The withdrawal of several identities from Bendigo Writers Festival was, regrettably, an example of the tension faced by event organisers who must manage expectations to ‘do no harm’ and allow a diversity of ideas and opinions.
It was reported in The Age that writers – several of whom I greatly respect – withdrew after participants were issued a code of conduct just days before the festival began. The news coverage suggests that ensuring safety and inclusivity is not as easy as it should be (especially when you want an open conversation).
This tension is not about Bendigo or its festival. Writers, speakers and artists everywhere are asking how to speak freely without offence or backlash.
That anxiety has a real consequence. It discourages risk-taking, encourages self-censorship and fosters what many call ‘vanilla’ commentary.
It illustrates how easily good intentions collide. All responses deserve respect. It means resisting the binary of ‘for or against’ free speech.
This tension is also not new. Generations before us have asked where the line is between censorship and hate speech. While discriminatory language is unacceptable, there is also a risk in overcorrecting.
The festival should not be regarded as a failure. Sometimes we stumble, sometimes we have an awkward conversation but, with curiosity, we can challenge our thinking.
What it shows is that artists and creative thinkers need to be invited into the conversation with institutions and festivals to create a framework that encourages respect without stifling debate.
We might not get it right (the first or third time) but the attempts and the process matter.