Was there any evidence that the acronyms were a major cause of people not accessing the programs? Did anyone reach out and ask one of these people from "certain

Was there any evidence that the acronyms were a major cause of people not accessing the programs? Did anyone reach out and ask one of these people from "certain communities" about why they weren't making use of the programs? Did anyone actually look at the people using the program and verify that the "certain communities" were even underrepresented to begin with? Did anyone compare the makeup of people in the program after the name change to see if it increased representation? Or maybe people just took a preconceived notion like "people who clean toilets for a living are probably too dumb to look up what an acronym means" and then made a pointless change that affected nothing and patted themselves on the back for how nice and progressive they are. I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that if you're working (probably multiple) low wage jobs to support your kids, your biggest hurdle to getting them into an Arts program is probably not that it has a confusing acronym. I agree that referring to something by an acronym and never explaining what it refers to is bad communication. That's why it is a common practice (and basic common sense) to spell out the acronym the first time it's used in a document. If the website for your organization refers to the name by an acronym only and never says what the full name is, that is a terribly designed website and you should fire whoever wrote it. That is the sort of thing you do when you care about communicating clearly. Changing the names of things every 5 minutes as you denounce the previous name as horribly offensive is not about communicating clearly. It's about moral posturing and virtue signalling.