[1] The term and related behaviors are controversial, with critics alleging that allyship is an ideological, performative, and insincere notion that may ignore prior concepts of tolerance and solidarity.
[6] Some advocates of allyship may define it in routes of activism, such as changing to more inclusive use of language,[7] removing bias from hiring and promotion processes,[8] and combating perceived forms of prejudice against disadvantaged groups.
[11] To produce genuine allyship, some proponents consider impromptu speaking as a key skill to operate on authenticity in everyday words and reactions.
[citation needed] This lack of acceptance has resulted from the broader controversy surrounding the rhetoric and tactics of 21st-century social justice activism,[3] as well as more specifically, the unclear and artificially-constructed difference in meaning between allyship and the far more common term alliance, which has clear cognates in other languages (e.g., the Spanish "alianza").
These opponents usually state that identity-based rhetoric is divisive and retributive, and without regard for individuals' character or the race-neutral notion of friendship.
[18] According to recent polls, U.S. public opinion towards critical race theory and associated social justice movements is largely negative and declining.