Unapologetically Ourselves: Reframing Diversity for Women of Diverse Backgrounds through Shifting Mindsets

/
Unapologetically Ourselves: Reframing Diversity for Women of Diverse Backgrounds through Shifting Mindsets

Long before cultural or racial diversity was even a topic of discussion, women in general were denied entry into the legal profession for decades. In fact, Shakespeare’s The Tempest features a female legal advocate well before such a figure existed in Australia’s legal reality.[1] This alone illustrates the long and arduous journey toward the acceptance of women in law.

While gender equality in the Australian legal profession has improved over time, women now make up 54% of the legal workforce and even outnumber men in PLT accreditation at a remarkable 64.1% compared to 35.6%,[2] these numbers often mask a deeper issue: the lack of representation of women from diverse cultural backgrounds. The statistics reveal a confronting truth: [3]

  • In 2018, only 1.2% of practising certificate holders in New South Wales identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (0.7% across Australia).

  • Less than 2% of barristers identify as Asian Australian.

  • While 25% of law graduates identify as being from an Asian background, this drops dramatically to under 8% at partner level, 0.6% at the bar, and 0.8% in the judiciary.

To address these disparities, various initiatives - such as workshops, training events, sponsorship programs and targeted mentoring – aim to empower women from diverse backgrounds in law. for diverse women in law and their empowerment to tackle with these statistics. The inaugural DWL Advocacy Program, for example, has received positive reviews over the years for its stimulating legal challenges and its promotion of both skill development and diversity.[4]

Yet beneath all these initiatives lies something even more essential: a mindset shift.

Here are some stories worth sharing, from disheartening experiences to empowering insights from senior associate Nada Gu, offering guidance on how we can truly move forward.

 

Read More

The Value of Dissent: Lessons from the First Homosexual Movement

/
The Value of Dissent: Lessons from the First Homosexual Movement

‘Until my death, I will count it a credit to myself that on August 29, 1867, in Munich, I found the courage to stand eye to eye against a thousand-year-old, many-thousand-headed, furious-eyed hydra … Yes, I am proud that I found the strength to deliver the first thrust of a lance into the hydra of public contempt’.[1]

                  Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, 1868

Introduction

Dissent is a word often heard by law students. At its core, the word refers to the manifestation of ideas, acts and omissions ‘that are alternative to existing or proposed ones’.[2] Not merely confined to judges, dissent can be found in all facets of the law. Within parliament, for example, Members of Parliament and Senators have been seen to cross the floor, going against their own party’s policies. It is also apparent outside of legal institutions, such as when people protest on the streets for unpopular causes. To this day, the value of dissent in the law remains controversial. On the one hand, many see dissent as an unnecessary hindrance to unified action.[3] In some courts in overseas jurisdictions, in fact, dissenting judgements are prohibited altogether.[4] On the other, many see dissent as an essential part of contemporary democracy - a mechanism to ensure advancements and critical thinking within society.[5]

This post argues for the latter view. To contextualise the ways in which dissent is viewed, it firstly outlines two separate views on dissent. The first view is by Michael Kirby - a former High Court Justice from 1996-2009 - who argues that dissent is essential for transparency and democracy.[6] The second view is by Susan Kiefel - the former Chief Justice of the High Court from 2017-2023 - who argues that judicial dissent can harm the integrity of courts.[7] It then looks at the First Homosexual Movement in late 19th and early 20th century Germany to illustrate the idea that dissent within the law can contribute towards significant change. At a time in which homosexual acts carried prison sentences, a new group of gay emancipation figures had given rise to a reconceptualization of homosexuality which has since found widespread favour in various legal systems. The dissenting ideas of these figures, it is argued, remains a testament to the value that dissent holds within the law.

Read More

Toxic Traits of Media Platforms: Unmasking the Shadows of Algorithmic Culture

/

By Modesty Chang

Diversity & Wellbeing Subcommittee Member

Ever noticed how those quick, catchy TikTok videos seem to hook you in, one after another? "Share controversial opinions," they say. It's a tactic that gets clicks and keeps people engaged, but at what cost? Lies, scapegoating, over-exaggeration, and unrealistic standards bombard our mental health in 15-second bursts. And the worst part? Most of us don't even realize how we're being pulled into this consumerist vortex.

This phenomenon is a direct result of algorithmic culture — where algorithms dictate what we see based on what gets the most likes, shares, and views. Social media managers have become masters at playing this game, crafting posts that maximize engagement. The higher the engagement, the more likely the content gets pushed to a wider audience.[1]

But here's the catch: this system creates echo chambers. You end up seeing only what aligns with your existing beliefs, reinforcing your views without exposing you to diverse perspectives.[2] It's like living in a bubble where the same ideas bounce around, making it hard to see beyond your own little world.

 

The Misinformation Minefield

One of the nastiest side effects of algorithmic culture is the spread of misinformation. Algorithms prioritise content that grabs attention, even if it's not true. Remember that viral video by a YouTuber showing how fake celebrity news can be easily created and spread?[3] (Just in case you are wondering – the main character was Harry Styles – go check the video out!) It went viral for all the wrong reasons, highlighting how even reputable news platforms can get duped. They, too, fall into the trap of prioritising clicks and views over accuracy.

GeorgeMason TV. (2022). How I tricked the internet into thinking I was Harry Styles... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhYCKep-yas&t=379s

This shows the profit-driven motives of tech companies. They control these algorithms to shape cultural narratives to their advantage, all while keeping the workings of these algorithms a secret.[4] This lack of transparency makes it hard to hold them accountable, creating a commercial black box that shields them from scrutiny.[5]

 

Moving Forward: The Path to Digital Literacy and the Online Safety Act 2021

So, what can we do about it? Promoting digital literacy is a start. We need to think critically about the content we consume. Be aware of the biases and values these algorithms might be embedding in what you see and hear.[6]

Enter the Online Safety Act 2021,[7] a game-changer in addressing the toxic traits of media platforms. This legislation holds tech companies accountable for the content they host, focusing on user safety and reducing harm. It pushes for transparency in how algorithms work and requires better content moderation. With these rules, platforms must take responsibility for curbing misinformation and breaking the cycle of echo chambers. By enforcing these standards, the act helps ensure that our digital world prioritizes truth and user well-being over mere clicks and profits.

In the end, while algorithms can enhance our online experiences, we must be vigilant about their potential to distort reality and manipulate our perceptions. By fostering digital literacy and demanding greater transparency, we can strive for a digital environment that values truth and fairness over clicks and profits.

[1] Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2023). Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185057

[2] Talamanca, G & Arfini, S. (2022). Through the Newsfeed Glass: Rethinking Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers. National Library of Medicine.

[3] GeorgeMason TV. (2022). How I tricked the internet into thinking I was Harry Styles... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhYCKep-yas&t=379s

[4] Kopelman, S., & Frosh, P. (2023). The “algorithmic as if”: Computational resurrection and the animation of the dead in Deep Nostalgia. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231210268

[5] Hristova, S et al. (2022). Algorithmic Culture: How Big Data and Artificial Intelligence are Transforming Everyday Life. New York Lanham.

[6] Tsamados, A; Aggarwal, N; Cowls, J et al. (2021). The ethics of algorithms: key problems and solutions. AI & Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01154-8

[7] Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth).