Debate contribution: Inclusive Language Guide: Civil Service
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 5 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Inclusive Language Guide: Civil Service
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4631839
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The development and publication of the inclusive language guide was a commitment in the 2024-25 Civil Service diversity action plan. It is part of our wide-ranging work on equality, diversity and inclusion. It was developed to promote understanding of the important role that language plays in creating an inclusive workplace. It aims to empower civil servants to consider how the language that they use can impact on others and the potential that it has to make somebody feel uncomfortable, isolated, unwelcome or excluded. I take issue with the Member's comments on titles. Some women do not like to be defined by their marital status. That is just a matter of fact.
111 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.09 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.11 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.22 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.55 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.69 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.22 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.09 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:30 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.