Tag: Interview

• The art of the interview: In conversation with Leigh Sales

  March 3, 2026 6:21 pm Comments Off on The art of the interview: In conversation with Leigh Sales

  Leigh Sales AM is one of Australia’s most prolific and respected journalists. She has received three Walkley Awards, Australia’s highest journalism honour, for her coverage of Guantanamo Bay, interviews with Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and Christine Milne, and her bestselling book Any Ordinary Day. Across her career, Sales has interviewed figures such as the Dalai Lama, Hillary Clinton, and Margaret Atwood, and every living Australian Prime Minister. She now hosts Australian Story after stepping down from the popular ABC programme 7.30 in 2022.

  I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to meet with her over Zoom over the break.

  You mention in your most recent book, Storytellers, that when you were studying journalism, your bible was News Sense by Bob Jervis. Which other writers have influenced your development of skill and style?

  Lots of different ones. There’s obviously people I’ve worked with over the years. For example, when I was first starting out, my immediate boss was this man named John Cameron, and he was a very sharp writer. So, I kind of learned from him to try to trim stuff down and tighten it up. You learn a lot about writing from reading. I’m a big fan of Helen Garner, the Australian writer, again because she’s a very tight, sharp writer.

  Other people I’ve been very influenced by… there’s a book called On Writing by Stephen King, the horror writer. He’s actually a superb writer. His stories are heavily plot driven, obviously he works in fiction and not journalism, but he also has really mastered the art of structure, and sentence-crafting. On Writing kind of explains his theories about writing, which are really good. Most writers are influenced pretty heavily by George Orwell, who’s also written extensively about the craft of writing.

  In an interview with Waleed Aly, you said that if you want to be a journalist, you “have to leave your opinions at the door”. Are there any exceptions to this? How do you know when, if ever, to bring your opinion into an interview?

  I try all the time to never bring my opinion into an interview, my personal and emotional opinion. You’re using subjective judgement all the time. For example, you’re determining whether this person is telling me the truth, and whether I follow up on that. So, of course, you’re bringing subjective judgements into it constantly. But really, the great thing about journalism is when you approach it with a completely open mind, even if you do have an opinion about something.

  Because firstly, the person you’re interviewing gets a sense of your genuine curiosity about something. This is why , which is a TV show I’m hosting at the moment, works really well with a group of autistic people…, because none of them have any agenda. And if you watch that show, you can sense that the person being interviewed feels very comfortable and relaxed, because they know that they’re not being judged.

  The second thing is, the fun thing about journalism is just that it gives you an entrée into learning about all sorts of different things. The way you learn about things is you have to have an open mind, you have to be willing to let go of your own opinions and to potentially change your mind about things. So trying to go into things with an open mind, I think, is the key to just genuinely learning about the world around you.

  Nowadays, people get lots of their news from short form content on social media and less people consume legacy media. Does journalism play a different role in the information age as opposed to a time when traditional media was more dominant?

  I think there’s just more information sources for people out there to get their information from. I think that legacy media should not be snobby about getting on those new platforms, and adapting what we do to meet people where they consume the news. I know myself, that I get a lot of information off of social media. Where the difference is is in terms of, say, presenting yourself as providing journalism versus opinion versus your subjective take on the world.

  So, a lot of people might follow someone whose take on the world they like, but that’s not the same as journalism. When I was the anchor of 7.30, I used to feel like, if at least some of the time, I’m not annoying to you as a viewer, and I’m not asking things that at least some of the time are rankling you and not sitting right, I’m not really doing my job. Because, I should be coming at issues from across the spectrum, and so I guess that’s the difference between journalism on social media, and just opinion and information on social media. I would hope that legacy media organisations, and proper journalists, would still be attempting to apply accuracy, fairness, impartiality, a wide range of view points – all those kinds of things.

  What do you think the broader social and political implications of this transition are?

  I think that it’s actually a great thing in many ways. What it means is, if people have a message they wanna get out, say any organisation, any politician, no longer does that have to be filtered through journalists. You can have your own social media outlets.

  When I was a young person, if I wanted something published, I had to get a newspaper, or a magazine, or somebody else to publish it. Whereas now, everyone can be their own publisher, and the only barrier to you being able to attract an audience is how entertaining it is, what kind of reach you can actually get with your content. So I think that has really, I guess, democratised the space to a degree. So that’s the good side of it.

  The bad side of it is that it means that it allows the spread of information really readily, because people can just put stuff out there. There’s no gatekeeper, there’s no test of is it accurate? Is it not accurate? So then, you can see this kind of proliferation of misinformation which people can use to their advantage in the political space. Anyone who holds power, businesses, are able to use social media in a fairly unchecked way.

  Do you have any advice for young journalists wanting to enter into this new era of journalism?

  I absolutely love working with young journalists. I love the way they look at the world, and I love just their knowledge of technology and new contemporary forms of storytelling stuff that I don’t have. I think as a younger person, your big advantage coming in, is that you might not bring all of the editorial skills and knowledge that someone of my age does, but you bring all of this other great knowledge about storytelling and how to catch people’s attention in a time where peoples’ attention spans are short. So, I think just trust yourself, and lean into your skills, is what I would say.

  My other advice I would say is, just try to go into things with an open mind, rather than having a sense of well, this is how I think the world is. Because you’ll find more doors will open to you, and you’ll have a richer experience if you kind of open yourself.

  Interviewing everybody really gives you a sense of how important it is to be open minded.

  Oh, totally. And people aren’t what you expect often. I remember when I was Washington Correspondent for the ABC, it was just after 9/11, and the US was holding suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, in this kind of prison camp. IAnd it started to emerge that the CIA was using torture and stuff like this to interrogate suspected terrorists . Aand I would go and interview people who would basically make the case for torture. You know, people that worked in the US Justice Department, in the Pentagon. In your head, go in there thinking, well, who are these people gonna be, that are gonna make this case? But they’re just kind of seemingly normal people who are motivated by patriotism. They honestly believed at the time that America was under threat like never before, and that this justified extreme means to use torture.

  If you go into things with a set mindset, you often have an idea of what you’re going to be presented with. And it’s really often not that at all. So trying to not go in with a preconceived mindset is usually good. Usually it won’t be what you anticipate.

  When you were younger you were a foreign correspondent in the US, reporting on pretty intense topics like Hurricane Katrina, the aftermath of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Has this influenced how you understand and cover events today?

  It 100% has. There’s so many ways. But one of them is, when 9/11 happened, there was just so much fear in the world and everyone thought, ‘oh my God, this is World War III, it’s the end of the world, everything’s falling apart’, and then things kind of just keep meandering along, somehow.

  Now, whenever there’s a story where everyone’s claiming that the sky’s falling, it’s the end of the world, this is the worst the world’s ever been, I always have a little bit of a, “we’ve been through stuff before” kind of thing. So I try to not overstate catastrophe and crisis, and try to keep things in context.

  The other thing that I learned is that fear causes the public to behave in unusual ways. And fear, sort of, just feeds off itself, and has all these terrible spinoff things. People’s mental health, violence it can lead to, and it’s motivated by fear. So being careful in your reporting to not over-egg fear, I think is a really important thing.

  This is probably a bit cynical, but I am always really sceptical of politicians and how they wield power, whether you agree with what they’re doing or not. Because I think power, naturally, tries to entrench itself, and that politicians use opportunities. I’m not saying they don’t try to do the right thing by the public, but they also try to do the right thing to entrench their power. So I’m really skeptical just taking anything any politician says at face value.

  In your reporter’s diary for Hurricane Katrina, you note that “[i]t seems impossible to escape the conclusion that if you are black, poor, old, sick or disabled, you are a second-class citizen in [the US]”. Do you think that ‘one off’ news events allow the press to talk about deeper problems they wouldn’t normally have the time for?

  Yeah, I think they do. Because, so often I think in stories, what comes out is that people, like that cohort you just named, are the most disadvantaged. That people with names, with money, with that access to power, fare better during things. We saw it in COVID all the time, where if you were rich, lockdown didn’t affect you so badly, as it did if you were an essential worker or if you were a person with less means, and so on. So, I think that, you can take, kind of any event, and use it to look through those prisms for looking at people that are, I guess, not looked after by society.

  As a journalist, you’re required to interview lots of people you don’t necessarily agree with nor like. Do you think that interviewing a particularly controversial or problematic figure gives them a platform, or are these interviews necessary to inform the public?

  I think that they’re necessary to inform the public, and I think that you should allow the public to make up their own mind about that person. That doesn’t mean that you can’t challenge the person, I don’t agree with just allowing people to sit in front of you and spout complete bullshit, I think that you should be able to fact check them. But do I think that there’s people that should not be given a platform? No. Because I think that’s a really slippery slope, because who decides who gets to have a platform and so on?

  I think that the role of the journalist is to try to hold the person to account, because the public’s not stupid. They can kind of see if someone’s a snake oil salesman or a charlatan. I think, as long as you’re doing your job properly as the journalist, that should be ok. Say for example, if you take Donald Trump. You can dislike Donald Trump, you can have problems with Donald Trump. It doesn’t change the fact that he’s the president of the United States, that he’s the person who wields enormous power. Pretending that he’s not that, is not going to be helpful. It’s better to scrutinise what he’s doing.

  Do you ever feel ethically conflicted interviewing these types of people?

  I remember one of the hardest topics having to cover was the same sex marriage debate. I have a lot of gay and lesbian friends, and so obviously my personal opinion [was that] I wanted to see it happen. I felt bad for my friends, that I felt that they felt they were being judged all the time, but obviously that was a big debate that was happening nationally. I was at a job that required me to air both sides of the debate.

  So, sometimes, if I was interviewing somebody that was opposed to same sex marriage, I would feel “oh, I hope if my friends are watching this that they don’t feel like I’m betraying them by letting this person come on my program”. But, I do think that my friends understood the nature of what my role is.

  But that’s not to say that, as you say, you’re a human being. Sometimes you’re interviewing people that you don’t like, you don’t like what they’re saying. But, I think if you can’t deal with that, then you’re not in the right field, basically. Because journalism requires you to do this, you’re making an active choice. You’re choosing that you’re not gonna be an activist in the public space, you’re going to relinquish your right to hold a public opinion on a lot of issues, because you believe in a bigger thing, which is allowing the public to be provided with information that’s free of an agenda, so they can make up their own mind. So, if there’s an issue or there’s a topic where you feel that that’s impossible for you, then maybe it’s a thing where you’d be better off to go and work in that space as an activist. That might be more fulfilling to you.

  I imagine that for most interviews, you have a good idea of how your audience wants the interview to go. How do you balance your own instincts and line of questioning, what the audience wants to see, and what the interviewee wants to ‘get’ out of the interview? Is one more important than the other?

  I’m always thinking about what the audience wants to know, because I’m there to represent the audience. Basically, my role is to find out the information that they would want. So, I feel like if I’m not in sync with the audience, then I’m doing something wrong.

  In terms of the interviewee, the only time I guess I’m really thinking actively about what the interviewee might want to get out of it is if they are a regular person who’s been in the middle of a traumatic event. And then, I’m concerned for their wellbeing, and to make sure that as the interviewer, I’m not doing further harm.

  Let’s say someone’s lost a family member in a catastrophic bushfire. People choose all sorts of different reasons why they might want to do an interview. They might want the same thing to not happen to somebody else in the future, they might want their loved one’s death to not be in vain, so they might want something good to come out of it. They might want people to remember their loved one as more than the victim of this terrible catastrophe, and to flesh them out more fully as a person, or any million other reasons why people choose to do interviews. So, if the person’s told me I wanna do this because, and this actually happened one time, I don’t want people to think of my mum as just the first person to die in aged care of COVID, I want people to know she was a great woman. Then, I will absolutely ask questions like “tell me what your mum’s like”, because I want that traumatised person to get out of the experience what they hoped to get out of it, because then it can kind of help them. And it’t no skin off my nose to help them do that. But if it’s say, a politician, and they’ve got a talking point, I don’t really care what they want to say.

  Public figures, especially politicians, are renowned for being quite evasive or untrustworthy in interviews. How do you balance standing your ground and making sure the interviewee continues to share?

  I think it’s all in the manner with which you do it. Usually people in power are fairly experienced at interviews, and they also have armies of people in their staff who help them prepare for people like me. So, I guess it’s being persistent and firm and challenging, but in a polite way. The person can’t feel attacked.

  And also, and this is another reason why to put your opinions aside and rely on fact, let’s say I’m interviewing the treasurer about, you know, a cut to the single mother’s pension. And I say, well, aren’t you concerned this is going to disadvantage women? He might say, well, that’s your opinion Leigh. But if I can say, well actually, I’m quoting from the Council of Social Services, they say the average single mother’s going to be $25 a week worse off, then it’s hard for the person to think that I’m just pushing my opinion on them, because I’m just quoting from facts and data and so on. So it’s all in the manner of not getting heated up, keeping your tone even, and just making sure, I guess, that you’re politely persistent.

  I have one last question for you. You mentioned before The Assembly. I love the show, my friends and I have little watch parties sometimes. What inspired you to get involved in and make the show?

  It was a French format originally, the ABC sent me an episode of the French version to watch where they interviewed the French president Emmanuel Macron. Having come off 15 years basically of an interview show, 7.30, and before that, Lateline, I was pretty tired of spin in interviews, and trying to bust through people’s answers, and bust through people’s walls.

  And then when I saw this French show, and the way that the autistic people just would ask the most frank questions from all sorts of different angles, and just breaking the ‘rules’ for an interview, and then the way that the person being interviewed responded to that, because it’s just so different so they’re very engaged by it, I just thought yeah, this could be a way now to do interviews that actually does bring something fresh. That really appealed [to me], along with just getting some different voices in the media and people that you don’t hear from. A lot of people stop me in the street to talk about that show because so many Australians have experience of a family member or somebody close to them with a disability, or who is autistic, and so I think they really like seeing that represented on telly.

  ---

  Editors’ Note: Woroni acknowledges Sales’ statements regarding the Autistic community are not a fully accurate portrayal of the Autistic experience. Students with disabilities, including autism, can get support from the ANU Disabilities Students Association. Learn more about the DSA on their Facebook or Instagram or contact the Disabilities Officers at sa.disabilities@anu.edu.au.

• Making Waves

  February 21, 2024 8:41 pm Comments Off on Making Waves

  At any given moment in time, there are countless ripples travelling through spacetime, traversing the very fabric of our universe. These ripples are known as gravitational waves, and were first predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916 in his general theory of relativity. 

  Almost a century later in 2015, direct evidence of gravitational waves was finally obtained when the Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory) detectors, located in Hanford, Washington and Livingston, Louisiana, USA detected the long-awaited signal. 

  The 0.2 second audible signal, which was described to resemble the “chirp” of a bird, was actually the product of a black hole collision. This event occurred more than 1 billion years ago. Two massive black holes merged into one, warping the fabric of spacetime and sending ripples through the universe which were eventually detected on Earth as tiny vibrations.

  The successful LIGO experiment sent its own waves through the science community. The search for gravitational waves had consisted of decades of unrelenting hard work by over a thousand physicists around the globe and billions of dollars of investment, so the news was both extremely exciting and highly anticipated.

  Now you might be wondering what is next for gravitational wave research. After all, the amazing detection of gravitational waves was already accomplished in 2015.

  However, in reality, the exploration of gravitational waves has only just begun as researchers continue to use LIGO and a growing network of detectors around the world (e.g. LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration) to investigate the nature of our universe. In exciting news, the ANU, as part of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC), will play a central role in this global venture.

  Last year I was lucky enough to get the chance to interview Dr Lilli Sun and Dr Jennie Wright, astrophysicists from ANU’s Centre for Gravitational Astrophysics to gain some further insight into the current field of gravitational wave research and ANU’s new LIGO remote control room. 

   

  Firstly, could you explain what a gravitational wave is in simple terms?

  Jennie: A gravitational wave is a sort of stretching and squeezing of spacetime itself. When we have mass in the universe, it causes spacetime to curve, as explained in the theory of General Relativity. A gravitational wave is like a ripple instead of just a curve that stays still. 

  Lilli: You can also think of an analogy like a water wave – for example, dropping a stone in water and then seeing ripples spreading out. When we have something very heavy, like black holes that collide, they trigger those ripples in spacetime. 

   

  What are your specific research focuses and what are you currently working on?

  Lilli: I do mostly astrophysics; using gravitational waves to study black holes, neutron stars, and even searching for dark matter. I do a lot of data analysis to see what the gravitational-wave signals tell us – e.g. whether it tells us that Einstein and his general theory of relativity is right or if there is something unexpected. 

  One of my projects is about searching for dark matter particles using gravitational waves – we don’t know if they exist or not, but analysing gravitational wave signatures is one possible way to look for them. I also work a bit on detectors, working with instrumentalists like Jennie. 

  Jennie: What I work on is somewhat related. I’m an instrumentalist as Lilli said, so I’m an experimental physicist and my job has two parts. Half of my time I spend at ANU, working on technologies that we can use to improve gravitational wave detectors of the future. We’re making them more sensitive so they can see further out into the universe and also can see a wider range of signal frequencies. And so, I work on developing technology that basically tries to distinguish things near the detector that look like gravitational wave sources, but actually aren’t – like a truck breaking near the detector, or just air moving near it. 

  The other part of my job is to help improve the current detectors. Since we use light in the gravitational wave detector to measure the stretching and squeezing of spacetime, we want to have as much light in there as possible. But, because mirrors and optical systems aren’t perfect, we sometimes lose quite a lot of light, so I look at those diagnostic measurements to try to figure out where we’re losing light. 

   

  Now that gravitational waves have already been detected, what is next for the field of gravitational wave research?

  Lilli: There are many aspects actually: the 2015 discovery was only the beginning. The 2015 event for two black holes colliding into each other and the famous 2017 event for a two neutron star collision are very highlighted events, but now we are collecting many more of them including some special systems. The large number of detections will bring us important information of the population.

  There are other types of gravitational waves. For example, we are looking for very faint gravitational waves from a single spinning neutron star. Neutron stars are not perfect spheres, so when they rotate they can generate very weak gravitational waves, which is something we are searching for. Another example is to probe dark matter using gravitational waves. So, we need more sensitive detectors and more of them in the network. 

   

  Moving onto the ANU remote control room, what exactly is a control room and how specifically would the remote control room work?

  Jennie: So, a control room is usually a room you have next to a lab with an experiment in it: usually one that needs to be in either a really clean environment, or a slightly dangerous environment. So, you set all the physical parts of it up, so you can obtain electronic signals through to your control room that tell you what is happening. And then you can do all the data-taking and analysis from that control room. 

  In LIGO, they have the control rooms right next to the detector because they don’t want to be walking around next to the detector while it’s running, as they might introduce noise to it. They also have a whole bank of screens which decipher how each sub-system is working. 

  About the remote control room: whilst we don’t have a gravitational wave detector in Australia, many Australian scientists have been involved in gravitational wave detection from the start, and so this allows us to participate in improving the detector remotely. So, you can see on some of the screens here, I have a read-out of the different sub-systems and if they’re working correctly. For example, green tells us that they’re observing data and red tells us that they’re down and need to be fixed. And this is all in real time. 

  That’s really useful, because before we had this, we just had the little screen on our computers, and you had to try to view everything simultaneously and it was quite difficult. My colleagues and I will also occasionally do shifts when the detector is running, because we might have to call up people in other countries. If there’s an exciting gravitational wave event, we sometimes need to announce things to other astronomers, so they can point their telescopes to certain parts of the sky.  

  Lilli: Although it’s a ‘remote’ control room, you can still control some of the sub-systems of the detector. It’s just that we need to be very careful, especially during observation. There will be someone in charge in the real control room, and we can collaborate with them. The advantage of having the remote control room is that it makes it much easier for Australian colleagues, as we are not close to the detector, but we can read off the real-time information in a much more convenient way, on the other side of the world. 

   

  So, the detector isn’t always on all the time?

  Jennie: There’s a trade-off between the physicists who work on improving it, and the astronomers who want to collect data using it. If you improve the sensitivity, you’re more likely to see really exciting events we haven’t seen before. But if you increase the time the detector is on for, you’re also more likely to see more events. So, there are sometimes periods where we’re not touching the detector for around 18 months, and periods where there is no data collection for a year, and maintenance and upgrading occurs. 

   

  From a bigger perspective, what role is Australia and ANU playing in the further research of gravitational waves? 

  Lilli: Australia is one of the major collaborators in the large international LIGO-VIRGO-KAGRA collaboration. There is a large group here working on gravitational wave astrophysics and detector science. These days, Australian scientists also want to propose and work towards building an Australian detector in the future, which is pretty exciting. 

  Right now, we are also thinking about the next generation detectors – like what kind of design and technology is needed that can give us a one-order of magnitude increase in sensitivity, which can get us much deeper into the universe. Australian colleagues are working on both the existing science of gravitational waves, but also the future. 

  Jennie: In the past, Australia has developed sub-systems which are now used in the detector, contributing mirrors for example. Also, Lilli is in charge of the calibration group for LIGO, and that’s just an example, but we have a lot of staff in Australia who are leading some aspect of the LIGO scientific collaboration’s research. We’ve also been instrumental in the design of something called the Squeezer which is used in LIGO to improve its sensitivity, making the detectors the quantum instruments that they are.

  Lilli: Regarding astrophysics and data analysis, there are quite a few large groups from different Australian universities within OzGrav working on the data being collected these days. A lot of studies are carried out in Australia, but we also work very closely with international colleagues. 

   

  What are some benefits of these large-scale projects, e.g. do they help bring countries closer together and encourage international cooperation?

  Lilli: I think yes, definitely. These days, it’s getting difficult to do small narrow research projects by yourself. With projects like gravitational wave detectors, you have large instruments, and that involves many different aspects: you need to work with engineers on different sub-systems, theoretical physicists to understand how the astrophysics work, software engineers and data analysts for dealing with huge amounts of data, and also astronomers who do different kinds of follow-up observations. All these people are playing important roles, and they come from different countries, different parts of the world. Close collaboration is critical.

  Jennie: I think it’s really useful to have these big projects, because any falling out between countries can get in the way. It also definitely broadened my horizons, as I’m from Scotland, which isn’t as multicultural. Without science, I definitely wouldn’t have travelled and experienced different cultures as much.

   

  Last question, what’s your advice for students looking to get into this field or just interested in your research?

  Lilli: I think there are lots of chances for students to talk to us and do small projects. If they’re really interested there are lots of ways to get into the field. We do lots of summer/winter projects and we also teach undergraduate courses, where we discuss gravitational waves at a more basic level. Many students are interested, and we have extended discussions and they come to us for small projects or Honours and end up staying for PhD. 

  Jennie: I think definitely the best way is just to email someone who works in the fields. Academics love students being interested in their research, otherwise they wouldn’t be working at a university and teaching. I’m really happy whenever a student asks me, and I think that’s how I got involved in the field too.

  Lilli: Yes, definitely talk to academics and lecturers in the field if you’re interested. 

  Jennie: And I think that’s the same in all areas of science as well, people are super keen to tell you about their research, you just have to ask them. 

   

  Photograph of some of the screens in the control room.

  

   

  Dr Jennie Wright (left) and Dr Lilli Sun (right) in the remote control room.

  

   

  A huge thank you to Dr Lilli Sun and Dr Jennie Wright for taking the time to do an interview and for so generously sharing their knowledge. 

• Interview with Chri$tian Gate$ – Woroni Artist Series

  June 26, 2023 7:00 pm Comments Off on Interview with Chri$tian Gate$ – Woroni Artist Series

  Chri$tian Gate$ is an up-and-coming alternative rock and pop artist from California, USA who has recently released his debut Extended Play (EP); Why Do I Hear Breathing?. The 20 year old musician boasts an impressive social media presence and is slated to perform at Lollapalooza 2023. We sat down with Chri$tian Gate$ to discuss his debut EP, his creative process, and the importance of social media for young musicians. 

   

  Let’s start with our first question. You’ve recently released Why Do I Hear Breathing?. We just want to know what’s the song that you’re proudest of on the album? 

  I think Never with You Again is probably my favourite. When I first wrote it, we made the acoustic. My friend, Sarcastic Sounds, played the acoustic while we were all on a writing camp together and I had a feeling, I was like, “I feel like if I get my heart broken, I want to use this”, and then my heart got broken. So then I immediately drove to my producer friend’s house and I was like, “hey, I need to write something to this, let’s record something”, and I sat in the car for like 30 minutes. I wrote the song and I was like, “hey, can we record?” He’s like, “no people are sleeping in my house”. And I’m like, “well, what can we do?” and he’s like, “we can try recording at the park”. So then we went to the park and we recorded the whole song and somehow it sounds like it was recorded in the studio and I think it came out really, really dope. 

   

  That’s amazing. What was the hardest song to create on Why Do I Hear Breathing?? Obviously you recorded in a park for one of your songs. But was that the hardest song or were there other songs on it that you were like, wow, this is really difficult, but you’re glad that you got it done. 

  Most of them came together pretty smoothly. [The song] Why Do I Hear Breathing? had some issues with putting it out. Some people were not letting it happen, like holding it back, but then it finally came out. So maybe that, but everything else seemed to work out fine. 

   

  You’ve mentioned that getting your heart broken, I’m very sorry about that, was sort of your main source of inspiration. Is that sort of the whole main inspiration for Why Do I Hear Breathing? or is it just what you were feeling at the time of writing each song? 

  If you go in order, the EP is the different insecure thoughts you can get throughout a relationship until it inevitably ends. So each song in order are just my thoughts. And then the final song [BREATHE] is just like a bonus song about me having a twin and then murdering him and dressing in his clothes to reap his fame.

   

  You’ve released songs before Why Do I Hear Breathing?. Did the EP have a different source of inspiration or was this just like continuing on from what you’ve started with? 

  I think it was pretty similar, but I’m making a new EP and that is coming out pretty soon, in the next few months. And that one has a very different inspiration. I can’t say what it is yet, but it is totally different, but it’s really cool. 

   

  So tell me a little bit more about your creative process just in general. What is your starting point when you are making a song? 

  I would say I start with someone who knows how to play guitar or piano really well and we just go through a bunch of different chords. Once we find a chord progression that fits the vibe I’m in, we go from there and then kind of figure out what we want to write about. Most of the time it’s true experiences that I’ve been through or those of people close to me. It’s like I’m telling other people stories who wouldn’t really be able to tell the stories themselves. And that’s pretty much it. 

   

  I’m excited to listen to it when it comes out then! So moving to more about you as a musician. We’ve seen that you are performing at Lollapalooza this year, but you’ve also performed live before. What is your most memorable live performance so far? 

  I did a show in Chicago and there were two fans that wanted me to sign their chest with a Sharpie. I had to sign everybody really fast and I signed both of them and they said “we’re gonna go get this tattooed” and I was like, “no, please don’t”. It was like a big giant ugly signature on their chest. I told them, “please don’t, just send me a picture of you with a tattoo artist and then I’ll come back and I’ll do it better and then you can get that tattooed”. I was gonna do it like way smaller, but they went and they sent me videos of them just getting those tatted. It’s cool that somebody would do that, but it sucks that they did it. 

   

  Are you looking forward to performing at Lollapalooza? I’ve sort of seen who you’re performing with and it’s quite a big show with big names.

  I’m excited. There’s a lot of people there that I’d love to see and I got a lot of friends performing there. It’s gonna be really cool. It’s my first festival. I’ve never been to a festival before, so I can’t wait. 

   

  You found your footing in the music industry and popularity through TikTok and other social media. Do you think the value of platforms like TikTok is for young emerging artists like yourself and other people? 

  I think it is priceless. There’s no other way that I know of to get a similar result within a similar amount of time. It’s probably the best tool that you could ask for.

   

  Do you have any advice for young people looking to get into the music scene? 

  Only do it if you really, really want to do it and you don’t care about money. A lot of the time the money won’t come for a while. If you’re motivated by the wrong reasons, your music is gonna suffer and your mental health will suffer as well.

   

  Finally, do you have anything that you would want people to know about you?

  I’m making a new EP and I’m excited about it. It’s a folk, borderline country-but-not EP and it’s way different but way different in a cool way. And I’m just, I’m so excited for this to come out. 

  Awesome. Well, thank you so much for your time.

   

  Chri$tian Gate$’s debut EP Why Do I Hear Breathing? is available to stream on all major platforms. The music video for Never With You Again is out now on YouTube.

• Advocacy, Consultancy and Community: A Day With The DSA

  September 26, 2022 11:43 am Comments Off on Advocacy, Consultancy and Community: A Day With The DSA

  One sunny Wednesday during the teaching break, Co Disabilities Officer, Maddi McCarthy, sat down for a chat with Woroni  in their Spoon Space, located in Copland. Maddi outlined the challenges and rewards of providing advocacy for disabled students and consultancy for the ANU. From the 26th of September through to the 30th the Disabilities Students Association will be running a series of events for Spoon Week. For more details and how to get involved with the DSA, see here.

   

  Maddi, how long have you been involved with the Disabilities Student Association (DSA)?

   I got involved at the start of last year because I was a disability advocate at a res hall and as part of that I had to be involved with the Department.

   

  What was the difference between working for the Department versus your res hall?

  In my res hall people didn’t really know what disability meant. Working in a collective is very different because everyone who engages is very aware. My work in the hall setting was very much just trying to introduce what disability was, destigmatising it, and trying to make my hall more accessible because hall accessibility is a real problem. That work was really just case by case sort of helping run events and making them accessible whereas in the collective it’s institutional advocacy.

   

  You mentioned that you’ve worked on a case-by-case basis and at an institutional level, do you think one of these offers more value to students than the other? Do you see your institutional work at the ANU actually paying off?

  When the institutional level work does pay off it is very beneficial but institutional advocacy is a lot harder because it is really difficult to see that change. When it does happen it is very rewarding.

  When it’s one-on-one you see the change faster and it is more gratifying in the moment. It’s a lot easier to work with someone individually versus trying to institute a systemic change. When you do actually succeed in changing something for the university it is more beneficial for more people. I guess they both have their own merits.

   

  Has the ANU historically been uncooperative with the DSA?

  Yes [laughs] for sure. We have done campaigns this year and while the people we talk to from the ANU seem to be very open, the actual changes don’t eventuate. It is very hard to make change happen at the ANU. Working with lecturers seems to be a bit easier and we see change happening there but when working with colleges or the ANU as a whole, they seem to be a little more reluctant and are sometimes quite difficult to work with. It is a bit frustrating when we keep trying to do stuff and they keep pushing back.

   

  Why do you think they are reluctant to action your recommendations?

  I think with a lot of the changes we are pushing for they are pushing back because it’s either more convenient for them or it’s a money thing. For example, the most recent thing we’ve been doing is trying to make ANU keep all classes hybrid for the near future, especially while COVID-19 is still a factor. I think for them they consider that that is either more effort or it is not benefitting them. They want to push everyone back onto campus because maybe that will mean they’ll get more money from res halls or stuff like that. For us we’re trying to push it from the perspective of ‘this is harming your students’ but when you’re working with a university whose main priority is money, profitability is a big thing. Not that they’ve ever actually admitted that to us, but I do think that’s a lot of what it is. Or they are just reluctant to make changes because it is not going to be easy for them.

   

  With DSA Collective members, for a lot of them hybrid learning is a matter of their health and safety rather than convenience; what does it mean then to be an advocate for your Collective in that context?

  For Collective members these policies literally damage us. For us to have to push for our own safety is really emotionally difficult. People who are immunocompromised or who have health conditions, for them to, for example, get COVID-19, it is not just a matter of “I will isolate for a week and I’ll be fine”. Our collective members can get really sick and have permanent health problems that result from it. To keep hearing ANU complain about effort and workload, knowing that people in our Collective that we work with are going to suffer for it, is really difficult. But it makes us quite passionate about the issues and it’s one of the things that makes us want to really do the work.

   

  It feels like the stakes are really high in the DSA particularly.

  Yes, for sure. When you have friends in the collective who tell you stories about how sick they’ve been in the past and how scared they are, yeah, it is really difficult.

   

  It seems a large component of your job then is emotional burden.

  For sure it is. Because even when it is not to do with the COVID-19 stuff – even just fighting for Education Access Plans (EAP) for example – all we’re doing is trying to access our education and we just need accommodations in place for us to be able to do that. When you’ve got all this pushback it is frustrating because we are just trying to access university. In whatever setting it’s happening in, and with whatever we’re fighting for at the time, it always just comes back to that.

   

  Other than hybrid learning, what is the number one thing that the DSA wants right now?

  One of the other things we are pushing for is EAPs. A lot of students have EAPs and we get a lot of individual advocacy come through to us where the lecturers refuse to acknowledge it or refuse to accept EAPs. We are really trying to push for EAP training and sensitivity training.

   One thing we’ve noticed a lot is people who are trying to ask for EAPs are often asked to justify themselves and they’re putting in a lot of emotional labour just to get an EAP accepted, which is not something we think should be happening. That has been an ongoing struggle for years: to get lecturers to understand EAPs and to not ask students to justify why they need it. We’re working with Access and Inclusion to achieve that.

   

  Do you find Access and Inclusion to be an effective partner?

  I think they’re valuable in getting EAPs and a lot of people do have good experiences getting EAPs. There are some issues that we’ve had with them in the past, but we tend to be able to work through it with them and they are definitely a valuable resource for us. They’re the reason we have EAPs in the first place.

  If we do need official ANU back up because we’re fighting an EAP case it is good to have them as a partner because they’re ANU staff. Sometimes if lecturers aren’t responding to a student perspective it can be helpful to have ANU step in to back us up as well.

   

  What do you think the DSA means to the institution of the ANU?

  I would hope it’s a good resource for them to communicate with but sometimes it does feel like it’s just ticking a box.

  The DSA, or at least myself and Mira (the other co-officer), are in a lot of working groups and we’re consulted by pro-VCs [deputy to the Vice-Chancellor] and stuff like that but sometimes it does just feel like “oh we’ve talked to the DSA and they’ve approved it, we’re good to go”. We hope we are a resource for the ANU to use to make sure the work they are doing is accessible. That is what we think we should be. But a lot of the time it does feel like they think “we’ve checked with the disabled people, they’re fine with it”.

   

  What do you think it means to ANU students in a cultural sense?

  For a lot of ANU students with a disability it is still quite stigmatised to stand up and say “I have a disability” so to have a space and to have a collective with other students who are experiencing very similar things is really comforting and safe. Especially for me it took me a long time to be comfortable with the fact that I am disabled and so to have people around me who have gone through the same thing is really nice. Then having people support you and advocate for you is really good as well. It is really good to be able to go to a collective and talk about things where people can relate to you. Having a safe space where you know you’re accepted and understood is really important.

   

  Other than those reasons why should someone get involved with the DSA?

  Other than the fact it is a community, I think it is good to be involved because it’s good to have people who can back you up. If you have any questions you can come to us because we are understanding about disability and how it functions in a tertiary education institution. You can come to us for information, for the social aspect, for advocacy and other resources.

   

  Any closing remarks?

  I’d like to reinforce that disability is a wide term. I think a lot of people don’t even know what it means or if they fall under the definition. It’s so broad – mental health, anaphylaxis, food allergies and physical disability all qualify. We’re really inclusive and we’re trying to spread what that definition is and break down the stigma of what a disabled person looks like.

• Interview with Mark Opitz

  October 4, 2017 9:20 pm Comments Off on Interview with Mark Opitz

  Mark Opitz is an Australian recording legend and award winning record producer. He’s worked with the likes of The Divinyls, AC/DC, Australian Crawl and INXS (just to name a few). He’s now a visiting fellow at the ANU School of Music, so Chloe Sinclair had a chat with him about the industry and what he’s doing at the School.

  WhatwasuniqueabouttherocksceneinAustraliainthe70’sand80’sthatproducedso manyseminalartists?

  I think the availability of venues for artists to play at was the big difference. Having pubs enabled all the acts to hone their craft four or five time a week, and sometimes twice a night. That had been going on since the 70’s and 80’s and into the early 90’s; then poker machines regulations and fire rules changed all of that. Those particular years were very productive in terms of Australian acts.

  Whenyou’reproducingbands,doyouseeyourselfasworkingtogethertocreatemusic, ordoyoustepinaftertheinitialrecordingisdoneanddothefinalpolishing?

  No, I work from the start. From song selection in rehearsals, to arrangement and then into the studio. I say to acts “we’re not recording singles, we’re not recording albums, we’re recording.” Because we’re working in both the digital and analog domain, it allows me to keep on re-arranging right up to the final mix stage. It’s a bit like a movie director, when a director receives a script they’ll change it, make it shorter, bring in different feelings; it’s the same deal what I do as a record producer.

  Wheredoyoudrawthelinebetweenmusicianshavingcreativefreedom,andimposing yourvisionastheproducer?

  I don’t necessarily impose my vision. I always work with an act and I want to see what the vision of that act is. The minute you start charging people to buy your music you have a responsibility to the public to do it the best way you possibly can. So my idea has always been attracted by the act’s vision they already have. It’s all about working as a team and bringing to bear the experience I’ve had over many years to take the music up to another level.

  HaveyouworkedininternationalaswellasAustralianstudios?

  I worked in both, literally half and half over my career. I love working in France and other non-english speaking countries, but I also work a lot in the United States and the United Kingdom. These days I’m really enjoying working in places like France, Turkey and Italy. Just changing it up, being refreshed and inspired.

  What’sthecraziestthingthat’severhappenedwhileworkinginthestudio?

  I can remember on one particular project working with Kiss. I’d be working 12 to 18 hours a day, but you’d get to have a laugh once a day because Gene Simmons would ring up just out of the blue with a joke or a queer question. Probably lots of crazy things have happened, but you sort of don’t remember them much because you’re responsible for people’s working lives, you’re responsible for people’s dreams.

  WhatareyouplanningtodoattheANUSchoolofMusic?

  Since I’ve been invited to be a visiting fellow obviously the regular things and I’ve already done some lectures and tutorials. What I’m trying to do also is bring international and Australian musicians to the University to talk about their music. I have some big plans going into 2018 that we’re still developing with the school.

  TheANUspentoveramilliondollarsonthenewstudio,what’sitlike?

  I think it’s great. The fact that the ANU we’re brave enough to spend that sort of money on a studio. It’s a fantastic tool, a fantastic instrument, in fact, for all the music students. Professor Brian Schmidt said that part of his plan to making it one of the best music schools in the world is to have world class recording facilities. I mean you can record an orchestra in Llewellyn Hall and in the studio, or you can record a large band or something very intimate. It’s a great instrument, and that’s the way it should be seen, for the students in general to use and learn and experiment with their own music.

  Whatareyoulookingforwhenworkingwithstudentsinthestudio?

  I’ve been working with students already in terms of tutorials. During the Open Day, we did a recording session and I basically handed it over to two of the students to actually run the whole session. I’ll be coming back in a couple of weeks and running more lectures and sessions in the studio.

  Withtechnologychangingsorapidly,wheredoyouseethemusicindustryin5or10 yearstime?

  Well technology is always going to change, and the music industry is always going to change. Music will change according to that image and its importance in the culture. One thing for sure, music is never ever going to go away. The changes in youth culture and culture in general will dictate how music changes. But the most important thing is, it’s the old cliche, music is the international language. Music is like air, like water, it’s like eating, like loving, music is so essential. The changes, well that’s up to how to world progresses.

• Interview with Jack Wang about Chinese international students in Australian universities

  September 20, 2017 12:16 pm Comments Off on Interview with Jack Wang about Chinese international students in Australian universities

  Jack Wang is the vice-president of the Chinese Scholars and Students Association.

  What’s it like for a Chinese student to come to Australia?

  Well, to be honest, it’s quite difficult, especially for the first-year students – they just came from home, and they know nothing about Australian society. Also, the majority of families in China only have one child, so these students usually come from backgrounds where their parents cared for them extensively. So, they don’t know how to cook, their English isn’t that good, and they have difficulty making new friends, especially with Aussies because of the cultural backgrounds. In fact, there was one first-year Chinese student who passed away due to suicide, partly because this transition was so difficult.

  First-year Chinese students, especially the girls, find it very difficult to enter Australian society. We tend to do a lot of stuff with the girls, but the boys usually take better care of themselves. Maybe it’s because they don’t really want to seek help, but the girls are more talkative, the CSSA has a lot of female members. The girls tend to talk amongst themselves a lot more.

  There might be a little bit of racism. There’s more of a glass ceiling or stereotyping case. There was a lecturer this year, who wrote in Chinese ‘no cheating’; there was actually a big debate about this. It’s hard to say. I would say that racism does happen, but not to such a large degree.

  And regarding the language barrier, it’s difficult for both sides. Chinese students are good at written English, but not spoken. It’s difficult for them to speak English, and comprehend spoken English. It’s also difficult for Aussies to understand what we’re saying.

  Furthermore, many Chinese people aren’t very outgoing. They’re much more comfortable with Chinese-only events. So, the CSSA often holds basketball and soccer events catered towards Chinese people.

  There is a divide between Chinese international students and others – why do you think it exists?

  First of all – the language barrier. When I first came here, I had no idea what the Aussies were saying. We’re also more used to the American-English accent since that’s what we learn in school.

  Secondly, there’s the cultural difference. For example. I went to a housewarming today, and they told us to ‘bring a plate’. One of the Chinese students just brought a plate, with no food in it! Another example of this cultural difference is that in China when I want to build a relationship with you, I’d ask you to dinner, so that we can talk. In Australia, people ask to grab a beer or coffee together, which Chinese students don’t really feel comfortable with.

  Also, a lot of Chinese students who come to ANU are more focused on academics rather than socialising.

  A few members of the Australian public have been very vocal on media, voicing their distaste in Chinese international students. Some have even accused them of spying on Australia for the Chinese government. Others accuse them of spreading the Chinese government’s propaganda in Australian universities and stifling free speech. What do you think about these claims?

  People keep asking me this question – are you guys spying on us? Do you work for the embassy? Do you get funding from the embassy? I mean, come on. We are not. Maybe they’re saying this because CSSA is everywhere, around the world – but as long as there’s a Chinese student in a university, there will be a CSSA; like a brotherhood or sisterhood. We have more interesting things to do than spy on Australian students.

  The CSSA has been a target of a lot of bad press. To clear up some misconceptions, the CSSA’s of all these different universities are not all connected to each other. The CSSA here, we – view ourselves as a cultural ambassador between Australia and China. Our priority is to make sure students understand the culture and don’t break the law. For example, one of the first-year students was conducting an online transaction, when the other guy just ran away with the money. Since they we not too good at English, we took them to the police station, to help with understanding the situation and culture.

  Regarding free speech, there’s been a lot of controversy in the news about that map during a lecture that showed a part of China’s territory as India’s. I can’t comment on specific issues, but there is definitely a difference between the cultural backgrounds of the two countries. Australians are a bit hypocritical in terms of free speech; Australians firmly believe in it, but there are many things you can’t say; strongly contrary opinions to political issues like feminism, or marriage equality, to name a couple. In China, we can say whatever we want, but only in small social bubbles. It’s not something we do because of the government, but more because the Chinese people will disagree with you. We do have freedom of speech, but not in the Australian way. It’s not that doesn’t China doesn’t practise freedom of speech; it’s more that Australia and China practise it in very different ways.

  It seems that the media is just picking on Chinese students because we don’t tend to get involved in the political side of things. Furthermore, I think this is a process of two cultures coming to terms with the inconsistencies within their cultures. There has been a recent boom in Chinese students and Chinese people in general coming to Australia, and this discussion in the media only shows that people want to talk about it and overcome cultural differences.

  What can we do from now on?

  This is what I do – I believe that when I meet a new person, they’re like a mirror. When you smile, they will smile back, and when you say ‘hello’ to them, they will say ‘hello’ back to you. We need more of an understanding and respect between the cultures. We aren’t evil; we aren’t crazy. We just need to understand each other.

• The Threat of Geological Hazards to Australia and its Neighbours: Investigating Geological Hazards with Professor Phil Cummins

  August 31, 2017 8:51 am Comments Off on The Threat of Geological Hazards to Australia and its Neighbours: Investigating Geological Hazards with Professor Phil Cummins

  While Australia might weather the brunt of cyclones and bushfires in the Asia-Pacific region, geological hazards tend to attract much less attention.

  Thus, begs the question: should Australia’s natural hazard management policy do more to address geological hazards?

  Despite the absence of large recorded earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in Australia’s historical past, the risks posed by geological hazards have more potential to affect our day to day lives than we may realise. And these geological hazards do happen in Australia: take, for example, the 1989 Newcastle Earthquake (a magnitude 5.6 earthquake that claimed 13 lives), or the geologically ‘recent’ eruption of Mt Gambier in South Australia 5,000 years ago.

  Indeed, relatively recent events like the 2004 Boxing Day Earthquake and Tsunami, along with the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami, highlight the risks presented to our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific context. As Australia attempts to strengthen its neighbourly ties, the importance of understanding geological hazards present in the Asia-Pacific region becomes increasingly apparent.

  Professor Phil Cummins, a researcher in Seismology and Mathematical Geophysics at the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences, looks at the risks associated with the hazards within the Asia-Pacific region. Investigating these risks is critical to improving the safety of people living in the Asia-Pacific region, and are even applicable to the Australian context.

  One of the biggest challenges, says Professor Cummins, is that we don’t have a good record of high impact geological hazard events. When people build houses, plan for the future and look at the circumstances of living, geological hazards are of little consideration when things like high magnitude earthquakes only occur once every 10,000 years.

  It’s this lack of information which Professor Cummins’s research focuses on. Filling this gap of information is essential to maintaining the safety and security of some of the world’s most vulnerable communities, especially in southeast Asia and the southwest Pacific. As Professor Cummins tells us, Japan has one of the best historical records of geological hazards, but the events that unfolded on 11 March 2011 in Japan still came as a complete surprise.

  Professor Cummins tells us that Japan prepared itself for large earthquakes as ‘many buildings certainly in Tokyo and northeast Japan were pretty resilient to that level of ground shaking’ – but ‘the tsunami was a lot bigger than expected’ and this is what caused the most amount of damage and fatalities. It’s the relatively poor knowledge of these sorts of events that makes them dangerous to communities, especially when they lack the information and resources to prepare for them.

  This is where the investigation of geological hazards in relation to Australia finds its place. Professor Cummins says that Australia ‘can experience earthquakes up to magnitude seven or even up to magnitude 7.5’. It is not unlikely that such an earthquake might occur in a major urban centre, with potentially devastating consequences. Since the 1989 Newcastle Earthquake, building codes in Australia have been updated to include earthquake safety standards. However, many buildings across Australia were built prior to these building codes and present a substantial risk today.

  Throughout our discussion, this theme of the visibility of geological hazards remains a constant challenge for how Professor Cummins’s research can be used to save lives. The period over which geological hazards occur is based on long-term timescales, meaning that short-term government policy and public awareness remains insensitive to the underlying vulnerability of populations to these geological hazards.

  Though weather – perhaps justifiably – remains at the forefront of the Australian public discourse surrounding natural disaster management, Australia maintains a responsibility to protect against geological hazards for its own population. This includes the protection of its neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region. Professor Cummins tells us of the importance to support them as due to Australia’s economic investments, tourists and citizens in this region: Bali, Indonesia, is potentially the ‘source of the greatest earthquake and tsunami threat to Australian lives’. On this island in Indonesia, volcanoes and associated hazards like earthquakes and tsunamis may threaten the one million Australian citizens who visit Bali annually.

  When looking at the objective of using research to save lives, Professor Cummins identifies the central problems as being the lack of awareness, the lack of resilient buildings, and the lack of historical records as being key to securing the safety of those living in less developed countries. This is especially true for those who reside on the island of Java, Indonesia. Part of the issues that Professor Cummins mentions is the little awareness of earthquakes, since ‘for some reason during the explosion of population in the 20th century there were just very few large, damaging earthquakes, despite many having occurred earlier during the colonial period’. People don’t take this into account when building houses – and so the Javanese population remain vulnerable to building collapse in the event of a very likely earthquake on Java.

  Geological hazards have the capacity to affect the lives of millions. Professor Cummins mentions that historically volcanic eruptions in Indonesia have had major impacts on agriculture, which can cause widespread famine. In this context, the exposure of geological hazards faced in the Asia-Pacific makes Australia vulnerable to the hazards which may otherwise seem irrelevant and uncommon.

  ‘Even a moderate eruption in Indonesia or the southwest Pacific could cause a major disruption to air traffic to and from Australia, as we saw last year with the eruption of Mt Rinjani on Lombok [an Indonesian island next to Bali].’

  Using analogues from places like Japan where initiatives which minimise the risks associated with geological hazards are integrated into everyday society, Professor Cummins says that Australia can investigate ways to minimise the risk presented to vulnerable populations, like those residing in Indonesia and the Philippines.

  Though Australians may be unfamiliar with geological hazards, the globalised world in which we live – along with the indiscriminate nature of geological hazards – meaning that Australian research which addresses this risk remains important. In September this year, Professor Cummins along with several students from the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences are heading to Japan and several areas affected by the 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami to investigate the geological hazards facing our world today as part of the Australian Government’s New Colombo Program. Indeed, this is just one of the innumerable applications of geoscientific research – and that which, perhaps refreshingly, lies outside the mining focus present across much of Australian geoscience.

  We left the interview with a newfound appreciation for how geology can act to save lives the world over. Thanks to the research of Professor Cummins and other hazard scientists, countless lives are potentially saved from the hidden threats of geological hazards – applicable not only to Australians, but to people in the world’s most vulnerable communities.

  The research of Professor Cummins and other Australian hazard scientists is partially supported by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Australian Research Council.

• Sammy J: ‘Hero Complex’

  May 28, 2017 2:59 pm Comments Off on Sammy J: ‘Hero Complex’

  Perhaps one of the most overused adages in the English language, ‘truth is stranger than fiction,’ has proven, time and again, to be completely spot-on. It’s also the only way I’d be able to describe, in one sentence, the way Sammy J has managed to seamlessly weave together this spellbinding story. Imagine a school gardener, a certain costumed crime fighter from yesteryear and a fateful Model UN conference that sounds so farcical it needs to be seen to be believed. A trite saying does not do the show justice.

  A self-described, ‘skinny man-butterfly effect-coming of age tale,’ Sammy J’s new show,Hero Complex, takes the audience on an autobiographical journey of the comedian’s life – fraught with as much emotion as there is humour and excitement. He downplays the extraordinarily coincidental subject matter of the show in saying, ‘I think everyone has these links in their life. It’s more about stepping back and taking a bird’s eye view of your life.’  Sammy himself admits the show’s reliance on anecdotal evidence, ‘I think the fact that I wrote my diaries for so many years is the key to it all. If I hadn’t done that I assume people would think I’d made everything up, but it’s all there in black and white… or biro and white, rather.’

  Although accompanying visual aids make up the bulk of the show, it's the way Sammy presents them with winsome charm and a splash of cautious confidence make it all the more compelling. ‘It was a weird show to write,’ he explains, likening his role in composing to that of a museum curator rather than a comedian. ‘It was more like a show and tell exercise than anything else.’

  In observing his body of work before the arrival of this show, Sammy has always appeared to have adopted a self-titled ‘character,’ of sorts. When asked if differs to anything else he’s ever done, he admits with an air of relief, ‘it’s the first solo show where it’s me being me. It’s amazing how long it’s taken for that to finally be the case.’ On pre-show rituals, he said: ‘If you had vision of me before a show it would probably be the dullest footage possible,’ confessing, ‘the minute I’m relaxed is when I step out onto the stage. That’s when I really start having fun.’

  He laments that the tour is coming to an end but insists it’s extremely apt that the final leg of the tour ends up here. ‘Canberra is like another character in the show.’Hero Complex is an engaging and hilarious study in the absurdity of everyday life and showcases Sammy J’s ability to meld wit and musicianship together to form a comic experience that will have you laughing from beginning to end.

• Stifled Voices: Women in Philosophy Through the Eyes of Fiona Jenkins

  May 15, 2017 9:44 pm Comments Off on Stifled Voices: Women in Philosophy Through the Eyes of Fiona Jenkins

  The Philosopher’s Stoned

  In this regular column, Anthony Merlino seeks to capture the unique perspective of a different ANU philosopher each fortnight. In doing so, the column will act as a bridge between the School of Philosophy and the ANU student body.

  France. November 1949. Bookshelves are filled with copies of Simone de Beauvoir’s renowned, yet provocative, treatise: The Second Sex. In many ways, the release of this text represents a landmark moment in feminist history. Beneath the ripple effects, however, lie more imperceptible currents of inequality. These tides still guide contemporary philosophy. Associate Professor Fiona Jenkins attempts to chart the interactions between these underlying currents in her current philosophical endeavours.

  A report released by the Australasian Association of Philosophy in 2008 – Improving the Participation of Women in the Philosophy Profession – revealed the surface manifestation of many undercurrents that pervade philosophy. The report highlighted that women constitute over 50 per cent of the enrolments in first year philosophy courses. However, women at that time represented less than 10 per cent of professorial appointments. This anomaly was ‘a revelation’ for Jenkins. She realised that there can be a large gap between the lived experiences of women and their understanding of sexism. For example, when Jenkins was undertaking doctoral research at the University of Oxford, she did not view her experiences through the lens of gender. Looking back, she realises that ‘very sexist things were going on.’ Ultimately, the report shed light on various substructures underpinning philosophy.

  After finishing her PhD, Jenkins held a teaching job at the University of Essex. She then accepted a postdoctoral position at the University of Sydney. Following this, she moved to the Australian National University. During this journey, Jenkins became aware of the drastically unequal representation of women in philosophy departments. For Jenkins, the report united these experiences under one banner. A philosophical conundrum emerged from this realisation: Why do other humanities disciplines have a more equitable representation of women? In this way, the report was an impetus for Jenkins to begin investigating the underlying currents of sexism in philosophy.

  ***

  It is 2008. Internationally renowned philosopher Sally Haslanger pens an article from her office at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In this piece – Changing the Ideology and Culture of Philosophy-Not by Reason (Alone) – Haslanger asserts her indignation towards the contemporary landscape of philosophy: ‘There is a deep well of rage inside me … [rage] about the conditions that I’m sure affect many women and minorities in philosophy’. Five years later, Jenkins channelled this sense of outrage whilst co-editing the book, Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change? When curating this text, Jenkins assembled prominent voices in the field. As a result, the text presents state-of-the-art arguments that collectively capture a wide range of feminist philosophical issues.

  Most pointedly, the book confirms that the underrepresentation of women in philosophy is an undisputed statistical reality. The book incorporates data from nearly every Anglophone country with major philosophy departments. Above all, the findings demonstrate that women are underrepresented in philosophy on an international level. Interestingly, gender representation in philosophy has been extensively documented for several decades. As such, it has been clear ‘for a long time’ that philosophy underrepresents women. Still, change remains ‘very slow’. Reform occurs as progressive ideas, on the surface, slowly infiltrate the conventional structures resting beneath them.

  ***

  The renowned author, George Eliot, expressed philosophically charged musings about the status of women in her celebrated novel, Middlemarch. In a similar fashion, Jenkins identifies that the guiding forces of philosophy are intertwined with cultural, social and political spheres. In particular, class dynamics and racial factors compound underrepresentation. Still, these structures are also maintained through a self-legitimising academic culture. As Jenkins observes, philosophers are ‘surprisingly uncritical’ of the methods used to form judgments in disciplinary spaces. In her research, she examines how philosophical practices become cemented as ‘mainstream’. From this point, she seeks to propagate new understandings of women in philosophical contexts. As part of this, Jenkins targets one underlying structure – the ‘legitimating fictions’ used to justify inequitable situations.

  One of the fictions currently targeted by Jenkins is ‘meritocracy’. To do this, she has been conducting ethnographic research from Michele Lamont’s peer review of grant applications. Through this, Jenkins highlights disparities on research boards between the empirical understanding of how decisions are reached and an idealised understanding of the deliberative process. One of Lamont’s interesting findings is how widely criteria of ‘excellence’ differ between people of diverse disciplinary backgrounds. This complicates the idea that there are rationally vindicable criteria for establishing rankings of research projects. Similar arguments can be applied to intra-disciplinary differences across sub-fields of philosophy. Ultimately, this can be used to question the ‘meritocratic’ rationales of a wide range of selection processes within the philosophical domain.

  Evidently, women in philosophy face insidious barriers as a concomitant of these legitimating fictions. Jenkins contends that obvious sexist assumptions and practices in philosophy can be directly confronted. However, elusive barriers are more difficult to target. Some of these barriers include academic assumptions about ‘the real value of the discipline’. For example, the School of Philosophy ‘has a very high ranking for excellence as well as having been an overwhelmingly male-dominated department for a long time’. This has shaped the work that ‘is seen as the School’s brand on the world stage’. This gives a gendered basis to decision-making in a context where the research areas of men and women tend to be different. As a result, the masculine lineage remains strong even as women start to be hired into these areas. Philosophy is not alone in this respect. Jenkins’ current collaborative research project, Gendered Excellence in the Social Sciences, finds similar issues in disciplines such as political science and economics, where a powerful ‘malestream’ defines excellence.

  ***

  When attempting to foster a more inclusive environment in philosophy, Jenkins believes that academic departments need different approaches to engage women from varying backgrounds. Academic leaders should consider multiple dimensions of identity ‘as far as they can’. One example is the construction of a diverse curriculum. Next semester, Jenkins will teach a course titled What is Humanity? In this course she hopes to engage with feminist discussions on how humanity has equated with maleness, the distinction between humans and animals, as well as racist discourses of humanity. In Jenkins view, disciplinary spaces need to account for diverse manifestations of identity. Incorporating these considerations is challenging. Therefore, educators may need to employ an overarching group of methods that can filter into the categories delineating women.

  ***

  Evidently, the underlying currents that guide philosophy uniquely affect each individual. For many, these tides erect disproportionate barriers. Despite change occurring, women remain limited by the institutional structures imposed upon them. To surmount these barriers, Jenkins prescribes obstinate determination. In her view, institutional constraints provide individuals with the opportunity to ‘step sideways and decide not to be limited’ by systemic injustices. An ability to elude these obstacles is a mark of philosophical virtue.

  These various underlying tides have become entangled with Fiona Jenkins’ philosophical ventures. Currently, she seeks to observe the complex interaction between these currents. As philosophers endeavour into undiscovered regions, the work of Associate Professor Fiona Jenkins will help dismantle the complex mechanisms that have stifled the voices of women philosophers.  A more potent exchange of ideas will ensue.

• Interview with ANUSA Education Officer, James Connolly

  October 17, 2016 2:52 pm Comments Off on Interview with ANUSA Education Officer, James Connolly

  Sonder

  Sonder is defined as the realisation that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own – populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness. In a series of interviews, Arts student, Georgia Leak, aims to explore the lives of the colourful characters that call the ANU home.

  

  With 72 chairs scattered throughout Union Court last Wednesday, ANUSA Education Officer, James Connolly, poignantly drew our attention to the proposed cuts to the Additional Support for Students with Disability (ASSD), which would see the number of students receiving funding at the ANU drop from 72 to just three. I caught up with James following his presentation to discuss what the proposed cuts would mean for the ANU, and how students can help prevent them.

  According to James, the ASSD is “the component of the Higher Education Disability Support Program that provides funding to eligible higher education providers, to assist with the costs incurred in providing educational support/equipment to students with disability.” In the Federal Government’s final report of the ‘Evaluation of Disability Program’, an increase of the eligibility threshold from the current $500 per student to $3000 was highly recommended – accordingly, an increase of this scale would render 75% of previously supported students unsupported.

  As James pointed out, “This issue goes to the heart of education accessibility. If the government denies students with disabilities the opportunity to enjoy a quality education as a cost-saving measure, then what does that say about the priorities of our nation?” Although the ANU acknowledges the importance of growing the program, it relies on adequate funding from the Federal Government to continue giving all students, from all walks of life, the education they deserve. In 2015 alone, the ANU had 353 students who had costs associated with their educational support – including exam invigilation, participation assistants, note takers, and assistive technology training – only 72 of whom, were able to claim such costs. The proposed increase in the claimable threshold would decrease this number to just three.

  Currently, ANUSA’s campaign to preserve the ASSD is being run in addition to a campaign to preserve The Higher Education Participation Program, which supports and enables students from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend university. “The Federal Government cut funding by $152 million this year, which will amount to a 40% cut by 2019-2020. ANUSA also calls on the Federal Government to see those cuts reversed.” James, along with ANUSA, have been working to garner support for their campaign through a series of petitions that will be compiled and submitted to the Secretariat of the House of Representatives Petitions Committee, necessitating a formal response from the Minister for Education. James has also sought assistance from those the changes would affect most, to spread awareness of the detrimental effects of the proposed cuts. “Throughout this campaign I’ve been privileged to have students go on camera to discuss why these support services matter. I will continue to share those stories so long as students are willing to share them, keeping the issue in the public’s consciousness as long as cutting the program is a live option.”

  In a world where high quality education should be a right, rather than a privilege, it is imperative for all students to take a stance against government cuts and show their support for this worthy cause. There are two petitions currently in circulation that you can sign; a physical petition that must be signed in person at the ANUSA office, as well as a Change.org petition that can be signed at the following link: https://www.change.org/p/senator-simon-birmingham-protect-higher-education-equity-funding-by-restoring-heppp-funding-and-protecting-assd.

  If students are directly affected by these recommended cuts they can contact James at sa.education@anu.edu.au with any questions they have, and he will endeavour to assist them in getting involved.