Diversity Australia Blog
Diversity Australia Blog
The Digital Australia study, an annual look at the way Australians are playing video games, was released today. It features all the statistics that you might expect from such a survey. Yep, pretty much everyone in Australia is playing video games. Yep, video games aren’t just for kids. Yep, people play video games to stay sharp, healthy and happy.
Every statistic one needs to arm themselves with when dealing with the powers that be is there.
But there are also a few interesting nuggets of information in there for those of us who are already on board with the video games.
For example, did you know that 92% of people play games with other human beings? I mean I suspected that number would be high. I didn’t know it would be that high.
Did you know that 66% of people want more gender diversity in video game characters.
That 65% of people want more age diversity in video game characters.
Did you know that 28% of gamers have shared videos of themselves playing. That’s insane to me, but absolutely a sign of the times.
3135 people from 1234 households were surveyed for the Digital Australia 2018 study.
God bless Jeff Brand and the good folks at Bond University. Their work has been instrumental in providing the numbers that allow the IGEA to represent the games industry at the government level. What’s interesting to me is how these numbers have settled. In 2007 only 79% of households had gaming devices. Now that number is 93% and has been since 2013 — almost as if games have arrived at that point of ubiquity and isn’t going anywhere. Supporting that — the average age of gamers has been steadily increasing ever since this research began. Almost as if we’re all getting older together — with video games.
Read more at https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/07/how-australians-are-playing-video-games-in-2017/#oJGHYxOoZZPrtPCg.99
If the ABC were audited for diversity, the report might read something like as follows: “Evidence suggests that the ABC’s organisational culture reflects structural discrimination. The staff profile is unrepresentative and produces marginalisation of outsiders or ‘others’. This marginalisation persists due to apparent discrimination in recruitment and promotion practices. As a consequence, the ABC’s program content reflects bias that reinforces the privilege of insiders while stereotyping and demonising those excluded from the existing power structure. Cultural change is required to transform the ABC from an unrepresentative public institution to an organisation that puts the public good ahead of in-group power and privilege.”
From my early years in the university sector, I worked for various equal opportunity and anti-discrimination units. As a part of that work, I conducted organisational audits of equity and diversity. After several years, I saw that the movement for equity was destroying diversity of the kind that matters in education: intellectual diversity. Universities replaced the West’s civilisational wellspring of freedom of thought and speech, mastered by learning the art of public reason, with the comparatively superficial culture of skin diversity.
In the 21st century culture of public education and media, diversity is often measured by skin colour or gender. Diversity of thought is devalued, especially in the arts and humanities.
Despite the spread of discrimination and affirmative action policies across the public sector, little attention is paid to intellectual and political diversity. Rather, the equity and diversity agenda has come to resemble what former Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau considered the Maoist approach. In the book Two Innocents in Red China, he praised Mao Zedong’s approach to racial minority groups because it did “not try to assimilate them but … make them understand the blessings of Marxism”. Trudeau pioneered a nationwide policy of multiculturalism. The multicultural ideal was a diversity of races united in ideological conformity to Marxism.
“The ABC’s political bias seems most apparent in stories related to border security, immigration, identity politics and Islam.”
The diversity agenda sometimes reflects the founding ideal of multicultural policy: a culture where race or gender diversity is encouraged as long as members conform to PC ideology. Islamic activist Linda Sarsour is celebrated as a leader of the US women’s march despite appearing to wish for violence against women who disagree with her. On Twitter, Sarsour wrote of two dissidents: “I wish I could take their vaginas away — they don’t deserve to be women.” One of her would-be victims was author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who suffered female genital mutilation as a child. Apparently that wasn’t enough.
The ABC has not admitted to a lack of political diversity in its staff profile or systemic political bias in its programming. Yet the largest survey in 20 years of political attitudes among journalists found that 73.6 per cent of ABC journalists support Labor or the Greens. The Sunshine Coast University research also found that 41.2 per cent of ABC staff surveyed voted for the Greens. As Chris Kenny wrote in The Weekend Australian, the “federal vote ceiling” for the Greens is just over 10 per cent. On those figures, the ABC’s staff profile is highly unrepresentative of the Australian general public.
The ABC’s political bias seems most apparent in stories related to border security, immigration, identity politics and Islam. Many believe that the ABC pushes the PC party line backing porous borders, minority politics and the censorship of dissenters under discrimination law while demonising border integrity, conservatism, Judeo-Christianity and Western civilisation. In 2014, the broadcaster admitted that its reports that the navy had burned refugees were wrong. A previous audit found bias in ABC reporting on Tamil asylum-seekers.
Last week’s 7.30 was criticised for bias against Christians after presenters inferred that evangelical or conservative Christianity could lead to domestic violence. ABC presenter Leigh Sales said: “We talk about women in Islam but statistically it is evangelical Christian men who attend church sporadically who are the most likely to assault their wives.” To my knowledge, there is no cross-country research comparing male violence against women in Islamic and Christian communities. The relevant study cited was by American researcher Steven Tracy.
A series of lies by omission resulted in the perception that conservative or evangelical Christianity can lead to domestic violence. For instance, the ABC omitted Tracy’s related finding that: “Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are … the least likely group to engage in domestic violence. The ABC also omitted interviews that conflicted with the presenters’ line of commentary.
Ean Higgins reported that Sydney’s Anglican Archdeacon for Women Kara Hartley was interviewed for over an hour by Julia Baird. Hartley spoke at length about the church’s positive work in combating domestic violence. Her comments were excluded from the program.
Brisbane’s Catholic Archbishop Mark Coleridge responded to an ABC request for comments about a related essay by Baird and Hayley Gleeson. The ABC reported falsely that he had not responded.
It should go without saying that domestic violence is an abhorrent form of abuse to be condemned without reservation. Research on causation should be funded where preliminary research finds specific attributes correlated with higher rates of abuse. The public often funds such research and should be informed also when certain attributes are correlated with lower rates of abuse. The ABC neglected its public duty when it omitted the positive work of Christian churches in preventing domestic violence and the research finding that: “Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are … the least likely group to engage in domestic violence.”
In the coming 7.30 on violence against women in Islam, we might expect the ABC to consider the status of women under sharia. It might look at the prevalence of female genital mutilation and child marriage in Islamic countries and communities. It might consider why Islamic states enter the most reservations to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and justify it by appeal to sharia. Alas, we’re more likely to hear yet another version of: “We talk about women in Islam but … ” and find the blame shifted to the standard victims of politically correct thought.
My friend is actually a medical doctor so she could have been referring to a professional matter, but I knew exactly what she meant. “Yes,” I replied. “Isn’t it wonderful?”
For those who are not avid Whoviansit must be said that the BBC television show ‘Doctor Who’ refers only to the title of the show. In the story, the title character is only ever referred to as ‘The Doctor’, a Time Lord and extra-terrestrial being from the planet Gallifrey who explores the universe in a legendary time machine, the T.A.R.D.I.S. To clarify for non-nerds, the TARDIS refers to Time and Relative Dimension in Space.
The very fact that the title is ‘Doctor Who’ is indicative of the changing nature of this protagonist. It is not called ‘Doctor Him’ or ‘Doctor Who must only be a male doctor’. You see, ‘Doctor Who’ is actually a question and the BBC has now given us 13 different answers.
For those people who are not fans of the cult series, I really don’t understand why so many of you are getting upset about a show you don’t even watch.
And for those who are genuine Whovians, the entire premise of the show is based on the concept of bodily regeneration, when a physical injury appears to risk the life of the Doctor. Statistically speaking, after 12 incarnations in a male body, the probability of regeneration into a female body has to be pretty high.
Indeed, it was almost going to happen after the departure of the 11th Doctor, Matt Smith. Although anyone who has enjoyed the genius of Peter Capaldi could never doubt he was the absolute best choice for Doctor 12.
In the case of Capaldi, the transition from a youthful doctor (Smith) to a mature-aged one (Capaldi) barely ruffled a feather. Okay, it seems we are fine with age diversity in the regenerations of The Doctor.
But, some feathers were indeed ruffled when Jodie Whittaker was announced as the 13th and first female Doctor by the BBC after the Wimbledon final on Sunday evening in London.
On a lighter note, the announcement has spawned a series of memes and videos that have been incredibly funny. The best of these was done by ‘SBS: The Feed’ who created a video about a Doctor Who Helpline for devastated male fans:
But the reaction from some quarters to this reinvention has been overtly hostile, and I think reveals a level of discomfort with seeing women taking on roles traditionally held by men.
Breaking stereotypes and challenging established notions of power will always make uncomfortable those who benefit by maintaining the status quo. As with any change, however, there always has to be a first before there is a second, and then a critical mass that changes the norm.
When Joanne Rowling handed in her manuscript for ‘Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone’, her British publisher insisted on using her initials only. She did not have a middle name so borrowed the letter ‘K’ from her grandmother’s name, Kathleen. The publishers thought that ‘Harry Potter’ was a book that would appeal to boys and they did not want them finding out that it had been written by a woman.
The success of the book soon outed J.K. Rowling’s gender. The ‘Harry Potter’ series has gone on to become one of the most successful book series in publishing history. The publishers seriously underestimated young boys who didn’t seem to care the books had been written by a woman. The book series appealed to a universal fan base not defined by gender, culture or age.
Likewise, the casting of Noma Dumezweni, a classically trained and, yes, a black actor, as Hermione Granger in the West End production of ‘Harry Potter and the Cursed Child’ that opened in mid-2016, was also met with controversy and accusations of ‘political correctness gone mad’.
Noma went on to win a Lawrence Olivier award for her portrayal of the middle-aged Hermione, the show has been a critical success and continues to play to sold-out daily audiences. As a huge fan of the book series, I was lucky enough to get tickets to the play in London late last year and I was not disappointed.
Most of the people who deplore deviations from traditionally ‘white’ or traditionally ‘male’ heroes and heroines tend to also be majorly invested, even subconsciously, in preserving their role as the dominant group in the culture.
But this is not how art works, nor literature, television or film. As creative forces, they must carry on challenging stereotypes, telling stories through different eyes, showcasing diverse narratives and continuing to reflect and make commentary on what is going on in society.
I suspect that history will also show that, far from diminishing the appeal of Doctor Who, Jodie Whittaker’s reign as the 13th Doctor will likely broaden the appeal of the show to include many more fans, especially children who will now being able to imagine themselves as a Time Lord rather than only ever being able to aspire to be a mere companion.
As far as titles go, ‘Race Discrimination Commissioner’ is a fairly benign one. Certainly, as distinct from its incumbent, Dr Tim Soutphommasane, it is not quite as bombastic as its former Soviet counterpart, the ‘People’s Commissariat for Nationalities’.
That comparison of course is not meant to imply the office’s communiques, or that of its parent body, the Australian Human Rights Commission, could be likened to the comical agitprop of communist regimes.
“Today Australia has been transformed,” heralds a futuristic newsreader in a promotional video for the AHRC publication Leading for Change: A blueprint for cultural diversity and inclusive leadership.
It is July 2026, and Australians awake to glorious news that massive cultural diversity targets within government, universities and business have been exceeded. No longer is Australia an Anglo-dominated backwater, thanks to a leader and his ten-year plan.
“A driving force was Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane,” the newsreader continues effusively, before crossing to archival footage from ten years prior featuring the visionary himself. “Australia’s a very multicultural society,” said he, stern-faced and with much gravitas, “but we don’t see that diversity represented yet in our senior leadership…It’s pretty striking, and simply it’s not good enough.”
“Passionate words from Tim Soutphommasane,” adds the newsreader admiringly, repeating the great man’s name for posterity. All that was missing in this video were the shots of cheering citizens taking to the streets in spontaneous demonstrations of joy and thanks.
Laugh if you will at this cringeworthy and grandiose affirmation of one’s own legacy, but remember your taxes are paying Soutphommasane’s $339,460 salary. That does not include the budget for his support staff, or travel, or the office outlay. Not bad work for an entry-level academic and former ALP staffer who was appointed by the Rudd Government to the AHRC at the age of 31.
In a speech last week to the Western Australian Multicultural Mental Health Forum, Soutphommasane denounced those who sought to “reopen ideological culture wars”, and dismissed with derision suggestions that “cultural Marxism [is] taking over public institutions.”
Ideological culture wars? The very use of that simplistic terminology to describe an opposing view is revealing, especially for a man supposed to personify diversity. But for this human rights commissioner, the ideal culture is Soutphommasane-centric, and dissenting opinions threaten social harmony. Indeed, such people are guilty of “deviationism”, to borrow a Stalinist term. Critics therefore are not to be regarded as opponents, but as enemies. What is cultural Marxism if not aggressive social engineering in the name of equality, together with public condemnation of those who question its worthiness?
“Today’s conservatives frequently endorse a form of destructive radicalism towards public institutions and civil society,” wrote Soutphommasane, a self-described social democrat, only months before his appointment to the AHRC in August 2013. This is tosh. One need only look at the events last week in Hamburg’s G20 summit and the actions of so-called anti-fascists in the US to see who is responsible for this destructive radicalism. It is not conservatives who are torching cars, looting shops, and attacking police officers. Yet Soutphommasane maintains “very nasty forms of xenophobia and populism are on the rise in many countries.” In other words, we must blame those who voted for Trump and Brexit.
And last week’s speech would not be complete without Soutphommasane attributing ill-motive to those seeking amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act, particularly section 18C, which makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people based on their race, colour, or national or ethnic background.
Never mind that careers and reputations have been destroyed as a result of complainants exploiting this section, or that the test for infringing 18C is essentially a subjective one; Soutphommasane’s take on reformists appears to be one of malice. “Some commentators…complain about there not being enough freedom of speech to racially insult or offend others,” he said. That’s right, the man who once wrote the ‘Ask the Philosopher’ column for this newspaper resorted to using a cheap logical fallacy – the straw man argument – as a substitute for informed rebuttal.
Yet Soutphommasane champions freedom of speech when it comes to defending the left. “The arts must…consciously question the status quo,” he wrote in June this year. “This has always been the role of the arts: to challenge, to disrupt, to speak truth to power…” But what of artists who disrupt progressive dogma? The late Bill Leak spoke truth to power with his cartoon last year in The Australian featuring a delinquent indigenous father, and Western Australia police commissioner Karl O’Callaghan said it was an accurate depiction of what his officers saw daily. Soutphommasane, however, responded by tacitly urging people to make a complaint under the 18C process. He later denied this constituted touting. Presumably he meant at no time did he don a sandwich board or spruik outside the entrance to the AHRC office.
Given his antagonistic demeanour and his glass jaw, Soutphommasane will likely struggle to sell an already controversial blueprint requiring cultural diversity “targets” within corporations. The recommendation that employers should gather and report “cultural diversity data” has been labelled “racial profiling” of employees by Liberal backbenchers. As an aside to the statist connotations, the blueprint is written in depressingly familiar bureaucratese, especially with its espousing of “diversity metrics”. “Diversity and inclusion”, it says, must form part of “managers’ performance appraisals.”
Are you having trouble staying awake? What a surreal life it must be for the likes of Soutphommasane and the others at the AHRC. Then again that office’s culture has been defined by its president, Gillian Triggs, with all the trappings of elitism and her personality cult. Fortunately she finishes this month, and who knows what lavish ceremony will mark her departure. Flying out Elton John to play Goodbye England’s Rose as the British-born Triggs walks down the steps for the last time, perhaps? As the American political philosopher Thomas Sowell observed “We should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”
The Turnbull government empowered by an angry backbench has rejected a Human Rights Commission-led campaign for racial and cultural diversity targets to be pushed on corporate Australia.
The commission’s July 2016 reform blueprint, Leading for Change,recommended that organisations consider “sending signals on cultural diversity” by collecting data on the cultural backgrounds of employees in addition to the setting of aspirational targets. The blueprint defines cultural diversity as differences based on “race, ethnicity, ancestry, language and place of birth”.
Liberal MPs were yesterday in open rebellion against the commission’s diversity campaign, warning against any steps that amounted to “racial profiling” of employees. They also urged newly appointed commission president Rosalind Croucher to ensure the body did not become a “commission to implement left-wing policy”.
Social Services Minister Christian Porter yesterday rejected the substance of the commission’s report, upheld the autonomy of businesses to employ people on merit and defended Australia as a successful multicultural society.
Mr Porter told The Australian there was no need for the proposed targets. “Anyone who has actually visited Australian business and professional organisations can see that the embrace of diversity is on plain display,” he said. “Decisions on the make-up of organisations’ leadership and diversity are matters for them … Government has no plans to implement recommendations from this report.”
Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane has recruited a range of senior organisations into the diversity campaign, including leading figures from the public and private sectors. A Leadership Council on Cultural Diversity — chaired by Dr Soutphommasane and established in December — includes ABC managing director Michelle Guthrie, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Martin Parkinson, PwC chief executive Luke Sayers and Commonwealth Bank chief executive Ian Narev.
Speaking last year at the University of Sydney, Dr Soutphommasane noted that 95 per cent of the chief executives of ASX200 companies had either an “Anglo-Celtic” or “European” background and argued there was evidence to suggest “organisations understand leadership in ways that privilege ‘Anglo’ cultural styles.”
Victorian Liberal senator James Paterson criticised the push by the commission as a “bit creepy” and questioned the objective of the campaign.
“Will the Human Rights Commission be satisfied if every single organisation perfectly reflects the community in age and sexuality and race and every other different characteristic — because that’s the logical conclusion of this,” Senator Paterson said. “You don’t need a racial profile of your workforce to ensure that it’s diverse … Where does this end?”
Tasmanian Liberal senator Eric Abetz cautioned there was a degree of artificiality about encouraging targets that could create resentment if people believed they had been overlooked or promoted because of their cultural background. “I just think it’s fraught with difficulty and social engineering,” he said.
Queensland Liberal National MP George Christensen said the commission was “out of control” and “overstepping the mark.”
“Not having someone of a particular gender or a particular ethnic minority group in a management position of a company is not a human rights abuse,” Mr Christensen said.
“I really do hope that the new president of the Human Rights Commission will take a long hard look at this sort of nonsense. It is not a commission to implement left-wing policy.”
When contacted by The Australian, the commission clarified it was not seeking to impose compulsory quotas on businesses but was instead encouraging the adoption of aspirational targets.
The 2016 reform blueprint — which was produced by a working group comprising members of Telstra, PwC, Westpac and the University of Sydney’s Business School — argues that “a strong case exists for including targets as part of one’s diversity and inclusion policies”.
“Targets are voluntary goals adopted by an organisation at its discretion, whereas quotas refer to goals that are mandated by an external body and imposed upon an organisation,” it says.
Some businesses have already adopted aspirational targets. PwC Australia hopes that 30 per cent of its partner admissions will come from a “diverse cultural background” by 2020.
As an entrepreneur, Ms Liu founded The Dream Collective in 2012 because she was confronted by the lack of leadership development opportunities for young women in the workplace.
She says Australian corporate leaders are doing it wrong, and need to get better at “walking the talk”.
Research shows that for every $10 invested into senior leaders, less than $1 is invested into the frontline leaders, even though this is where the valuable changes will be made.
“Australian corporates need to shift their approach from focusing on the senior executive level to turning their attention to the pipeline of young female talent coming through their doors,” said Ms Liu, who also co-founded, Australia’s first job share matching technology platform Gemini3.
“Businesses should be investing in the entry-level career women because these frontline professionals are the nation’s next generation of female leaders.”
The number of women in the bottom ranks is disproportionate to the number of women at the top, and this is not a standard we want for Australia’s business landscape.”
Ms Liu said The Dream Collective started as a passion project, but now operates in Sydney and Melbourne with plans to launch in Singapore and Tokyo by the end of 2017.
It partners with corporate brands such as Vodafone, Coca- Cola Amatil and Facebook to deliver leadership and corporate training programs, and is busy working on a micro-documentary series with those brands to be showcased at a premiere in Sydney this week.
Coca-Cola Amatil’s HR group director Libbi Wilson said fostering greater diversity within the boardroom is critical for businesses.
“An organisation needs a culture of flexibility, not just flexible options for women,” she said.
According to Vodafone Australia’s head of organisational effectiveness, Vanessa Hicks, the technology sector must strive to be an exemplar on the issue of gender diversity.
“The technology and telco industry is placing particular focus on females and STEM and it’s something we see as critical to improving diversity,” she said.
Facebook’s ANZ recruiter Sammie Hall said offering workplace flexibility was an important catalyst in encouraging greater female participation, but there was no set formula for success.
“The challenges for each individual would almost certainly be different but some of the ‘enablers’ might be universal,” she said.