Promoting Inclusion: A Review of Inclusive Language Guidelines from Government Departments and Educational Institutions
Introduction
In Australia, and internationally, the use of gendered language in written texts and documents has been brought into focus over the past decade as the way society views sex and gender are rapidly changing. Since the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act (Cth) 1984 (Pine et al. 55), discrimination based on race or sex has been banned within Australia, yet gendered language is still present in many professional contexts and informal methods of communication (Shariatmadari; Kleinman; Charlesworth et al. 149). The Sex Discrimination Act (Cth) made it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, intersex status, marital or relationship status, potential pregnancy, breastfeeding, or family responsibilities (Federal Register of Legislation). Similarly, the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) prohibits anyone within Australia from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin (Federal Register of Legislation). In 2004, the Age Discrimination Act (Cth) was introduced, making it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of age (Federal Register of Legislation). Although all of these provide comprehensive legislation to prevent anyone from discriminating against another person or group of people, none of these acts contain specific reference to avoiding discrimination in language.
The only direct reference to any form of discrimination conducted through writing or language is in Section 28A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), which claims that conduct of a sexual nature can include “making a statement of a sexual nature to a person, or in the presence of a person, whether the statement is made orally or in writing” (Federal Register of Legislation). It would seem that none of the Acts provide specific guidance for how to avoid discrimination through language. Given the increasingly important need for equality, improving the way that language represents minority groups is an important step in preventing further discrimination (Sczensy et al. 943). The aim of this study is to analyse how the need to use inclusive language is communicated through various organisations and institutions, and how pervasive and cohesive the approaches to inclusive language are. Focusing on guidelines and policies from prominent organisations and institutions from around Australia, this study will use various case studies to explore the similarities and differences between several inclusive language guidelines to understand what these guidelines reveal about the approaches to inclusive language in Australia.
Inclusive, gender-neutral, non-discriminatory, or gender-fair language is free from prejudiced or discriminatory words and phrases (Petelin). The term “inclusive language” will be used throughout this study as it encompasses all the terminology mentioned above. The term “non-discriminatory” will be used occasionally in reference to language that specifically focuses on avoiding discrimination. “Gendered language” will be used to describe language that is discriminatory, sexist, or specifically favours one sex over the other. The aim of inclusive language is to reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination in various forms of writing, as well as in oral communication (Sczensy et al. 1). The push for more inclusive language began in the 1970s when feminists claimed that the English language was filled with masculine terminology that discriminated against women or rendered them invisible (Fowler and Burchfield 705). Although feminism had a strong influence on the introduction of inclusive language, there was still a great deal of resistance to its introduction, because many people believed it wasn’t important enough for them to consider (Golden). Eventually, the desire for equality managed to ensure that inclusive language became a more common element in professional writing (Fowler and Burchfield 705).
One of the first official inclusive language guidelines was published in 1974 by the McGraw-Hill Book Company, outlining several ways by which writers and editors could ensure that women were not purposefully discriminated against or left out in favour of males (Golden). More companies followed in their wake several years later, with a new edition of the UPI Stylebook released in 1986 to include guidelines on dealing with inclusive language (Cline and Masel-Walters 26). It even reached a national and international scale when the Style Manual of the Commonwealth of Australia included a chapter on avoiding sexist language in 1988, followed by the Church of England’s decision to remove the word “man” from the liturgy and replace it with “one” in 1989 (Fowler and Burchfield 705). Even today, as language continues to develop and adjust to the growth of humanity, guidelines are constantly being updated to meet the needs of the social and cultural developments. In 2017, the Chicago Manual of Style finally accepted the use of “they” as a singular pronoun, setting a precedent for style guides around the world (Golden). Although these developments were significant, there is still a need for considerable change to remove discrimination from writing.
There are two main approaches to non-discriminatory language that differ significantly in relation to the terminology used. The first approach is gender-free language, referred to in this study as “inclusive language”, which involves avoiding specific references to gender, instead opting for inclusive terminology (Ayim 2). For example, using “they” as a singular pronoun, or simply referring to the occupational title rather than the gender of the person, such as doctor. The second approach is gender-specific language, referred to in this study as “gendered language”, and is achieved by specifically using feminine forms as well as masculine forms (Sczensy et al. 3). For example, using the phrase “he and she” or stating that doctors are male and female, instead of just male. Ayim suggests that gendered language is actually more inclusive than the gender-free approach to language because neutral terminology such as “person” or “individual” are still aligned with masculinity rather than neutrality when used in relation to a large group of people (Ayim 2). Instead, she believes that women need to be included more in communication, even going so far as to say that instead of using the now more commonly recognised term “family violence”, the term “wife abuse” should be used as an alternative (Ayim 6). However, while this may help to ensure that the gender of those impacted is not lost through inclusive language, it also excludes other victims, such as male victims of family violence. This defeats the purpose of inclusive language, which is to reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination (Sczensy et al. 1). This suggests that the gender-free approach to inclusive language is perhaps more acceptable, because it aims at neutralising the language and removing any specific gender references, rather than attempting to include more gendered language. Given that all of the guidelines analysed used this approach, it would appear that it is the primary strategy used to explain inclusive language.
Gendered language itself is not problematic, yet when it is used in a non-inclusive or discriminatory way, it can be. When people use gendered language, they are reinforcing stereotypes about men, and particularly women, that encourage discrimination (Menegatti and Rubini 5). This is particularly important given that sex and gender are two separate terms. Whereas sex refers to the biological, or genetic, characteristics that a person is born with, gender is a person’s social identity, often reflected in their social behaviour, their appearance, and their mannerisms (Australian Government 4). These behaviours are commonly expected to match the person’s biological sex, and when it does not, people are often discriminated against based on their sex. There is evidence that suggests gendered language is linked to sexist beliefs and attitudes, which makes it an even more important issue to tackle (Sczensy et al. 943). Sexism, which is classified as stereotyping or discriminating on the basis of sex, can be experienced in many ways. The two main forms of sexism include hostile and benevolent. Hostile sexism involves the individual being objectified and degraded, and most commonly occurs to women as an aggressive response to the fear that women challenge traditional gender roles that identify men as the superior sex (Hubby). Benevolent sexism is less obvious, and generally is delivered in a positive disguise, such as offering to perform a task for an individual because it is believed that someone of their sex is not as competent at performing that task, which can be just as harmful as hostile sexism (Hubby).
Gendered language is not always obviously sexist or discriminatory, yet it can still have a negative impact on readers. The most common examples of gendered language that discriminate are generic masculine pronouns and gendered profession titles. The use of masculine pronouns such as he, him, and his were standard in most documents for a long time, and it is only recently that alternatives have been introduced to ensure that both sexes are represented. Now using “he/she”, or the singular pronoun “they” is recommended for inclusivity. Gendered profession titles are also no longer acceptable as they suggest that only males, or only females, can hold those roles (Pine et al. 60). Instead, it is recommended that many of these titles should be adjusted to be more inclusive. For example, policeman becomes police officer, fireman becomes fire fighter, foreman becomes supervisor, and air hostess becomes flight attendant (Pine et al. 60). Hansen (2) believes that when inclusive language is used instead of gendered language, it highlights that many women hold positions that were traditionally held by men, and that roles such as flight attendants are also performed by men, not just women.
In the Plain English Manual published by the Australian Government, there is section discussing constructing sentences in which they use the example “…a person (other than a policeman)” (14). Even though this is a government document created in 2013, it still contains obvious examples of gendered language. Although the use of gendered language may not always be intentional, it is still common in professional documents. According to the Australian Government, and the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 (Cth), it is unlawful to discriminate against someone on the grounds of gender or physical capabilities (Federal Register of Legislation). Similarly, the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 was developed to prevent unnecessary discrimination against people based on what they look like or where they come from (Pine et al. 55). Despite legislative protection, many Australians still experience prejudice and unfair treatment because of their race or sex (Australian Human Rights Commission). Although these acts enforce the requirement to avoid discrimination, there are still no legal consequences for discriminating through the use of gendered language. It may not intentionally be discriminatory, but gendered language generally favours masculine terminology and excludes women, which means that women often end up feeling alienated. People do not want to feel excluded, which is why it is necessary to alter the way society uses language to ensure that terminology used is inclusive and non-discriminatory.
The issue that arises when contemplating how to create policy or legislation that enforces using inclusive language is the right to freedom of speech, which is a right that every Australian has. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds” (Australian Human Rights Commission). Although it does claim that exercising these rights does have certain restrictions, such as the respect for the rights or reputation of other individuals, and for the protection of national security, it appears that there is no way of preventing people from expressing their opinions in an informal capacity, even if they are sexist or discriminatory. However, the Australian Human Rights Commission also identifies that the Australian Constitution does not “explicitly protect freedom of expression” (Australian Human Rights Commission), which means that individuals could face legal ramifications for the use of discriminatory language. This is particularly relevant for the use of gendered language in the workplace and other institutions, where people are more likely to be held responsible for their actions. This is emphasised in the Australian Government’s Style Manual for authors, editors and printers (Style Manual), which points out that “there is no place in public documents for uninformed, prejudiced or merely insensitive references of this type” (Pine et al. 55). So, while individuals have the right to express their own opinions and beliefs, if they do so in public documents or other public forms of communication, there could be legal ramifications.
Methodology
This project will involve analysing seven guidelines from a variety of organisations and institutions around Australia, all of which are publicly available online. These organisations include the University of Western Australia, the Victorian Government, the University of Queensland, the Tasmania Department of Education, the University of Newcastle, the University of South Australia, and the Queensland Government. The details of each guideline are noted in Appendix One. These organisations and institutions were chosen because as educating and governing bodies, they represent powerful social influencers in our culture, and because they have large cohorts of employees, clients, and students, they should have guidelines in place. They also rely on funding from State or Commonwealth agencies, which means that they are funded by the Australian public, and as such it would be reasonable to expect these organisations to demonstrate best-practice with regards to leading the way in issues such as non-discriminatory practices. The guidelines taken from these organisations will be checked for several important inclusions. They will be scrutinised based on the depth of information provided, the length of the guidelines, whether they provide examples of how to use inclusive language, whether any reference is made to discrimination and if they plan to enforce these guidelines, and if they explain what exactly inclusive language is and why it is important.
Since some of these guidelines are quite long, they will each be analysed separately before combining the data collected to compare them together. This will be done through a thorough analysis of each guideline, assessing the quality based on the criteria mentioned above. These qualities will be presented in a table for each guideline using marked boxes to indicate whether each guideline includes specific examples. This list of examples was chosen based on the type of information and examples that arose most frequently across the different guidelines, as well as several that were not as frequent but were important inclusions for specific issues relating to inclusive language. These examples include: reference to title, rank, or status; the use of patronising expressions; the use of personal pronouns; the use sex role stereotypes; the use of gender descriptions; the use of occupational descriptions; varying the word order; language use for minority groups; naming conventions for Aboriginal or Indigenous people; and references to age. The other aspects considered when analysing these guidelines include basic information such as the terminology used, when they were last updated and whether definitions were provided, as this provides indirect support for the strength of the organisation’s investment in such guidelines. These analyses also looked at whether the guidelines referenced using inclusive language for Indigenous Australians, and the target audience of the guidelines. These aspects were considered based on the Style Manual’s recommendations for the use of inclusive language guidelines as the only formal document published on such requirements by the Australian Government.
Findings
There were many similarities between these inclusive language guidelines, yet some were still more thorough and comprehensive than others. Each guideline has been analysed in the following section based on the criteria previously outlined. These guidelines were sorted and categorised to make it easier to understand which guideline is being referred to when there are multiple being referenced at once. Although there are many different versions of inclusive language guidelines used by various organisations and educational institutions, there is no standard format, which makes it difficult to ensure consistency across the country in terms of inclusive language.
University of Western Australia
Two separate guides on the use of inclusive language are available from the University of Western Australia (UWA); one clearly linked to policy, and the second as a PDF document accessible via an online search. This review focuses primarily on the first. An overview of the details provided in this guideline can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Guideline A — Guidelines on the use of non-discriminatory language
The University of Western Australia has made a succinct and practical guide to using inclusive language. However, Guideline A does not provide a detailed description of what inclusive language is, nor why it is important, which means that readers may not take it seriously or may not understand why it is necessary. Although it provides a brief statement claiming that the purpose of the guideline is so that people can use “language that avoids expressions offensive to some groups in society” (University of Western Australia), this does not fully explain what inclusive language is compared to gendered language. It is also not clear whether it is intended for the use of the staff, the students, or both, which leaves room for confusion, especially if students are expected to comply with the guidelines in their assessment. The overall quality of Guideline A is reasonably low because it does not provide in-depth information regarding inclusive language and the importance of avoiding gendered terminology.
Victorian Government
The guidelines created by the Victorian Government provide a thorough explanation of inclusive language, focusing more on providing a broader understanding of gender terminology rather than how to use inclusive language in writing. An overview of the included content is provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Guideline B — Inclusive Language Guide
This guideline was updated two years ago in 2016, which means that although it is still relevant, it may not be providing the advice that is consistent with current government and nationwide changes to terminology. Similarly to Guideline A, there are no references to legal ramifications or mentions of discrimination laws in this guideline. This means that the readers may not understand the importance of using inclusive language to avoid discrimination in the workplace. Overall, Guideline B is a comprehensive introduction to inclusive language, although it focuses more on gender terminology that providing examples of how to use inclusive language.
University of Queensland
The third guideline is one created by the University of Queensland, with a significant portion of the guideline dedicated to explaining what inclusive language is and why it is important. There were two different guidelines provided by the University of Queensland. The first is a guide regarding inclusive language, while the second is a policy focusing on the prevention of discrimination and harassment. This analysis will focus on the first, and an overview can be seen below in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of Guideline C — Inclusive UQ Guide to Using Inclusive Language
The University of Queensland has chosen a broad focus for Guideline C, addressing language in conversation as well as in writing and in the preparation of teaching or professional development materials, and a significant percentage is dedicated to explaining what inclusive language is and why it is important. There is no date listed on this guideline, so it is not possible to determine its accuracy. However, Guideline C provides several examples of how to use inclusive language that contain useful advice, which means that the information is still relevant. Although this guideline focuses more on the general principles of inclusive language, there are also recommendations for how to avoid gendered language in writing. Guideline C makes no reference to discrimination laws within Australia but does provide a link to the UQ Prevention of discrimination and harassment policy, which in turn does refer to harassment and bullying as including offensive language. This guideline does offer assistance for anyone who wishes to consult with a Discrimination and Harassment Contact Officer or other support staff, which is a useful inclusion given the diversity of the student and staff population within a university. A detailed yet succinct guideline to inclusive language, Guideline C provides several useful examples while also highlighting the importance of avoiding gendered language.
Tasmania Department of Education
The guideline produced by the Tasmania Department of Education includes all the important information necessary when discussing inclusive language. An overview of the analysis is covered in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Summary of Guideline D — Guidelines for Inclusive Language
Focusing primarily on the use of inclusive language in writing, Guideline D contains a detailed explanation of what inclusive language is and why the Tasmanian Department of Education has chosen to highlight the issue, stating that “communication is less effective if inaccurate, irrelevant or exclusive language is used” (Department of Education 3). This guideline provides information relating to several different aspects of discrimination, including age, disability, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, culture, and race. It also emphasises the importance of avoiding gendered language whenever possible, because “developing inclusive societies is embodied in a number of international, national and state laws relating to equal opportunity and anti-discrimination” (Department of Education 2). Guideline D also provides examples of how to apply inclusive language to these specific areas by comparing gendered language to inclusive alternatives. This guideline, last updated in 2015, is still relevant and provides the readers with useful advice regarding inclusive language. It provides an in-depth look at inclusive and gendered language, highlighting how to avoid discrimination and ensure that nobody is discriminated against because of their characteristics.
University of Newcastle
In 2006 the University of Newcastle created their inclusive language guidelines “to assist members of the University to use non-discriminatory language” (University of Newcastle). Since then it has been updated several times, the most recent being in 2014, and has remained relevant and insightful for the staff and students at the university. More details can be seen below in Table 5.
Table 5: Summary of Guideline E — Inclusive Language Guideline
Guideline E focuses mostly on inclusive language in writing, providing several examples of how to use inclusive language in different situations. It also provides the readers with a comprehensive understanding of why inclusive language is important, especially given that “Language is a major vehicle for the expression of prejudice or discrimination”. One important inclusion they do make is the mention of Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation, stating that it is unlawful to discriminate in Australia on the grounds of “race, colour, national or ethnic origin, sex, and disability” (University of Newcastle). This is important to include as it emphasises the necessity of inclusive language, not only so that people are not excluded, but so that any unnecessary discrimination is removed. This guideline is structured in the format of a more traditional guideline, rather than a document designed to appeal to its audience, so it less visually appealing than the others reviewed, but the structure and references to other policies indicates a more formal tone and more serious intent. Although this guideline is not necessarily appealing to the eye, it includes all the important information and provides a comprehensive guide to using inclusive language in writing.
University of South Australia
Separated into several smaller sections, the University of South Australia’s guideline still provides important information and uses relevant terminology. An overview of the guideline is provided in Table 6.
Table 6: Summary of Guideline F — Inclusive Language
This guideline focuses on providing useful information regarding gendered and inclusive language for a variety of different contexts. Although Guideline F was based on a book written in 1998, the content is still relevant and uses new terminology. It provides examples of how to use inclusive language in writing as well as discussing the reasons why inclusive language is important. This guideline provides links to several smaller guidelines within this one, separating the issues out onto their own pages. It also provides useful links to other university policies and to Australian legislation regarding discrimination. This is a comprehensive guideline that provides a thorough understanding of inclusive language.
Queensland Government
The style guide created by the Queensland Government is a long document, detailing everything from jargon and nominalisations to inclusive language. While there is only one section on inclusive language, it provides several useful examples for how to avoid different types of discrimination and was updated in 2016, ensuring that the content is still relevant. Further details are provided in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Summary of Guideline G — Web and writing style guide
Guideline G provides a brief explanation of inclusive language, focusing on how it relates to written communication, then divides the rest of the information into tables to display which terms to avoid and which to use. In part, this may be because it is not a guide entirely focused on inclusive language, and they recommend reading the Style manual for authors, editors and printers for a more thorough guide to inclusive language. Despite the length of this document, there is a very small percentage dedicated to inclusive language, even though it is an important issue and necessary in avoiding discrimination in language. It is clear that Guideline G provides useful information for language in general, particularly for use on the internet, but it is lacking in terms of content on inclusive language.
Discussion
This study demonstrates that although the guidelines reviewed share common themes, there is limited consistency and cohesion in the information they provide or in the way they provide that information. Although this does not mean that all guidelines should be identical, consistency is important as it allows people to develop routines and for certain behaviours to become habitual (Mackay). If people consistently use inclusive language rather than gendered language, it will eventually become more common to see the former than the latter. However, for this to become more common there needs to be a more consistent approach to the way inclusive language is presented in guidelines in different organisations and institutions. The guidelines reviewed have been sourced from some of the most prominent educational and government institutions in Australia. It would be logical to assume that in keeping with the reputation of these leading educational or public institutions, and their need to be accountable to Australians who provide much of their funding, they would take seriously their responsibility to provide their staff, and students in some contexts, comprehensive guidelines for using inclusive language. However, the variability of the advice provided highlights the need for more consistency across the nation between different governments, organisations, and institutions. Given the disparity between the guidelines it is a necessary improvement to make.
After analysing the seven guidelines, it appears that there are several common elements that the different organisations and institutions all adhere to. Aside from one or two of the guidelines, the overall theme amongst the different guidelines is to provide readers with an introduction to inclusive language, accompanied by several examples of how to use inclusive language or how to avoid gendered language. The issues covered within these examples vary between the different guidelines, with some covering topics that other did not. For example, the only guidelines that do not cover the use of title or rank are Guidelines B and D. While this issue was not raised within the Style Manual, the majority of guidelines did include it, which suggests the majority of organisations considered it to be an important topic to cover (Pine et al. 59). The length also varies significantly between the different guidelines, with Guideline G the longest with 22,892 words, and Guideline A the shortest with 791 words. Although length does not necessarily guarantee that the guideline will cover all of the necessary information, it is important to create a guideline that has sufficient information to ensure there is no room for confusion or misinterpretation, especially since language can be used to discriminate against others.
The depth of information provided varies between the different documents, regardless of the length, with some covering broader topics than others. While at first glance Guideline F appears to be quite short, it contains links to other pages that cover the necessary information. It provides several examples for important issues and is easy to read and understand, making it a useful resource for the university to have. The longest document, Guideline G, contains the least amount of information specific to inclusive language, and does not cover all the necessary examples, excluding several important topics, such as patronising expressions, varying the word order, and language use for minority groups. Guideline B is also lacking in depth, because it does not cover five of the listed examples. While providing information regarding these topics does not necessarily ensure that the quality of the guideline, it is important to cover as many topics as possible so that the readers are aware of the variety of ways in which language can discriminate. The main topics that were excluded from the guidelines were references to age and varying the word order. Discussing naming conventions for Aboriginal people was also left out of two of the guidelines, which means they are lacking important terminology for avoiding racial discrimination. Guidelines B and F also provide definitions of important terms, which is necessary for consistency of understanding. These definitions include terminology such as intersex, transsexual, bisexual, and cisgender, which are all important terms to use to avoid discrimination towards someone based on their sexuality or gender. Although it is not necessary to include these definitions, it adds to the depth of information provided, and creates a more comprehensive and useful guideline. By omitting these definitions, the other organisations and institutions risk their staff or students not understanding the distinctions between terminology, which could lead to unintentional discrimination.
According to Sczensy et al. (943), over the past decade there has been a shift in the use of gendered language. While it is now more common to see the singular pronoun “they” in writing than “he/she”, it is necessary for organisations and institutions to ensure their staff and students understand the importance of using the correct terminology. Of all the guidelines, Guidelines B and G include the least number of examples on gender, sex, and sexuality. More specifically, Guideline B fails to provide examples of occupational descriptions, varying the word order, and descriptions of title, rank, or status. For an organisation such as the Victorian Government, it should be particularly important to provide examples of how to use occupational descriptions that are inclusive, as this could directly affect many of their staff members, and potentially areas such as role descriptions or recruitment practices. Guideline G omits examples regarding patronising expressions and varying the word order. Similarly, for an organisation as large as the Queensland Government, ensuring their staff understand the importance of avoiding discrimination by not using patronising expressions should be a priority. The other guidelines all provide several examples of inappropriate language and alternatives, to ensure that readers are fully equipped with the necessary tools to avoid gendered language. This indicates a lack of effort on behalf of the institutions that created Guidelines B and G, especially since these guidelines in particular were created by government bodies. Governments should be at the forefront of promoting equality and inclusivity, yet these guidelines suggest otherwise. It seems that sexist attitudes are still present within professional environments, as clearly these institutions have prioritised other issues over discussing gendered language relating to sex.
There is also disparity between how the different guidelines referred to consequences for not using the guidelines. Although they are guidelines and therefore are not compulsory to comply with, it is important to adhere to the guides as much as possible to avoid discrimination in writing or other forms of communication. While some of the organisations make this clear, others do not. Guidelines D, E, F, and G all provide information regarding the legal consequences in Australia for discriminating against other, referring to the relevant legislation and in some cases, linking the discrimination acts for the convenience of the readers. Three of the guidelines make no reference at all to legislation and fail to link the importance of the guide to the broader ethical or legislative context. What these omissions suggest about these organisations and institutions is that although they publicly acknowledge that inclusive language is an important issue, clearly it is not their priority to enforce these guidelines or ensure that all their staff or students understand why it is necessary to avoid gendered language. It is important to clarify for the intended audience that discrimination is unlawful within Australia and could have serious consequences for the perpetrator. Given that the Style Manual has included references to the different legislation, it should be included in all other guidelines, because linguistic discrimination is an important issue that can “marginalise or exclude particular segments of the population” (Pine et al. 55).
Australia has a very diverse and rich culture. As a multicultural nation, the population is made up of a diverse range of ethnicities and cultures from all over the globe. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, around 67 per cent of the Australian population were born in Australia, leaving a significant portion as migrants or immigrants (Australian Bureau of Statistics). Given that Australia’s cultural diversity is one of its greatest strengths, it is surprising that many Australians still face discrimination and prejudice based on how they look or where they originated (Australian Human Rights Commission). Around 86 per cent of Australians support action against racism, yet many Australians still face racism on a regular basis (Australian Human Rights Commission). In a culturally and linguistically diverse environment like Australia, inclusive language can be a useful tool for ensuring that everyone feels welcome. In 1975, the Racial Discrimination Act was created to make acts of discrimination against the law, which was then followed by the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act in 1986, and the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 (Pine et al. 55). While these Acts, in addition to other state-based ones, provide important legislation, they do not include details for the use of inclusive language to avoid discrimination through written or verbal communication. Traditionally, many Acts are supported by Codes of Practice that include specifics on how individuals might comply with legislation. For example, Safe Work Australia provides a range of Model Codes of Practice that provide occupation-specific guidance on how to comply with workplace health and safety legislation (Safe Work Australia 2016). A model code of practice for inclusive language might fill the void in consistent and cohesive guidance on the use of non-discriminatory language for organisations seeking to comply with legislation and build inclusive workplaces.
Inclusive language guidelines are extremely important for promoting the use of non-discriminatory language and encouraging social change. Gender inequality is still an issue in many countries, and particularly in countries that still favour masculine forms over gender-neutral ones (Horvath et al. 1). The use of gendered language is still so pervasive that it is now being considered an act of subtle sexism (Sczensy et al. 6). However, given how easy it is to implement or adopt more neutral terminology, it is important to encourage people to do so wherever possible. Writing can easily be adapted to express a variety of different values, especially because inclusive terminology is already available, so it is up to individuals and society as a whole to adopt the new practices rather than continuing to use gendered language. The way society views the issue is particularly important in this case given that the use of gendered language has been associated with sexist beliefs (Sczensy et al. 6). If people continue to hold these beliefs it will be more difficult to implement social change.
So far, inclusive language has been promoted primarily through public domains and through the publication of inclusive language guidelines (Winter and Pauwels 19). These guidelines were first introduced in the 1970s in professional domains, and since then have become more common in organisations and institutions (Sczensy et al. 4). They are important tools for teaching employees, staff, and students how to use inclusive language, not only to avoid discriminatory language, but also to ensure clarity and unambiguity in communication. Inclusive language is an essential tool for creating precise, simple communication that does not contain any ambiguity (Kabba 432). It is an important part of plain English, a concept that involves using simple, clear language wherever possible, rather than using jargon or superfluous phrases (Office of Parliamentary Counsel 9). Although some would argue that inclusive language creates unnecessarily verbose writing, it can be adjusted to involve less words rather than more (Office of Parliamentary Counsel 15). The singular pronoun “they” is more commonly accepted now, eradicating the need to use excessively long phrases such as “he/she/it” (Golden). Avoiding gendered language and instead utilising the inclusive language available conforms to the concept of plain English, because it remains simple while still ensuring it does not discriminate against particular people or groups. Inclusive language can be a tool for enhancing clarity, rather than creating ambiguity (Gashabizi 418), which is why inclusive language guidelines have been so important in educating people on how to avoid discrimination when writing and communicating more broadly.
It is evident that there are many cultural complexities in Australia that impact on the need for the use of inclusive language. As a multicultural society, it is important to ensure that everyone feels included and not discriminated against, which sometimes can happen through language. What these seven guidelines highlight is that there are issues related to inclusivity that must be addressed to ensure that discrimination does not occur within the workplace, within universities, or within other institutions. Although these guidelines cover important issues, there are other aspects that also need to be taken into consideration, such as the diverse Australian population and varying range of languages spoken in Australia. Creating these guidelines has been an important step in diminishing the risk of discrimination and ensuring that language is inclusive to all types of people.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Although gendered language has been around for a long time, it is only recently that society has started to realise the potential negative effects such language could be having. Inclusive language terminology has slowly been introduced into everyday forms of communication since the 1970s, adapting as new social advances required new definitions. Particularly in Australia, where the government is committed to inclusiveness, gendered language is no longer considered appropriate in public or professional methods of communication. While it is clear that this is not easy to enforce given that the absence of legislation that clarifies the rules around using inclusive or gendered language, many organisations and institutions are already beginning to create their own guidelines to educate and encourage staff, or students, to understand the need to avoid discrimination and promote inclusivity when writing.
From the guidelines analysed in this project, it is evident that there is no consistency or cohesive approach used by the different organisations and institutions. Each document was presented in a different format and the organisations or institutions chose to include or omit certain topics depending on their deemed importance. The approaches to these guidelines were not cohesive and there is still significant room for improvement to ensure that every individual has the same understanding of inclusive language. While it is not necessarily compulsory for all workplaces and universities to conform to the same format for their inclusive language guidelines, having different rules and prioritising certain topics over others creates confusion and means that new employees may not be able to easily conform to the new standards. This makes it difficult to ensure consistency across the country, and as a result, makes it difficult to create legislation that formalises the use of inclusive language. If the government provided a standard format or style that was required to be used by organisations and educational institutions, it would create a more cohesive approach to using inclusive language. This could be created in the form of a Code of Practice, which set out industry standards of conduct that can relate to an individual business or an industry as a whole (Department of Industry, Innovation and Science). Organisations such as universities or government departments each have similar roles, so they could easily work together to agree to a Code of Practice detailing how to use inclusive language. This also might encourage smaller organisations or private businesses to adopt a similar approach, as it shows initiative and that inclusive language is an important subject that requires attention.
There is also a need for more consistent legislation regarding inclusive and gendered language. Although there are several Acts that cover racial, sexist, and age-related discrimination, none of them include reference for the need to use inclusive language to avoid discrimination. Given the extent to which inclusive language has now spread, it is important to provide people with legislation that will allow them to determine whether they have been discriminated against, or whether the language they use would be considered discriminatory. This is particularly important given the growing rates of diversity in Australia, which means there are now more cultures and more languages to consider when writing information that may be seen by people from a variety of different backgrounds. Although it is difficult to determine how inclusive language would fit with the concept of freedom of speech, there are still laws that could be created to ensure that language is not purposefully gendered or discriminatory if there are alternatives available.
In the future, it would be important to look at conducting further research into other aspects of inclusive language to gain a more thorough understanding of the issue and to find more ways to ensure that it becomes more prominent in organisations and educational institutions around Australia. This would involve researching the effectiveness of current guidelines by examining the extent to which employees within organisations and institutions that provide such guidelines know that they exist and use or are influenced by them. Although they are available publicly and are easy to access, this does not necessarily imply that all employees and students are utilising the resources provided. Because there is currently no legislation in place enforcing the use of inclusive language, this suggests that these guidelines can also not be enforced and may only be suggestions for the staff and students. If further research indicated limited use or application, there may be a need for more rules within organisations and educational institutions to prevent discrimination through the use of gendered language. It would also be important to examine whether there are any systems in place for checking whether the inclusive guidelines are being used, and if they are informing writing practice. This would be necessary to ensure that the guidelines are still useful for staff and students, and to keep the guidelines updated with relevant terminology and useful information. If they are not being used, this would suggest that they are either not accessible enough, too difficult to understand, or that the institutions provide the guidelines but do not truly believe in the principles on which they are based, so that people are simply not interested in using inclusive language. This raises several issues that further research could investigate. Given the lack of consistency between the different guidelines, it may prove useful to analyse whether the format and style used is important in terms of use or application. If certain styles make the guidelines easier to read or understand, this would enable organisations and educational institutions to apply the format to their own documents to ensure their staff and students have access to guidelines that are accessible and simple to understand. There are many different avenues that could be explored to gain a better understanding of the application of inclusive language and how guidelines can assist in this process, all of which would provide useful data that could be used to widen the use of inclusive language and increase the public understanding of the issue so that more people know how important it is to use to prevent discrimination in writing.
The guidelines analysed for this study were collected from a variety of different organisations and educational institutions around Australia and were all publicly available online. They presented a range of different suggestions, covering several important topics and providing useful examples of how to incorporate inclusive language into written and spoken forms of communication. The content and length varied significantly, although the central message was still prominent. Despite the lack of consistent and cohesive approaches to the issue, it is clear that inclusive language is becoming a more pervasive topic, with many workplaces going to great lengths to ensure that their staff understand the importance of the issue. To avoid discrimination in written and oral communication, it is necessary to use inclusive language wherever possible. Because the use of gendered language is somewhat habitual this may take some time, but the more coverage and acceptance it receives, the faster and more effective the process will be. Although some phrases and terminology may seem “clunky” or verbose compared to gendered language, there are generally other alternatives, even though they may not be as commonly accepted yet. The use of the pronoun “they” as a singular pronoun is becoming more widely accepted, and more terminology is sure to follow. Inclusive language guidelines will also help this process because they help to promote and normalise the use of inclusive language and educate people on how to use it effectively in written and spoken communication. If the purpose of these guidelines is to prevent discrimination, then a consistent approach across different organisations and institutions will ensure a consistent interpretation. This will also support cohesion, as larger organisations such as universities and government bodies have a significant influence on public opinion, and they will be able to encourage the public to use inclusive language more effectively if they have a consistent message and a cohesive approach. Although there is currently no consistency amongst the different guidelines analysed in this study, perhaps with further research the use of inclusive language will become more pervasive in organisations and educational institutions, allowing for a more cohesive and consistent approach to the creation of inclusive language guidelines.
Works Cited
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2071.0 — Census of Population and Housing: Reflecting Australia — Stories from the Census, 2016. Australian Government, 2018, www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~
2016~Main%20Features~Cultural%20Diversity%20Data%20Summary~30
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main%20Features~Cultural%20Diversity%20Data%20Summary~3.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 4102.0 — Australian Social Trends, 1999.” Australian Government,1999. www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efad67b7c95e0e8a733ca2570ec001117a2!OpenDocumenthttp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/d67b7c95e0e8a733ca2570ec001117a2!OpenDocument.
Australian Government. Australian Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender. Australian Government, 2015, pp. 1–11. www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Documents/AustralianGovernmentGuidelinesontheRecognitionofSexandGender/AustralianGovernmentGuidelinesontheRecognitionofSexandGender.pdfhttps://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Documents/AustralianGovernmentGuidelinesontheRecognitionofSexandGender/AustralianGovernmentGuidelinesontheRecognitionofSexandGender.pdf.
Australian Government, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Codes of Practice. Business.gov.au, 2016, www.business.gov.au/info/run/fair-trading/codes-of-practice.
Australian Human Rights Commission. Face the Facts: Cultural Diversity. Australian Government, 2014, pp. 1–8, www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/FTFCulturalDiversity.pdf.
Australian Human Rights Commission. Freedom of Information, Opinion and Expression. Australian Government, www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression.
Ayim, Maryann. “Much Ventured, Little Gained: Inclusive Language Guidelines and Policies in Canadian Universities.” Resources for Feminist Research, vol. 24, no. 3/4, 1995, p. 12, www.gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.882003&xri:pqil:res_ver=0.2&res_id=xri:lion&rft_id=xri:lion:rec:abell:R04271530.
Charlesworth, Sara et al. “Naming and Claiming Workplace Sexual Harassment in Australia.” Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 46, no. 2, 2011, pp. 141–161, doi:10.1002/j.1839–4655.2011.tb00211.x.
Cline, Carolyn Garrett and Lynn Masel-Walters. “At Least the Editors Are Trying: Women and Sexism in Corporate Publications.” ABCA Bulletin, vol. 46, no. 3, 1983, pp. 26–30, doi:10.1177/108056998304600310.
Department of Education. “Guidelines for Inclusive Language.” Tasmanian Department of Education, 2012, https://documentcentre.education.tas.gov.au/documents/guidelines-for-inclusive-language.pdf.
Federal Register of Legislation. Age Discrimination Act 2004. Australian Government, 2004, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00038.
Federal Register of Legislation. Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Austrlaian Government, 1975, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00089.
Federal Register of Legislation. Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Australian Government, 1984, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00383.
Gashabizi, Alain Songa. “In Pursuit of Clarity: How Far Should the Drafter Go?” Commonwealth Law Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 3, 2013, pp. 415–422, doi:10.1080/03050718.2013.822310.
Golden, Stephanie. “We Need the Singular ‘They’ — and It Won’t Seem Wrong for Long.” Aeon, 2018, www.aeon.co/ideas/we-need-the-singular-they-and-it-wont-seem-wrong-for-long.
Gray, Susan. “Inclusive Academic Language Teaching in New Zealand: History and Responses.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education, vol. 32, no. 3, 2012, pp. 317–332, doi:10.1080/02188791.2012.711296.
Hansen, Karolina et al. “The Social Perception of Heroes and Murderers: Effects of Gender-Inclusive Language in Media Reports.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, 2016, p. 369, PMC, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00369.
Horvath, Lisa K. et al. “Does Gender-Fair Language Pay Off? The Social Perception of Professions from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, no. 2018, 2016, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02018.
Hubby, Kristen. “Why Back-Handed Benevolence Is the Most Dangerous Brand of Sexism.” The Daily Dot, 3 January 2017, www.dailydot.com/irl/benevolent-sexism-hostile-sexism/.
Kabba, Kadija. “Gender-Neutral Language: An Essential Language Tool to Serve Precision, Clarity and Unambiguity.” Commonwealth Law Bulletin, vol. 37, no. 3, 2011, pp. 427–434, doi:10.1080/03050718.2011.595141.
Kleinman, Sherryl. “Why Sexist Language Matters.” AlterNet, 11 March 2007, www.alternet.org/story/48856/why_sexist_language_mattershttps://www.alternet.org/story/48856/why_sexist_language_matters.
Mackay, Harvey. “The Importance of Consistency”. Uexpress, 25 Apr. 2016, https://www.uexpress.com/harvey-mackay/2016/4/25/the-importance-of-consistency.
Menegatti, Michela Menegatti and Monica Rubini. “Gender Bias and Sexism in Language.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, 2017, p. 22, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.470.
Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Plain English Manual. Australian Government, 1993, http://www.opc.gov.au/about/docs/Plain_English.pdf.
Piller, Ingrid. “Linguistic Diveristy and Social Inclusion in Australia.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 37, no. 3, 2014, pp. 190–197, https://search-informit -com-au.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/fullText;dn=765769035938449;res=IELAPA.
Pine, Chris et al. Style Manual for authors, editors and printers. 6th edition, Jon Wiley & Sons, 2002.
Queensland Government. Web writing and style guide. One-Stop Shop Strategy and Implementation Office, 2016, https://www.forgov.qld.gov.au/web-writing-and-style-guide.
Safe Work Australia. Model Codes of Practice. Australian Government, 2016, https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/resources_publications/model-codes-of-practice.
Sczesny, Sabine et al. “Beyond Sexist Beliefs: How Do People Decide to Use Gender-Inclusive Language?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 7, 2015, pp. 943–954, doi:10.1177/0146167215585727.
Sczesny, Sabine et al. “Can Gender-Fair Language Reduce Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination? ” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, no. 25, 2016, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025.
Shariatmadari, David. “Eight Words That Reaveal the Sexism at the Heart of the English Language.” The Guardian, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/eight-words-sexismheartenglishlanguagehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/eight-words-sexism-heart-english-language.
State Government of Victoria. Inclusive Language Guide. Victorian Government, 2016, https://www.vic.gov.au/equality/inclusive-language-guide.html.
University of Newcastle. “Inclusive Language Guideline.” UoN Policy Library, 2006, https://www.newcastle.edu.au/about-uon/governance-and-leadership/policy-library/document?RecordNumber=D09_1974P.
University of Queensland. “UQ Guide to Using Inclusive Language.” The University of Queensland, https://staff.uq.edu.au/files/242/using-inclusive-language-guide.pdf.
University of South Australia. “Inclusive Language.” Academic Development, http://w3.unisa.edu.au/academicdevelopment/diversity/inclusive.asp?_ga=2.22056380.648684195.1523785646-1100672276.1523785646.
University of Western Australia. “Guidelines on the use of non-discriminatory language.” Human Resources, 2017, http://www.hr.uwa.edu.au/policies/policies/equity/language.
Winter, Jo and Anne Pauwels. “Men Staying at Home Looking after Their Children: Feminist Linguistic Reform and Social Change.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 16, no. 1, 2006, pp. 16–36, doi:doi:10.1111/j.1473–4192.2006.00104.x.
Appendix One
