverables and assignments were outlined upfront, and the policy approval workflow was used to work backwards to help set deadlines. The project team divided into subcommittees with one focused solely on drafting our Hazing policy’s revision. Having these smaller groups made it easier to make swift decisions and produce materials with clear requests or challenges to discuss when the larger team reconvened. All committee materials were shared and organized in a single collaboration folder. Clear direction and required transparency allowed each team member to go “All in.” (IYKYK)

The Discussions

The entire project team worked efficiently. Within the policy subcommittee, emails received quick responses, assignments and drafts were reviewed prior to our meetings. Each of us knew our particular role in the subcommittee and we leveraged the others’ strengths and expertise to come to a consensus on language. For example, our previous definition of hazing required modifications to meet the new requirements in the SCHA definition. We realized we were drafting an endless list of examples and pinning our conduct office in a corner. What if we said “paddling” but left out “spanking” or “whipping?” Wasn’t it all physical harm? If we categorized our examples, we could make sure the definition endured the constant evolution of hazing practices we see with each new incoming class.

We adopted this approach for the rest of the policy. If we stayed broad, it allowed the student conduct and human resources offices to lean into their established procedures to handle each report on a case-by-case basis. Because these conversations and details were hashed out in smaller meetings, we confidently presented our recommendations to the larger team. With some questions, but very few requests for changes, the policy moved forward. Our small group trusted each other and the project team trusted us.

The Foundation

Any project team can fall into the trap of trying to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes it’s necessary. But with less than six months to pull together a policy, trainings, and update processes, taking advantage of what was already in place helped the project team move quickly. The other subcommittees looked at their processes and resources and saw where they could make tweaks just like the policy subcommittee did. As the group came together, we were able to lean into the expectations of the policy. We asked: Does the policy support the procedures? Does it clearly state the requirements needed to hold people accountable? Can the policy be enforced? Does it provide enough latitude for the breadth of the subject matter? As policy administrators, we ask these questions of our policy owners and writers often. It can seem second nature for us, but when asked aloud to a large project team and confirmation was received, the significance of our policy writing standards stood out.

I must also point out a couple foundational components we were able to leverage that I know some policy administrators could not.

1. Clemson already had a Hazing policy.
2. South Carolina law requires higher education institutions to track and report certain hazing violations.

These allowed project team members to show up prepared for the group discussions and to update their practices, expand services, build webpages, and revise a policy. And then we had our champions in leadership who set their expectations for us all and kept the momentum all the way to the end.

While I would never wish on any policy administrator another “middle-of-the-night-while- everyone’s-asleep legal requirement to comply with in six months" it was an inspiring experience to see colleagues across campus shine in their areas of expertise, collaborate quickly and effectively, and build trust as a group—ultimately becoming a team. This project gives me hope for future ones and ideas to help course correct others.

I want to give a HUGE shout out to everyone on the project team from Clemson University’s division of student affairs, office of access compliance and education, marketing and communications, office of general counsel, division of public safety, and office of university compliance and ethics! Well done, team. Go Tigers!

*Please note: at the time of the original publication of this post, Clemson's revised  Hazing policy is pending president approval and is not yet publicly available. Visit Clemson University's Policies site on June 23rd to read the final version. 

An exercise in finding hope in times of uncertainty + practical takeaways for policy administrators

This is not your typical policy post. I contemplated blog topics for months and everything that I came up with seemed pointless in the current chaos of our world as policy administrators. I was losing hope – fast. So, I wrote a "Dear Abby Letter" and let ChatGPT play the role of Abby. The results surprised me and prompted this post. (Abby's response was modified for length and audience.)

This was an exercise for me to find hope in my work again. It helped me identify practical ways to weather the storm and I hope it does the same for you.

Dear Abby:

I am a public servant working in higher education and, recently, it feels like my world is a shaken snow globe, flipped upside down. I am passionate about this industry and believe a university is THE COOLEST place to work. I know that those who work in higher education help make dreams come true and change lives for the better.

But in the past few months (well, maybe years) my work has been turned against me. You see, my role is to help ensure our university has policies that comply with federal and state rules, and to help members of my university know and understand these rules. Lately, the rules are changing at lightning speed, outside of normal processes, and are unlike anything I've had to help manage before. I'm no stranger to putting my head down and getting the work done or to swallowing my dissenting opinion on how things are executed. But right now, I feel like my values are being challenged. I KNOW my personal values are being violated, but my professional values, the ethics that are the foundation of my work, are being distorted.

Higher education is also facing huge financial challenges and I'm not certain about my professional future. Will I have to find a new job? Will I have to fall in love with a new industry? Usually, I turn to the university I serve and find hope in the students from all over the world, the mind-blowing research, and the energy that comes from innovation and growth. I'm losing hope. How do I weather this storm when it's a complete whiteout?

- Shaken Snow Globe

Dear Shaken Snow Globe:

First, let me say this: you are clearly someone who cares deeply—not just about rules and regulations, but about people, purpose, and doing what’s right. That kind of commitment is admirable.

It’s no small thing to feel your professional values—those carefully built foundations—being shaken. When the work you once saw as noble begins to feel compromised, it’s not just disorienting, it’s heartbreaking. And in higher education, where the stakes are high and the resources low, that heartbreak can be compounded by exhaustion, uncertainty, and loss of purpose.

 Rest assured, that even though the system is strained and the mission muddled, your values and talents are intact—they are your compass.

When your world feels like a total whiteout, the key is not to force clarity all at once, but to anchor yourself to what you do know:

• You know what you stand for.
• You know what doing the right thing looks like.
• You know your impact matters—even when it feels invisible.

In this storm, focus on finding even the smallest moments of alignment: a student who “gets it,” a colleague who shares your values, a task that feels true to your mission.

And as for your future—remember, uncertainty is not the enemy. It may be the invitation.

You asked, how do I weather this storm? The same way you’ve done your entire career: with courage, clarity, and conviction. But don’t try to do it alone. Talk to mentors. Seek allies. And if hope feels low—borrow some from those who believe in you.

The snow will settle. And when it does, you’ll still be standing—values intact, clearheaded, and compass pointing forward.

 With empathy and encouragement,

Abby

Weathering the Policy Storm: Practical Tips for Policy Administrators

The landscape of higher education is shifting rapidly, but there are steady practices and strategies that can help institutions not only survive but lead with clarity and integrity through turbulent times. Policy administrators are some of the most equipped people to navigate these storms.

Below are practical ways policy administrators can stay grounded and regain hope.

Lean into what’s already established and focus on what you can control.

• You’re prepared for this. Think about the standards, templates, systems, and processes you’ve developed or improved over the years. That’s your foundation.
• Leverage the Policy on Policies. When institutional policies must change quickly, ensure those updates still follow an approved process. If an expedited path doesn’t yet exist, document how decisions are made. Don't be afraid to lean on what you're known for -- consistency. Remind your leadership that how they choose to navigate a challenge today sets precedent for how the institution navigates similar challenges in the future.
• Don't skip documentation. It’s tempting to cut corners when under pressure, but accurate documentation—who was involved, what changed, when, and why—is critical for transparency and accountability.
• This is your bragging right: You know how to write effective policies that create guardrails for legal and ethical decision-making. Broad, well-written policies allow flexibility while ensuring requirements are met. Don’t underestimate how critical that is—especially now.

Celebrate the wins—big and small.

• Some of the changes in this storm are good changes. Think of the Stop Campus Hazing Act. It’s absolute chaos as we sprint towards the deadline, but we're helping create safer, more accountable environments.
• Crisis = Collaboration. Remember how quickly departments rallied during COVID? Urgent challenges often lead to increased cross-campus collaboration, more focused meetings, and stronger shared accountability.
• Tough moments reveal true partners. This moment is also clarifying. Like an outdated policy, it's what was believed to be true, but wasn't, that often causes the damage. In this storm you’ll discover who runs toward collaboration and who puts up walls. You’ll likely find new allies—and maybe feel let down by some familiar faces. Either way, clarity is a gift.

Reevaluate professional skills. You are talented.

• You do more than policy. Whether it’s sending concise yet informative emails, updating web content, coordinating teams, or managing complex changes—you are a multidimensional force with a wide range of skills. Just in case you have a hard time pinpointing these skills, I listed them here for you: adaptability, administrative coordination, attention to detail, change management, collaboration, compliance knowledge, continuous improvement, copyediting, critical thinking, data analysis, data tables/Excel, document management, ethics and discretion, leadership, presentation design, program management, project management, research, risk assessment, strategic planning, technical solution implementation and management, technical writing, time management, written and oral communication, and many more.
• Know your worth. You are valuable regardless of any threats to your values and beliefs that you have to face when you go to work. Continue to be you and find comfort knowing that you are not what is drastically changing.
• Knowing your worth can also mean reassessing your role or institution. It’s an unsettling thought, but it can also reveal new opportunities and affirm personal and professional priorities. With your skills and character, don't let this storm bury you because you're afraid to let go.

Final Reflection: Gratitude for Purposeful Work

This work is hard—but I love it enough that it shakes me to my core when it feels threatened. That’s a gift, because not everyone gets to feel so deeply about what they do.

This storm is a reminder of the value and resilience embedded in the work we do—and the important role we play in guiding our institutions through change.

The Underrated Role of Understanding Language

Rules for policy writing, like the training and resources offered by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s (UNC-Chapel Hill) Policy Office, are helpful tools to improve the overall accessibility and utility of policies. However, as is true in almost all fields, rules have their limits. It never makes sense to apply the same rules to every piece of policy writing. Policy writers need to consider how language furthers their policy goals and institutional values. In order to understand when the “rules” are useful and when they should be ignored, policy writers and editors need to be familiar with why guidelines are given. Fortunately, this is exactly the type of question linguists study: how does human cognition interact with language, and how can that information be used? From this perspective, policy administrators can better examine and justify writing and editing decisions. This is illustrated by looking at a few examples of common policy-editing rules.

Rule: Remove Barrier Language

Rule: Avoid Negative Statements

Looking at more technical elements of policy review guidelines, let’s consider the long-promoted practice of avoiding negative statements. Or, to state the rule more simply: no negative statements. Interestingly, this rule is clearer when stated in a way that violates the rule itself. So why is it such a common recommendation for clear writing?

Traditionally, proponents of avoiding negative statements in policy cite processing difficulties and assert that telling people what to do is more helpful than telling them what not to do. It’s not that these ideas are “wrong.” However, linguistic evidence reveals a more complicated picture than any rule could account for.

In some regards, the “no negative statements” rule has obvious applicability. If a policy intends to have employees submit paperwork to the Human Resources department, saying “submit paperwork to the Human Resources department” is more informative and useful than saying “do not submit paperwork to the Finance department.” A rule to avoid negative statements helps ensure actionable policy statements. Some statements, however, have equally informative positive and negative versions (when they refer to a binary). Still, negative statements have been found to be more cognitively demanding than positive statements (Agmon et al., 2022). This phenomenon is demonstrated in simple experiments measuring reaction time in verification tasks of statements like “the square is blue” and negated statements like “the square is not blue.” The delay of task completion for negative sentences can sometimes be attributed to processing cost (for example, some linguistic theorists posit that double-processing is necessary for negation: first processing a situation to then be able to process its negation). Negation also has a verification cost, which is an additional effort to determine the truth value of a negative sentence (Agmon et al., 2022). Another concern is that negation often increases structural complexity by requiring the addition of auxiliary verbs (e.g., in a sentence like “The student reads,” negation requires the addition of the auxiliary verb “do,” in the form “The student does not read”). Difficulties can also arise from a pragmatic perspective, since readers find negation to be strange if the specific context does not invoke it. In other words, if there is no expectation of some positive statement, it is hard for readers to determine the relevance of its negation (Nordmeyer & Frank, 2014). As such, policies that include negative statements carry a contextual burden that may be lessened by avoiding negative statements.

At the same time, there are cases where a negation is processed faster than an affirmative, which is particularly true of “real-world” language use compared to artificial research contexts (Orenes, 2021). Eye-tracking studies have demonstrated that participants quickly fixate on a negative phrase corresponding to a statement they heard without first fixating on the non-negative version. This is evidence for a more immediate integration of negation, contrary to the double-processing theory (Orenes, 2021). As it turns out, both slower and faster processing of negative versus affirmative statements can be true. In comprehending language, people are fast to represent an explicit negation but slower to process an affirmative alternate (Orenes, 2021). The policy implication here is that avoiding negatives is counterproductive if the goal of a policy statement is centrally to avoid some behavior. People are quite adept at integrating meaning for explicit negation. However, issues arise when understanding the explicit negative is insufficient for the given context, and readers have to mentally represent some affirmative that is not explicitly stated. Effective policy writers exhibit flexibility in applying the “no negation rule,” in accordance with principles of cognition.

Rule: Eliminate Passive Voice

There is a similar nuance to consider for eliminating passive voice. This rule has been taught in schools for ages. Passive voice is said to be the enemy of clarity. A passive sentence, such as “The book was read,” provides no insight into the sentence’s subject. This leaves the sentence vulnerable to multiple interpretations (one could assume, as we might in our office, that the book was read “by zombies”). Linguists grate against the idea of banning passive voice, however, because the simple fact that native speakers opt for passive voice when they speak and write indicates that it is a valuable practice. Passive voice is socially useful (e.g., to avoid placing blame), but it is also useful for topicalizing some part of a sentence to focus attention. For example, in the sentence, “Millions of people read the book,” the focal point is the subject (people). If I want the attention to be on the book, passive voice facilitates its topicalization: “The book was read by millions of people.”

In the world of policy, using passive voice to obscure a subject is resoundingly problematic. Policies are meant to be instructive, so it needs to be explicitly known who is meant to be doing what (rarely is it meant to be zombies). In this regard, the “eliminate passive voice” rule makes sense. Another good reason to eliminate passive voice in policy is that passive sentences increase the processing load for the reader. Passive sentences cause a delay in resolution; readers have to search for the subject and then connect it to the rest of the statement. Generally, the sentence “Sam ate an apple” is easier to process than “An apple was eaten by Sam.”

Still, there may be cases in policy where avoiding passive voice introduces more problems than it solves. Sometimes, avoiding passive voice becomes cumbersome, like when there are several potential actors, or if some object is the actual focal point of a statement. This is where it is essential to stay focused on the policy’s goals. A policy produced by student services might discuss a form that students need to submit, and then provide a timeline for request approval: “The form will be reviewed within 10 business days.” If the policy is designed to be student-facing, who reviews the form is not particularly important. If it is simple to indicate the subject (e.g., “The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs will review the form within 10 business days”), that is probably best practice to promote accountability. However, the form may not have a single, definable reviewer. A student reading the policy will be more burdened by an explanation of all the potential reviewers than by the processing load of not being able to find a subject for the sentence. Only by understanding why “eliminate passive voice” is a rule can a policy writer be equipped to compare the difficulty introduced by passive voice to the difficulty introduced by avoiding it.

This sensitivity to how artificial rules for writing can contradict natural human language use is why a linguistic background is highly valuable in a policy environment. Policy review guidelines, like UNC-Chapel Hill’s, are a useful starting point, but policy writers will inevitably encounter situations where the rules become cumbersome. In these cases, understanding the cognitive basis for writing recommendations is essential to making the best policy language decisions.

References

Agmon, G., Loewenstein, Y., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2022). Negative sentences exhibit a sustained effect in delayed verification tasks. In Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (Vol. 48, pp. 122–141). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001059

Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics. (2003). Guidelines for inclusive language. Linguistic Society of America. https://www.lsadc.org/guidelines_for_inclusive_language

Kricheli-Katz, T., & Regev, T. (2021). The effect of language on performance: do gendered languages fail women in maths? Npj Science of Learning, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00087-7

Nordmeyer, A.E., & Frank, M.C. (2014). A pragmatic account of the processing of negative sentences. Cognitive Science, 36. https://langcog.stanford.edu/papers/NF-cogsci2014.pdf

Orenes, I. (2021). "Looking at" Negation: Faster Processing for Symbolic Rather Than Iconic Representations. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 50(6), 1417–1436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09797-w

Tavits, M., & Pérez, E. O. (2019). Language influences mass opinion toward gender and LGBT equality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16781–16786. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908156116