Diversity Council Australia (DCA) invited Campaign Edge’s Dee Madigan, IAG’s Niki Kesoglou, comedians Michael Hing and Lou Wall, unionist and author Thomas Mayo and Former human rights commissioner Graeme Innes to a lively debate about whether polarisation is holding diversity back.
Lively, passionate and at times ‘laugh out loud’, last night’s diversity debate had hundreds of diversity advocates on the edge of their seats as journalist Patricia Karvelas challenged six panellists to debate the positive and negative aspects of polarisation in driving change in diversity and inclusion.
“The Diversity Debate is not just about intellectual sparring – it is a celebration of progress, community, and the shared goal of fostering inclusive environments across Australia,” said DCA CEO Lisa Annese.
“This year’s Diversity Debate reinforced just how complex and multifaceted the issue of polarisation is for diversity and inclusion. The conversation was both enlightening and challenging, showing us that while polarisation can pose obstacles, it can also ignite the kind of passion and urgency we need to advance inclusion in our workplaces.”
The affirmative team raised concerns about the increased division seen in today’s public discourse, noting that polarisation often creates barriers to empathy and inclusive action, and has often been weaponised by bad actors for social and political gain.
The negative team argued that polarising views, while uncomfortable, serves as a catalyst for meaningful conversations and change, helping to shine a light on issues previously ignored.
Two sessions that received rapturous applause were Campaign Edge ECD Dee Madigan – a seasoned political campaign strategist – and comedian Lou Wall, who has used comedy to advocate for the LGBTQ+ community throughout her life.
“Polarisation is a deliberate and effective strategy to hold back inclusion and diversity, because that’s what benefits those who have the power and want to keep the power: the pale, the male, the stale and the straight. Inclusion actually means they will lose power because they hold too much power,” Madigan argued.
Madigan argues that polarisation is often a powerful campaign tactic for the right and left, especially in countries where voting is not compulsory, like the US where Donald Trump is using culture wars and lies to rile up voters into voting for him.
“If you want to see how effective polarisation is as a weapon to reduce diversity and inclusion. Look at the Nazis. Look at Pauline Hanson. Look at The Voice. Look at the first, and hopefully last, election of Donald Trump, and what that’s done for women’s rights in the US,” she said.
“In fact, America is the most extraordinary example of polarisation used as a weapon against inclusivity. Disenfranchised white people in middle America whose lives have changed, whose good, secure, unionised jobs are gone now blame the woke agenda.
“They blame [minorities] instead of people like Donald Trump, who’ve driven down wages and conditions and have offshored jobs.”
She added: “The scariest thing is, it’s getting easier to polarise, because algorithms reward anger. We get angry, we click, we comment, we drive the algorithm. And polarisation makes money for social media companies…and it becomes a money making model for some news organisations because outrage drives clicks and sells ads.”
‘The hidden chilli in curry’
In response, advocate for polarisation Lou Wall (pictured above) found Madigan’s speech as “the most terrifying thing I’ve ever seen” and wondered whether she had been invited to the debate to represent a diversity of intellect, proudly representing “bimbos”.
“Polarisation is the hidden chilli in a curry, a spicy ingredient in a recipe for social change. It adds heat, it adds intensity, but ultimately it brings new flavours to the surface. It diversifies the palette and eventually sees my mom on a two week seniors food tour of Sri Lanka.
“It took loud, polarised voices clashing and pushing until change finally came. I can tell you this, without polarisation, I would not be standing here today living openly.”
Another who argued polarisation was necessary to promote D&I is IAG’s executive manager culture, inclusion and community Niki Kesoglou, who argued that when issues polarise, they capture attention and force individuals and organisations to confront D&I challenges head on.
“Polarisation amplifies diverse perspectives, it spurs on activism, and it fosters growth through dialog and not isolation. So yes, polarising can be uncomfortable, but these difficult conversations are essential for progress.”
Kesoglou (pictured above) cited the #MeToo movement as an example of a polarising debate that led companies and governments to confront gender inequality and equality, leading to systemic changes in Australia.
Thomas Mayo, assistant national secretary for the Maritime Union of Australia and an award-winning author, was a strong proponent of The Voice referendum.
He argued that polarisation is the division into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs.
“Polarisation is the promotion of ignorance. It blocks empathy, and it promotes hostility,” he said. “And polarisation is certainly the enemy of good discussion and reasonable debate. And if that is what polarisation does, then I don’t see how we could possibly ever feel that polarisation would be good for diversity and inclusion.”
Mayo (pictured below) used an example of the Guringay people to prove his point. When 200 Aboriginal stock workers walked off Wakefield station for being paid in rations and sleeping on dirt, it wasn’t a polarising workplace that improved their conditions.
He continued: “I think polarisation caused the defeat of the referendum. There were very effective tactics at polarising people, and that is the reason why it failed. There is purposeful polarisation that we see with attacks on Welcome to Country and movements to ban books in schools that promote understanding of each other and our different perspectives. It is definitely a threat that we need to address.”
‘Would you vote for the white team?’
Comedian and TV personality Michael Hing argued: “If we’re talking with a polarised society, we are therefore going to be platforming the most extreme views, because that’s what polarisation is. What can possibly be achieved by listening to extremist groups like One Nation or Trump supporters or CrossFit enthusiasts?”
“The idea that trauma is the sole road to progress wild – there are so many other ways. It’s like if you want to cook a steak and need to make a fire and saying, ‘petrol is what we need’.”
Rounding out the debate is the former commissioner of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Graeme Innis (pictured above) – a long term advocate for people with diversity and people with disability.
“Polarisation drives us forward. We know that diverse workforces are more effective because of the polarisation of ideas,” he said.
“Dogs were dismissed by many as a mobility aid for blind people. And look, now, I’ve actually come here with a dog.
He argued that polarisation is a sign that society is leading change. “New initiatives are often met with resistance, and I talk in my own area about challenging the deeply ingrained societal norms and negative views about people with disabilities,” he said.
“We’re not saying that polarisation can’t be messy…but we have to walk through the fire.”
He concluded that: “without polarisation, we can’t make change”.
The real winner
Madigan, Mayo and Hing, who all argued that polarisation was holding back D&I, eventually took out the debate by winning 62 per cent of the audience vote although the affirmative team (Innis, Wall, Kesoglou) did manage to claw back two percentage points from a vote that was held prior to the debate.
DCA chair Sunita Gloster concluded the discussion by arguing that the true winner of the debate was diversity itself.
“My background is in marketing and technology, and in this environment, conflict, when managed well is an essential driver for creativity and innovation. Differing perspectives, disagreements and tension is what sparks new ideas…and friction usually leads to bold new solutions,” she said.
“The path to diversity and inclusion, much like creativity, is paved with courageous conversations, and polarisation often makes it very difficult, it makes people afraid to take the interpersonal skills required to have those conversations.
“But tonight (we are) reminded that if you want to have diversity and inclusion in your organisation, you need to be prepared to disagree. As uncomfortable as it may feel when someone challenges your ideas, it’s an opportunity to learn that healthy conflict moves the needle forward and creates better outcomes.”