When Words Start Wars: Why Even “Everyone is Welcome” Sparks Controversy

In March of 2025, an Idaho school told a middle school teacher to take down her “Everyone is Welcome Here” poster, leading to outrage. 

In 2021, a Minnesota school district banned “All Lives Matter” signs, which also incited backlash. 

These are clearly different slogans, with different reasons and contexts. But they do have something in common. On the surface, they may be simple, positive, and seemingly unobjectionable sentiments. But, in both cases, these slogans have been politicized; they’ve become associated with specific beliefs and political causes. 

In the Idaho case, the school’s decision was based on the view that the “Everyone is Welcome Here” sign was political and, therefore, controversial. The teacher, on the other hand, saw it as a basic moral message, saying, “There are only two views of this poster: either you think everyone is welcome here or you don’t.” 

But some would see it as a political statement. Some would see it as a statement expressing opposition to Republicans, who, the thinking goes, don’t believe everyone is welcome here and are intolerant of people not like them. Because of our political divides, the slogan, however unobjectionable it may be on the surface, is perceived by many as a politically partisan statement. 

Our polarization means we’ll often be filtering for offense. We’ll interpret our opponents’ slogans in pessimistic ways. And we’ll also be pessimistic in how we view their objections to our words.

We want to pause here and point out a couple things. For one thing: we’re not defending or criticizing the school’s decision to ban the sign. We’re only examining the reasons why some would see the sign as being political and controversial.

We also want to emphasize that this was one incident in a country of 340 million people. As far as we know, there isn’t another case of a school board banning this slogan. The emotional nature of our divides can lead us to filter for threats and insults from our “enemies.” This can put us at risk of overreacting to what are relatively rare and unrepresentative events in a very large country. 

Let’s look at the “All Lives Matter” slogan. On the surface, this is also a simple, seemingly unobjectionable slogan. It’s possible to even imagine it being a progressive rallying cry in a different context and time. But it came to prominence in 2020 as a way to express opposition to the “Black Lives Matter” slogan and movement. 

Some liberals considered the use of “All Lives Matter” to be racist. Some saw it as problematic and offensive in failing to give proper respect to the intent of the “Black Lives Matter” cause. But, similar to the “Everyone Is Welcome Here” slogan, we should be willing to see that some used this slogan as a shorthand way of expressing their stances and frustrations. Some may have used it as a way to communicate disagreement with the stance that killings by police in America are significantly associated with race or racism. Others may have used it as a way to communicate frustration with what they saw as divisive behaviors on the part of BLM activists. 

Again, we want to emphasize that our goal is not to defend or criticize this slogan (or any slogan). And our goal is not to say the two slogans we’ve examined here are equivalent. And our goal is not to say there are no valid reasons to criticize this slogan (or any slogan). We’re only seeking to understand what motivates people’s use of these slogans, and their objections to them. Seeing how slogans can be shorthand ways to say “I’m on this side of this debate” can help us engage in more constructive ways with each other. 

In a polarized country like ours, all sorts of language has become associated with our divides. We’re surrounded by many words and phrases that act as landmines and tripwires. In Isaac Saul’s TED Talk on language and polarization, he discusses the phrases “illegal alien” and “undocumented immigrant” and their political associations. For some people, hearing someone use one of those phrases will be enough for them to assume that person is on “the other side.” Our language becomes increasingly polarized and polarizing, driving us further apart. We find it harder and harder to understand each other. 

As Isaac Saul said in his TED Talk, if we want to try to speak to people outside of our political tribes, that requires “that we all listen more neutrally.” He said:

A lot of the time, a person you’re speaking with will use a phrase intended to signal their membership to a political tribe, but that doesn’t always mean the other person intended to pick a fight. You can make the decision not to take offense by someone’s tribal language choices, and rather hear their intended meaning.

The slogans we embrace or judge often reflect the stories we tell ourselves about the world. We may not agree on which stories are most true — but if we want a more empathetic, less toxic politics, we can start by trying to hear what others mean, not just what our initial reactions and assumptions tell us they mean. 

So we’ll leave you with this question: What other words or phrases have you seen turn into political landmines — language that might seem positive or harmless in different contexts, but that now sparks conflict? Send us a message and let us know.

Join the Builders Movement! buildersmovement.org/invite