An Australian forum on tensions between diversity and academic freedom had a rocky start, with key panellists pulling out and critics damning the event as a showpiece of the ¡°UK fascista left¡±.

The University of Melbourne seminar was organised to address questions raised by the UK¡¯s Diversity Champions Programme, run by the charity Stonewall. Half a dozen universities have?cut ties with the scheme?¨C joining employers including the BBC, Channel 4 and the UK¡¯s Equality and Human Rights Commission ¨C over fears that it curtails debate and academic freedom.

Australia¡¯s version of the scheme, Pride in Diversity, is run by community organisation?. The Melbourne forum aimed to initiate a ¡°timely and balanced national conversation about the benefits, risks and tensions¡± of such initiatives, according to the university¡¯s .

¡°Critics argue that the initiatives embed contested facts and values into policies, compromise public bodies¡¯ independence and impartiality and facilitate backdoor political lobbying,¡± the site says. ¡°Defenders counter that the programme and index simply promote best practice in policy and help employers to foster much-needed inclusion, support and understanding.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The forum was to feature eight panellists ¨C four of the schemes¡¯ supporters and four sceptics. They included high-profile combatants on either side, including former University of Sussex philosopher?Kathleen Stock?and University of Sheffield sociologist?Sally Hines.

But Professor Hines pulled out several days before the 4 October forum. So did Nicki Elkin, who oversees Acon¡¯s Pride programmes, and ABC broadcaster Paul Barclay, who had agreed to moderate the event.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Two weeks earlier, Mr Barclay had expressed enthusiasm for the forum and vowed to record it for his?Big Ideas?radio show. ¡°Can¡¯t wait for this one,¡± he tweeted. ¡°Great line-up, terrific topic. See you there!¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ¡¯s requests for comment from Mr Barclay and Acon went unanswered.

Melbourne gender studies scholar Hannah McCann said the broadcast of the ¡°TERF [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] debate¡± should be reconsidered. ¡°If people pull out of your event once they realise the premise of it I dare say you¡¯ve got a significant legitimacy problem,¡± she tweeted.

Professor Hines tweeted that she had withdrawn from the event because it involved ¡°high-profile UK anti-trans¡± speakers. ¡°I was unaware of their involvement when I agreed to take part and didn¡¯t grasp that this was being organised as a debate with a clear for and against trans inclusion agenda.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Professor Hines said she had stopped sharing stages with ¡°anti-trans activists¡± because of their ¡°hate speech¡±. She said events ¡°structured through the format of debate¡± were unproductive. ¡°There is a huge problem with presenting trans-exclusionary discourse as simply another viewpoint.¡±

Event organiser Cordelia Fine acknowledged the topic as ¡°painful and offensive¡± for some. But she said divisions were amplified and ¡°suboptimal¡± policies became entrenched when people were unable ¡°or too fearful¡± to talk through disagreements or misunderstandings in good faith.

¡°When this state of affairs holds even within universities, it means that research lacks the claim to objectivity that comes from having been exposed to a wide range of perspectives and criticism,¡± said Professor Fine, a Melbourne philosopher. ¡°This matters for all stakeholders in these disagreements.¡±

Professor Fine said it was disappointing that the event would not be ¡°as balanced as intended¡±, after efforts to ¡°rebalance¡± the panel proved unsuccessful. She said she admired the remaining panellists ¡°for being willing to do what has so rarely been achieved in this¡­domain ¨C a civilised and informed discussion across different viewpoints and perspectives¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com