Yes. And/But, (to offer an unsolicited, unpopular opinion on the cultural politics of jargon):

I find that "academic jargon" is often easier for English Second Language speakers because it doesn't have cultural references baked into it. (1/n) https://twitter.com/cmMcConnaughy/status/1260533835793563648

The expressions that students find "simple" and "clear" are the ones that relate to everyday experiences - but a particular culturally embedded everyday experience that they can relate to. These expressions don't need defining because they are "common sense." (2/n)

Not so much for international students (myself included). (3/n)

The same is true for academic tribes. Writing in term of "IVs" and "DVs" makes "good writing" for some kinds of audiences, but not others. Likewise for evoking Foucault. (4/n)

While we should get rid of unnecessary jargon, at the same time:

Writing is never deemed "good" or "simple" from some objective perspective. Writing is always for some audience. When we can successfully communicate to that audience, it gets qualified as "good writing." (5/n)

Suggesting that writing can be objectively "good" implicitly assumes who one's target audience ought to be. Often, this endorses certain privileged audiences while excluding others. (6/n)

I wish we could write in a way that cuts across audiences. However, I suspect all writing will be exclusionary. The question is: whom does it exclude. (7/n)

A different point: I suspect alot of "academic jargon" acts as (costly) signals of one's allegiance to one's academic tribe. I imagine alot of non-academic writing also employs such signalling (e.g. how American references signals one's Americanness). (8/n)

If so, a plea for simplicity will not get rid of the desire to signal one's identity through various jargon. (9/n)

That said, I cannot tell you how many times professors have stopped to unpack quirky American expressions for the international students in class. (fin)