Contemporary events, including the recent Presidential campaign, have demonstrated the symbolic and political significance of language in our society and culture. Language is a primary tool for "naming the world" and defining our desires roles - as subjects and ojects - in the environments we inhabit. Yet, as often as language is a means of definition and clarification, it can also be used -- intentionally or not -- as a device to conceal, confuse, obscure, and deceive. Authors as diverse as Shakespeare, Langston Hughes, George Orwell, and David Mamet have illustrated how language can be twisted in cynical and unscrupulous ways to serve the ends of the powerful. In the field of social welfare, for example, words like "welfare" and "dependency" have been reinterpreted to maintain stigma and to rationalize the preservation of oppressive institutions. Politicians have corrupted the concept of "empowerment" to pursue goals diametrically opposed to its original purposes; corporations have even used the word to sell their products. Today, attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives deflect attention from the structural sources of societal injustice and oppression. Unfortunately, despite our best intentions, this tendency to obfuscate the meaning of words also afflicts the social work profession. The pursuit of social justice is an ethical imperative for our practice. In our teaching, we require students to demonstrate this value in their practice and assess their competency in achieving this idealistic objective. Many social work programs, like the universities in which they are housed, have established DEI offices, and mandated the infusion of DEI concepts into their curricula, hiring processes, and internal decision-making. Yet, a lack of clarity in the definition of these critical concepts and their implications for our teaching, practice, and research has made the profession vulnerable to right-wing attacks on their underlying values and goals. It has also produced criticism from external bodies, such as advisory boards and regents, raised issues among some legal scholars, and exacerbated intra-organizational tensions among faculty, students, alumni, and staff of schools of social work. This article explores how leading schools of social work have interpreted these concepts through an examination of their statements of principles and interviews with faculty and administrators responsible for their implementation. It critiques the various ways programs have defined and implemented DEI and identifies the challenges involved in interpreting these critical concepts in the classroom. These critiques do not imply disagreement with the numerous worthy goals underlying DEI efforts, nor does the article provide, due to space limitations, an in-depth discussion of the validity of DEI initiatives' foundational premises. It does, however, conclude with some suggestions for faculty who are tasked with applying DEI tenets in their courses in an increasingly contentious environment.